The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: yobbo on January 16, 2016, 08:00:18 PM
-
Ok the satellite thread went the way of GPS.
Can we keep this thread on just Iridium flares.
A good example is something like this.
(http://)
This is something you can easily see for yourself, if you can be bothered stepping outside and looking up.
What are these if not satellites?
-
Aliens. ;D
-
Aliens. ;D
Or holes in the dome that let the light shine through. :D
-
Aliens. ;D
Or holes in the dome that let the light shine through. :D
Or, simply little lights in the sky. ???
-
Aliens. ;D
Or holes in the dome that let the light shine through. :D
Or, simply little lights in the sky. ???
Caused by?
-
Isn't Iridium the special currency in Borderlands 2?
-
Isn't Iridium the special currency in Borderlands 2?
Your thinking of Eridium.
I've seen a few Iridium flares. They can get very bright. Worth watching out for. But their existence easily confirms satellites.
-
Isn't Iridium the special currency in Borderlands 2?
Your thinking of Eridium.
I've seen a few Iridium flares. They can get very bright. Worth watching out for. But their existence easily confirms satellites.
Ive seen a couple myself.
-
Isn't Iridium the special currency in Borderlands 2?
Your thinking of Eridium.
I've seen a few Iridium flares. They can get very bright. Worth watching out for. But their existence easily confirms satellites.
Ive seen a couple myself.
I wish i could say I've seen many, with the amount of time I spend looking up.... but the truth is; once or twice since I knew what I was looking at. Maybe I saw some a few times prior but never really thought about it. :-[
-
Isn't Iridium the special currency in Borderlands 2?
Your thinking of Eridium.
I've seen a few Iridium flares. They can get very bright. Worth watching out for. But their existence easily confirms satellites.
Ive seen a couple myself.
I wish i could say I've seen many, with the amount of time I spend looking up.... but the truth is; once or twice since I knew what I was looking at. Maybe I saw some a few times prior but never really thought about it. :-[
Put your location in here
http://www.heavens-above.com/ (http://www.heavens-above.com/)
and you can find out when to see them.
Best one I've see was a -8
I still want to see one in the daytime. Possible but rare.
-
Isn't Iridium the special currency in Borderlands 2?
Your thinking of Eridium.
I've seen a few Iridium flares. They can get very bright. Worth watching out for. But their existence easily confirms satellites.
Ive seen a couple myself.
I wish i could say I've seen many, with the amount of time I spend looking up.... but the truth is; once or twice since I knew what I was looking at. Maybe I saw some a few times prior but never really thought about it. :-[
Put your location in here
http://www.heavens-above.com/ (http://www.heavens-above.com/)
and you can find out when to see them.
Best one I've see was a -8
I still want to see one in the daytime. Possible but rare.
Oh I have observed many satellites Passover. Its just the Iridium flair effect that I have only occasionally seen.
-
And Flat Earthers try and blame natural occurring lights for satellites.
But Iridium flares are a new thing. Only been around since they put the satellites up.
-
And Flat Earthers try and blame natural occurring lights for satellites.
But Iridium flares are a new thing. Only been around since they put the satellites up.
Wow. You have cracked the case. Or, maybe not. Anyway, your "lights in the sky" mean pretty much nothing.
-
I'm feeling inclined to agree with jroa.
Lights in the sky prove nothing.
Could be one of those Chinese lanterns that made it pretty high for all we know.
-
I don't think a chinese lantern could make it that high. They are too heavy. Also, you'd see them originate from the ground and slowly rising. Also, you could look at it through a telescope.
-
And Flat Earthers try and blame natural occurring lights for satellites.
But Iridium flares are a new thing. Only been around since they put the satellites up.
Wow. You have cracked the case. Or, maybe not. Anyway, your "lights in the sky" mean pretty much nothing.
Lights in the sky means something is up there. And these lights are special. Very recent addition.
It shows that companies not just NASA are putting satellites into orbit.
-
And Flat Earthers try and blame natural occurring lights for satellites.
But Iridium flares are a new thing. Only been around since they put the satellites up.
Wow. You have cracked the case. Or, maybe not. Anyway, your "lights in the sky" mean pretty much nothing.
Lights in the sky means something is up there. And these lights are special. Very recent addition.
It shows that companies not just NASA are putting satellites into orbit.
Allegedly, yeah, but those companies must go through NASA to get those things up there.
-
And Flat Earthers try and blame natural occurring lights for satellites.
But Iridium flares are a new thing. Only been around since they put the satellites up.
Wow. You have cracked the case. Or, maybe not. Anyway, your "lights in the sky" mean pretty much nothing.
Lights in the sky means something is up there. And these lights are special. Very recent addition.
It shows that companies not just NASA are putting satellites into orbit.
Allegedly, yeah, but those companies must go through NASA to get those things up there.
You think China goes through NASA?
But thank you for agreeing that they are atleast putting stuff into orbit.
-
And Flat Earthers try and blame natural occurring lights for satellites.
But Iridium flares are a new thing. Only been around since they put the satellites up.
Wow. You have cracked the case. Or, maybe not. Anyway, your "lights in the sky" mean pretty much nothing.
Lights in the sky means something is up there. And these lights are special. Very recent addition.
It shows that companies not just NASA are putting satellites into orbit.
Allegedly, yeah, but those companies must go through NASA to get those things up there.
You think China goes through NASA? -1
But thank you for agreeing that they are atleast putting stuff into orbit. -2
1 - You know what I mean. If you are resorting to semantics and putting my comments under the microscope to do so, you've already lost.
