The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: is_the_earth_flat on February 16, 2018, 09:57:39 AM

Title: Are satellites real?
Post by: is_the_earth_flat on February 16, 2018, 09:57:39 AM
Are satellites real?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Here to laugh at you on February 16, 2018, 10:17:26 AM
Yes
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: hoppy on February 16, 2018, 10:21:33 AM
Are satellites real?
No.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 16, 2018, 10:27:08 AM
Yes

You are an admitted troll and paedophile:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71550.msg1942053#msg1942053

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71550.msg1941932#msg1941932

The man who invented the concept of satellites was also a paedophile:

https://m.rediff.com/news/1998/feb/02clarke.htm

Starting to see a pattern here...
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Jane on February 16, 2018, 10:31:19 AM
Not according to most FEers. But yes according to most REers.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: MicroBeta on February 16, 2018, 10:33:53 AM
Are satellites real?
No.
The 60+ million satellite TV subscribers in the world do not agree with you.  Satellites are real.

Mike
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 16, 2018, 10:40:56 AM
Are satellites real?
No.
Satellites are real.

Incorrect.

Paedophiles are real though.

One of them invented satellites:

https://m.rediff.com/news/1998/feb/02clarke.htm

Sane people despise paedos and don't believe a single word that comes out their lying paedo mouths...

Sci-fi fanbois worship the scum.

Brain damage I reckon.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: is_the_earth_flat on February 16, 2018, 10:44:02 AM
This are images I took of satellites The first one is the ISS and the second one was shot through a telescope (it isn't the iss I don't know what satellite it is).

(https://s17.postimg.org/ywmz3vhn3/IMG_9066.jpg)


(https://s17.postimg.org/7yt2254pr/IMG_9739.jpg)


This is a site where amateur astronomers post their images. And they took an image of the ISS (I think that all of the fe are going to say that it is fake CGI or some other bullshit)
https://www.astrobin.com/search/?q=iss&search_type=0&license=0&license=1&license=2&license=3&license=4&license=5&license=6&telescope_type=any&telescope_type=0&telescope_type=1&telescope_type=2&telescope_type=3&telescope_type=4&telescope_type=5&telescope_type=6&telescope_type=7&telescope_type=8&telescope_type=9&telescope_type=10&telescope_type=11&telescope_type=12&telescope_type=13&telescope_type=14&telescope_type=15&telescope_type=16&telescope_type=17&telescope_type=18&telescope_type=19&telescope_type=20&telescope_type=21&telescope_type=22&camera_type=any&camera_type=0&camera_type=1&camera_type=2&camera_type=3&camera_type=4&camera_type=5
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 16, 2018, 10:49:43 AM
This are images I took of satellites

This are a lie.

Now, explain why you believe the mad fantasies of a paedophile over observable physics.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: is_the_earth_flat on February 16, 2018, 10:51:38 AM
And if it where a plane on the second image you would see three lines in the image and dots disappearing and reappearing. And on the first image, I saw the ISS fly by so I know it isn't a plane (it didn't have any blinking lights).
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: is_the_earth_flat on February 16, 2018, 10:54:24 AM
This are images I took of satellites

This are a lie.

Now, explain why you believe the mad fantasies of a paedophile over observable physics.

Beaucase I saw it with my own eyes and there are a lot of images on Astrobin of the ISS and other satellites. (I know that you are going to say that they are fake)
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Macarios on February 16, 2018, 11:04:30 AM
According to known propagation of radio waves, and to existence of signals from area above the Equator that give us satellite TV program, I'd say they are real.
Knowing that if you move orientation of your dish for more than one degree makes you lose the signal, I'd also say that the signal comes from them.
According to night sky where many bright spots (called stars and planets) move, and some bright spots (called geostationary satellites) remain still, I'd also say they are real.
According to people, where some accept their existence and others deny them, I'd declare this last source of info unreliable.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: is_the_earth_flat on February 16, 2018, 11:19:11 AM
Finally, somebody who isn't denying evidence.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: hoppy on February 16, 2018, 12:05:08 PM
Finally, somebody who isn't denying evidence.
I'm glad you finally read my post.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Here to laugh at you on February 16, 2018, 12:21:59 PM
You have to be seriously brain injured to deny the existence of satellites.

And don't give me that tired old "balloons or cell towers" bullshit.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 16, 2018, 12:37:30 PM
And if it where a plane on the second image you would see three lines in the image and dots disappearing and reappearing. And on the first image, I saw the ISS fly by so I know it isn't a plane (it didn't have any blinking lights).

Yeah ok so you're just another bot...

Forget it.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: is_the_earth_flat on February 16, 2018, 12:58:25 PM
Finally, somebody who isn't denying evidence.
I'm glad you finally read my post.

I wasn't talking about you I was talking about Macarios post.
And what you are going to call me a bot because you don't have any evidence to disprove it. What do you want a raw image that came out of the camera or something else?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: MicroBeta on February 16, 2018, 01:15:17 PM
Are satellites real?
No.
Satellites are real.

Incorrect.

Paedophiles are real though.

One of them invented satellites:

https://m.rediff.com/news/1998/feb/02clarke.htm

Sane people despise paedos and don't believe a single word that comes out their lying paedo mouths...

Sci-fi fanbois worship the scum.

Brain damage I reckon.
Clarke didn't invent the satellite.  He wasn't even the first with the idea.  All of which is irrelevant because it has no bearing on satellites...which are real. 

Mike
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 16, 2018, 01:30:54 PM
Are satellites real?
No.
Satellites are real.

Incorrect.

Paedophiles are real though.

One of them invented satellites:

https://m.rediff.com/news/1998/feb/02clarke.htm

Sane people despise paedos and don't believe a single word that comes out their lying paedo mouths...

Sci-fi fanbois worship the scum.

Brain damage I reckon.
Clarke didn't invent the satellite.  He wasn't even the first with the idea.  All of which is irrelevant because it has no bearing on satellites...which are real.

Damn you love paedos don't you?

Care to explain why?

Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: markjo on February 16, 2018, 01:39:25 PM
Are satellites real?
No.
Satellites are real.

Incorrect.

Paedophiles are real though.

One of them invented satellites:

https://m.rediff.com/news/1998/feb/02clarke.htm

Sane people despise paedos and don't believe a single word that comes out their lying paedo mouths...

Sci-fi fanbois worship the scum.

Brain damage I reckon.
Clarke didn't invent the satellite.  He wasn't even the first with the idea.  All of which is irrelevant because it has no bearing on satellites...which are real.

Damn you love paedos don't you?

Care to explain why?
Damn you love irrelevant ad hominem fallacies, don't you?

Care to explain why?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: is_the_earth_flat on February 16, 2018, 01:45:46 PM
Are satellites real?
No.
Satellites are real.

Incorrect.

Paedophiles are real though.

One of them invented satellites:

https://m.rediff.com/news/1998/feb/02clarke.htm

Sane people despise paedos and don't believe a single word that comes out their lying paedo mouths...

Sci-fi fanbois worship the scum.

Brain damage I reckon.
Clarke didn't invent the satellite.  He wasn't even the first with the idea.  All of which is irrelevant because it has no bearing on satellites...which are real.

Damn you love paedos don't you?

Care to explain why?

Can you show me some evidence from your side because I showed the evidence from my side and just google Astrobin and search iss. Or click the link I posted in an earlier post where I showed you my photos. And stop calling us "paedos" because you don't have any evidence and no argument.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: rabinoz on February 16, 2018, 01:48:00 PM
Are satellites real?
No.
Is hoppy real?
(https://i.imgur.com/x10gp.gif)
Looks photoshopped to me!
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: rabinoz on February 16, 2018, 01:49:59 PM
Not according to most FEers. But yes according to most REers.
And to, "Jane" who has "the authority to call out bad arguments to infinity and beyond?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: rabinoz on February 16, 2018, 01:55:30 PM
Are satellites real?
No.
Satellites are real.
Incorrect.
Paedophiles are real though.
One of them invented satellites:
https://m.rediff.com/news/1998/feb/02clarke.htm
Sane people despise paedos and don't believe a single word that comes out their lying paedo mouths...
Sci-fi fanbois worship the scum.
Brain damage I reckon.
Clarke didn't invent the satellite.  He wasn't even the first with the idea.  All of which is irrelevant because it has no bearing on satellites...which are real.

Damn you love paedos don't you?
Care to explain why?
Damn you love irrelevant ad hominem fallacies, don't you?

Care to explain why?
That's easy!
Don't be too hard on PuppyBot Legba. It can't be held responsible for anything it does - blame the flat earth puppeteer pulling the strings!
(http://cliparts101.com/files/436/D70D91B7EF610CC201493CE120349FB9/Puppeteer_1.png)
They often get all mixed up, hence Poor Pathetic Papa's weird posts.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: dutchy on February 16, 2018, 02:14:26 PM
Not according to most FEers. But yes according to most REers.
And to, "Jane" who has "the authority to call out bad arguments to infinity and beyond?
Only in the shades of the one who knows all about everything there is......he who we call ''rabinoz''..because we do not know how to address him properly.
Specialised in physics, cartography, matehematics, earth science, geology, space science of astronomy, engineering, psychology, logic and more......
And of course honorary member of the worldwide lodge of electricians.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Lonegranger on February 16, 2018, 02:21:23 PM
Not according to most FEers. But yes according to most REers.
And to, "Jane" who has "the authority to call out bad arguments to infinity and beyond?
Only in the shades of the one who knows all about everything there is......he who we call ''rabinoz''..because we do not know how to address him properly.
Specialised in physics, cartography, matehematics, earth science, geology, space science of astronomy, engineering, psychology, logic and more......
And of course honorary member of the worldwide lodge of electricians.

And what’s your claim to fame ? Apart from a cult reject?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: MicroBeta on February 16, 2018, 02:22:44 PM
Are satellites real?
No.
Satellites are real.

Incorrect.

Paedophiles are real though.

One of them invented satellites:

https://m.rediff.com/news/1998/feb/02clarke.htm

Sane people despise paedos and don't believe a single word that comes out their lying paedo mouths...

Sci-fi fanbois worship the scum.

Brain damage I reckon.
Clarke didn't invent the satellite.  He wasn't even the first with the idea.  All of which is irrelevant because it has no bearing on satellites...which are real.

Damn you love paedos don't you?

Care to explain why?
Damn you love irrelevant ad hominem fallacies, don't you?

Care to explain why?
Of course he won't explain.  He can't cast the bait if everyone's on to him. 

You're right though.  That is textbook ad hominem.

Mike
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: dutchy on February 16, 2018, 02:23:02 PM
You have to be seriously brain injured to deny the existence of satellites.

And don't give me that tired old "balloons or cell towers" bullshit.
Even the Mayans had satellites....just as the ancient Greeks knew we lived on a globe.....
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Lonegranger on February 16, 2018, 02:28:08 PM
You have to be seriously brain injured to deny the existence of satellites.

And don't give me that tired old "balloons or cell towers" bullshit.
Even the Mayans had satellites....just as the ancient Greeks knew we lived on a globe.....


How did the Mayans launch them into orbit? Please share.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: dutchy on February 16, 2018, 02:28:50 PM
And what’s your claim to fame ? Apart from a cult reject?
Nothing ...that's what i am among other things !!!
But the last thing i would personally do is go to a forum and act like a total jerk and try to fight the native forum members wherever i could.

You and other longtime posters who redicule the flatearth wherever you can are so incredibly arrogant....and the scary part is, you don't even realise it....
Do your friends and family know you are here to redicule flatearthers in your spare time ??
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: hoppy on February 16, 2018, 03:51:00 PM
And what’s your claim to fame ? Apart from a cult reject?
Nothing ...that's what i am among other things !!!
But the last thing i would personally do is go to a forum and act like a total jerk and try to fight the native forum members wherever i could.

You and other longtime posters who redicule the flatearth wherever you can are so incredibly arrogant....and the scary part is, you don't even realise it....
Do your friends and family know you are here to redicule flatearthers in your spare time ??
Friends LOL.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: FETlolcakes on February 16, 2018, 04:32:01 PM
And what’s your claim to fame ? Apart from a cult reject?
Nothing ...that's what i am among other things !!!
But the last thing i would personally do is go to a forum and act like a total jerk and try to fight the native forum members wherever i could.

Native forum members? LOL wtf is that? Does that mean that you (among others) are the primitive, ignorant savages waiting for intelligent people to come to enlighten you? If so, I agree with your notion about "native forum members".

Quote
You and other longtime posters who redicule the flatearth wherever you can are so incredibly arrogant....and the scary part is, you don't even realise it....
Do your friends and family know you are here to redicule flatearthers in your spare time ??

No one cares, bud. Even the ones who spend their time trying to reason with morons like you are laughing at you.
Personally, I'm just here to ridicule your spelling of redicule because arrogance and stuff... and such.

By all means though, please providence evidence that satellites either don't exist or don't work as asserted. Everyone needs a good laugh so please have at it.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: rabinoz on February 16, 2018, 05:01:12 PM

You and other longtime posters who redicule the flatearth wherever you can are so incredibly arrogant....and the scary part is, you don't even realise it....
I do not "redicule the flatearth" but I do "ridicule the flatearth" whenever I get the chance.

The modern flat earth hypothesis is a totally ridiculous idea, quite apart from the shape that does not match the real earth.
A massive failure is the idea that the sun, moon, planets and stars circle a relatively short distance above the flat earth.

Without the most horrendous hypotheses there is no way that these paths of the celestial objects can fit what we see with our own eyes.

But,  I've explained this numerous times and you and many others are too closed-minded to see it.
So flat earthers, rather than believing their own eyes still scrabble around looking for weird pseudo-scientific explanations.

I wonder then, just who is so incredibly arrogant.

But the topic is, "Are satellites real?"
Yes, of course they are! The rockets are witnessed being launched and have been tracked to very high altitudes.
When in orbit many have been observed as spots of light moving in the right direction at the right time.
Even geostationary satellites have been observed stationary against a moving starfield - easy with a small telescope, they are stationary!

Then the ISS has been observed by many people, on time and travelling in the expected direction. Not only that, but there are numerous photos showing its shape in orbit.

Then numerous countries have satellites in orbit and a dozen or so, including Israel, India and North Korea have launched their own.

But, of course, all this is some massive conspiracy because dutchy can't understand the same perspective that FEers use to try vainly to explain away sunsets.

I think I'll stick to reality, even if I get accused of being incredibly arrogant.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: is_the_earth_flat on February 17, 2018, 04:39:47 AM
When flat earthers lose all ideas and can't create more fake shit they just start insulting other people.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: dutchy on February 17, 2018, 04:59:43 AM
When flat earthers lose all ideas and can't create more fake shit they just start insulting other people.
We have proven and explained in numerous topics that rockets as seen in all available footage go anywhere but (deep)space.
That late fifties satelites didn't have the technology and delicate remote controled adjustments to go into ''orbit'' as claimed in those days.
And i spare you all topics that are dealing with the assumptions that rockets cannot work in the vacuum of space and that small vacuum chambers on earth do not mimick the conditions of the vacuum of space. So we only have some CGI with rockets, the ISS and satelites orbiting ''earth''.

But every other topic a new globeling creates an account and asks the same old questions all over again.....
Are you also here to save humanity ?, because most globelings feel they have to save humanity for going back to the dark ages....or something similar along those lines...

The insults are all yours to begin with !
You think it is normal to join the flatearth forums while you laugh and redicule the very notion of it,...don't you ?
You are the very definition of being a total loser who wants to underline or upgrade his self esteem by joining a forum that he thinks is the epitome of absurdity to begin with.(your avatar)
So NO....you are not here to discuss anything with an open mind !

Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: is_the_earth_flat on February 17, 2018, 05:24:44 AM
When flat earthers lose all ideas and can't create more fake shit they just start insulting other people.
We have proven and explained in numerous topics that rockets as seen in all available footage go anywhere but (deep)space.
That late fifties satelites didn't have the technology and delicate remote controled adjustments to go into ''orbit'' as claimed in those days.
And i spare you all topics that are dealing with the assumptions that rockets cannot work in the vacuum of space and that small vacuum chambers on earth do not mimick the conditions of the vacuum of space. So we only have some CGI with rockets, the ISS and satelites orbiting ''earth''.

But every other topic a new globeling creates an account and asks the same old questions all over again.....
Are you also here to save humanity ?, because most globelings feel they have to save humanity for going back to the dark ages....or something similar along those lines...

The insults are all yours to begin with !
You think it is normal to join the flatearth forums while you laugh and redicule the very notion of it,...don't you ?
You are the very definition of being a total loser who wants to underline or upgrade his self esteem by joining a forum that he thinks is the epitome of absurdity to begin with.(your avatar)
So NO....you are not here to discuss anything with an open mind !

 We aren't here to discuss anything open minded? Really when we state something that you can't explain you will either ignore it or make something up and not look at the full picture. All of the flat-earthers can't even agree how the Earth looks or if the sun has a sunshade and let's not even start talking about the lunar eclipse. If rockets can't fly in space why do I have many photos of satellites (not detailed) and many other amateur astronomers took pretty detailed photos of the ISS. I know that you are going to say that they are just balloons or something other. And did you see all of the weather satellites that have 24/7 view of the Earth and you can see the live stream on the web, here is a video of a guy who picked up a signal from a weather satellite: .
Do you know how hard it would be almost impossible to create a fake video. And all of the balloons that fly into the atmosphere that take videos and pictures of the round Earth are they fake too. We ask the same question because you can't agree on one answer or you haven't replied to that question.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: is_the_earth_flat on February 17, 2018, 05:49:20 AM
And here is a video of a rocket working in vacuum:

Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: hoppy on February 17, 2018, 06:09:34 AM
When flat earthers lose all ideas and can't create more fake shit they just start insulting other people.
Bullshit, you're stupid.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: is_the_earth_flat on February 17, 2018, 06:16:08 AM
When flat earthers lose all ideas and can't create more fake shit they just start insulting other people.
Bullshit, you're stupid.

Really what about fake x-moon that creates shadow on the moon. We have never observed it, it doesn't cover any part of the sky but it covers only the moon. And what about other planets if the sun has it's own sunshade the eclipses wouldn't be possible.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Lonegranger on February 17, 2018, 12:52:28 PM
It just demonstrates how intellectually corrupt flattard thinking is if they still claim satelites are not real as there is now a launch almost every week, and the larger ones can be seen given the right conditions. In addition there is the humanity satellite that is clearly visible!
Mad as carrots.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: rvlvr on February 17, 2018, 12:58:03 PM
It is not easy to be a flat Earther nowadays. The accelerated rate of launches by national and private operators is a tough one to explain away.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: rabinoz on February 17, 2018, 02:27:13 PM
When flat earthers lose all ideas and can't create more fake shit they just start insulting other people.
Bullshit, you're stupid.
:) :) :) Thanks hoppy!  :) :) :)
The assertion that, "When flat earthers lose all ideas and can't create more fake shit they just start insulting other people" is proven by you own words, over and over again.
 :) :) :) Much appreciated.  :) :) :)
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: dutchy on February 17, 2018, 02:33:33 PM
It just demonstrates how intellectually corrupt flattard thinking is if they still claim satelites are not real as there is now a launch almost every week, and the larger ones can be seen given the right conditions. In addition there is the humanity satellite that is clearly visible!
Mad as carrots.
All we ever see is rockets heading for the oceans and cgi the moment they supposedly enter ''space''.
In your mad world there is no difference while observing a rocket flying horizontally or vertically (ask rabinoz ;D)
The moment the footage of a rocket launch shows the rocket flying horizontally it is due to perspective....(ask rabinoz  ;D)
One wonders if an observer would see the same while observing a plane going straight up or flying horizontally.....
Every sane person would conclude that for an observer on the ground the horizontal and vertical trajectories would look very different indeed !!!