2 - Do you know what allegedly means?
-
And Flat Earthers try and blame natural occurring lights for satellites.
But Iridium flares are a new thing. Only been around since they put the satellites up.
Wow. You have cracked the case. Or, maybe not. Anyway, your "lights in the sky" mean pretty much nothing.
Lights in the sky means something is up there. And these lights are special. Very recent addition.
It shows that companies not just NASA are putting satellites into orbit.
Allegedly, yeah, but those companies must go through NASA to get those things up there.
You think China goes through NASA? -1
But thank you for agreeing that they are atleast putting stuff into orbit. -2
1 - You know what I mean. If you are resorting to semantics and putting my comments under the microscope to do so, you've already lost.
2 - Do you know what allegedly means?
Ok I'm all ears. You have heard reports of people who have seen them.
They only turned up a few years ago when they allegedly put the Iridium satellites into orbit.
What is your reasoning for these predictable bright lights if they aren't satellites?
-
1 - The USA is not the only country putting satellites up.
2 - Chinese lanterns can not be accurately predicted as demonstrated above. An app on my phone accurately let's me know when I can see a satellite pass over.
-
1 - The USA is not the only country putting satellites up.
2 - Chinese lanterns can not be accurately predicted as demonstrated above. An app on my phone accurately let's me know when I can see a satellite pass over.
FE answer:
(1) All countries in the entire world are controlled by NASA, despite the N is for "National" and it's a US company
(2) That's not a satellite, you NASA shill, it's a (insert random excuse they've pulled over the years here)
-
And Flat Earthers try and blame natural occurring lights for satellites.
But Iridium flares are a new thing. Only been around since they put the satellites up.
Wow. You have cracked the case. Or, maybe not. Anyway, your "lights in the sky" mean pretty much nothing.
Lights in the sky means something is up there. And these lights are special. Very recent addition.
It shows that companies not just NASA are putting satellites into orbit.
Allegedly, yeah, but those companies must go through NASA to get those things up there.
You think China goes through NASA? -1
But thank you for agreeing that they are atleast putting stuff into orbit. -2
1 - You know what I mean. If you are resorting to semantics and putting my comments under the microscope to do so, you've already lost.
2 - Do you know what allegedly means?
Ok I'm all ears. You have heard reports of people who have seen them.
They only turned up a few years ago when they allegedly put the Iridium satellites into orbit.
What is your reasoning for these predictable bright lights if they aren't satellites?
They're stratellites.
-
1 - The USA is not the only country putting satellites up.
2 - Chinese lanterns can not be accurately predicted as demonstrated above. An app on my phone accurately let's me know when I can see a satellite pass over.
1 - You know what I mean. If you are resorting to semantics and putting my comments under the microscope to do so, you've already lost.
I know there are other space agencies.
I just threw that out as a suggestion. Obviously they're really stratellites.
-
And Flat Earthers try and blame natural occurring lights for satellites.
But Iridium flares are a new thing. Only been around since they put the satellites up.
Wow. You have cracked the case. Or, maybe not. Anyway, your "lights in the sky" mean pretty much nothing.
Lights in the sky means something is up there. And these lights are special. Very recent addition.
It shows that companies not just NASA are putting satellites into orbit.
Allegedly, yeah, but those companies must go through NASA to get those things up there.
You think China goes through NASA? -1
But thank you for agreeing that they are atleast putting stuff into orbit. -2
1 - You know what I mean. If you are resorting to semantics and putting my comments under the microscope to do so, you've already lost.
2 - Do you know what allegedly means?
Ok I'm all ears. You have heard reports of people who have seen them.
They only turned up a few years ago when they allegedly put the Iridium satellites into orbit.
What is your reasoning for these predictable bright lights if they aren't satellites?
They're stratellites.
You mean these things? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratellite
That they haven't put into production yet?
-
You mean these things? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratellite
That they haven't put into production yet?
Yes. You're very unquestioning. I'm sure you think you have all the latest technology in your household.
Truth is, most things that are "new" to us are at least 20 years old before they get to us.
-
What if I told you there's a way you can prove that at least one of these flares come from a genuine satellite? (Not necessarily an Iridium satellite)
-
What if I told you there's a way you can prove that at least one of these flares come from a genuine satellite? (Not necessarily an Iridium satellite)
Why don't you skip the rhetoric and just make your point?
-
What if I told you there's a way you can prove that at least one of these flares come from a genuine satellite? (Not necessarily an Iridium satellite)
Why don't you skip the rhetoric and just make your point?
But, I'll still give you the original equation :
D(ISS Orbit)=2H+8000miles
O(ISS Orbit)=[pi](2H+8000)miles
D(Earth)= 8000miles
H(ISS height over earth)=H
t(Time spent in 20° of your field of view straight overhead) (variable) (in seconds)
T(Time for ISS to make one full lap in orbit)=5400s
S(Length ISS travel along 20° of your field of view straight overhead)=2*H*tan(10°)miles (Using trigonometry, since this is only an approxmation and the arc is pretty small)=0.3527Hmiles (roughly)
t/T=S/D(ISS Orbit) -> ts/5400s=0.3527Hmiles/[pi](2H+8000)miles (equability)
t/5400=0.3527H/[pi](2H+8000)
t=0.3527H*5400/[pi](2H+8000)=1904.3H/[pi](2H+8000)
t[pi](2H+8000)=1904.3H
t[pi]2H+t[pi]8000=1904.3H
1904.3H-t[pi]2H=t[pi]8000
H(1904.3-2t[pi])=t[pi]8000
H=t[pi]8000/(1904.3-2t[pi])
Actually, it seems like something went wrong when I posted the equation in the earlier post, as it seems to be missing a number 2. I will edit that one quickly. This equation will only give you an approximation, as you can only approximate 20° of your FOV, approximate the time it travels and because it is doesn't take the curvature into account. But it is close enough to calculate if it is in space or not.