But when it comes to rockets you willfully ignore your eyes and your brainwashed cerebrel cortex provides you with erronious conclusions while observing a rocket flying horizontally..........

Yes ''we are mad as a carrot''...you ignorant little brainwashed puppy....
Look this rocket is heading for the Indian ocean....not space !!
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: MicroBeta on February 17, 2018, 02:54:28 PM
It just demonstrates how intellectually corrupt flattard thinking is if they still claim satelites are not real as there is now a launch almost every week, and the larger ones can be seen given the right conditions. In addition there is the humanity satellite that is clearly visible!
Mad as carrots.
All we ever see is rockets heading for the oceans and cgi the moment they supposedly enter ''space''.
In your mad world there is no difference while observing a rocket flying horizontally or vertically (ask rabinoz ;D)
The moment the footage of a rocket launch shows the rocket flying horizontally it is due to perspective....(ask rabinoz  ;D)
One wonders if an observer would see the same while observing a plane going straight up or flying horizontally.....
Every sane person would conclude that for an observer on the ground the horizontal and vertical trajectories would look very different indeed !!!

But when it comes to rockets you willfully ignore your eyes and your brainwashed cerebrel cortex provides you with erronious conclusions while observing a rocket flying horizontally..........

Yes ''we are mad as a carrot''...you ignorant little brainwashed puppy....
Look this rocket is heading for the Indian ocean....not space !!

The following are the elevation and azimuth setting for the satellites DIRECTV 10, DIRECTV 12, DIRECTV 15, and SPACEWAY 1 in geostationary orbit at longitude 102.8°.

Satellite: 102.8W DIRECTV 10 | DIRECTV 12 | DIRECTV 15 | SPACEWAY 1

Latitude: 41.5533° Longitude: -72.0824°
Elevation: 32.7°
Azimuth (true): 221.8°
Azimuth (magn.): 235.8°

Latitude: 32.9760° Longitude: -96.7387°
Elevation: 51.1°
Azimuth (true): 191.0°
Azimuth (magn.): 187.8°

Latitude: 25.9231° Longitude: -80.3993°
Elevation: 50.8°
Azimuth (true): 223.3°
Azimuth (magn.): 229.7°

Latitude: 33.9698° Longitude: -118.2468°
Elevation: 47.2°
Azimuth (true): 153.7°
Azimuth (magn.): 141.6°

In a spherical coordinate system, these all point to a location 22,300 miles above the equator at a longitude of 102.8°

However, if we aim the dishes using this data on a flat or Cartesian coordinate system they all point to different directions and elevations.  They never all intersect at a single point.  Additionally, multiple dishes in a single city would point parallel to each other indicating they are aimed at something very far away.  In order for this to work there would have to either be hundreds of towers thousands of feet high or hundreds of aircraft/balloons/zeppelins in fixed locations.  Neither of which is possible.

The only way this works is if the dishes are on a spherical earth.  All the dishes are pointing to a single point on a celestial sphere 22,300 miles above the equator.  Only possible in a spherical coordinate system.

You can use the numbers I provided or check other locations using Dishpointer at http://www.dishpointer.com/.

Mike
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: rabinoz on February 17, 2018, 03:08:10 PM
When flat earthers lose all ideas and can't create more fake shit they just start insulting other people.
We have proven and explained in numerous topics that rockets as seen in all available footage go anywhere but (deep)space.
No you haven't, not by a long shot! You standard of proof seem to be, "Papa Legba said so".

Quote from: dutchy
That late fifties satelites didn't have the technology and delicate remote controled adjustments to go into ''orbit'' as claimed in those days.
Incorrect again! They didn't need any "delicate remote controled adjustments to go into 'orbit'".
Such control might be needed for a precisely controlled orbit but not to simply enter "an orbit".

Quote from: dutchy
And i spare you all topics that are dealing with the assumptions that rockets cannot work in the vacuum of space and that small vacuum chambers on earth do not mimick the conditions of the vacuum of space. So we only have some CGI with rockets, the ISS and satelites orbiting ''earth''.
That's just as well, because rockets can work in the vacuum of space.
You, Papa Legba and all you flat earth cronies are just proving that they have no understanding of physics to claim otherwise.

Quote from: dutchy
But every other topic a new globeling creates an account and asks the same old questions all over again.....
Even the names, like "globeling" and "globularists", that flat earthers use to describe normal people that claim that the earth is a Globe is aimed at belittling!
So don't you complain about any ridicule you get back!

Really? It's just that flat earthers simply refuse to accept that there is no flat earth model that "works" - not by a long shot!

Quote from: dutchy
Are you also here to save humanity ?, because most globelings feel they have to save humanity for going back to the dark ages....or something similar along those lines...
No, it's nothing to do with "saving humanity", simply pointing out that this modern idea that the earth is flat is totally false and there is no denying that it is a relatively modern idea!
There is abundant evidence that the early Greeks, those from the Middle East before 1000 AD and those in Europe certainly took the Globe as the shape of the earth.
You foe, Nicholas Copernicus, had nothing to do with introducing the Globe - the Globe was simply accepted long before that.

Quote from: dutchy
The insults are all yours to begin with !
Really? Go back over your own posts and see what you have called anyone that you think supports NASA!
Then look on YouTube and see the vile insults hurled at anyone who dares question the flat earth.

Quote from: dutchy
You think it is normal to join the flatearth forums while you laugh and redicule the very notion of it,...don't you ?
No, I didn't join to "laugh and ridicule" but to point out what is wrong with the flat earth and why it does not even fit with what I see with my own eyes.

Quote from: dutchy
You are the very definition of being a total loser who wants to underline or upgrade his self esteem by joining a forum that he thinks is the epitome of absurdity to begin with.(your avatar)
So NO....you are not here to discuss anything with an open mind !
Now, "open mind" coming from you, dutchy, is bordering on something to "laugh at and ridicule" - I never seen anyone else that is so unwilling to consider anyone else's explanations.

Stop bitching dutchy! If you have evidence actually supporting the flat earth model, with its map shape, its celestial objects circling above the earth and how these explain what we see.

But no, all you seem able to do is attack NASA and space missions. Well, the earth was known the be a Globe long, long before the idea of space exploration was dreamt of!

So debate the shape of the earth and the model that goes with it and stop wasting you time with irrelevant issues.

Bye bye, have a nice flat day!

PS   Why does the Netherlands have satellite TV if the earth is flat?
Quote
CanalDigitaal
CanalDigitaal is a provider of digital television via satellite for the Dutch market, using the Astra satellites at 23.5° east.

Initially customers were mainly Dutch citizens in the countryside who did not have cable access. But in the meantime the company also managed to expand into the cities. This is sometimes complicated in the Netherlands due to local building codes restricting the placement of satellite dishes.

And why would the Netherlands have owned an astronomical satellite?
Quote
Astronomical Netherlands Satellite
The Astronomical Netherlands Satellite (ANS; also known as Astronomische Nederlandse Satelliet) was a space-based X-ray and ultraviolet telescope. It was launched into Earth orbit on 30 August 1974 at 14:07:39 UTC in a Scout rocket from Vandenberg Air Force Base, United States. The mission ran for 20 months until June 1976, and was jointly funded by the Netherlands Institute for Space Research (NIVR) and NASA.[1][2] ANS was the first Dutch satellite, and the Main Belt asteroid 9996 ANS was named after it.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 17, 2018, 03:23:45 PM
When flat earthers lose all ideas and can't create more fake shit they just start insulting other people.
We have proven and explained in numerous topics that rockets as seen in all available footage go anywhere but (deep)space.
No you haven't, not by a long shot! You standard of proof seem to be, "Papa Legba said so".

Quote from: dutchy
That late fifties satelites didn't have the technology and delicate remote controled adjustments to go into ''orbit'' as claimed in those days.
Incorrect again! They didn't need any "delicate remote controled adjustments to go into 'orbit'".
Such control might be needed for a precisely controlled orbit but not to simply enter "an orbit".

Quote from: dutchy
And i spare you all topics that are dealing with the assumptions that rockets cannot work in the vacuum of space and that small vacuum chambers on earth do not mimick the conditions of the vacuum of space. So we only have some CGI with rockets, the ISS and satelites orbiting ''earth''.
That's just as well, because rockets can work in the vacuum of space.
You, Papa Legba and all you flat earth cronies are just proving that they have no understanding of physics to claim otherwise.

Quote from: dutchy
But every other topic a new globeling creates an account and asks the same old questions all over again.....
Even the names, like "globeling" and "globularists", that flat earthers use to describe normal people that claim that the earth is a Globe is aimed at belittling!
So don't you complain about any ridicule you get back!

Really? It's just that flat earthers simply refuse to accept that there is no flat earth model that "works" - not by a long shot!

Quote from: dutchy
Are you also here to save humanity ?, because most globelings feel they have to save humanity for going back to the dark ages....or something similar along those lines...
No, it's nothing to do with "saving humanity", simply pointing out that this modern idea that the earth is flat is totally false and there is no denying that it is a relatively modern idea!
There is abundant evidence that the early Greeks, those from the Middle East before 1000 AD and those in Europe certainly took the Globe as the shape of the earth.
You foe, Nicholas Copernicus, had nothing to do with introducing the Globe - the Globe was simply accepted long before that.

Quote from: dutchy
The insults are all yours to begin with !
Really? Go back over your own posts and see what you have called anyone that you think supports NASA!
Then look on YouTube and see the vile insults hurled at anyone who dares question the flat earth.

Quote from: dutchy
You think it is normal to join the flatearth forums while you laugh and redicule the very notion of it,...don't you ?
No, I didn't join to "laugh and ridicule" but to point out what is wrong with the flat earth and why it does not even fit with what I see with my own eyes.

Quote from: dutchy
You are the very definition of being a total loser who wants to underline or upgrade his self esteem by joining a forum that he thinks is the epitome of absurdity to begin with.(your avatar)
So NO....you are not here to discuss anything with an open mind !
Now, "open mind" coming from you, dutchy, is bordering on something to "laugh at and ridicule" - I never seen anyone else that is so unwilling to consider anyone else's explanations.

Stop bitching dutchy! If you have evidence actually supporting the flat earth model, with its map shape, its celestial objects circling above the earth and how these explain what we see.

But no, all you seem able to do is attack NASA and space missions. Well, the earth was known the be a Globe long, long before the idea of space exploration was dreamt of!

So debate the shape of the earth and the model that goes with it and stop wasting you time with irrelevant issues.

Bye bye, have a nice flat day!

PS   Why does the Netherlands have satellite TV if the earth is flat?
Quote
CanalDigitaal
CanalDigitaal is a provider of digital television via satellite for the Dutch market, using the Astra satellites at 23.5° east.

Initially customers were mainly Dutch citizens in the countryside who did not have cable access. But in the meantime the company also managed to expand into the cities. This is sometimes complicated in the Netherlands due to local building codes restricting the placement of satellite dishes.

And why would the Netherlands have owned an astronomical satellite?
Quote
Astronomical Netherlands Satellite
The Astronomical Netherlands Satellite (ANS; also known as Astronomische Nederlandse Satelliet) was a space-based X-ray and ultraviolet telescope. It was launched into Earth orbit on 30 August 1974 at 14:07:39 UTC in a Scout rocket from Vandenberg Air Force Base, United States. The mission ran for 20 months until June 1976, and was jointly funded by the Netherlands Institute for Space Research (NIVR) and NASA.[1][2] ANS was the first Dutch satellite, and the Main Belt asteroid 9996 ANS was named after it.

Honest question: do you not realise how mental you sound?

Every person educated on the subject knows that space travel is nonsense.

All of them.

It's been established since 1957.

But 99.99999999% of the world is not educated on the subject.

And that's who you bots are here to bully into submission, and make sure they never do get educated.

Fair enough, you'll probably get away with it too...

I mean, your target audience is big and dumb enough...

But you're still an automated lying machine.

Just saying.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: markjo on February 17, 2018, 03:29:22 PM
Honest question: do you not realise how mental you sound?

Every person educated on the subject knows that space travel is nonsense.
Honest question: where did you receive your education on the subject?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 17, 2018, 04:19:00 PM
Honest question: do you not realise how mental you sound?

Every person educated on the subject knows that space travel is nonsense.
Honest question: where did you receive your education on the subject?

Not from you.

Because if I did, I would believe all military industrial propaganda bullshit, ever...

( And probably own a Nikon P 900).

Because military industrial propaganda bullshit is all you are programmed with.

It must be hard for you, not knowing you are an AI algorithm...

Not as hard as it is on us, though.

Summary: STFU and FOAD.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: markjo on February 17, 2018, 04:28:11 PM
Honest question: do you not realise how mental you sound?

Every person educated on the subject knows that space travel is nonsense.
Honest question: where did you receive your education on the subject?

Not from you.
Not what I asked.

Then again, why should I expect a straight answer from you about anything?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 17, 2018, 04:42:23 PM
Honest question: do you not realise how mental you sound?

Every person educated on the subject knows that space travel is nonsense.
Honest question: where did you receive your education on the subject?

Not from you.
why should I expect a straight answer from you about anything?

Stop harrassing me for one then.

Stop harrassing everyone on this forum for shit you're gonna misrepresent anyway and just leave...

See ya!
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: markjo on February 17, 2018, 04:48:25 PM
Stop harrassing everyone on this forum for shit you're gonna misrepresent anyway and just leave...
LOL!!  Says the master of harassment and misrepresenting things people say.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 17, 2018, 04:59:02 PM
Stop harrassing everyone on this forum for shit you're gonna misrepresent anyway and just leave...
LOL!!  Says the master of harassment and misrepresenting things people say.

I'll take that as a NO U, markbot, as well as a shitpost and a lie...

Surprise me sometime, eh, botty boy.

Oh, and everyone educated in the subject knows space travel is fake.

That's a fact.

Now misrepresent it...

Harrass me with sockpuppets whilst you do so, why not?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: rabinoz on February 17, 2018, 05:18:10 PM
Stop harrassing everyone on this forum for shit you're gonna misrepresent anyway and just leave...
LOL!!  Says the master of harassment and misrepresenting things people say.
<< irrelevant rubbish deleted >>
That's a fact.
Still dancing on your puppeteer's strings I see!
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: rvlvr on February 17, 2018, 10:22:52 PM
Jerry is making less sense every passing day.

I wonder if something got to him, if he is okay,
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 17, 2018, 11:30:24 PM
This is a free body diagram of a satellite.

(http://i65.tinypic.com/20iw5fo.jpg)

The circle represents the satellite and the arrow represents the force of gravity.

Tell everyone why it will not crash into the Earth...

Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Copper Knickers on February 18, 2018, 12:25:48 AM
This is a free body diagram of a satellite.

(http://i65.tinypic.com/20iw5fo.jpg)

The circle represents the satellite and the arrow represents the force of gravity.

Tell everyone why it will not crash into the Earth...

Because the force on the satellite is always perpendicular to its direction of travel, resulting in a circular trajectory that doesn't intersect the earth.

(For a satellite in a circular orbit; In the case of an elliptical orbit it's slightly more complicated but a similar analysis applies.)
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: inquisitive on February 18, 2018, 12:34:04 AM
This is a free body diagram of a satellite.

(http://i65.tinypic.com/20iw5fo.jpg)

The circle represents the satellite and the arrow represents the force of gravity.

Tell everyone why it will not crash into the Earth...
All explained online.  Better to find a detailed link than explain here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_mechanics
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2018, 12:44:38 AM
This is a free body diagram of a satellite.

(http://i65.tinypic.com/20iw5fo.jpg)

The circle represents the satellite and the arrow represents the force of gravity.

Tell everyone why it will not crash into the Earth...

Because the force on the satellite is always perpendicular to its direction of travel, resulting in a circular trajectory that doesn't intersect the earth.

(For a satellite in a circular orbit; In the case of an elliptical orbit it's slightly more complicated but a similar analysis applies.)
You are in dispute with the free body diagram.

Please edit the diagram and present it as you think it should look.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Copper Knickers on February 18, 2018, 01:33:18 AM
This is a free body diagram of a satellite.
(http://i65.tinypic.com/20iw5fo.jpg)
The circle represents the satellite and the arrow represents the force of gravity.

Tell everyone why it will not crash into the Earth...

Because the force on the satellite is always perpendicular to its direction of travel, resulting in a circular trajectory that doesn't intersect the earth.

(For a satellite in a circular orbit; In the case of an elliptical orbit it's slightly more complicated but a similar analysis applies.)
You are in dispute with the free body diagram.

Please edit the diagram and present it as you think it should look.

I agree with the free body diagram. Where have I indicated any dispute with it?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Lonegranger on February 18, 2018, 01:34:47 AM
What a bunch of goons. How on earth can you keep denying the truth!
Here is a list of recent launches, what their purpose is and how they can be tracked.

https://www.n2yo.com/satellites/?c=latest-launches
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 18, 2018, 01:39:13 AM
This is a free body diagram of a satellite.
(http://i65.tinypic.com/20iw5fo.jpg)
The circle represents the satellite and the arrow represents the force of gravity.

Tell everyone why it will not crash into the Earth...

Because the force on the satellite is always perpendicular to its direction of travel, resulting in a circular trajectory that doesn't intersect the earth.

(For a satellite in a circular orbit; In the case of an elliptical orbit it's slightly more complicated but a similar analysis applies.)
You are in dispute with the free body diagram.

Please edit the diagram and present it as you think it should look.

I agree with the free body diagram. Where have I indicated any dispute with it?

You forgot the bit where gravity accelerates it.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Copper Knickers on February 18, 2018, 02:22:29 AM
This is a free body diagram of a satellite.
(http://i65.tinypic.com/20iw5fo.jpg)
The circle represents the satellite and the arrow represents the force of gravity.

Tell everyone why it will not crash into the Earth...

Because the force on the satellite is always perpendicular to its direction of travel, resulting in a circular trajectory that doesn't intersect the earth.

(For a satellite in a circular orbit; In the case of an elliptical orbit it's slightly more complicated but a similar analysis applies.)
You are in dispute with the free body diagram.

Please edit the diagram and present it as you think it should look.

I agree with the free body diagram. Where have I indicated any dispute with it?

You forgot the bit where gravity accelerates it.

That wouldn't be shown on a free body diagram.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2018, 02:28:01 AM
This is a free body diagram of a satellite.
(http://i65.tinypic.com/20iw5fo.jpg)
The circle represents the satellite and the arrow represents the force of gravity.

Tell everyone why it will not crash into the Earth...

Because the force on the satellite is always perpendicular to its direction of travel, resulting in a circular trajectory that doesn't intersect the earth.

(For a satellite in a circular orbit; In the case of an elliptical orbit it's slightly more complicated but a similar analysis applies.)
You are in dispute with the free body diagram.

Please edit the diagram and present it as you think it should look.

I agree with the free body diagram. Where have I indicated any dispute with it?

You forgot the bit where gravity accelerates it.

That wouldn't be shown on a free body diagram.
You claim the force (gravity) is perpendicular to direction of travel.

That means you are in dispute with the diagram.