EDIT:
Almost forgot:
D=Diameter
O=Circumference
H=Height
S=Straight
t and T=Time
-
And what does that prove? The time they send their high-altitude corrected prospective ISS drone/stratellite over a town or state near you?
-
They're stratellites.
How would they work if that were the case? Details, please.
-
And what does that prove? The time they send their high-altitude corrected prospective ISS drone/stratellite over a town or state near you?
You can calculate the height of the ISS. I told you I had a way to prove that there is one genuine satellite, i.e. a smaller object which orbits a larger one (in space).
-
And what does that prove? The time they send their high-altitude corrected prospective ISS drone/stratellite over a town or state near you?
You can calculate the height of the ISS. I told you I had a way to prove that there is one genuine satellite, i.e. a smaller object which orbits a larger one (in space).
You have to believe the speed they tell you it is traveling in order to calculate the height. You have to believe the height they tell you in order to calculate the speed. Do you see the problems here?
-
And what does that prove? The time they send their high-altitude corrected prospective ISS drone/stratellite over a town or state near you?
You can calculate the height of the ISS. I told you I had a way to prove that there is one genuine satellite, i.e. a smaller object which orbits a larger one (in space).
You have to believe the speed they tell you it is traveling in order to calculate the height. You have to believe the height they tell you in order to calculate the speed. Do you see the problems here?
I see the problem, you didn't read the quote I provided. Read it thoroughly, then try again.
-
And what does that prove? The time they send their high-altitude corrected prospective ISS drone/stratellite over a town or state near you?
You can calculate the height of the ISS. I told you I had a way to prove that there is one genuine satellite, i.e. a smaller object which orbits a larger one (in space).
You have to believe the speed they tell you it is traveling in order to calculate the height. You have to believe the height they tell you in order to calculate the speed. Do you see the problems here?
I see the problem, you didn't read the quote I provided. Read it thoroughly, then try again.
I read your calculations several months ago, and like I said, virtually all of them have assumed numbers in them (possibly with the exception of H=H, lol)>
-
And what does that prove? The time they send their high-altitude corrected prospective ISS drone/stratellite over a town or state near you?
You can calculate the height of the ISS. I told you I had a way to prove that there is one genuine satellite, i.e. a smaller object which orbits a larger one (in space).
You have to believe the speed they tell you it is traveling in order to calculate the height. You have to believe the height they tell you in order to calculate the speed. Do you see the problems here?
I see the problem, you didn't read the quote I provided. Read it thoroughly, then try again.
I read your calculations several months ago, and like I said, virtually all of them have assumed numbers in them (possibly with the exception of H=H, lol)>
There is only one assumption:
The earth is round. This is for D(earth)=8000 miles, which leads to D(ISS orbit)=2H+8000 miles and O(ISS orbit)=[pi](2H+8000) miles. However, I made a calculation which I hope you have also read, where I calculated that the height of the ISS would be greater on a flat earth (assuming azimuthal flat earth). So this assumption is advantageous for you.
The other one can be measured by you yourself: time for ISS to make one lap around it's orbit. Just download the app which can accurately track the ISS and measure time between it passes over you a first and a second time. This also proves that the app is genuine, and that the ISS does follow the given orbit, as anyone can use it anywhere on earth and see if it will pass over them, and confirm when it does.
If there are any other assumptions, please provide them.
-
And what does that prove? The time they send their high-altitude corrected prospective ISS drone/stratellite over a town or state near you?
You can calculate the height of the ISS. I told you I had a way to prove that there is one genuine satellite, i.e. a smaller object which orbits a larger one (in space).
You have to believe the speed they tell you it is traveling in order to calculate the height. You have to believe the height they tell you in order to calculate the speed. Do you see the problems here?
I see the problem, you didn't read the quote I provided. Read it thoroughly, then try again.
I read your calculations several months ago, and like I said, virtually all of them have assumed numbers in them (possibly with the exception of H=H, lol)>
There is only one assumption:
The earth is round. This is for D(earth)=8000 miles, which leads to D(ISS orbit)=2H+8000 miles and O(ISS orbit)=[pi](2H+8000) miles. However, I made a calculation which I hope you have also read, where I calculated that the height of the ISS would be greater on a flat earth (assuming azimuthal flat earth). So this assumption is advantageous for you.
The other one can be measured by you yourself: time for ISS to make one lap around it's orbit. Just download the app which can accurately track the ISS and measure time between it passes over you a first and a second time. This also proves that the app is genuine, and that the ISS does follow the given orbit, as anyone can use it anywhere on earth and see if it will pass over them, and confirm when it does.
If there are any other assumptions, please provide them.
Considering that the ISS is only supposed to pass over you once every 3 days, then I don't understand what the point of your proposal is. Perhaps you did not think this through?
-
And what does that prove? The time they send their high-altitude corrected prospective ISS drone/stratellite over a town or state near you?
You can calculate the height of the ISS. I told you I had a way to prove that there is one genuine satellite, i.e. a smaller object which orbits a larger one (in space).
You have to believe the speed they tell you it is traveling in order to calculate the height. You have to believe the height they tell you in order to calculate the speed. Do you see the problems here?
I see the problem, you didn't read the quote I provided. Read it thoroughly, then try again.
I read your calculations several months ago, and like I said, virtually all of them have assumed numbers in them (possibly with the exception of H=H, lol)>
There is only one assumption:
The earth is round. This is for D(earth)=8000 miles, which leads to D(ISS orbit)=2H+8000 miles and O(ISS orbit)=[pi](2H+8000) miles. However, I made a calculation which I hope you have also read, where I calculated that the height of the ISS would be greater on a flat earth (assuming azimuthal flat earth). So this assumption is advantageous for you.
The other one can be measured by you yourself: time for ISS to make one lap around it's orbit. Just download the app which can accurately track the ISS and measure time between it passes over you a first and a second time. This also proves that the app is genuine, and that the ISS does follow the given orbit, as anyone can use it anywhere on earth and see if it will pass over them, and confirm when it does.
If there are any other assumptions, please provide them.
Considering that the ISS is only supposed to pass over you once every 3 days, then I don't understand what the point of your proposal is. Perhaps you did not think this through?
Wrong, and right. It's orbit passes by you once every 3 days, but the ISS makes multiple orbits as it's orbit moves over you. You can see it multiple times the same day, and you know that.
-
And what does that prove? The time they send their high-altitude corrected prospective ISS drone/stratellite over a town or state near you?
You can calculate the height of the ISS. I told you I had a way to prove that there is one genuine satellite, i.e. a smaller object which orbits a larger one (in space).
You have to believe the speed they tell you it is traveling in order to calculate the height. You have to believe the height they tell you in order to calculate the speed. Do you see the problems here?
I see the problem, you didn't read the quote I provided. Read it thoroughly, then try again.
I read your calculations several months ago, and like I said, virtually all of them have assumed numbers in them (possibly with the exception of H=H, lol)>
There is only one assumption:
The earth is round. This is for D(earth)=8000 miles, which leads to D(ISS orbit)=2H+8000 miles and O(ISS orbit)=[pi](2H+8000) miles. However, I made a calculation which I hope you have also read, where I calculated that the height of the ISS would be greater on a flat earth (assuming azimuthal flat earth). So this assumption is advantageous for you.
The other one can be measured by you yourself: time for ISS to make one lap around it's orbit. Just download the app which can accurately track the ISS and measure time between it passes over you a first and a second time. This also proves that the app is genuine, and that the ISS does follow the given orbit, as anyone can use it anywhere on earth and see if it will pass over them, and confirm when it does.
If there are any other assumptions, please provide them.
Considering that the ISS is only supposed to pass over you once every 3 days, then I don't understand what the point of your proposal is. Perhaps you did not think this through?
Wrong, and right. It's orbit passes by you once every 3 days, but the ISS makes multiple orbits as it's orbit moves over you. You can see it multiple times the same day, and you know that.
Not only does it only pass over you once every 3 days, but it can only be seen passing over you if the pass happens to fall into a very narrow window just before sunrise and just after sunset. I still do not see what your thought experiment is suppose to probe.
-
And what does that prove? The time they send their high-altitude corrected prospective ISS drone/stratellite over a town or state near you?
You can calculate the height of the ISS. I told you I had a way to prove that there is one genuine satellite, i.e. a smaller object which orbits a larger one (in space).
You have to believe the speed they tell you it is traveling in order to calculate the height. You have to believe the height they tell you in order to calculate the speed. Do you see the problems here?
I see the problem, you didn't read the quote I provided. Read it thoroughly, then try again.
I read your calculations several months ago, and like I said, virtually all of them have assumed numbers in them (possibly with the exception of H=H, lol)>
There is only one assumption:
The earth is round. This is for D(earth)=8000 miles, which leads to D(ISS orbit)=2H+8000 miles and O(ISS orbit)=[pi](2H+8000) miles. However, I made a calculation which I hope you have also read, where I calculated that the height of the ISS would be greater on a flat earth (assuming azimuthal flat earth). So this assumption is advantageous for you.
The other one can be measured by you yourself: time for ISS to make one lap around it's orbit. Just download the app which can accurately track the ISS and measure time between it passes over you a first and a second time. This also proves that the app is genuine, and that the ISS does follow the given orbit, as anyone can use it anywhere on earth and see if it will pass over them, and confirm when it does.
If there are any other assumptions, please provide them.
Considering that the ISS is only supposed to pass over you once every 3 days, then I don't understand what the point of your proposal is. Perhaps you did not think this through?
Wrong, and right. It's orbit passes by you once every 3 days, but the ISS makes multiple orbits as it's orbit moves over you. You can see it multiple times the same day, and you know that.
Not only does it only pass over you once every 3 days, but it can only be seen passing over you if the pass happens to fall into a very narrow window just before sunrise and just after sunset. I still do not see what your thought experiment is suppose to probe.
"Very narrow" is subjective. The window is large enough to see it twice during morning or evening (at least). Can you provide some proper arguments?
-
And what does that prove? The time they send their high-altitude corrected prospective ISS drone/stratellite over a town or state near you?
You can calculate the height of the ISS. I told you I had a way to prove that there is one genuine satellite, i.e. a smaller object which orbits a larger one (in space).
You have to believe the speed they tell you it is traveling in order to calculate the height. You have to believe the height they tell you in order to calculate the speed. Do you see the problems here?
I see the problem, you didn't read the quote I provided. Read it thoroughly, then try again.