Please draw the force causing travel.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 18, 2018, 02:48:59 AM
This is a free body diagram of a satellite.
(http://i65.tinypic.com/20iw5fo.jpg)
The circle represents the satellite and the arrow represents the force of gravity.

Tell everyone why it will not crash into the Earth...

Because the force on the satellite is always perpendicular to its direction of travel, resulting in a circular trajectory that doesn't intersect the earth.

(For a satellite in a circular orbit; In the case of an elliptical orbit it's slightly more complicated but a similar analysis applies.)
You are in dispute with the free body diagram.

Please edit the diagram and present it as you think it should look.

I agree with the free body diagram. Where have I indicated any dispute with it?

You forgot the bit where gravity accelerates it.

That wouldn't be shown on a free body diagram.

You claimed gravity would cause a circular trajectory.

But, as gravity is a constant downwards acceleration, any trajectory would be an inwards spiral, which would most definitely intersect the Earth.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: rvlvr on February 18, 2018, 02:49:37 AM
Their descriptions are all false. They should say "To keep flat Earth a secret."
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Macarios on February 18, 2018, 02:58:14 AM
This is a free body diagram of a satellite.
(http://i65.tinypic.com/20iw5fo.jpg)
The circle represents the satellite and the arrow represents the force of gravity.

Tell everyone why it will not crash into the Earth...

Because the force on the satellite is always perpendicular to its direction of travel, resulting in a circular trajectory that doesn't intersect the earth.

(For a satellite in a circular orbit; In the case of an elliptical orbit it's slightly more complicated but a similar analysis applies.)
You are in dispute with the free body diagram.

Please edit the diagram and present it as you think it should look.

I agree with the free body diagram. Where have I indicated any dispute with it?

You forgot the bit where gravity accelerates it.

That wouldn't be shown on a free body diagram.
You claim the force (gravity) is perpendicular to direction of travel.

That means you are in dispute with the diagram.

Please draw the force causing travel.

Inertia is causing travel.
Forces cause acceleration.
Your diagram is incomplete.

Satellite has initial speed, longitudinal to trajectory.
Inertia causes it to remain constant.
If there was longitudinal force, speed would change.

Gravity causes the force you draw.
That force is transversal in any point and is curvig the trajectory.
The force is always acting towards the center of the Earth.
Relative to external frame of reference that force changes direction as satellite moves, remaining transversal.

Inertia resists the curving and creates reaction to your force.
That is the force you omitted.
That force is counteracting your force of gravity.
Resultant is zero and transversal speed remains balanced keeping the satellite at constant distance of the center of the Earth.
If satellite orbit is elliptical, it doesn't remain constant but oscillates around some average value.

Are you now little closer to understanding?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 18, 2018, 03:06:09 AM
This is a free body diagram of a satellite.
(http://i65.tinypic.com/20iw5fo.jpg)
The circle represents the satellite and the arrow represents the force of gravity.

Tell everyone why it will not crash into the Earth...

Because the force on the satellite is always perpendicular to its direction of travel, resulting in a circular trajectory that doesn't intersect the earth.

(For a satellite in a circular orbit; In the case of an elliptical orbit it's slightly more complicated but a similar analysis applies.)
You are in dispute with the free body diagram.

Please edit the diagram and present it as you think it should look.

I agree with the free body diagram. Where have I indicated any dispute with it?

You forgot the bit where gravity accelerates it.

That wouldn't be shown on a free body diagram.
You claim the force (gravity) is perpendicular to direction of travel.

That means you are in dispute with the diagram.

Please draw the force causing travel.
Inertia resists the curving and creates reaction to your force.
That is the force you omitted.
That force is counteracting your force of gravity

Inertia is not a force.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Copper Knickers on February 18, 2018, 03:13:47 AM
I agree with the free body diagram. Where have I indicated any dispute with it?

You forgot the bit where gravity accelerates it.

That wouldn't be shown on a free body diagram.

You claimed gravity would cause a circular trajectory.

But, as gravity is a constant downwards acceleration, any trajectory would be an inwards spiral, which would most definitely intersect the Earth.

A car can turn constantly left, say, and describe a circle. It doesn't necessarily spiral inwards.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Copper Knickers on February 18, 2018, 03:15:52 AM
I agree with the free body diagram. Where have I indicated any dispute with it?

You forgot the bit where gravity accelerates it.

That wouldn't be shown on a free body diagram.
You claim the force (gravity) is perpendicular to direction of travel.

That means you are in dispute with the diagram.

Please draw the force causing travel.

There's no force associated with the forward travel. The satellite is already moving in that direction. The diagram is correct.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2018, 03:17:40 AM
Inertia is causing travel.
Forces cause acceleration.
Your diagram is incomplete.
"A Satellite is a Projectile
The fundamental principle to be understood concerning satellites is that a satellite is a projectile. That is to say, a satellite is an object upon which the only force is gravity."
My diagram is not incomplete.
Satellite has initial speed, longitudinal to trajectory.
Inertia causes it to remain constant.
If there was longitudinal force, speed would change.
Inertia cannot "cause," anything as it is not a force.
Gravity causes the force you draw.
That force is transversal in any point and is curvig the trajectory.
The force is always acting towards the center of the Earth.
Relative to external frame of reference that force changes direction as satellite moves, remaining transversal.
"That is to say, a satellite is an object upon which the only force is gravity."
Inertia resists the curving and creates reaction to your force.
That is the force you omitted.
That force is counteracting your force of gravity.
Resultant is zero and transversal speed remains balanced keeping the satellite at constant distance of the center of the Earth.
If satellite orbit is elliptical, it doesn't remain constant but oscillates around some average value.

Are you now little closer to understanding?
"That is to say, a satellite is an object upon which the only force is gravity."

Yeah.

I now understand completely all of you RE-tards are completely full of crap!
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 18, 2018, 03:19:13 AM
I agree with the free body diagram. Where have I indicated any dispute with it?

You forgot the bit where gravity accelerates it.

That wouldn't be shown on a free body diagram.

You claimed gravity would cause a circular trajectory.

But, as gravity is a constant downwards acceleration, any trajectory would be an inwards spiral, which would most definitely intersect the Earth.

A car can turn constantly left, say, and describe a circle. It doesn't necessarily spiral inwards.

A car can create friction upon the medium via which it moves, i.e. the ground.

A satellite is in vacuum, ergo no friction is possible, and nothing is preventing gravity accelerating it downwards.

Wanna try again, botty boy?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2018, 03:20:23 AM
I agree with the free body diagram. Where have I indicated any dispute with it?

You forgot the bit where gravity accelerates it.

That wouldn't be shown on a free body diagram.

You claimed gravity would cause a circular trajectory.

But, as gravity is a constant downwards acceleration, any trajectory would be an inwards spiral, which would most definitely intersect the Earth.

A car can turn constantly left, say, and describe a circle. It doesn't necessarily spiral inwards.
Please do not offer a false analogy of a car in comparison to a satellite.

A "circle" is not an orbit.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: rabinoz on February 18, 2018, 03:26:29 AM
You claimed gravity would cause a circular trajectory.
And a circular trajectory requires a centripetal acceleration to maintain that circular motion.
See: the Physics Classroom, Mathematics of Circular Motion (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-1/Mathematics-of-Circular-Motion) which tells us that
(http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/circles/u6l1e2.gif).
Quote from: Papa Legba
But, as gravity is a constant downwards acceleration,
And circular motion needs a "constant downwards acceleration" of v2/R to maintain a circular orbit.
Hence you have shown that satellite orbits fit the physics perfectly.
This gives a bit more detail on that, the Physics Classroom, Circular Motion Principles for Satellites (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Circular-Motion-Principles-for-Satellites).

Quote from: Papa Legba
any trajectory would be an inwards spiral, which would most definitely intersect the Earth.
So sorry, Poor Papa, it looks like the Physics Classroom, that you so kindly lead us to, proves you wrong again!
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Macarios on February 18, 2018, 03:36:42 AM
This is a free body diagram of a satellite.
(http://i65.tinypic.com/20iw5fo.jpg)
The circle represents the satellite and the arrow represents the force of gravity.

Tell everyone why it will not crash into the Earth...

Because the force on the satellite is always perpendicular to its direction of travel, resulting in a circular trajectory that doesn't intersect the earth.

(For a satellite in a circular orbit; In the case of an elliptical orbit it's slightly more complicated but a similar analysis applies.)
You are in dispute with the free body diagram.

Please edit the diagram and present it as you think it should look.

I agree with the free body diagram. Where have I indicated any dispute with it?

You forgot the bit where gravity accelerates it.

That wouldn't be shown on a free body diagram.
You claim the force (gravity) is perpendicular to direction of travel.

That means you are in dispute with the diagram.

Please draw the force causing travel.
Inertia resists the curving and creates reaction to your force.
That is the force you omitted.
That force is counteracting your force of gravity

Inertia is not a force.

Ofcourse inertia itself is not a force.
Why would in your mind you create idea that someone would say that?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: rabinoz on February 18, 2018, 03:46:13 AM

A satellite is in vacuum, ergo no friction is possible, and nothing is preventing gravity accelerating it downwards.

Incorrect, another acceleration can prevent gravity accelerating it downwards.

Actually saying gravity is an acceleration can be a bit misleading at times.
Newtonian gravitation states that gravitation applies a force = G.m1.m2/d2,
so another and often better way is to describe gravity = force per unit mass, in metric units that would be N/kg.

And that is consistent with what I have said all along that gravity does not force things down, but just applies a downward force.
If there are no other forces acting on the object, that downward force will accelerate the object down with an acceleration, g.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 18, 2018, 03:54:29 AM
And circular motion needs a "constant downwards acceleration" of v2/R to maintain a circular orbit.

Great.

Shame gravity isn't providing that.

It's providing a constant downwards acceleration of 9.8 m/s2.

Which means that for every second a satellite is in orbit its velocity must increase by another 9.8m/s.

So you've just swapped reality for your necessary science fiction.

Not hard to see.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2018, 03:58:18 AM
If there are no other forces acting on the object, that downward force will accelerate the object down with an acceleration, g.
There are no other forces acting on a satellite.

So, the satellite is accelerating toward the center of the Earth via the force of gravity at 9.8m/s2.

Pretty damn fast for nothing else countering...
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2018, 04:03:32 AM
This is a free body diagram of a satellite.
(http://i65.tinypic.com/20iw5fo.jpg)
The circle represents the satellite and the arrow represents the force of gravity.

Tell everyone why it will not crash into the Earth...

Because the force on the satellite is always perpendicular to its direction of travel, resulting in a circular trajectory that doesn't intersect the earth.

(For a satellite in a circular orbit; In the case of an elliptical orbit it's slightly more complicated but a similar analysis applies.)
You are in dispute with the free body diagram.

Please edit the diagram and present it as you think it should look.

I agree with the free body diagram. Where have I indicated any dispute with it?

You forgot the bit where gravity accelerates it.

That wouldn't be shown on a free body diagram.
You claim the force (gravity) is perpendicular to direction of travel.

That means you are in dispute with the diagram.

Please draw the force causing travel.
Inertia resists the curving and creates reaction to your force.
That is the force you omitted.

That force is counteracting your force of gravity

Inertia is not a force.

Ofcourse inertia itself is not a force.
Why would in your mind you create idea that someone would say that?
You did not say it.

You wrote it you moran!

I emboldened, underlined, italicized, and changed the font color to red, just sour bot-mind can understand what I am writing about.

Please GTFO the damn thread or stop behaving like an idiot.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 18, 2018, 04:12:34 AM
Witness the rabbibot arguing with itself whilst confusing normal force and free fall for reasons no one understands:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73925.msg2024656#msg2024656
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Macarios on February 18, 2018, 04:24:49 AM
And circular motion needs a "constant downwards acceleration" of v2/R to maintain a circular orbit.

Great.

Shame gravity isn't providing that.

It's providing a constant downwards acceleration of 9.8 m/s2.

Which means that for every second a satellite is in orbit its velocity must increase by another 9.8m/s.

So you've just swapped reality for your necessary science fiction.

Not hard to see.

LOOOOOL
Your downward acceleration would increase forward speed ? ? ?
Give us some of that stuff you are smoking now, don't be selfish.

BTW, acceleration g decreases with altitude. 9.8 is only at 45 degrees of latitude (norht and south) at sea level.
At 400 km g is 8.681, at 4000 km is 3.711, and at 35786 km is 0.22555.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 18, 2018, 04:31:12 AM
And circular motion needs a "constant downwards acceleration" of v2/R to maintain a circular orbit.

Great.

Shame gravity isn't providing that.

It's providing a constant downwards acceleration of 9.8 m/s2.

Which means that for every second a satellite is in orbit its velocity must increase by another 9.8m/s.

So you've just swapped reality for your necessary science fiction.

Not hard to see.
Your downward acceleration would increase forward speed

It would not.

A downwards acceleration would increase downwards velocity.

You appear to have blown a fuse.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: rabinoz on February 18, 2018, 04:33:41 AM
And circular motion needs a "constant downwards acceleration" of v2/R to maintain a circular orbit.
Great.
Shame gravity isn't providing that.
It's providing a constant downwards acceleration of 9.8 m/s2.
Didn't I say that, "circular motion needs a 'constant downwards acceleration' of v2/R" and
didn't YOU say that, "It's providing a constant downwards acceleration of 9.8 m/s2"?
They seem the same to me!

Quote from: Papa Legba
Which means that for every second a satellite is in orbit its velocity must increase by another 9.8m/s.
Really? But I stated that, "circular motion needs a 'constant downwards acceleration' of v2/R to maintain a circular orbit"
and you agreed that gravity is "providing a constant downwards acceleration of 9.8 m/s2"
It looks as though, according to you, these satellites orbit just fine.

And all my material came from the Physics Classroom, the very same reference that you quoted from earlier.
So please show a little consistency - you have totally lost yourself in your own twisted fabrication!

Quote from: Papa Legba
So you've just swapped reality for your necessary science fiction. Not hard to see.
No, you've just proved yourself wrong again. This is getting a habit Mr Puppet Legba on a String - you need to go to your controller for a refit!
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Macarios on February 18, 2018, 05:01:09 AM
And circular motion needs a "constant downwards acceleration" of v2/R to maintain a circular orbit.

Great.

Shame gravity isn't providing that.

It's providing a constant downwards acceleration of 9.8 m/s2.

Which means that for every second a satellite is in orbit its velocity must increase by another 9.8m/s.

So you've just swapped reality for your necessary science fiction.

Not hard to see.
Your downward acceleration would increase forward speed

It would not.

A downwards acceleration would increase downwards velocity.

You appear to have blown a fuse.

It would, but acceleration BY inertia is counteracting it, and what we have is remaining longitudinal (forward) speed.
What other speed we have there?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2018, 05:13:13 AM
It would, but acceleration BY inertia is counteracting it, and what we have is remaining longitudinal (forward) speed.
What other speed we have there?
Again, you label INERTIA as a force...

WTF is the matter with you?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Macarios on February 18, 2018, 05:13:58 AM
If there are no other forces acting on the object, that downward force will accelerate the object down with an acceleration, g.
There are no other forces acting on a satellite.

No other forces?
It is just another denial in attempt to keep Flat model somehow still alive.

How 449 geostationary satellites still operate from up there?
Here are some of them:

Name     Common name                Orbit inc 

04016A  DIRECTV 7S                -119.1  0.0
10010A  ECHOSTAR 14               -118.9  0.0
02006A  ECHOSTAR 7                -118.8  0.0
07009A  ANIK F3                   -118.7  0.0
16038B  EUTELSAT 117 WEST B       -117.0  0.0
13012A  EUTELSAT 117 WEST A       -116.8  0.0
13058A  SIRIUS FM-6               -116.1  0.0
06049A  XM-4 (BLUES)              -115.2  0.0
11059A  VIASAT-1                  -115.1  0.0
15010B  EUTELSAT 115 WEST B       -114.9  0.0
12075B  MEXSAT 3                  -114.8  0.0
15056A  MORELOS 3                 -113.1  6.2
06020A  EUTELSAT 113 WEST A       -113.0  0.0
06054A  WILDBLUE-1                -111.2  0.0
04027A  ANIK F2                   -111.1  0.0
09035A  TERRESTAR-1               -111.0  2.7
06003A  ECHOSTAR 10               -110.2  0.0
02023A  DIRECTV 5 (TEMPO 1)       -110.1  0.0
08035A  ECHOSTAR 11               -110.0  0.0
99059A  TELSTAR 12 (ORION 2)      -109.2  1.4
96022A  MSAT M1                   -107.5  8.1
13014A  ANIK G1                   -107.3  0.0
05036A  ANIK F1R                  -107.3  0.0
00076A  ANIK F1                   -107.3  0.0
12035A  ECHOSTAR 17               -107.1  0.0
04041A  AMC-15                    -105.1  0.0
17063A  SES-11 (ECHOSTAR 105)     -105.0  0.1
06054B  AMC-18                    -104.9  0.0
09033A  GOES 14                   -104.3  0.1
95019A  AMSC 1                    -103.3 10.3
11035A  SES-3                     -103.0  0.1
05015A  SPACEWAY 1                -102.9  0.0
07032A  DIRECTV 10                -102.8  0.0
09075A  DIRECTV 12                -102.8  0.0
15026A  DIRECTV 15                -102.8  0.0
10005A  SDO                       -101.9 29.0
10061A  SKYTERRA 1                -101.3  3.0
01052A  DIRECTV 4S                -101.2  0.0
06043A  DIRECTV 9S                -101.1  0.0
10016A  SES-1                     -101.0  0.0
05019A  DIRECTV 8                 -100.9  0.0
14078B  DIRECTV 14                 -99.2  0.0
08013A  DIRECTV 11                 -99.2  0.0
05046B  SPACEWAY 2                 -99.1  0.0
06023A  GALAXY 16 (G-16)           -99.0  0.0
08039A  INMARSAT 4-F3              -98.0  3.0
16079A  ECHOSTAR 19                -97.1  0.0
08045A  GALAXY 19 (G-19)           -97.0  0.0
00038A  ECHOSTAR 6                 -96.2  4.6
14062A  INTELSAT 30 (IS-30)        -95.0  0.0
16035A  INTELSAT 31 (IS-31)        -95.0  0.0
02030A  GALAXY 3C (G-3C)           -95.0  0.0
07036A  SPACEWAY 3                 -94.9  0.0
97026A  GALAXY 25 (G-25)           -93.1  0.0
08016A  ICO G1                     -92.8  3.8
00046A  BRASILSAT B4               -92.0  2.1
12026A  NIMIQ 6                    -91.1  0.0
07016B  GALAXY 17 (G-17)           -91.0  0.0
05022A  GALAXY 28 (G-28)           -89.0  0.0
13075A  TKSAT-1 (TUPAC KATARI)     -87.2  0.0
11049A  SES-2                      -87.0  0.0
99027A  NIMIQ 1                    -86.5  0.0
03033A  ECHOSTAR 12 (RAINBOW 1)    -86.4  0.0
09034A  SIRIUS FM-5                -86.1  0.0
10053A  XM-5                       -85.2  0.0
05008A  XM-3 (RHYTHM)              -85.1  0.0
04048A  AMC-16                     -85.0  0.0
97002A  AMC-2 (GE-2)               -84.9  4.7
16082B  STAR ONE D1                -84.0  0.0
00067A  AMC-6 (GE-6)               -83.0  0.0
08044A  NIMIQ 4                    -81.9  0.0
15054B  ARSAT 2                    -81.0  0.0
15026B  SKY MEXICO-1               -78.8  0.0
08055A  VENESAT-1                  -77.9  0.0
11054A  QUETZSAT 1                 -77.0  0.0
10006A  INTELSAT 16 (IS-16)        -76.2  0.0
16071A  GOES 16                    -75.2  0.0
12062A  STAR ONE C3                -75.0  0.0
17023B  SGDC                       -74.8  0.0
06018A  GOES 13                    -74.6  0.3
14011A  AMAZONAS 4A                -74.0  0.1
94070A  ASTRA 1D                   -73.0  7.9
09050A  NIMIQ 5                    -72.7  0.0
97050A  AMC-3 (GE-3)               -72.0  0.8
14062B  ARSAT 1                    -71.8  0.0
15034B  STAR ONE C4                -70.0  0.0
08018B  STAR ONE C2                -70.0  0.0
95016A  BRASILSAT B2               -68.0  7.5
17017A  SES-10                     -66.9  0.0
16014A  EUTELSAT 65 WEST A         -65.2  0.0
07056A  STAR ONE C1                -65.0  0.0
98006A  BRASILSAT B3               -63.2  4.4
11021A  TELSTAR 14R                -63.0  0.0
88091B  TDRS 3                     -62.5 14.4
10034A  ECHOSTAR 15                -61.7  0.0
12065A  ECHOSTAR 16                -61.5  0.0
16039B  ECHOSTAR 18                -61.3  0.0
09054A  AMAZONAS 2                 -61.0  0.0
17053A  AMAZONAS 5                 -61.0  0.0
13006A  AMAZONAS 3                 -61.0  0.0
12045A  INTELSAT 21 (IS-21)        -58.0  0.0
15039A  INTELSAT 34 (IS-34)        -55.5  0.0
15005A  INMARSAT 5-F2              -55.0  0.0
98006B  INMARSAT 3-F5              -54.0  3.0
12057A  INTELSAT 23 (IS-23)        -53.0  0.0
16004A  INTELSAT 29E (IS-29E)      -50.0  0.0

(from: http://www.satsig.net/sslist.htm (http://www.satsig.net/sslist.htm))
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Macarios on February 18, 2018, 05:14:59 AM
It would, but acceleration BY inertia is counteracting it, and what we have is remaining longitudinal (forward) speed.
What other speed we have there?
Again, you label INERTIA as a force...

WTF is the matter with you?

Now you are deliberately hiding behind twisting.
Parroting same failed strategy from Papa Legba.

According to the Law of Action and Reaction, what is the reaction to gravitational force?
Have any idea?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2018, 05:30:08 AM
No other forces?
No other forces?

I am not denying anything, hayseed...

"A Satellite is a Projectile
The fundamental principle to be understood concerning satellites is that a satellite is a projectile. That is to say, a satellite is an object upon which the only force is gravity."
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Circular-Motion-Principles-for-Satellites (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Circular-Motion-Principles-for-Satellites)

There are no other forces acting upon a satellite.

It would, but acceleration BY inertia is counteracting it, and what we have is remaining longitudinal (forward) speed.
What other speed we have there?
Again, you label INERTIA as a force...

WTF is the matter with you?

Now you are deliberately hiding behind twisting.
Parroting same failed strategy from Papa Legba.

According to the Law of Action and Reaction, what is the reaction to gravitational force?
Have any idea?

I did not twist anything.

You clearly wrote that inertia is causing acceleration.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Macarios on February 18, 2018, 05:57:34 AM
No other forces?
No other forces?

I am not denying anything, hayseed...

"A Satellite is a Projectile
The fundamental principle to be understood concerning satellites is that a satellite is a projectile. That is to say, a satellite is an object upon which the only force is gravity."
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Circular-Motion-Principles-for-Satellites (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Circular-Motion-Principles-for-Satellites)

There are no other forces acting upon a satellite.

It would, but acceleration BY inertia is counteracting it, and what we have is remaining longitudinal (forward) speed.
What other speed we have there?
Again, you label INERTIA as a force...

WTF is the matter with you?

Now you are deliberately hiding behind twisting.
Parroting same failed strategy from Papa Legba.

According to the Law of Action and Reaction, what is the reaction to gravitational force?
Have any idea?

I did not twist anything.

You clearly wrote that inertia is causing acceleration.

Then satellite will not fall to the ground after all?
And on circular orbit tangential speed will not change?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 18, 2018, 06:02:15 AM
And circular motion needs a "constant downwards acceleration" of v2/R to maintain a circular orbit.
Great.
Shame gravity isn't providing that.
It's providing a constant downwards acceleration of 9.8 m/s2.
They seem the same to me!

They don't to me.

One is a squared velocity divided by a radius.

The other is not.

You are attempting to confuse centripetal acceleration with free fall.

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/matthew_van_eerde/2010/01/24/deriving-the-centripetal-acceleration-formula/

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html

Please stop howling mad Pseudoscience at me.

It is unpleasant and dishonest.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2018, 06:06:18 AM
No other forces?
No other forces?

I am not denying anything, hayseed...

"A Satellite is a Projectile
The fundamental principle to be understood concerning satellites is that a satellite is a projectile. That is to say, a satellite is an object upon which the only force is gravity."
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Circular-Motion-Principles-for-Satellites (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Circular-Motion-Principles-for-Satellites)

There are no other forces acting upon a satellite.

It would, but acceleration BY inertia is counteracting it, and what we have is remaining longitudinal (forward) speed.
What other speed we have there?
Again, you label INERTIA as a force...

WTF is the matter with you?

Now you are deliberately hiding behind twisting.
Parroting same failed strategy from Papa Legba.

According to the Law of Action and Reaction, what is the reaction to gravitational force?
Have any idea?

I did not twist anything.

You clearly wrote that inertia is causing acceleration.

Then satellite will not fall to the ground after all?
And on circular orbit tangential speed will not change?
No.

Inertia cannot cause acceleration.

Inertia not a force.

What goes up, must come down.

And faster than what utter bull cookies your "imaginary forces," dictate.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: inquisitive on February 18, 2018, 06:06:36 AM
And circular motion needs a "constant downwards acceleration" of v2/R to maintain a circular orbit.
Great.
Shame gravity isn't providing that.
It's providing a constant downwards acceleration of 9.8 m/s2.
They seem the same to me!

They don't to me.

One is a squared velocity divided by a radius.

The other is not.

You are attempting to confuse centripetal acceleration with free fall.

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/matthew_van_eerde/2010/01/24/deriving-the-centripetal-acceleration-formula/

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html

Please stop howling mad Pseudoscience at me.

It is unpleasant and dishonest.
Meanwhile there are satellites for broadcast and navigation used by millions of people.  Agreed?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 18, 2018, 06:19:48 AM
And circular motion needs a "constant downwards acceleration" of v2/R to maintain a circular orbit.
Great.
Shame gravity isn't providing that.
It's providing a constant downwards acceleration of 9.8 m/s2.
They seem the same to me!

They don't to me.

One is a squared velocity divided by a radius.

The other is not.

You are attempting to confuse centripetal acceleration with free fall.

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/matthew_van_eerde/2010/01/24/deriving-the-centripetal-acceleration-formula/

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html

Please stop howling mad Pseudoscience at me.

It is unpleasant and dishonest.
Meanwhile there are satellites for broadcast and navigation used by millions of people.  Agreed?

Disagreed.

Here's just one method of transmitting television signals over long distances that was in use as long ago as1957:

https://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/42001

Troposcatter.

There are many more such methods that do not involves satellites.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2018, 06:34:25 AM
Meanwhile there are satellites for broadcast and navigation used by millions of people.  Agreed?
Disagreed.

Multitudes of high altitude balloons are sent aloft everyday, for one...

Two: It is well known transmission signals can be generated and directed and bounced of the upper atmoplane of the Earth.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: is_the_earth_flat on February 18, 2018, 06:35:46 AM
And circular motion needs a "constant downwards acceleration" of v2/R to maintain a circular orbit.
Great.
Shame gravity isn't providing that.
It's providing a constant downwards acceleration of 9.8 m/s2.
They seem the same to me!

They don't to me.

One is a squared velocity divided by a radius.

The other is not.

You are attempting to confuse centripetal acceleration with free fall.

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/matthew_van_eerde/2010/01/24/deriving-the-centripetal-acceleration-formula/

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html

Please stop howling mad Pseudoscience at me.

It is unpleasant and dishonest.
Meanwhile there are satellites for broadcast and navigation used by millions of people.  Agreed?

Disagreed.

Here's just one method of transmitting television signals over long distances that was in use as long ago as1957:

https://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/42001

Troposcatter.

There are many more such methods that do not involves satellites.

And where can you find those big reflector antennas? I have photo evidence of satellites that they exist. I posted my photos in one of my earlier posts.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Macarios on February 18, 2018, 07:05:07 AM
No other forces?
No other forces?

I am not denying anything, hayseed...

"A Satellite is a Projectile
The fundamental principle to be understood concerning satellites is that a satellite is a projectile. That is to say, a satellite is an object upon which the only force is gravity."
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Circular-Motion-Principles-for-Satellites (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Circular-Motion-Principles-for-Satellites)

There are no other forces acting upon a satellite.

It would, but acceleration BY inertia is counteracting it, and what we have is remaining longitudinal (forward) speed.
What other speed we have there?
Again, you label INERTIA as a force...

WTF is the matter with you?

Now you are deliberately hiding behind twisting.
Parroting same failed strategy from Papa Legba.

According to the Law of Action and Reaction, what is the reaction to gravitational force?
Have any idea?

I did not twist anything.

You clearly wrote that inertia is causing acceleration.

Then satellite will not fall to the ground after all?
And on circular orbit tangential speed will not change?
No.

Inertia cannot cause acceleration.

Inertia not a force.

What goes up, must come down.

And faster than what utter bull cookies your "imaginary forces," dictate.

You are contradicting yourself.
You are just stating that the proof you linked isn't valid.

And you add more things that require explanation:
"What goes up, must come down".

Where is "up"?
Where is "down"?
Why is "down" (or "up") where it is?
What will make things go "down"?

Gravitational force?
If that force acts upon satellites (action), what force acts as reaction?
What keeps up there all those and more satellites I already posted here?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: inquisitive on February 18, 2018, 07:12:12 AM
And circular motion needs a "constant downwards acceleration" of v2/R to maintain a circular orbit.
Great.
Shame gravity isn't providing that.
It's providing a constant downwards acceleration of 9.8 m/s2.
They seem the same to me!

They don't to me.

One is a squared velocity divided by a radius.

The other is not.

You are attempting to confuse centripetal acceleration with free fall.

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/matthew_van_eerde/2010/01/24/deriving-the-centripetal-acceleration-formula/

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html

Please stop howling mad Pseudoscience at me.

It is unpleasant and dishonest.
Meanwhile there are satellites for broadcast and navigation used by millions of people.  Agreed?

Disagreed.

Here's just one method of transmitting television signals over long distances that was in use as long ago as1957:

https://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/42001

Troposcatter.

There are many more such methods that do not involves satellites.
Where is the documentation that covers this method for those with dishes pointing to an object over the equator?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: inquisitive on February 18, 2018, 07:13:33 AM
Meanwhile there are satellites for broadcast and navigation used by millions of people.  Agreed?
Disagreed.

Multitudes of high altitude balloons are sent aloft everyday, for one...

Two: It is well known transmission signals can be generated and directed and bounced of the upper atmoplane of the Earth.
can be, but how does broadcast tv work and GPS across the earth?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Here to laugh at you on February 18, 2018, 08:52:05 AM
dutchylegbalackeylogic


Maybe we can dumb it down to something they can understand.

dutchy grabs a handful of feces from his ass, and throws it lightly, parallel to the ground. it flies a few yards before falling short of the enclosure fence.

legba throws his poop a little harder, just reaching the fence.

lackey, having the stronger arm, from constant masturbation, throws his shit much harder. It travels much further, splatting right on the face of his master, (they are all held captive by their yootoobe conspiracy video masters).

NASA, and their worldwide counterparts, have figured out how to throw complex electro-mechanical devices EXTREMELY fast... Fast enough that their trajectory matches that of the curvature of the planet, into the essentially frictionless environment of space, where it takes a very long time to hit the ground.

Now, you can watch your satellite TV, and with the number of broadcasts available, you can likely find video of the monkeyshit fights at the zoo.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 18, 2018, 09:20:23 AM
dutchylegbalackeylogic


Maybe we can dumb it down to something they can understand.

dutchy grabs a handful of feces from his ass, and throws it lightly, parallel to the ground. it flies a few yards before falling short of the enclosure fence.

legba throws his poop a little harder, just reaching the fence.

lackey, having the stronger arm, from constant masturbation, throws his shit much harder. It travels much further, splatting right on the face of his master, (they are all held captive by their yootoobe conspiracy video masters).

NASA, and their worldwide counterparts, have figured out how to throw complex electro-mechanical devices EXTREMELY fast... Fast enough that their trajectory matches that of the curvature of the planet, into the essentially frictionless environment of space, where it takes a very long time to hit the ground.

Now, you can watch your satellite TV, and with the number of broadcasts available, you can likely find video of the monkeyshit fights at the zoo.

So you are a coprophile as well as a paedophile?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71550.msg1941932#msg1941932

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophilia

How much lower can this forum get?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: rvlvr on February 18, 2018, 09:31:07 AM
You don't always need to provide a link to a word you think people do not know. I don't think it has ever been anything one with any education or one who has read a few books would not know.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: is_the_earth_flat on February 18, 2018, 09:31:54 AM
dutchylegbalackeylogic


Maybe we can dumb it down to something they can understand.

dutchy grabs a handful of feces from his ass, and throws it lightly, parallel to the ground. it flies a few yards before falling short of the enclosure fence.

legba throws his poop a little harder, just reaching the fence.

lackey, having the stronger arm, from constant masturbation, throws his shit much harder. It travels much further, splatting right on the face of his master, (they are all held captive by their yootoobe conspiracy video masters).

NASA, and their worldwide counterparts, have figured out how to throw complex electro-mechanical devices EXTREMELY fast... Fast enough that their trajectory matches that of the curvature of the planet, into the essentially frictionless environment of space, where it takes a very long time to hit the ground.

Now, you can watch your satellite TV, and with the number of broadcasts available, you can likely find video of the monkeyshit fights at the zoo.

So you are a coprophile as well as a paedophile?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71550.msg1941932#msg1941932

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophilia

How much lower can this forum get?

You are again avoiding evidence and focusing on something that isn't important. We try to explain something and you are avoiding it and focusing on something that isn't important. He was trying to explain something on your level of understanding.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Here to laugh at you on February 18, 2018, 09:32:13 AM
dutchylegbalackeylogic


Maybe we can dumb it down to something they can understand.

dutchy grabs a handful of feces from his ass, and throws it lightly, parallel to the ground. it flies a few yards before falling short of the enclosure fence.

legba throws his poop a little harder, just reaching the fence.

lackey, having the stronger arm, from constant masturbation, throws his shit much harder. It travels much further, splatting right on the face of his master, (they are all held captive by their yootoobe conspiracy video masters).

NASA, and their worldwide counterparts, have figured out how to throw complex electro-mechanical devices EXTREMELY fast... Fast enough that their trajectory matches that of the curvature of the planet, into the essentially frictionless environment of space, where it takes a very long time to hit the ground.

Now, you can watch your satellite TV, and with the number of broadcasts available, you can likely find video of the monkeyshit fights at the zoo.

So you are a coprophile as well as a paedophile?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71550.msg1941932#msg1941932

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophilia

How much lower can this forum get?


What is your extreme fascination with pedophilia? Are you seeking psychological assistance for your disorder?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 18, 2018, 09:33:13 AM
So you approve of sexual perverts on the forum then?

Noted.

dutchylegbalackeylogic


Maybe we can dumb it down to something they can understand.

dutchy grabs a handful of feces from his ass, and throws it lightly, parallel to the ground. it flies a few yards before falling short of the enclosure fence.

legba throws his poop a little harder, just reaching the fence.

lackey, having the stronger arm, from constant masturbation, throws his shit much harder. It travels much further, splatting right on the face of his master, (they are all held captive by their yootoobe conspiracy video masters).

NASA, and their worldwide counterparts, have figured out how to throw complex electro-mechanical devices EXTREMELY fast... Fast enough that their trajectory matches that of the curvature of the planet, into the essentially frictionless environment of space, where it takes a very long time to hit the ground.

Now, you can watch your satellite TV, and with the number of broadcasts available, you can likely find video of the monkeyshit fights at the zoo.

So you are a coprophile as well as a paedophile?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71550.msg1941932#msg1941932

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coprophilia

How much lower can this forum get?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Here to laugh at you on February 18, 2018, 09:47:42 AM
Reality too hard, legba no like, make legba angry...

legba throw poo
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: MicroBeta on February 18, 2018, 09:51:57 AM
Meanwhile there are satellites for broadcast and navigation used by millions of people.  Agreed?
Disagreed.

Multitudes of high altitude balloons are sent aloft everyday, for one...

Two: It is well known transmission signals can be generated and directed and bounced of the upper atmoplane of the Earth.
Satellite dishes are directional.  With the narrow band signals is my dish is off axis more than one degree I lose reception.  It's not possible for a high altitude balloon would need to be maintain it's position with the precision necessary for that kind of reception.

You are correct.  Troposcatter does bounce signals off the upper atmosphere but it's also dependent on atmospheric conditions (temperature, moisture, etc).  Those conditions greatly and again the precision necessary for small 18" dishes isn't there for consumer television.  Troposcatter dishes are a meter or more; much larger that direct broadcast satellite dishes.

Further, while troposcatter is capable of sending high bandwidth HD transmission, it can't handle transmitting several hundred such signals.  Even satellites can't do that.  In order to get my channels through DirecTV my dish receives signal from three different satellites with dozens of different transponders.

Mike
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 18, 2018, 09:52:48 AM
Reality too hard, legba no like, make legba angry...

legba throw poo

Here's you telling one of the mods you are a troll

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71550.msg1942053#msg1942053

No action was taken, ergo mods approve paedophile trolls.

Not debatable.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Here to laugh at you on February 18, 2018, 10:01:17 AM
Reality too hard, legba no like, make legba angry...

legba throw poo

Here's you telling one of the mods you are a troll

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71550.msg1942053#msg1942053

No action was taken, ergo mods approve paedophile trolls.

Not debatable.

My intentions on this forum were put forth immediately, in fact they are stated in my username...

Right now, I'm here to admire the #dutchylegbalackey logic, and I can't wait to see them throw their poo with enough energy to achieve orbit.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 18, 2018, 10:07:10 AM
Reality too hard, legba no like, make legba angry...

legba throw poo

Here's you telling one of the mods you are a troll

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71550.msg1942053#msg1942053

No action was taken, ergo mods approve paedophile trolls.

Not debatable.

My intentions on this forum were put forth immediately, in fact they are stated in my username...

Right now, I'm here to admire the #dutchylegbalackey logic, and I can't wait to see them throw their poo with enough energy to achieve orbit.

So your intentions on this forum were to troll and push paedophilia?

Cool.

If you ain't immediately perma banned then we will know that is also the intention of the mods and admins too...
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Here to laugh at you on February 18, 2018, 10:11:04 AM
That handful of poop didn't even make it past your food dish...