I read your calculations several months ago, and like I said, virtually all of them have assumed numbers in them (possibly with the exception of H=H, lol)>
There is only one assumption:
The earth is round. This is for D(earth)=8000 miles, which leads to D(ISS orbit)=2H+8000 miles and O(ISS orbit)=[pi](2H+8000) miles. However, I made a calculation which I hope you have also read, where I calculated that the height of the ISS would be greater on a flat earth (assuming azimuthal flat earth). So this assumption is advantageous for you.
The other one can be measured by you yourself: time for ISS to make one lap around it's orbit. Just download the app which can accurately track the ISS and measure time between it passes over you a first and a second time. This also proves that the app is genuine, and that the ISS does follow the given orbit, as anyone can use it anywhere on earth and see if it will pass over them, and confirm when it does.
If there are any other assumptions, please provide them.
Considering that the ISS is only supposed to pass over you once every 3 days, then I don't understand what the point of your proposal is. Perhaps you did not think this through?
Wrong, and right. It's orbit passes by you once every 3 days, but the ISS makes multiple orbits as it's orbit moves over you. You can see it multiple times the same day, and you know that.
Not only does it only pass over you once every 3 days, but it can only be seen passing over you if the pass happens to fall into a very narrow window just before sunrise and just after sunset. I still do not see what your thought experiment is suppose to probe.
"Very narrow" is subjective. The window is large enough to see it twice during morning or evening (at least). Can you provide some proper arguments?
Being seen is not the same as it passing over you. So, tell me now, if you did happen to see a light in the sky twice in one night, how does that allow you to calculate the height of the light?
-
Being seen is not the same as it passing over you. So, tell me now, if you did happen to see a light in the sky twice in one night, how does that allow you to calculate the height of the light?
No, it only proves that the ISS takes 90 minutes to do one lap around it's orbit, AS I TOLD YOU:
The other one can be measured by you yourself: time for ISS to make one lap around it's orbit. Just download the app which can accurately track the ISS and measure time between it passes over you a first and a second time. This also proves that the app is genuine, and that the ISS does follow the given orbit, as anyone can use it anywhere on earth and see if it will pass over them, and confirm when it does.
This time happens to be in the equation.
-
Being seen is not the same as it passing over you. So, tell me now, if you did happen to see a light in the sky twice in one night, how does that allow you to calculate the height of the light?
No, it only proves that the ISS takes 90 minutes to do one lap around it's orbit, AS I TOLD YOU:
The other one can be measured by you yourself: time for ISS to make one lap around it's orbit. Just download the app which can accurately track the ISS and measure time between it passes over you a first and a second time. This also proves that the app is genuine, and that the ISS does follow the given orbit, as anyone can use it anywhere on earth and see if it will pass over them, and confirm when it does.
This time happens to be in the equation.
I still don't understand what your point is. If you see it for a few seconds a little above the horizon in one direction, and then see it a certain amount of time later above the horizon in the opposite direction, what is this supposed to prove? It could have just made a little circle around your town for all you know. And, I still can't figure out how you are claiming that you can calculate the height unless you simply make a bunch of assumptions first.
-
I still don't understand what your point is. If you see it for a few seconds a little above the horizon in one direction, and then see it a certain amount of time later above the horizon in the opposite direction, what is this supposed to prove? It could have just made a little circle around your town for all you know. And, I still can't figure out how you are claiming that you can calculate the height unless you simply make a bunch of assumptions first.
Oh for fucks sake:
The other one can be measured by you yourself: time for ISS to make one lap around it's orbit. Just download the app which can accurately track the ISS and measure time between it passes over you a first and a second time. This also proves that the app is genuine, and that the ISS does follow the given orbit, as anyone can use it anywhere on earth and see if it will pass over them, and confirm when it does.
Read it through properly this time. ANYONE can use this app, which means that EVERYONE IN THE WHOLE WORLD would have to be against you for this sort of trickery to work.
-
I still don't understand what your point is. If you see it for a few seconds a little above the horizon in one direction, and then see it a certain amount of time later above the horizon in the opposite direction, what is this supposed to prove? It could have just made a little circle around your town for all you know. And, I still can't figure out how you are claiming that you can calculate the height unless you simply make a bunch of assumptions first.
Oh for fucks sake:
The other one can be measured by you yourself: time for ISS to make one lap around it's orbit. Just download the app which can accurately track the ISS and measure time between it passes over you a first and a second time. This also proves that the app is genuine, and that the ISS does follow the given orbit, as anyone can use it anywhere on earth and see if it will pass over them, and confirm when it does.
Read it through properly this time. ANYONE can use this app, which means that EVERYONE IN THE WHOLE WORLD would have to be against you for this sort of trickery to work.
You try reading again. Seeing a light twice within a certain amount of time means simply that you saw a light in the sky twice. You would have no idea where that light goes when it is not within site. You simply assume that it made a an arc around a ball. For all you know, it could have landed and drove to the other side of you and taken off again. I really don't see what your point is, and I still do not see how you can calculate its speed or height or anything else without making a lot of assumptions.
-
I still don't understand what your point is. If you see it for a few seconds a little above the horizon in one direction, and then see it a certain amount of time later above the horizon in the opposite direction, what is this supposed to prove? It could have just made a little circle around your town for all you know. And, I still can't figure out how you are claiming that you can calculate the height unless you simply make a bunch of assumptions first.
Oh for fucks sake:
The other one can be measured by you yourself: time for ISS to make one lap around it's orbit. Just download the app which can accurately track the ISS and measure time between it passes over you a first and a second time. This also proves that the app is genuine, and that the ISS does follow the given orbit, as anyone can use it anywhere on earth and see if it will pass over them, and confirm when it does.
Read it through properly this time. ANYONE can use this app, which means that EVERYONE IN THE WHOLE WORLD would have to be against you for this sort of trickery to work.
You try reading again. Seeing a light twice within a certain amount of time means simply that you saw a light in the sky twice. You would have no idea where that light goes when it is not within site. You simply assume that it made a an arc around a ball. For all you know, it could have landed and drove to the other side of you and taken off again. I really don't see what your point is, and I still do not see how you can calculate its speed or height or anything else without making a lot of assumptions.
Someone else further along the path can see it. Not everyone around you are exactly at your spot. And people even further can see it as it progresses further along it's orbit, and so on. If it went around in a circle just to deceive you, people would start noticing.You could also take a trip once it has passed over you once to a place further away where it'll pass over. You have 90 minutes, so plenty of time to get a different angle.
-
And what does that prove? The time they send their high-altitude corrected prospective ISS drone/stratellite over a town or state near you?
You can calculate the height of the ISS. I told you I had a way to prove that there is one genuine satellite, i.e. a smaller object which orbits a larger one (in space).
You have to believe the speed they tell you it is traveling in order to calculate the height. You have to believe the height they tell you in order to calculate the speed. Do you see the problems here?
Or you observe it at the same time as another observer in a different location, both measure angles and use trigonometry. No speed needed.
-
Concerning the ISS - this is silly and futile.
1) The ISS can be located with software.
2) It can be photographed at night and against the Sun/Moon (there are lots of pictures). Even people with a camera with a higher magnification zoom lens can snap hi-res pictures of it as the Sun/Moon are very bright (a telescope would be best though).
3) If YOU really want to verify it PERSONALLY, YOU and your FE buddies CAN (of course you will have to get your butt out of your armchair and get out in the REAL world (reality)). You can use binoculars, cameras or telescopes.
4) If the ISS was missing/landing/whatever SOMEONE would notice as it is a relatively common thing appearing in the sky several times nightly. FEers can set up a network across the world and verify it is up there day by day (of course they don't want to because they would actually have to DO something besides BS and it would disprove FEF - better to believe the real world doesn't exist).
So unless you can demonstrate SOMETHING real, all these are just bogus arguments by people that don't know what they are talking about.
As these Iridium flares are very similar (but smaller), this of course presents another FEF problem.
-
And what does that prove? The time they send their high-altitude corrected prospective ISS drone/stratellite over a town or state near you?
You can calculate the height of the ISS. I told you I had a way to prove that there is one genuine satellite, i.e. a smaller object which orbits a larger one (in space).
You have to believe the speed they tell you it is traveling in order to calculate the height. You have to believe the height they tell you in order to calculate the speed. Do you see the problems here?
Or you observe it at the same time as another observer in a different location, both measure angles and use trigonometry. No speed needed.
Great. Let us know how your experiment goes. Thanks.
-
Concerning the ISS - this is silly and futile.
1) The ISS can be located with software.
2) It can be photographed at night and against the Sun/Moon (there are lots of pictures). Even people with a camera with a higher magnification zoom lens can snap hi-res pictures of it as the Sun/Moon are very bright (a telescope would be best though).
3) If YOU really want to verify it PERSONALLY, YOU and your FE buddies CAN (of course you will have to get your butt out of your armchair and get out in the REAL world (reality)). You can use binoculars, cameras or telescopes.
4) If the ISS was missing/landing/whatever SOMEONE would notice as it is a relatively common thing appearing in the sky several times nightly. FEers can set up a network across the world and verify it is up there day by day (of course they don't want to because they would actually have to DO something besides BS and it would disprove FEF - better to believe the real world doesn't exist).
So unless you can demonstrate SOMETHING real, all these are just bogus arguments by people that don't know what they are talking about.
As these Iridium flares are very similar (but smaller), this of course presents another FEF problem.
Lol, how fast does a car traveling on a freeway go when compared to the moon? Probably like a zillion miles per hour in your mind. This is very ridiculous.
-
Concerning the ISS - this is silly and futile.
1) The ISS can be located with software.
2) It can be photographed at night and against the Sun/Moon (there are lots of pictures). Even people with a camera with a higher magnification zoom lens can snap hi-res pictures of it as the Sun/Moon are very bright (a telescope would be best though).
3) If YOU really want to verify it PERSONALLY, YOU and your FE buddies CAN (of course you will have to get your butt out of your armchair and get out in the REAL world (reality)). You can use binoculars, cameras or telescopes.
4) If the ISS was missing/landing/whatever SOMEONE would notice as it is a relatively common thing appearing in the sky several times nightly. FEers can set up a network across the world and verify it is up there day by day (of course they don't want to because they would actually have to DO something besides BS and it would disprove FEF - better to believe the real world doesn't exist).
So unless you can demonstrate SOMETHING real, all these are just bogus arguments by people that don't know what they are talking about.
As these Iridium flares are very similar (but smaller), this of course presents another FEF problem.
Lol, how fast does a car traveling on a freeway go when compared to the moon? Probably like a zillion miles per hour in your mind. This is very ridiculous.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
IF you want to know the truth, you can find out for yourself. If not, no amount of evidence will convince you.
ALL this website is about is DEBATE (armchair theoretics at best - not very good ones) not TRUTH (the real world). Go, live in your fantasy world that has no practical value - not even a map. I fear, that is all you have.