Keep trying.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: dutchy on February 18, 2018, 10:24:43 AM
Reality too hard, legba no like, make legba angry...

legba throw poo

Here's you telling one of the mods you are a troll

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71550.msg1942053#msg1942053

No action was taken, ergo mods approve paedophile trolls.

Not debatable.

My intentions on this forum were put forth immediately, in fact they are stated in my username...

Right now, I'm here to admire the #dutchylegbalackey logic, and I can't wait to see them throw their poo with enough energy to achieve orbit.
Some vocabulary you've got...
Talking about a poo throwing contest and fantasising about forum members touching eachother's pee pee's.
You are a sick little pervert  ain't you ? :o ;D

It is extremely telling that not a single companion calls you out for your disgusting behaviour...... says a lot about them too !
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Here to laugh at you on February 18, 2018, 10:30:50 AM
the excrement is still stuck to your hand there, dutchy
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: dutchy on February 18, 2018, 10:48:31 AM
the excrement is still stuck to your hand there, dutchy
(http://www.davidreneke.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/poop.jpg)

Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: markjo on February 18, 2018, 10:58:04 AM
This is a free body diagram of a satellite.

(http://i65.tinypic.com/20iw5fo.jpg)

The circle represents the satellite and the arrow represents the force of gravity.

Tell everyone why it will not crash into the Earth...
Why do you and Legba think that a free body diagram is appropriate to show how satellites stay in orbit when the horizontal velocity is a vital component that is omitted?

Or it the fact that the vital horizontal velocity component is not shown in free body diagrams the very reason that you are so obsessed with them?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2018, 11:03:18 AM
No other forces?
No other forces?

I am not denying anything, hayseed...

"A Satellite is a Projectile
The fundamental principle to be understood concerning satellites is that a satellite is a projectile. That is to say, a satellite is an object upon which the only force is gravity."
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Circular-Motion-Principles-for-Satellites (http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Circular-Motion-Principles-for-Satellites)

There are no other forces acting upon a satellite.

It would, but acceleration BY inertia is counteracting it, and what we have is remaining longitudinal (forward) speed.
What other speed we have there?
Again, you label INERTIA as a force...

WTF is the matter with you?

Now you are deliberately hiding behind twisting.
Parroting same failed strategy from Papa Legba.

According to the Law of Action and Reaction, what is the reaction to gravitational force?
Have any idea?

I did not twist anything.

You clearly wrote that inertia is causing acceleration.

Then satellite will not fall to the ground after all?
And on circular orbit tangential speed will not change?
No.

Inertia cannot cause acceleration.

Inertia not a force.

What goes up, must come down.

And faster than what utter bull cookies your "imaginary forces," dictate.

You are contradicting yourself.
You are just stating that the proof you linked isn't valid.
No I am not.

I quoted the source.

The source states clearly:

"A Satellite is a Projectile
The fundamental principle to be understood concerning satellites is that a satellite is a projectile. That is to say, a satellite is an object upon which the only force is gravity."
And you add more things that require explanation:
"What goes up, must come down".

Where is "up"?
Where is "down"?
Why is "down" (or "up") where it is?
What will make things go "down"?

Gravitational force?
According to you, the expurtt scientist, yes.

Gravity exerts a downward force.

Hence the free body diagram.

Which you stated was missing a force.

Please redraw the diagram to show the missing force.
If that force acts upon satellites (action), what force acts as reaction?
What keeps up there all those and more satellites I already posted here?
Draw the free body diagram.

There is no other "force," acting on a satellite.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: markjo on February 18, 2018, 11:08:47 AM
Draw the free body diagram.

There is no other "force," acting on a satellite.
So what if there are no other forces?  Are you saying that the horizontal velocity isn't a vital part of a satellite's orbit?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2018, 11:14:32 AM
This is a free body diagram of a satellite.

(http://i65.tinypic.com/20iw5fo.jpg)

The circle represents the satellite and the arrow represents the force of gravity.

Tell everyone why it will not crash into the Earth...
Why do you and Legba think that a free body diagram is appropriate to show how satellites stay in orbit when the horizontal velocity is a vital component that is omitted?
Horizontal velocity...

I want to have you clearly on record for defining this term.

Am I to understand you mean an object traveling in a circular orbit relative to the surface of the earth?

As in this diagram?:
(http://i66.tinypic.com/eq369j.jpg)

Or it the fact that the vital horizontal velocity component is not shown in free body diagrams the very reason that you are so obsessed with them?
Reserved thought process pending mutual understanding of terms.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: markjo on February 18, 2018, 11:31:33 AM
Horizontal velocity...

I want to have you clearly on record for defining this term.

Am I to understand you mean an object traveling in a circular orbit relative to the surface of the earth?

As in this diagram?:
(http://i66.tinypic.com/eq369j.jpg)
Not quite.  It would be more precise to refer to the "horizontal velocity" as a "tangential velocity", but most people seem to understand "horizontal velocity" in context of discussing orbits without making a fuss.
(http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/circles/u6l4b3.gif)
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2018, 11:34:36 AM
Meanwhile there are satellites for broadcast and navigation used by millions of people.  Agreed?
Disagreed.

Multitudes of high altitude balloons are sent aloft everyday, for one...

Two: It is well known transmission signals can be generated and directed and bounced of the upper atmoplane of the Earth.
Satellite dishes are directional.  With the narrow band signals is my dish is off axis more than one degree I lose reception.  It's not possible for a high altitude balloon would need to be maintain it's position with the precision necessary for that kind of reception.
Noted claim made without empirical backing or substance.

Summarily dismissed.
You are correct.  Troposcatter does bounce signals off the upper atmosphere but it's also dependent on atmospheric conditions (temperature, moisture, etc).
All of which can be overcome via various methods, such as original broadcast point, signal strength, etc.
Those conditions greatly and again the precision necessary for small 18" dishes isn't there for consumer television.  Troposcatter dishes are a meter or more; much larger that direct broadcast satellite dishes.
You write as if these things require the precision adjustment of a surgeon and they do not.

Further, while troposcatter is capable of sending high bandwidth HD transmission, it can't handle transmitting several hundred such signals.  Even satellites can't do that.  In order to get my channels through DirecTV my dish receives signal from three different satellites with dozens of different transponders.

Mike
Last paragraph again a claim made without without empirical backing or substance.

Summarily dismissed.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2018, 11:41:04 AM
Not quite.  It would be more precise to refer to the "horizontal velocity" as a "tangential velocity", but most people seem to understand "horizontal velocity" in context of discussing orbits without making a fuss.
(http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/circles/u6l4b3.gif)
Like this then, for any independent observer at any of the four points provided on your graphic?:
(http://i68.tinypic.com/2zem77r.jpg)
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: markjo on February 18, 2018, 11:46:45 AM
Not quite.  It would be more precise to refer to the "horizontal velocity" as a "tangential velocity", but most people seem to understand "horizontal velocity" in context of discussing orbits without making a fuss.
(http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/circles/u6l4b3.gif)
Like this then, for any independent observer at any of the four points provided on your graphic?:
(http://i68.tinypic.com/2zem77r.jpg)
Why would an observer on the ground be relevant?  I would think that the center of the earth would be a more appropriate point of reference.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: inquisitive on February 18, 2018, 11:54:00 AM
Meanwhile there are satellites for broadcast and navigation used by millions of people.  Agreed?
Disagreed.

Multitudes of high altitude balloons are sent aloft everyday, for one...

Two: It is well known transmission signals can be generated and directed and bounced of the upper atmoplane of the Earth.
Satellite dishes are directional.  With the narrow band signals is my dish is off axis more than one degree I lose reception.  It's not possible for a high altitude balloon would need to be maintain it's position with the precision necessary for that kind of reception.
Noted claim made without empirical backing or substance.

Summarily dismissed.
You are correct.  Troposcatter does bounce signals off the upper atmosphere but it's also dependent on atmospheric conditions (temperature, moisture, etc).
All of which can be overcome via various methods, such as original broadcast point, signal strength, etc.
Those conditions greatly and again the precision necessary for small 18" dishes isn't there for consumer television.  Troposcatter dishes are a meter or more; much larger that direct broadcast satellite dishes.
You write as if these things require the precision adjustment of a surgeon and they do not.

Further, while troposcatter is capable of sending high bandwidth HD transmission, it can't handle transmitting several hundred such signals.  Even satellites can't do that.  In order to get my channels through DirecTV my dish receives signal from three different satellites with dozens of different transponders.

Mike
Last paragraph again a claim made without without empirical backing or substance.

Summarily dismissed.
Please provide links to transmitter locations etc.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2018, 12:07:36 PM
Not quite.  It would be more precise to refer to the "horizontal velocity" as a "tangential velocity", but most people seem to understand "horizontal velocity" in context of discussing orbits without making a fuss.
(http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/circles/u6l4b3.gif)
Like this then, for any independent observer at any of the four points provided on your graphic?:
(http://i68.tinypic.com/2zem77r.jpg)
Why would an observer on the ground be relevant?  I would think that the center of the earth would be a more appropriate point of reference.
Okay, tangential velocity then.

At what single point does the "straight line path," of the satellite touch the curve of the earth?

Tangential = straight line that touches a curve at a single point.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: NAZA on February 18, 2018, 12:08:40 PM

All of which can be overcome via various methods, such as original broadcast point, signal strength, etc.


Noted claim made without empirical backing or substance.
Summarily dismissed

Quote

You write as if these things require the precision adjustment of a surgeon and they do not.


Noted claim made without empirical backing or substance.
Summarily dismissed


Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2018, 12:13:35 PM

All of which can be overcome via various methods, such as original broadcast point, signal strength, etc.


Noted claim made without empirical backing or substance.
Summarily dismissed
Too stupid to realize an axiom when it is written.
You write as if these things require the precision adjustment of a surgeon and they do not.

Noted claim made without empirical backing or substance.
Summarily dismissed

Too stupid to realize an axiom when it is written.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Macarios on February 18, 2018, 12:46:55 PM
No I am not.

I quoted the source.

Yes, you are.
The source you quoted is about orbital path of a satellite.

Then I asked:
"Then satellite will not fall to the ground after all?
And on circular orbit tangential speed will not change?"

And you answer was negative.

You are claiming that satellite WILL fall to the ground, which is denying orbital path,
and you are still trying to use principles of that very denied orbital path as some "proof".

There is no other "force," acting on a satellite.

I'm not here to repeat any dogma.
Same as I don't accept pure belief in Flat earth (I need knowledge), I also
don't accept pure belief in mainstream science (I need knowledge as well).
There is NOTHING that I follow BLINDLY.
It especially goes for popularization articles.
I could use them as an illustration, but for that I have to agree with them.

The question I will ask you is simple enough.
We can skip other people and their examples.

According to Law of Action and Reaction ("Every force has ..." etc.),
and if gravitational force is action,
what is reaction?

(Hint: what force would tear apart helicopter propeller, or steam machine flywheel, or rotor of electric motor, if there's material flaw, or if it spins too fast?)
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: MicroBeta on February 18, 2018, 12:53:25 PM
Meanwhile there are satellites for broadcast and navigation used by millions of people.  Agreed?
Disagreed.

Multitudes of high altitude balloons are sent aloft everyday, for one...

Two: It is well known transmission signals can be generated and directed and bounced of the upper atmoplane of the Earth.
Satellite dishes are directional.  With the narrow band signals is my dish is off axis more than one degree I lose reception.  It's not possible for a high altitude balloon would need to be maintain it's position with the precision necessary for that kind of reception.
Noted claim made without empirical backing or substance.

Summarily dismissed.
You made claims with empirical backing or substance and yet I didn’t “summarily dismiss” you.  Interesting that you require this of others without providing the same in return.

You certainly can’t “summarily dismiss” that a dish antenna is a line of sight device.  A dish antenna reflects incoming signals to a feed horn.  Since the angle of incidence is equal to the angle of reflection, the dish has to pointed in the correct direction to receive the signal.  The smaller DBS dishes must be aimed within ±1° to get and keep good signal.  This means that the source of the signal must also keep its position by about the same tolerance to ensure the signal is getting to the dish.  I have experience with this as I’ve installed my own dish.

Here are a few links to describe how a dish antenna works; including the procedure for alinging a DIRECTV Slimline dish.

https://itstillworks.com/satellite-dish-work-4579899.html
https://electronics.howstuffworks.com/satellite-tv6.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_dish
https://manuals.solidsignal.com/slimline_dish_installation_manual.pdf

You are correct.  Troposcatter does bounce signals off the upper atmosphere but it's also dependent on atmospheric conditions (temperature, moisture, etc).
All of which can be overcome via various methods, such as original broadcast point, signal strength, etc.
Those conditions greatly and again the precision necessary for small 18" dishes isn't there for consumer television.  Troposcatter dishes are a meter or more; much larger that direct broadcast satellite dishes.
You write as if these things require the precision adjustment of a surgeon and they do not.
As you can see by the links I provided above dish alignment for DBS is critical.  There are dozens of youtube videos on the subject.


Further, while troposcatter is capable of sending high bandwidth HD transmission, it can't handle transmitting several hundred such signals.  Even satellites can't do that.  In order to get my channels through DirecTV my dish receives signal from three different satellites with dozens of different transponders.

Mike
Last paragraph again a claim made without without empirical backing or substance.

Summarily dismissed.
Again, you made a claim without any “empirical backing or substance”.  Double standard much?

The following links so the capabilities of some current commercial and military troposcatter.  These systems are very capable and high bandwidth.  However, as the links show, they have limitation on data rates that would not be able to provide hundreds of HD channels.

https://gdmissionsystems.com/-/media/General-Dynamics/Satcom/PDF/Antennas/Legacy-Products/6550066A24mHWTtropo.ashx?la=en&hash=EE2BD7AD5121EA7FC24132FC908AE1045A2BDB3A
http://www.satcomsource.com/GD-Satcom-2.4m-SM-LT-Mobile-Troposcatter-Antenna.pdf
https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/rtnwcm/groups/gallery/documents/digitalasset/rtn_229205.pdf

Further, troposcatter requires high power transmitters with high gain receivers. 

https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/antennas-propagation/tropospheric/troposcatter.php
http://www.qsl.net/oz1rh/troposcatter99/troposcatter99.htm

With dish antennas being direction, over twenty million households in the US with DIRECTV, and each area with dishes aimed at different directions you would have to believe there would need to be many of these systems in place.  Not to mention the dishes throughout the world that are aimed over oceans and gulfs where the nearest land is potentially thousands of kilometers away requiring the troposcatter systems to be waterborne.  That doesn't sound very practical.

Mike
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Macarios on February 18, 2018, 01:07:30 PM
Himawari satellites look real to me.

Quote
Satellite imagery from the Himawari series of geostationary meteorological satellites is provided every 10 minutes.

http://www.jma.go.jp/en/gms/index.html?area=6&element=1&mode=UTC (http://www.jma.go.jp/en/gms/index.html?area=6&element=1&mode=UTC)
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: NAZA on February 18, 2018, 01:27:00 PM
Reality too hard, legba no like, make legba angry...

legba throw poo

Here's you telling one of the mods you are a troll

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71550.msg1942053#msg1942053

No action was taken, ergo mods approve paedophile trolls.

Not debatable.

My intentions on this forum were put forth immediately, in fact they are stated in my username...

Right now, I'm here to admire the #dutchylegbalackey logic, and I can't wait to see them throw their poo with enough energy to achieve orbit.
Some vocabulary you've got...
Talking about a poo throwing contest and fantasising about forum members touching eachother's pee pee's.
You are a sick little pervert  ain't you ? :o ;D

It is extremely telling that not a single companion calls you out for your disgusting behaviour...... says a lot about them too !

Allow me.

Here to laugh at you,

Your pee pee and poo flinging analogies  are fricking hilarious and spot on.
Papa Dutchy's objection can be summed up in two words, truth hurts.
Keep up the good work.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 18, 2018, 01:37:40 PM
Reality too hard, legba no like, make legba angry...

legba throw poo

Here's you telling one of the mods you are a troll

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71550.msg1942053#msg1942053

No action was taken, ergo mods approve paedophile trolls.

Not debatable.

My intentions on this forum were put forth immediately, in fact they are stated in my username...

Right now, I'm here to admire the #dutchylegbalackey logic, and I can't wait to see them throw their poo with enough energy to achieve orbit.
Some vocabulary you've got...
Talking about a poo throwing contest and fantasising about forum members touching eachother's pee pee's.
You are a sick little pervert  ain't you ? :o ;D

It is extremely telling that not a single companion calls you out for your disgusting behaviour...... says a lot about them too !

Funny how you and I are the only people to comment on this, eh?

Notice the mods shut my thread on it down, too, and refuse to ban the paedophile.