-
Concerning the ISS - this is silly and futile.
1) The ISS can be located with software.
2) It can be photographed at night and against the Sun/Moon (there are lots of pictures). Even people with a camera with a higher magnification zoom lens can snap hi-res pictures of it as the Sun/Moon are very bright (a telescope would be best though).
3) If YOU really want to verify it PERSONALLY, YOU and your FE buddies CAN (of course you will have to get your butt out of your armchair and get out in the REAL world (reality)). You can use binoculars, cameras or telescopes.
4) If the ISS was missing/landing/whatever SOMEONE would notice as it is a relatively common thing appearing in the sky several times nightly. FEers can set up a network across the world and verify it is up there day by day (of course they don't want to because they would actually have to DO something besides BS and it would disprove FEF - better to believe the real world doesn't exist).
So unless you can demonstrate SOMETHING real, all these are just bogus arguments by people that don't know what they are talking about.
As these Iridium flares are very similar (but smaller), this of course presents another FEF problem.
Lol, how fast does a car traveling on a freeway go when compared to the moon? Probably like a zillion miles per hour in your mind. This is very ridiculous.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
IF you want to know the truth, you can find out for yourself. If not, no amount of evidence will convince you.
ALL this website is about is DEBATE (armchair theoretics at best - not very good ones) not TRUTH (the real world). Go, live in your fantasy world that has no practical value - not even a map. I fear, that is all you have.
You act like this revelation surprises you. You are, after all, on the Flat Earth Society forums in the Debate section. What did you think you would find here?
-
Concerning the ISS - this is silly and futile.
1) The ISS can be located with software.
2) It can be photographed at night and against the Sun/Moon (there are lots of pictures). Even people with a camera with a higher magnification zoom lens can snap hi-res pictures of it as the Sun/Moon are very bright (a telescope would be best though).
3) If YOU really want to verify it PERSONALLY, YOU and your FE buddies CAN (of course you will have to get your butt out of your armchair and get out in the REAL world (reality)). You can use binoculars, cameras or telescopes.
4) If the ISS was missing/landing/whatever SOMEONE would notice as it is a relatively common thing appearing in the sky several times nightly. FEers can set up a network across the world and verify it is up there day by day (of course they don't want to because they would actually have to DO something besides BS and it would disprove FEF - better to believe the real world doesn't exist).
So unless you can demonstrate SOMETHING real, all these are just bogus arguments by people that don't know what they are talking about.
As these Iridium flares are very similar (but smaller), this of course presents another FEF problem.
Lol, how fast does a car traveling on a freeway go when compared to the moon? Probably like a zillion miles per hour in your mind. This is very ridiculous.
I have no idea what you are talking about.
IF you want to know the truth, you can find out for yourself. If not, no amount of evidence will convince you.
ALL this website is about is DEBATE (armchair theoretics at best - not very good ones) not TRUTH (the real world). Go, live in your fantasy world that has no practical value - not even a map. I fear, that is all you have.
You act like this revelation surprises you. You are, after all, on the Flat Earth Society forums in the Debate section. What did you think you would find here?
I suppose some truth - reality.
-
And what does that prove? The time they send their high-altitude corrected prospective ISS drone/stratellite over a town or state near you?
You can calculate the height of the ISS. I told you I had a way to prove that there is one genuine satellite, i.e. a smaller object which orbits a larger one (in space).
You have to believe the speed they tell you it is traveling in order to calculate the height. You have to believe the height they tell you in order to calculate the speed. Do you see the problems here?
Or you observe it at the same time as another observer in a different location, both measure angles and use trigonometry. No speed needed.
Great. Let us know how your experiment goes. Thanks.
I think the point is you need to do the experiment yourself. Because if someone else does it you will just call them a liar. You won't believe the result unless you do it yourself.
Have you gone to the trouble of checking out an Iridium flare yet?
-
You act like this revelation surprises you. You are, after all, on the Flat Earth Society forums in the Debate section. What did you think you would find here?
Something that reminded me less of my 7th grade debate year :P
Replace the team against my school with FE arguments.
The argument topic was "Pros and cons of Veganism" in which my team was pro. The con side asked "Well, if you can't eat or use anything made from an animal, what do you wear?" A legitimate question. Flat Earth side has a couple of those. My team: "Cotton clothing. What's wrong with doing that if you're a vegan?" Their reply: "Cotton comes from cows, though... you can't wear it if you're a vegan." See the con side (the Flat Earthers) have this style of argument: It all looks good until it comes down to the outright lie at the end. This site was like 7th grade debate all over again :P
Oh, by the way, guess who won that argument when judging time came around? Definitely not the people that said "Cotton comes from cows" (it's a plant) (Sorry if this is extremely derailing, and/or makes no sense) (feel free to delete the post)
-
The only way I'll become a vegan is if there's no kosher meat (I'm a Christian Jew).
-
You act like this revelation surprises you. You are, after all, on the Flat Earth Society forums in the Debate section. What did you think you would find here?
Something that reminded me less of my 7th grade debate year :P
Replace the team against my school with FE arguments.