And of course the whole concept of satellites was invented by a paedophile:

https://m.rediff.com/news/1998/feb/02clarke.htm

Told you this forum was a foul place, run by deviants, didn't I?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2018, 01:42:53 PM
I'm not here to repeat any dogma.
Same as I don't accept pure belief in Flat earth (I need knowledge), I also
don't accept pure belief in mainstream science (I need knowledge as well).
There is NOTHING that I follow BLINDLY.
This would be a lot more believable if you had not posted this...
...How 449 geostationary satellites still operate from up there?
Here are some of them:

Name     Common name                Orbit inc 

04016A  DIRECTV 7S                -119.1  0.0
10010A  ECHOSTAR 14               -118.9  0.0
02006A  ECHOSTAR 7                -118.8  0.0
07009A  ANIK F3                   -118.7  0.0
16038B  EUTELSAT 117 WEST B       -117.0  0.0
13012A  EUTELSAT 117 WEST A       -116.8  0.0
13058A  SIRIUS FM-6               -116.1  0.0
06049A  XM-4 (BLUES)              -115.2  0.0
11059A  VIASAT-1                  -115.1  0.0
15010B  EUTELSAT 115 WEST B       -114.9  0.0
12075B  MEXSAT 3                  -114.8  0.0
15056A  MORELOS 3                 -113.1  6.2
06020A  EUTELSAT 113 WEST A       -113.0  0.0
06054A  WILDBLUE-1                -111.2  0.0
04027A  ANIK F2                   -111.1  0.0
09035A  TERRESTAR-1               -111.0  2.7
06003A  ECHOSTAR 10               -110.2  0.0
02023A  DIRECTV 5 (TEMPO 1)       -110.1  0.0
08035A  ECHOSTAR 11               -110.0  0.0
99059A  TELSTAR 12 (ORION 2)      -109.2  1.4
96022A  MSAT M1                   -107.5  8.1
13014A  ANIK G1                   -107.3  0.0
05036A  ANIK F1R                  -107.3  0.0
00076A  ANIK F1                   -107.3  0.0
12035A  ECHOSTAR 17               -107.1  0.0
04041A  AMC-15                    -105.1  0.0
17063A  SES-11 (ECHOSTAR 105)     -105.0  0.1
06054B  AMC-18                    -104.9  0.0
09033A  GOES 14                   -104.3  0.1
95019A  AMSC 1                    -103.3 10.3
11035A  SES-3                     -103.0  0.1
05015A  SPACEWAY 1                -102.9  0.0
07032A  DIRECTV 10                -102.8  0.0
09075A  DIRECTV 12                -102.8  0.0
15026A  DIRECTV 15                -102.8  0.0
10005A  SDO                       -101.9 29.0
10061A  SKYTERRA 1                -101.3  3.0
01052A  DIRECTV 4S                -101.2  0.0
06043A  DIRECTV 9S                -101.1  0.0
10016A  SES-1                     -101.0  0.0
05019A  DIRECTV 8                 -100.9  0.0
14078B  DIRECTV 14                 -99.2  0.0
08013A  DIRECTV 11                 -99.2  0.0
05046B  SPACEWAY 2                 -99.1  0.0
06023A  GALAXY 16 (G-16)           -99.0  0.0
08039A  INMARSAT 4-F3              -98.0  3.0
16079A  ECHOSTAR 19                -97.1  0.0
08045A  GALAXY 19 (G-19)           -97.0  0.0
00038A  ECHOSTAR 6                 -96.2  4.6
14062A  INTELSAT 30 (IS-30)        -95.0  0.0
16035A  INTELSAT 31 (IS-31)        -95.0  0.0
02030A  GALAXY 3C (G-3C)           -95.0  0.0
07036A  SPACEWAY 3                 -94.9  0.0
97026A  GALAXY 25 (G-25)           -93.1  0.0
08016A  ICO G1                     -92.8  3.8
00046A  BRASILSAT B4               -92.0  2.1
12026A  NIMIQ 6                    -91.1  0.0
07016B  GALAXY 17 (G-17)           -91.0  0.0
05022A  GALAXY 28 (G-28)           -89.0  0.0
13075A  TKSAT-1 (TUPAC KATARI)     -87.2  0.0
11049A  SES-2                      -87.0  0.0
99027A  NIMIQ 1                    -86.5  0.0
03033A  ECHOSTAR 12 (RAINBOW 1)    -86.4  0.0
09034A  SIRIUS FM-5                -86.1  0.0
10053A  XM-5                       -85.2  0.0
05008A  XM-3 (RHYTHM)              -85.1  0.0
04048A  AMC-16                     -85.0  0.0
97002A  AMC-2 (GE-2)               -84.9  4.7
16082B  STAR ONE D1                -84.0  0.0
00067A  AMC-6 (GE-6)               -83.0  0.0
08044A  NIMIQ 4                    -81.9  0.0
15054B  ARSAT 2                    -81.0  0.0
15026B  SKY MEXICO-1               -78.8  0.0
08055A  VENESAT-1                  -77.9  0.0
11054A  QUETZSAT 1                 -77.0  0.0
10006A  INTELSAT 16 (IS-16)        -76.2  0.0
16071A  GOES 16                    -75.2  0.0
12062A  STAR ONE C3                -75.0  0.0
17023B  SGDC                       -74.8  0.0
06018A  GOES 13                    -74.6  0.3
14011A  AMAZONAS 4A                -74.0  0.1
94070A  ASTRA 1D                   -73.0  7.9
09050A  NIMIQ 5                    -72.7  0.0
97050A  AMC-3 (GE-3)               -72.0  0.8
14062B  ARSAT 1                    -71.8  0.0
15034B  STAR ONE C4                -70.0  0.0
08018B  STAR ONE C2                -70.0  0.0
95016A  BRASILSAT B2               -68.0  7.5
17017A  SES-10                     -66.9  0.0
16014A  EUTELSAT 65 WEST A         -65.2  0.0
07056A  STAR ONE C1                -65.0  0.0
98006A  BRASILSAT B3               -63.2  4.4
11021A  TELSTAR 14R                -63.0  0.0
88091B  TDRS 3                     -62.5 14.4
10034A  ECHOSTAR 15                -61.7  0.0
12065A  ECHOSTAR 16                -61.5  0.0
16039B  ECHOSTAR 18                -61.3  0.0
09054A  AMAZONAS 2                 -61.0  0.0
17053A  AMAZONAS 5                 -61.0  0.0
13006A  AMAZONAS 3                 -61.0  0.0
12045A  INTELSAT 21 (IS-21)        -58.0  0.0
15039A  INTELSAT 34 (IS-34)        -55.5  0.0
15005A  INMARSAT 5-F2              -55.0  0.0
98006B  INMARSAT 3-F5              -54.0  3.0
12057A  INTELSAT 23 (IS-23)        -53.0  0.0
16004A  INTELSAT 29E (IS-29E)      -50.0  0.0

(from: http://www.satsig.net/sslist.htm (http://www.satsig.net/sslist.htm))
That is just a list of "satellites," for which you have ZERO individual first hand knowledge as to whether or not they exist.
The question I will ask you is simple enough.
We can skip other people and their examples.

According to Law of Action and Reaction ("Every force has ..." etc.),
and if gravitational force is action,
what is reaction?

(Hint: what force would tear apart helicopter propeller, or steam machine flywheel, or rotor of electric motor, if there's material flaw, or if it spins too fast?)
According to you, it is acceleration caused by inertia:
...acceleration BY inertia is counteracting it...
...yet in your hint you describe the process of excess torque resulting in the shear or disintegration of material...

You are all over the place man...

Try to get a grip.

For the last time. INERTIA IS NOT A FORCE! INERTIA CANNOT CAUSE ACCELERATION!
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: markjo on February 18, 2018, 03:35:44 PM
Okay, tangential velocity then.

At what single point does the "straight line path," of the satellite touch the curve of the earth?

Tangential = straight line that touches a curve at a single point.
Ideally, never.  The curve that the horizontal velocity is tangential to is generally several hundred km or higher above the surface of the earth.  This is one reason why the center of the earth is generally the preferred point of reference for calculating orbital dynamics.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2018, 03:39:00 PM
Meanwhile there are satellites for broadcast and navigation used by millions of people.  Agreed?
Disagreed.

Multitudes of high altitude balloons are sent aloft everyday, for one...

Two: It is well known transmission signals can be generated and directed and bounced of the upper atmoplane of the Earth.
Satellite dishes are directional.  With the narrow band signals is my dish is off axis more than one degree I lose reception.  It's not possible for a high altitude balloon would need to be maintain it's position with the precision necessary for that kind of reception.
Noted claim made without empirical backing or substance.

Summarily dismissed.
You made claims with empirical backing or substance and yet I didn’t “summarily dismiss” you.  Interesting that you require this of others without providing the same in return.
I posted readily accessible facts.

You did not.

You stated a balloon could not maintain a stable position while aloft.

Not only is that a claim made without supporting evidence, it is just plain false.
You certainly can’t “summarily dismiss” that a dish antenna is a line of sight device.

I do not disagree entirely with this portion of your post.
Again, you made a claim without any “empirical backing or substance”.  Double standard much?

The following links so the capabilities of some current commercial and military troposcatter.  These systems are very capable and high bandwidth.  However, as the links show, they have limitation on data rates that would not be able to provide hundreds of HD channels.

https://gdmissionsystems.com/-/media/General-Dynamics/Satcom/PDF/Antennas/Legacy-Products/6550066A24mHWTtropo.ashx?la=en&hash=EE2BD7AD5121EA7FC24132FC908AE1045A2BDB3A
http://www.satcomsource.com/GD-Satcom-2.4m-SM-LT-Mobile-Troposcatter-Antenna.pdf
https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/rtnwcm/groups/gallery/documents/digitalasset/rtn_229205.pdf

Further, troposcatter requires high power transmitters with high gain receivers. 

https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/antennas-propagation/tropospheric/troposcatter.php
http://www.qsl.net/oz1rh/troposcatter99/troposcatter99.htm

With dish antennas being direction, over twenty million households in the US with DIRECTV, and each area with dishes aimed at different directions you would have to believe there would need to be many of these systems in place.  Not to mention the dishes throughout the world that are aimed over oceans and gulfs where the nearest land is potentially thousands of kilometers away requiring the troposcatter systems to be waterborne.  That doesn't sound very practical.

Mike
You posted this:
Further, while troposcatter is capable of sending high bandwidth HD transmission, it can't handle transmitting several hundred such signals.  Even satellites can't do that.  In order to get my channels through DirecTV my dish receives signal from three different satellites with dozens of different transponders.
It has been demonstrably proven you do not even need a satellite transmitter or receiver to receive DirecTV.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 18, 2018, 03:40:43 PM
Are you saying that the horizontal velocity isn't a vital part of a satellite's orbit?

Yeah inertia's not a force, done this already markbot...

Your cognitive distortion is VERY familiar:

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=w2NFpGQciSQC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=paedophiles+denial&source=bl&ots=tDnlgX8Xpg&sig=0dQlch5ry8wfOPj-oUWVAi5PNZc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjF_ZuU0bDZAhXKJsAKHU84B8AQ6AEwAHoECBEQAQ#v=onepage&q=paedophiles%20denial&f=false
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2018, 03:43:59 PM
Okay, tangential velocity then.

At what single point does the "straight line path," of the satellite touch the curve of the earth?

Tangential = straight line that touches a curve at a single point.
Ideally, never.  The curve that the horizontal velocity is tangential to is generally several hundred km or higher above the surface of the earth.  This is one reason why the center of the earth is generally the preferred point of reference for calculating orbital dynamics.
Okay.

Regardless, all independent observers will witness this "horizontal," or "tangential," velocity of the object at a point parallel to their point of view from the Earth, correct?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 18, 2018, 03:48:33 PM
Okay, tangential velocity then.

At what single point does the "straight line path," of the satellite touch the curve of the earth?

Tangential = straight line that touches a curve at a single point.
Ideally, never.  The curve that the horizontal velocity is tangential to is generally several hundred km or higher above the surface of the earth.  This is one reason why the center of the earth is generally the preferred point of reference for calculating orbital dynamics.

Calling markbot!

Inertia still not a force!
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: rabinoz on February 18, 2018, 04:09:17 PM
Inertia still not a force!
Just curious! When did markjo ever call inertia a force? I think you've lost the plot, Poor Old Papa.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: markjo on February 18, 2018, 04:15:43 PM
Are you saying that the horizontal velocity isn't a vital part of a satellite's orbit?

Yeah inertia's not a force, done this already markbot...
Straw man fallacy noted.
(http://www.credocourses.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/straw-man-informal-logical-fallacy-full.jpg)
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: MicroBeta on February 18, 2018, 04:15:57 PM
Meanwhile there are satellites for broadcast and navigation used by millions of people.  Agreed?
Disagreed.

Multitudes of high altitude balloons are sent aloft everyday, for one...

Two: It is well known transmission signals can be generated and directed and bounced of the upper atmoplane of the Earth.
Satellite dishes are directional.  With the narrow band signals is my dish is off axis more than one degree I lose reception.  It's not possible for a high altitude balloon would need to be maintain it's position with the precision necessary for that kind of reception.
Noted claim made without empirical backing or substance.

Summarily dismissed.
You made claims with empirical backing or substance and yet I didn’t “summarily dismiss” you.  Interesting that you require this of others without providing the same in return.
I posted readily accessible facts.

You did not.

You stated a balloon could not maintain a stable position while aloft.

Not only is that a claim made without supporting evidence, it is just plain false.
By readily accessible you mean I would have to look them up?  Why would that apply to me and not you?  I also posted readily accessible facts.

Unless you know of a balloon with some high-tech positioning system that the rest of don’t know about, I’m saying it’s impossible for a balloon to be station keeping.  I’ve read of proposed military LTA craft for high altitude surveillance but even that would only be able to maintain a station keeping radius of 2km at best.  IIRC, that would only apply for 50% of the time.  The proposed 95% station keeping is 150km.  I don’t know of any systems that have been implemented yet but those station keeping parameters aren’t good enough.

Where is the readily accessible facts to support your “it is just plain false” claim? 

You certainly can’t “summarily dismiss” that a dish antenna is a line of sight device.

I do not disagree entirely with this portion of your post.
Again, you made a claim without any “empirical backing or substance”.  Double standard much?

The following links so the capabilities of some current commercial and military troposcatter.  These systems are very capable and high bandwidth.  However, as the links show, they have limitation on data rates that would not be able to provide hundreds of HD channels.

https://gdmissionsystems.com/-/media/General-Dynamics/Satcom/PDF/Antennas/Legacy-Products/6550066A24mHWTtropo.ashx?la=en&hash=EE2BD7AD5121EA7FC24132FC908AE1045A2BDB3A
http://www.satcomsource.com/GD-Satcom-2.4m-SM-LT-Mobile-Troposcatter-Antenna.pdf
https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/rtnwcm/groups/gallery/documents/digitalasset/rtn_229205.pdf

Further, troposcatter requires high power transmitters with high gain receivers. 

https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/antennas-propagation/tropospheric/troposcatter.php
http://www.qsl.net/oz1rh/troposcatter99/troposcatter99.htm

With dish antennas being direction, over twenty million households in the US with DIRECTV, and each area with dishes aimed at different directions you would have to believe there would need to be many of these systems in place.  Not to mention the dishes throughout the world that are aimed over oceans and gulfs where the nearest land is potentially thousands of kilometers away requiring the troposcatter systems to be waterborne.  That doesn't sound very practical.

Mike
You posted this:
Further, while troposcatter is capable of sending high bandwidth HD transmission, it can't handle transmitting several hundred such signals.  Even satellites can't do that.  In order to get my channels through DirecTV my dish receives signal from three different satellites with dozens of different transponders.
It has been demonstrably proven you do not even need a satellite transmitter or receiver to receive DirecTV.
Just because you claim it’s “demonstrably proven” doesn’t mean it’s so.  The fact is it has not been “demonstrably proven”.  It’s another claim by you without readily accessible facts. 

Mike
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2018, 04:24:26 PM
Meanwhile there are satellites for broadcast and navigation used by millions of people.  Agreed?
Disagreed.

Multitudes of high altitude balloons are sent aloft everyday, for one...

Two: It is well known transmission signals can be generated and directed and bounced of the upper atmoplane of the Earth.
Satellite dishes are directional.  With the narrow band signals is my dish is off axis more than one degree I lose reception.  It's not possible for a high altitude balloon would need to be maintain it's position with the precision necessary for that kind of reception.
Noted claim made without empirical backing or substance.

Summarily dismissed.
You made claims with empirical backing or substance and yet I didn’t “summarily dismiss” you.  Interesting that you require this of others without providing the same in return.
I posted readily accessible facts.

You did not.

You stated a balloon could not maintain a stable position while aloft.

Not only is that a claim made without supporting evidence, it is just plain false.
By readily accessible you mean I would have to look them up?  Why would that apply to me and not you?  I also posted readily accessible facts.

Unless you know of a balloon with some high-tech positioning system that the rest of don’t know about, I’m saying it’s impossible for a balloon to be station keeping.  I’ve read of proposed military LTA craft for high altitude surveillance but even that would only be able to maintain a station keeping radius of 2km at best.  IIRC, that would only apply for 50% of the time.  The proposed 95% station keeping is 150km.  I don’t know of any systems that have been implemented yet but those station keeping parameters aren’t good enough.

Where is the readily accessible facts to support your “it is just plain false” claim?
Would you like for me to show you the multitude of videos originating from high altitude balloons with relatively stationary/stable video or will you just readily acknowledge they exist?
You certainly can’t “summarily dismiss” that a dish antenna is a line of sight device.

I do not disagree entirely with this portion of your post.
Again, you made a claim without any “empirical backing or substance”.  Double standard much?

The following links so the capabilities of some current commercial and military troposcatter.  These systems are very capable and high bandwidth.  However, as the links show, they have limitation on data rates that would not be able to provide hundreds of HD channels.

https://gdmissionsystems.com/-/media/General-Dynamics/Satcom/PDF/Antennas/Legacy-Products/6550066A24mHWTtropo.ashx?la=en&hash=EE2BD7AD5121EA7FC24132FC908AE1045A2BDB3A
http://www.satcomsource.com/GD-Satcom-2.4m-SM-LT-Mobile-Troposcatter-Antenna.pdf
https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/rtnwcm/groups/gallery/documents/digitalasset/rtn_229205.pdf

Further, troposcatter requires high power transmitters with high gain receivers. 

https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/antennas-propagation/tropospheric/troposcatter.php
http://www.qsl.net/oz1rh/troposcatter99/troposcatter99.htm

With dish antennas being direction, over twenty million households in the US with DIRECTV, and each area with dishes aimed at different directions you would have to believe there would need to be many of these systems in place.  Not to mention the dishes throughout the world that are aimed over oceans and gulfs where the nearest land is potentially thousands of kilometers away requiring the troposcatter systems to be waterborne.  That doesn't sound very practical.

Mike
You posted this:
Further, while troposcatter is capable of sending high bandwidth HD transmission, it can't handle transmitting several hundred such signals.  Even satellites can't do that.  In order to get my channels through DirecTV my dish receives signal from three different satellites with dozens of different transponders.
It has been demonstrably proven you do not even need a satellite transmitter or receiver to receive DirecTV.
Just because you claim it’s “demonstrably proven” doesn’t mean it’s so.  The fact is it has not been “demonstrably proven”.  It’s another claim by you without readily accessible facts. 

Mike
Horse hockey.

You better sharpen up on your internet search skills Mike.

DirecTV is readily available without the need for a satellite transmitter or receiver.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: markjo on February 18, 2018, 04:31:15 PM
Okay, tangential velocity then.

At what single point does the "straight line path," of the satellite touch the curve of the earth?

Tangential = straight line that touches a curve at a single point.
Ideally, never.  The curve that the horizontal velocity is tangential to is generally several hundred km or higher above the surface of the earth.  This is one reason why the center of the earth is generally the preferred point of reference for calculating orbital dynamics.
Okay.

Regardless, all independent observers will witness this "horizontal," or "tangential," velocity of the object at a point parallel to their point of view from the Earth, correct?
No, because gravity is pulling what would otherwise be a straight path into a circular path (A.K.A. orbit).  The ground observer would see the the object travel in a large arc.

BTW, since the earth is round, the concept of "parallel" doesn't really apply, unless you're referring to a concentric circle with the same center point as the earth.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: markjo on February 18, 2018, 04:35:56 PM
You better sharpen up on your internet search skills Mike.

DirecTV is readily available without the need for a satellite transmitter or receiver.
You had better brush up on your internet history totallackey.   

Satellite TV was available long before broadband internet became available.

Some of us are old enough to remember when satellite TV was only available via 3 meter dishes.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: MicroBeta on February 18, 2018, 04:53:16 PM
Meanwhile there are satellites for broadcast and navigation used by millions of people.  Agreed?
Disagreed.

Multitudes of high altitude balloons are sent aloft everyday, for one...

Two: It is well known transmission signals can be generated and directed and bounced of the upper atmoplane of the Earth.
Satellite dishes are directional.  With the narrow band signals is my dish is off axis more than one degree I lose reception.  It's not possible for a high altitude balloon would need to be maintain it's position with the precision necessary for that kind of reception.
Noted claim made without empirical backing or substance.

Summarily dismissed.
You made claims with empirical backing or substance and yet I didn’t “summarily dismiss” you.  Interesting that you require this of others without providing the same in return.
I posted readily accessible facts.

You did not.

You stated a balloon could not maintain a stable position while aloft.

Not only is that a claim made without supporting evidence, it is just plain false.
By readily accessible you mean I would have to look them up?  Why would that apply to me and not you?  I also posted readily accessible facts.

Unless you know of a balloon with some high-tech positioning system that the rest of don’t know about, I’m saying it’s impossible for a balloon to be station keeping.  I’ve read of proposed military LTA craft for high altitude surveillance but even that would only be able to maintain a station keeping radius of 2km at best.  IIRC, that would only apply for 50% of the time.  The proposed 95% station keeping is 150km.  I don’t know of any systems that have been implemented yet but those station keeping parameters aren’t good enough.

Where is the readily accessible facts to support your “it is just plain false” claim?
Would you like for me to show you the multitude of videos originating from high altitude balloons with relatively stationary/stable video or will you just readily acknowledge they exist?
You certainly can’t “summarily dismiss” that a dish antenna is a line of sight device.

I do not disagree entirely with this portion of your post.
Again, you made a claim without any “empirical backing or substance”.  Double standard much?

The following links so the capabilities of some current commercial and military troposcatter.  These systems are very capable and high bandwidth.  However, as the links show, they have limitation on data rates that would not be able to provide hundreds of HD channels.

https://gdmissionsystems.com/-/media/General-Dynamics/Satcom/PDF/Antennas/Legacy-Products/6550066A24mHWTtropo.ashx?la=en&hash=EE2BD7AD5121EA7FC24132FC908AE1045A2BDB3A
http://www.satcomsource.com/GD-Satcom-2.4m-SM-LT-Mobile-Troposcatter-Antenna.pdf
https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/rtnwcm/groups/gallery/documents/digitalasset/rtn_229205.pdf

Further, troposcatter requires high power transmitters with high gain receivers. 

https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/antennas-propagation/tropospheric/troposcatter.php
http://www.qsl.net/oz1rh/troposcatter99/troposcatter99.htm

With dish antennas being direction, over twenty million households in the US with DIRECTV, and each area with dishes aimed at different directions you would have to believe there would need to be many of these systems in place.  Not to mention the dishes throughout the world that are aimed over oceans and gulfs where the nearest land is potentially thousands of kilometers away requiring the troposcatter systems to be waterborne.  That doesn't sound very practical.

Mike
You posted this:
Further, while troposcatter is capable of sending high bandwidth HD transmission, it can't handle transmitting several hundred such signals.  Even satellites can't do that.  In order to get my channels through DirecTV my dish receives signal from three different satellites with dozens of different transponders.
It has been demonstrably proven you do not even need a satellite transmitter or receiver to receive DirecTV.
Just because you claim it’s “demonstrably proven” doesn’t mean it’s so.  The fact is it has not been “demonstrably proven”.  It’s another claim by you without readily accessible facts. 

Mike
Horse hockey.

You better sharpen up on your internet search skills Mike.

DirecTV is readily available without the need for a satellite transmitter or receiver.
My search skills are very good.  Yet another example of you not providing readily accessible facts, empirical backing, or substance. 

There isn’t a single terrestrial or high-altitude system that can supply DirecTV to all of North America.  Don’t pretend such a system exists let alone been demonstrated that it works.  Don’t pretend otherwise.

Also, the high-altitude balloons that have been demonstrated to date aren’t for supplying DBS and again, don’t pretend they can transmit to DirecTV dishes nationwide.

Please provide any system anywhere that has been shown to supply DirecTV nationwide.  Please explain why nobody has ever seen such a system aloft.

Mike
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2018, 04:54:51 PM
You better sharpen up on your internet search skills Mike.

DirecTV is readily available without the need for a satellite transmitter or receiver.
You had better brush up on your internet history totallackey.   

Satellite TV was available long before broadband internet became available.

Some of us are old enough to remember when satellite TV was only available via 3 meter dishes.
Look, I was around before there were any dish antennas available for home use.

That does not change the fact DirecTV is available WITHOUT the use of a satellite transmitter or receiver.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2018, 05:01:13 PM
Meanwhile there are satellites for broadcast and navigation used by millions of people.  Agreed?
Disagreed.

Multitudes of high altitude balloons are sent aloft everyday, for one...

Two: It is well known transmission signals can be generated and directed and bounced of the upper atmoplane of the Earth.
Satellite dishes are directional.  With the narrow band signals is my dish is off axis more than one degree I lose reception.  It's not possible for a high altitude balloon would need to be maintain it's position with the precision necessary for that kind of reception.
Noted claim made without empirical backing or substance.

Summarily dismissed.
You made claims with empirical backing or substance and yet I didn’t “summarily dismiss” you.  Interesting that you require this of others without providing the same in return.
I posted readily accessible facts.

You did not.

You stated a balloon could not maintain a stable position while aloft.

Not only is that a claim made without supporting evidence, it is just plain false.
By readily accessible you mean I would have to look them up?  Why would that apply to me and not you?  I also posted readily accessible facts.

Unless you know of a balloon with some high-tech positioning system that the rest of don’t know about, I’m saying it’s impossible for a balloon to be station keeping.  I’ve read of proposed military LTA craft for high altitude surveillance but even that would only be able to maintain a station keeping radius of 2km at best.  IIRC, that would only apply for 50% of the time.  The proposed 95% station keeping is 150km.  I don’t know of any systems that have been implemented yet but those station keeping parameters aren’t good enough.

Where is the readily accessible facts to support your “it is just plain false” claim?
Would you like for me to show you the multitude of videos originating from high altitude balloons with relatively stationary/stable video or will you just readily acknowledge they exist?
You certainly can’t “summarily dismiss” that a dish antenna is a line of sight device.

I do not disagree entirely with this portion of your post.
Again, you made a claim without any “empirical backing or substance”.  Double standard much?

The following links so the capabilities of some current commercial and military troposcatter.  These systems are very capable and high bandwidth.  However, as the links show, they have limitation on data rates that would not be able to provide hundreds of HD channels.

https://gdmissionsystems.com/-/media/General-Dynamics/Satcom/PDF/Antennas/Legacy-Products/6550066A24mHWTtropo.ashx?la=en&hash=EE2BD7AD5121EA7FC24132FC908AE1045A2BDB3A
http://www.satcomsource.com/GD-Satcom-2.4m-SM-LT-Mobile-Troposcatter-Antenna.pdf
https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/rtnwcm/groups/gallery/documents/digitalasset/rtn_229205.pdf

Further, troposcatter requires high power transmitters with high gain receivers. 

https://www.electronics-notes.com/articles/antennas-propagation/tropospheric/troposcatter.php
http://www.qsl.net/oz1rh/troposcatter99/troposcatter99.htm

With dish antennas being direction, over twenty million households in the US with DIRECTV, and each area with dishes aimed at different directions you would have to believe there would need to be many of these systems in place.  Not to mention the dishes throughout the world that are aimed over oceans and gulfs where the nearest land is potentially thousands of kilometers away requiring the troposcatter systems to be waterborne.  That doesn't sound very practical.

Mike
You posted this:
Further, while troposcatter is capable of sending high bandwidth HD transmission, it can't handle transmitting several hundred such signals.  Even satellites can't do that.  In order to get my channels through DirecTV my dish receives signal from three different satellites with dozens of different transponders.
It has been demonstrably proven you do not even need a satellite transmitter or receiver to receive DirecTV.
Just because you claim it’s “demonstrably proven” doesn’t mean it’s so.  The fact is it has not been “demonstrably proven”.  It’s another claim by you without readily accessible facts. 

Mike
Horse hockey.

You better sharpen up on your internet search skills Mike.

DirecTV is readily available without the need for a satellite transmitter or receiver.
My search skills are very good.  Yet another example of you not providing readily accessible facts, empirical backing, or substance. 

There isn’t a single terrestrial or high-altitude system that can supply DirecTV to all of North America.  Don’t pretend such a system exists let alone been demonstrated that it works.  Don’t pretend otherwise.

Also, the high-altitude balloons that have been demonstrated to date aren’t for supplying DBS and again, don’t pretend they can transmit to DirecTV dishes nationwide.

Please provide any system anywhere that has been shown to supply DirecTV nationwide.  Please explain why nobody has ever seen such a system aloft.

Mike
Evidently you ceded the high altitude balloon argument.

Now, I suggest you utilize the words AT&T in your quest for knowledge on DirecTV...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/baig/2016/03/01/t-launch-streaming-directv-service-no-dish-required/81164070/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/baig/2016/03/01/t-launch-streaming-directv-service-no-dish-required/81164070/)
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: markjo on February 18, 2018, 05:05:15 PM
You better sharpen up on your internet search skills Mike.

DirecTV is readily available without the need for a satellite transmitter or receiver.
You had better brush up on your internet history totallackey.   

Satellite TV was available long before broadband internet became available.

Some of us are old enough to remember when satellite TV was only available via 3 meter dishes.
Look, I was around before there were any dish antennas available for home use.

That does not change the fact DirecTV is available WITHOUT the use of a satellite transmitter or receiver.
So you admit that the fact that DirectTV is currently available via broadband internet does not change the fact that satellite TV predates broadband internet service and your whole argument is specious?  Glad we got that straightened out.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on February 18, 2018, 05:16:43 PM
You better sharpen up on your internet search skills Mike.

DirecTV is readily available without the need for a satellite transmitter or receiver.
You had better brush up on your internet history totallackey.   

Satellite TV was available long before broadband internet became available.

Some of us are old enough to remember when satellite TV was only available via 3 meter dishes.
Look, I was around before there were any dish antennas available for home use.

That does not change the fact DirecTV is available WITHOUT the use of a satellite transmitter or receiver.

When the only thing connecting a TV is a satellite dish. How else do you propose it receives signal?

Look at the google street view, its literally just a random street view of a city close to the equator.
The satellite dish has to receive signal from somewhere does it not?
 where does this point to? (https://www.google.co.za/maps/@-1.4281713,-48.4794906,3a,90y,302.53h,83.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRuuQRWI86SZB3yanuClLsg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)

Is everyone in Brazil in on the conspiracy?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: MicroBeta on February 18, 2018, 05:29:32 PM
Evidently you ceded the high altitude balloon argument.

Now, I suggest you utilize the words AT&T in your quest for knowledge on DirecTV...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/baig/2016/03/01/t-launch-streaming-directv-service-no-dish-required/81164070/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/baig/2016/03/01/t-launch-streaming-directv-service-no-dish-required/81164070/)
 
First of all, I’ve already said such systems exist but haven’t been implemented yet.  Your implication was they can be used for satellite tv and that’s just not true.

As far as DIRECTV NOW goes, it’s a basic streaming service for mobile devices.  It has nothing to do with in home TV service  DIRECTV NOW does have an in home streaming service for TV with 4k content and full on demand.  You need Apple TV STB.  So, as you can see, in order to get full DIRECTV it does need a receiver.  These are both streaming services that are currently a supplement or alternative to the current DIRECTV satellite service.  That has absolutely nothing to do with satellites so you can let that one go.

The interesting part here is this discussion is about satellites and you want to use semantics to avoid the discussion that satellites exist and currently supply tens of millions of households with DBS TV.  Yet, it seems you’ve not posted anything to show a DIRECTV dish receives a signal with hundreds full HD channels and 4k content.

Mike
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: rabinoz on February 18, 2018, 05:47:44 PM
You better sharpen up on your internet search skills Mike.

DirecTV is readily available without the need for a satellite transmitter or receiver.
You had better brush up on your internet history totallackey.   

Satellite TV was available long before broadband internet became available.

Some of us are old enough to remember when satellite TV was only available via 3 meter dishes.
Look, I was around before there were any dish antennas available for home use.

That does not change the fact DirecTV is available WITHOUT the use of a satellite transmitter or receiver.

When the only thing connecting a TV is a satellite dish. How else do you propose it receives signal?

Look at the google street view, its literally just a random street view of a city close to the equator.
The satellite dish has to receive signal from somewhere does it not?
 where does this point to? (https://www.google.co.za/maps/@-1.4281713,-48.4794906,3a,90y,302.53h,83.94t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRuuQRWI86SZB3yanuClLsg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en)

Is everyone in Brazil in on the conspiracy?
I wonder where Total Lackey thinks these dishes get their signals from?

(http://s23.postimg.org/gqx2b8zh7/34nvhvhs.jpg)
Living A Dream: Locals on Lake Toba, in Sumatra, Indonesia.

Must be up in the sky somewhere!  ;) Of does he think they are for collecting rainwater? ;)
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2018, 05:50:23 PM
Evidently you ceded the high altitude balloon argument.

Now, I suggest you utilize the words AT&T in your quest for knowledge on DirecTV...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/baig/2016/03/01/t-launch-streaming-directv-service-no-dish-required/81164070/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/baig/2016/03/01/t-launch-streaming-directv-service-no-dish-required/81164070/)
 
First of all, I’ve already said such systems exist but haven’t been implemented yet.  Your implication was they can be used for satellite tv and that’s just not true.
Your insistence they cannot is simply a claim without basis.

They certainly can.
As far as DIRECTV NOW goes, it’s a basic streaming service for mobile devices.  It has nothing to do with in home TV service  DIRECTV NOW does have an in home streaming service for TV with 4k content and full on demand.  You need Apple TV STB.  So, as you can see, in order to get full DIRECTV it does need a receiver.  These are both streaming services that are currently a supplement or alternative to the current DIRECTV satellite service.  That has absolutely nothing to do with satellites so you can let that one go.

The interesting part here is this discussion is about satellites and you want to use semantics to avoid the discussion that satellites exist and currently supply tens of millions of households with DBS TV.  Yet, it seems you’ve not posted anything to show a DIRECTV dish receives a signal with hundreds full HD channels and 4k content.

Mike
It is a yes or no question Mike.

Is DirecTV available without the use of a satellite transmitter or receiver? YES...or...NO?

You are the one relying on semantics and wordplay.

I was very clear and concise with my posts.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: markjo on February 18, 2018, 05:57:55 PM
Is DirecTV available without the use of a satellite transmitter or receiver? YES...or...NO?
I have a friend who has Dish TV.  I can assure you that it isn't coming in through his Verizon DSL internet service.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2018, 05:59:28 PM
Is DirecTV available without the use of a satellite transmitter or receiver? YES...or...NO?
I have a friend who has Dish TV.  I can assure you that it isn't coming in through his Verizon DSL internet service.
So?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: MicroBeta on February 18, 2018, 06:03:24 PM
Evidently you ceded the high altitude balloon argument.

Now, I suggest you utilize the words AT&T in your quest for knowledge on DirecTV...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/baig/2016/03/01/t-launch-streaming-directv-service-no-dish-required/81164070/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/baig/2016/03/01/t-launch-streaming-directv-service-no-dish-required/81164070/)
 
First of all, I’ve already said such systems exist but haven’t been implemented yet.  Your implication was they can be used for satellite tv and that’s just not true.
Your insistence they cannot is simply a claim without basis.

They certainly can.
You claim geostationary balloons can be used for satellite TV.  To be clear, are you stating that these balloons can and do supply signals to current DIRECTV satellite dishes?

As far as DIRECTV NOW goes, it’s a basic streaming service for mobile devices.  It has nothing to do with in home TV service  DIRECTV NOW does have an in home streaming service for TV with 4k content and full on demand.  You need Apple TV STB.  So, as you can see, in order to get full DIRECTV it does need a receiver.  These are both streaming services that are currently a supplement or alternative to the current DIRECTV satellite service.  That has absolutely nothing to do with satellites so you can let that one go.

The interesting part here is this discussion is about satellites and you want to use semantics to avoid the discussion that satellites exist and currently supply tens of millions of households with DBS TV.  Yet, it seems you’ve not posted anything to show a DIRECTV dish receives a signal with hundreds full HD channels and 4k content.

Mike
It is a yes or no question Mike.

Is DirecTV available without the use of a satellite transmitter or receiver? YES...or...NO?

You are the one relying on semantics and wordplay.

I was very clear and concise with my posts.
Of course, DIRECTV has a mobile device streaming service without a dish or receiver.  What does that have to do with satellites?

Mike
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: markjo on February 18, 2018, 06:08:38 PM
Is DirecTV available without the use of a satellite transmitter or receiver? YES...or...NO?
I have a friend who has Dish TV.  I can assure you that it isn't coming in through his Verizon DSL internet service.
So?
It means that your question is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: inquisitive on February 18, 2018, 06:13:01 PM
Is DirecTV available without the use of a satellite transmitter or receiver? YES...or...NO?
I have a friend who has Dish TV.  I can assure you that it isn't coming in through his Verizon DSL internet service.
So?
Satellite dishes are used by millions to recrive tv.  Agree?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Macarios on February 18, 2018, 06:58:21 PM
That is just a list of "satellites," for which you have ZERO individual first hand knowledge as to whether or not they exist.

I don't think anyone has your "individual first hand knowledge as to whether or not they exist" about all of them together.
But you are aware that for each of them there are many people that DO have such knowledge.
They receive TV and other signals from them.
I do have personal experience about several of them. Few in Europe, two in Middle East and couple in USA.
Many other people have experience regarding others.
I don't have a reason to think that their experience is diferent.
The whole East Asia and Australia receive imagery from Himawari (you have link few posts earlier).

You must admit that your denial is directly confronting personal experiences of very high number of people.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: rabinoz on February 18, 2018, 07:10:40 PM
It is a yes or no question Mike.
Is DirecTV available without the use of a satellite transmitter or receiver? YES...or...NO?
You are the one relying on semantics and wordplay.
It is an irrelevant question totallackey.
What date was DirecTV first introduced? It's a simple and relevant question because:
Quote
First Direct Broadcast Satellite Service, 1984
NHK began the world's first direct broadcast satellite service in May, 1984. This was the culmination of eighteen years of research that included the development of an inexpensive low-noise receiver and investigations of rain attenuation in the 12 GHz band. RRL, NASDA, TSCJ, Toshiba Corporation, General Electric Company, and NASA participated with NHK to make satellite broadcasting to the home a practical reality.
(http://ethw.org/w/images/thumb/2/2c/First_Direct_Satellite_Service.jpg/450px-First_Direct_Satellite_Service.jpg)

See more in: Milestones: First Direct Broadcast Satellite Service, 1984 (http://ethw.org/Milestones:First_Direct_Broadcast_Satellite_Service,_1984).

Almost 34 years ago!
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: NAZA on February 18, 2018, 07:57:03 PM
It is a yes or no question Mike.
Is DirecTV available without the use of a satellite transmitter or receiver? YES...or...NO?
You are the one relying on semantics and wordplay.
It is an irrelevant question totallackey.
What date was DirecTV first introduced? It's a simple and relevant question because:
Quote
First Direct Broadcast Satellite Service, 1984
NHK began the world's first direct broadcast satellite service in May, 1984. This was the culmination of eighteen years of research that included the development of an inexpensive low-noise receiver and investigations of rain attenuation in the 12 GHz band. RRL, NASDA, TSCJ, Toshiba Corporation, General Electric Company, and NASA participated with NHK to make satellite broadcasting to the home a practical reality.
(http://ethw.org/w/images/thumb/2/2c/First_Direct_Satellite_Service.jpg/450px-First_Direct_Satellite_Service.jpg)

See more in: Milestones: First Direct Broadcast Satellite Service, 1984 (http://ethw.org/Milestones:First_Direct_Broadcast_Satellite_Service,_1984).

Almost 34 years ago!

The DirectTV that we know today was introduced in '94 after years of development by Hughes.   The systems were sold only thru dealers, mostly RCA.
DTV did not know who purchased them or where  they were installed until after they were installed and the customer called DTV to suscribe.
So since day one DTV would have had to have towers, ballons, stratolites or whatever BS the Flatters claim in place in every state.  They sold over 300,000 systems the first year alone.
Faking DTV is impossible now and has been since the first day it was introduced and PapaLackey knows it.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 19, 2018, 02:28:24 AM
Evidently you ceded the high altitude balloon argument.