The argument topic was "Pros and cons of Veganism" in which my team was pro. The con side asked "Well, if you can't eat or use anything made from an animal, what do you wear?" A legitimate question. Flat Earth side has a couple of those. My team: "Cotton clothing. What's wrong with doing that if you're a vegan?" Their reply: "Cotton comes from cows, though... you can't wear it if you're a vegan." See the con side (the Flat Earthers) have this style of argument: It all looks good until it comes down to the outright lie at the end. This site was like 7th grade debate all over again :P
Oh, by the way, guess who won that argument when judging time came around? Definitely not the people that said "Cotton comes from cows" (it's a plant) (Sorry if this is extremely derailing, and/or makes no sense) (feel free to delete the post)
While I do not agree completely agree with your comparison of FE'ers and the "cotton comes from cows" seventh graders, I do see you point. I would like to make my own analogy using your same anecdote. RE'ers are like the seventh graders on your side of the vegan debate, except that they go to vegan websites in order to claim that science and the bible both say that eating meat is good for you, all vegans are stupid, the vegans don't really believe what they claim to believe, and they are the trolls for visiting their own website.
By the way, I remember having a debate in science class somewhere around the seventh or eighth grade as well. The topic that our class chose was "evolution vs creation" (we were allowed to discuss religious things back then in school, lol). I was on the evolution side and we tore the other side up. Those were the days...
-
Ok the satellite thread went the way of GPS.
Can we keep this thread on just Iridium flares.
A good example is something like this.
(http://)
This is something you can easily see for yourself, if you can be bothered stepping outside and looking up.
What are these if not satellites?
This thread seems to have gone way off topic!
But, who expected anything else when a common comment fro FE supporters seems to be:Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about it. I mean after all, they're just lights in the sky. How much can we expect to ever know about them?
In any case, you might like Zetetic Astronomy. Zetetic means "seeker." As in, seeker of truth.
[emphasis mine]
-
By the way, I remember having a debate in science class somewhere around the seventh or eighth grade as well. The topic that our class chose was "evolution vs creation" (we were allowed to discuss religious things back then in school, lol). I was on the evolution side and we tore the other side up. Those were the days...
Wait so you believe in evolution. But defend Flat Earth.
-
By the way, I remember having a debate in science class somewhere around the seventh or eighth grade as well. The topic that our class chose was "evolution vs creation" (we were allowed to discuss religious things back then in school, lol). I was on the evolution side and we tore the other side up. Those were the days...
Wait so you believe in evolution. But defend Flat Earth.
I know right? But I'm the opposite. I don't believe in evolution (macro that is) and believe in a round earth.
-
By the way, I remember having a debate in science class somewhere around the seventh or eighth grade as well. The topic that our class chose was "evolution vs creation" (we were allowed to discuss religious things back then in school, lol). I was on the evolution side and we tore the other side up. Those were the days...
Wait so you believe in evolution. But defend Flat Earth.
When I was in the debate club in high school, one of the first things they taught us is that you do not need to believe in something in order to defend it. In fact, most of the debate topics I had, I did not get to pick a side; I was assigned a side.
-
By the way, I remember having a debate in science class somewhere around the seventh or eighth grade as well. The topic that our class chose was "evolution vs creation" (we were allowed to discuss religious things back then in school, lol). I was on the evolution side and we tore the other side up. Those were the days...
Wait so you believe in evolution. But defend Flat Earth.
When I was in the debate club in high school, one of the first things they taught us is that you do not need to believe in something in order to defend it. In fact, most of the debate topics I had, I did not get to pick a side; I was assigned a side.
Really... and you won debates without providing any evidence and calling people all sorts of names like you do in posts here? In my debate class you would have been thrown out immediately (same as in a court of law). No one would put up with what you call "debate" on this website. You called the other side "liars" and told them "not to get their panties in a bunch" and so on. BS. I don't believe you ever were in debate class and won anything.
-
By the way, I remember having a debate in science class somewhere around the seventh or eighth grade as well. The topic that our class chose was "evolution vs creation" (we were allowed to discuss religious things back then in school, lol). I was on the evolution side and we tore the other side up. Those were the days...
Wait so you believe in evolution. But defend Flat Earth.
When I was in the debate club in high school, one of the first things they taught us is that you do not need to believe in something in order to defend it. In fact, most of the debate topics I had, I did not get to pick a side; I was assigned a side.
Really... and you won debates without providing any evidence and calling people all sorts of names like you do in posts here? In my debate class you would have been thrown out immediately (same as in a court of law). No one would put up with what you call "debate" on this website. You called the other side "liars" and told them "not to get their panties in a bunch" and so on. BS. I don't believe you ever were in debate class and won anything.
I suppose you won debates by being grumpy, calling liars, claiming that they don't believe what they say they do, and generally being as disruptive as possible? I am not sure what country you are from, but around here, we call that an internet troll.
-
By the way, I remember having a debate in science class somewhere around the seventh or eighth grade as well. The topic that our class chose was "evolution vs creation" (we were allowed to discuss religious things back then in school, lol). I was on the evolution side and we tore the other side up. Those were the days...
Wait so you believe in evolution. But defend Flat Earth.
When I was in the debate club in high school, one of the first things they taught us is that you do not need to believe in something in order to defend it. In fact, most of the debate topics I had, I did not get to pick a side; I was assigned a side.
Really... and you won debates without providing any evidence and calling people all sorts of names like you do in posts here? In my debate class you would have been thrown out immediately (same as in a court of law). No one would put up with what you call "debate" on this website. You called the other side "liars" and told them "not to get their panties in a bunch" and so on. BS. I don't believe you ever were in debate class and won anything.
I suppose you won debates by being grumpy, calling liars, claiming that they don't believe what they say they do, and generally being as disruptive as possible? I am not sure what country you are from, but around here, we call that an internet troll.
I am glad we agree you know what you are.
Anyways, again we are off to LaLa Land. Thread derailed. Success jroa! How many threads have you, a moderator, derailed?