Now, I suggest you utilize the words AT&T in your quest for knowledge on DirecTV...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/baig/2016/03/01/t-launch-streaming-directv-service-no-dish-required/81164070/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/baig/2016/03/01/t-launch-streaming-directv-service-no-dish-required/81164070/)
 
First of all, I’ve already said such systems exist but haven’t been implemented yet.  Your implication was they can be used for satellite tv and that’s just not true.
Your insistence they cannot is simply a claim without basis.

They certainly can.
You claim geostationary balloons can be used for satellite TV.  To be clear, are you stating that these balloons can and do supply signals to current DIRECTV satellite dishes?
I wrote exactly what I intended to communicate.
As far as DIRECTV NOW goes, it’s a basic streaming service for mobile devices.  It has nothing to do with in home TV service  DIRECTV NOW does have an in home streaming service for TV with 4k content and full on demand.  You need Apple TV STB.  So, as you can see, in order to get full DIRECTV it does need a receiver.  These are both streaming services that are currently a supplement or alternative to the current DIRECTV satellite service.  That has absolutely nothing to do with satellites so you can let that one go.

The interesting part here is this discussion is about satellites and you want to use semantics to avoid the discussion that satellites exist and currently supply tens of millions of households with DBS TV.  Yet, it seems you’ve not posted anything to show a DIRECTV dish receives a signal with hundreds full HD channels and 4k content.

Mike
It is a yes or no question Mike.

Is DirecTV available without the use of a satellite transmitter or receiver? YES...or...NO?

You are the one relying on semantics and wordplay.

I was very clear and concise with my posts.
Of course, DIRECTV has a mobile device streaming service without a dish or receiver.  What does that have to do with satellites?

Mike
Like I wrote earlier, the use of satellite transmitters is certainly not necessary and the use of satellite receivers and antennas is not necessary to receive DirecTV.

Signals received by satellite dishes do not necessarily need to come from a satellite. They can come from troposcatter or they could originate from high altitude balloons.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 19, 2018, 02:29:25 AM
Is DirecTV available without the use of a satellite transmitter or receiver? YES...or...NO?
I have a friend who has Dish TV.  I can assure you that it isn't coming in through his Verizon DSL internet service.
So?
It means that your question is irrelevant.
Mike knew it was not irrelevant.

He answered it.

Complain to him.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 19, 2018, 02:33:15 AM
Is DirecTV available without the use of a satellite transmitter or receiver? YES...or...NO?
I have a friend who has Dish TV.  I can assure you that it isn't coming in through his Verizon DSL internet service.
So?
Satellite dishes antennas are used by millions to recrive [sic]tv.  Agree?
FTFY.

Where have I disagreed with that statement.

That does not indicate a satellite is actually the signal transmitter.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: inquisitive on February 19, 2018, 02:36:37 AM
Evidently you ceded the high altitude balloon argument.

Now, I suggest you utilize the words AT&T in your quest for knowledge on DirecTV...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/baig/2016/03/01/t-launch-streaming-directv-service-no-dish-required/81164070/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/baig/2016/03/01/t-launch-streaming-directv-service-no-dish-required/81164070/)
 
First of all, I’ve already said such systems exist but haven’t been implemented yet.  Your implication was they can be used for satellite tv and that’s just not true.
Your insistence they cannot is simply a claim without basis.

They certainly can.
You claim geostationary balloons can be used for satellite TV.  To be clear, are you stating that these balloons can and do supply signals to current DIRECTV satellite dishes?
I wrote exactly what I intended to communicate.
As far as DIRECTV NOW goes, it’s a basic streaming service for mobile devices.  It has nothing to do with in home TV service  DIRECTV NOW does have an in home streaming service for TV with 4k content and full on demand.  You need Apple TV STB.  So, as you can see, in order to get full DIRECTV it does need a receiver.  These are both streaming services that are currently a supplement or alternative to the current DIRECTV satellite service.  That has absolutely nothing to do with satellites so you can let that one go.

The interesting part here is this discussion is about satellites and you want to use semantics to avoid the discussion that satellites exist and currently supply tens of millions of households with DBS TV.  Yet, it seems you’ve not posted anything to show a DIRECTV dish receives a signal with hundreds full HD channels and 4k content.

Mike
It is a yes or no question Mike.

Is DirecTV available without the use of a satellite transmitter or receiver? YES...or...NO?

You are the one relying on semantics and wordplay.

I was very clear and concise with my posts.
Of course, DIRECTV has a mobile device streaming service without a dish or receiver.  What does that have to do with satellites?

Mike
Like I wrote earlier, the use of satellite transmitters is certainly not necessary and the use of satellite receivers and antennas is not necessary to receive DirecTV.

Signals received by satellite dishes do not necessarily need to come from a satellite. They can come from troposcatter or they could originate from high altitude balloons.
'not necessary' and 'can come' is not relevant.  We know that satellite tv comes from satellites.  It has been explained many times.  Please post links with details of balloons and troposcatter transmitters in service.

The existance of a (via the internet) does not prove the non existance of b (satellite reception).

Do you have an explanation for how TV news satellite trucks work?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 19, 2018, 02:37:43 AM
That is just a list of "satellites," for which you have ZERO individual first hand knowledge as to whether or not they exist.

I don't think anyone has your "individual first hand knowledge as to whether or not they exist" about all of them together.
But you are aware that for each of them there are many people that DO claim to have such knowledge.
They BELIEVE they receive TV and other signals from them.
I BELIEVE I do have personal experience about several of them. Few in Europe, two in Middle East and couple in USA.
Many other people BELIEVE THEY have experience regarding others.
I don't have a reason to think doubt that their experience is diferent.
The whole East Asia and Australia receive imagery from Himawari (you have link few posts earlier).
FTFY.

Fine.

Believe what you want.
You must admit that your denial is directly confronting personal experiences BELIEFS of very high number of people.
FTFY also.

Argumentum ad populum does not cut it.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: inquisitive on February 19, 2018, 02:38:14 AM
Is DirecTV available without the use of a satellite transmitter or receiver? YES...or...NO?
I have a friend who has Dish TV.  I can assure you that it isn't coming in through his Verizon DSL internet service.
So?
Satellite dishes antennas are used by millions to recrive [sic]tv.  Agree?
FTFY.

Where have I disagreed with that statement.

That does not indicate a satellite is actually the signal transmitter.
Please provide details of what is actually used for eg. DirectTV.  Link to documentation.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: inquisitive on February 19, 2018, 02:40:08 AM
That is just a list of "satellites," for which you have ZERO individual first hand knowledge as to whether or not they exist.

I don't think anyone has your "individual first hand knowledge as to whether or not they exist" about all of them together.
But you are aware that for each of them there are many people that DO claim to have such knowledge.
They BELIEVE they receive TV and other signals from them.
I BELIEVE I do have personal experience about several of them. Few in Europe, two in Middle East and couple in USA.
Many other people BELIEVE THEY have experience regarding others.
I don't have a reason to think doubt that their experience is diferent.
The whole East Asia and Australia receive imagery from Himawari (you have link few posts earlier).
FTFY.

Fine.

Believe what you want.
You must admit that your denial is directly confronting personal experiences BELIEFS of very high number of people.
FTFY also.

Argumentum ad populum does not cut it.
Satellite design and operation is well documented, do you have details of alternatives?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 19, 2018, 02:44:41 AM
'not necessary' and 'can come' is not relevant.  We know BELIEVE that satellite tv comes from satellites.  It has been explained many times.  Please post links with details of balloons and troposcatter transmitters in service.
FTFY.

You do not "know," where the signal is coming from.

You believe it is coming from a satellite.

Look, I am not going to keep repeating myself.

I have posted legitimate reference material regarding possible ways a dish antenna can receive a signal from something OTHER than a satellite.

It is indisputable.

You cannot argue against it being a possibility, because it is a factual possibility.

Quit behaving like a jack ass.

Do you have an explanation for how TV news satellite trucks work?
Sure. They broadcast a signal.

What difference does that make?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: inquisitive on February 19, 2018, 02:53:28 AM
'not necessary' and 'can come' is not relevant.  We know BELIEVE that satellite tv comes from satellites.  It has been explained many times.  Please post links with details of balloons and troposcatter transmitters in service.
FTFY.

You do not "know," where the signal is coming from.

You believe it is coming from a satellite.

Look, I am not going to keep repeating myself.

I have posted legitimate reference material regarding possible ways a dish antenna can receive a signal from something OTHER than a satellite.

It is indisputable.

You cannot argue against it being a possibility, because it is a factual possibility.

Quit behaving like a jack ass.

Do you have an explanation for how TV news satellite trucks work?
Sure. They broadcast a signal.

What difference does that make?
I do not believe, I know.  You have not shown details with links to any proof of an alternative that is actually used.  Troposcatter cannot provide signals of multi channel HD and UHD TV to targetted areas.

Do the calculations of dish angles to see the location of the transmitter above the equator.

Do you have details of how GPS works, please provide links.

How does the sat truck signal get back to the studio?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Macarios on February 19, 2018, 03:12:38 AM
Argumentum ad populum does not cut it.

Speaking of "ad populum", I am one of them.
You can live in denial, but you would have better grip of your own reality if you wouldn't.

See (or ask) in your neighborhood how many people have satellite TV.
Go around and see dishes.
If they face south (satellites directly above your longitude), they will be oriented up by the angle of 90 minus your latitude.
If they catch satellites more to east or west, they will face somewhat lower.

If you live in southern hemisphere, those at your longitude will be north.
Then again, you would see different constellations at night and different behavior of night sky.
In that case it is highly unlikely that you would be Flat Earther.

EDIT: Fixing your perception, or people's testimonies (calling them "liars"), to reflect your own desires, won't adjust reality the same way.
Do you think you can go around and "fix" orientations of dishes everywhere you see them?
Move someone's dish for more than one degree, and some of them will get out of their house with a shotgun.
Especially if you do it during their favorite TV show.
Or if you do it twice. :-)
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: MicroBeta on February 19, 2018, 03:26:59 AM
Evidently you ceded the high altitude balloon argument.

Now, I suggest you utilize the words AT&T in your quest for knowledge on DirecTV...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/baig/2016/03/01/t-launch-streaming-directv-service-no-dish-required/81164070/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/baig/2016/03/01/t-launch-streaming-directv-service-no-dish-required/81164070/)
 
First of all, I’ve already said such systems exist but haven’t been implemented yet.  Your implication was they can be used for satellite tv and that’s just not true.
Your insistence they cannot is simply a claim without basis.

They certainly can.
You claim geostationary balloons can be used for satellite TV.  To be clear, are you stating that these balloons can and do supply signals to current DIRECTV satellite dishes?
I wrote exactly what I intended to communicate.
As far as DIRECTV NOW goes, it’s a basic streaming service for mobile devices.  It has nothing to do with in home TV service  DIRECTV NOW does have an in home streaming service for TV with 4k content and full on demand.  You need Apple TV STB.  So, as you can see, in order to get full DIRECTV it does need a receiver.  These are both streaming services that are currently a supplement or alternative to the current DIRECTV satellite service.  That has absolutely nothing to do with satellites so you can let that one go.

The interesting part here is this discussion is about satellites and you want to use semantics to avoid the discussion that satellites exist and currently supply tens of millions of households with DBS TV.  Yet, it seems you’ve not posted anything to show a DIRECTV dish receives a signal with hundreds full HD channels and 4k content.

Mike
It is a yes or no question Mike.

Is DirecTV available without the use of a satellite transmitter or receiver? YES...or...NO?

You are the one relying on semantics and wordplay.

I was very clear and concise with my posts.
Of course, DIRECTV has a mobile device streaming service without a dish or receiver.  What does that have to do with satellites?

Mike
Like I wrote earlier, the use of satellite transmitters is certainly not necessary and the use of satellite receivers and antennas is not necessary to receive DirecTV.

Signals received by satellite dishes do not necessarily need to come from a satellite. They can come from troposcatter or they could originate from high altitude balloons.
And yet, forty million households in North America (DIRECTV & Dish combined) receive their TV service from a dish antenna and receiver.

When I provided info to show that troposcatter or balloons couldn’t reliably provide signal to all the dish antennas in North America you never addressed any of what I posted.  You never provided any support for you assertion that they can.  You never provided any support to refute my information.  You merely tried to redirect the discussion away from those things with DIRECTV’s mobile streaming service.  Why is that?

Can you show how troposcatter or high-altitude balloons can provide signal for several hundred HD channels to nearly forty million households that have DBS service?  Will you support your own claims or not?

Mike
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 19, 2018, 04:26:35 AM
I do not believe, I know.  You have not shown details with links to any proof of an alternative that is actually used.  Troposcatter cannot provide signals of multi channel HD and UHD TV to targetted areas.
Troposcatter specifically utilizes dish antennas.

What other support do I need to offer.

You do not know whether the signal is actually coming from a satellite or not.

You have a belief and that is all it is.

Do the calculations of dish angles to see the location of the transmitter above the equator.

Do you have details of how GPS works, please provide links.

How does the sat truck signal get back to the studio?
Dish angles, dish schmangles...

That does not prove anything.

It is evidence a signal is strongest from a particular area.

That is all it proves.

GPS utilizes trilateration.

Again, no satellite necessary.

An antenna at the studio is utilized to receive incoming signals.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 19, 2018, 04:27:56 AM
More ad populum arguments.
Kindly refrain from logical fallacy.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 19, 2018, 04:42:16 AM
And yet, forty million households in North America (DIRECTV & Dish combined) receive their TV service from a dish antenna and receiver.

When I provided info to show that troposcatter or balloons couldn’t reliably provide signal to all the dish antennas in North America you never addressed any of what I posted.  You never provided any support for you assertion that they can.
Horse hockey.

The vast majority of troposcatter antenna are DISH SHAPED.

WTF else do I need to provide? 

You never provided any support to refute my information.
Again, you are full of it.

You denied the ability of balloon to maintain fixed positions in order to broadcast. That was clearly demonstrated to be false.

You claimed the only way to get DirecTV is via satellite transmission.

It is not.

In fact, you have ZERO concrete evidence the signal received by the dish antenna is coming from a satellite. You have a belief and that is all. 

You merely tried to redirect the discussion away from those things with DIRECTV’s mobile streaming service.  Why is that?
Because you made a false claim the only way to receive DirecTV is via satellite.
Can you show how troposcatter or high-altitude balloons can provide signal for several hundred HD channels to nearly forty million households that have DBS service?  Will you support your own claims or not?

Mike
"Troposcatter systems have evolved over the years. With communication satellites used for long-distance communication links, current troposcatter systems are employed over shorter distances than previous systems, use smaller antennas and amplifiers, and have much higher bandwidth capabilities."
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: rabinoz on February 19, 2018, 04:49:37 AM
I do not believe, I know.  You have not shown details with links to any proof of an alternative that is actually used.  Troposcatter cannot provide signals of multi channel HD and UHD TV to targetted areas.
Troposcatter specifically utilizes dish antennas.

What other support do I need to offer.
Plenty! You need to provide evidence that troposcatter could provide in 1984 the continent-wide coverage of the bandwidth and availability required for DBS satellite TV.

Anything less and you are simply guessing.

Quote from: totallackey
You do not know whether the signal is actually coming from a satellite or not.


Look at this major achievement for troposcatter, Troposcatter System Maintains 50-Mb/s Connection Over 100 Miles (http://Troposcatter System Maintains 50-Mb/s Connection Over 100 Miles) and look at the antenna needed!
(http://www.mwrf.com/sites/mwrf.com/files/styles/article_featured_standard/public/uploads/2015/02/3tsystemweb_0.png?itok=7xe45Epi)
A Tactical Transportable Troposcatter (3T) system recently completed successful testing providing
high bandwidth 50 Mb/s speeds over 100 miles. (Image courtesy of TeleCommunication Systems)
Not quite you home satellite dish is it Mr Totallackey? So may we scrub troposcatter from your guesses?

Troposcatter are essentially point-to-point, not broadcast as is necessary for tevevision broadcasting.

Now come up with some solid evidence or admit that you haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about!
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on February 19, 2018, 05:10:46 AM
Quote
"Troposcatter systems have evolved over the years. With communication satellites used for long-distance communication links, current troposcatter systems are employed over shorter distances than previous systems, use smaller antennas and amplifiers, and have much higher bandwidth capabilities."
If you read the wiki article that you posted, you will see how they mention it has a maximum effectiveness of 300km. That excludes a lot of places.

Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Macarios on February 19, 2018, 05:18:33 AM
More ad populum arguments.
Kindly refrain from logical fallacy.

I would avoid it, but you fill the thread with it in abundance.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: markjo on February 19, 2018, 06:32:39 AM
And yet, forty million households in North America (DIRECTV & Dish combined) receive their TV service from a dish antenna and receiver.

When I provided info to show that troposcatter or balloons couldn’t reliably provide signal to all the dish antennas in North America you never addressed any of what I posted.  You never provided any support for you assertion that they can.
Horse hockey.

The vast majority of troposcatter antenna are DISH SHAPED.

WTF else do I need to provide? 
How about evidence that troposcatter can work when the antennas are pointed more than a few degrees above the horizon?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: inquisitive on February 19, 2018, 06:52:08 AM
And yet, forty million households in North America (DIRECTV & Dish combined) receive their TV service from a dish antenna and receiver.

When I provided info to show that troposcatter or balloons couldn’t reliably provide signal to all the dish antennas in North America you never addressed any of what I posted.  You never provided any support for you assertion that they can.
Horse hockey.

The vast majority of troposcatter antenna are DISH SHAPED.

WTF else do I need to provide? 
How about evidence that troposcatter can work when the antennas are pointed more than a few degrees above the horizon?
And how you define a reception footprint.

https://www.ses.com/our-coverage/satellites/347
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 19, 2018, 06:53:42 AM
Quote
"Troposcatter systems have evolved over the years. With communication satellites used for long-distance communication links, current troposcatter systems are employed over shorter distances than previous systems, use smaller antennas and amplifiers, and have much higher bandwidth capabilities."
If you read the wiki article that you posted, you will see how they mention it has a maximum effectiveness of 300km. That excludes a lot of places.
300km also includes a lot of places...
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: inquisitive on February 19, 2018, 06:57:04 AM
Quote
"Troposcatter systems have evolved over the years. With communication satellites used for long-distance communication links, current troposcatter systems are employed over shorter distances than previous systems, use smaller antennas and amplifiers, and have much higher bandwidth capabilities."
If you read the wiki article that you posted, you will see how they mention it has a maximum effectiveness of 300km. That excludes a lot of places.
300km also includes a lot of places...
Straight line.  How do you define the footprint?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 19, 2018, 06:57:48 AM
And how you define a reception footprint.

https://www.ses.com/our-coverage/satellites/347
Again, a transponder is not necessarily operating from the comfort of a satellite.

That device can just as easily be attached to a balloon.

Quite behaving like a jack ass.

A footprint is the size of the area covered by the transponder.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 19, 2018, 07:06:06 AM
How about evidence that troposcatter can work when the antennas are pointed more than a few degrees above the horizon?
Who said it would or wouldn't work in this instance?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: inquisitive on February 19, 2018, 07:08:49 AM
And how you define a reception footprint.

https://www.ses.com/our-coverage/satellites/347
Again, a transponder is not necessarily operating from the comfort of a satellite.

That device can just as easily be attached to a balloon.

Quite behaving like a jack ass.

A footprint is the size of the area covered by the transponder.
So now you claim satellite tv is from a balloon and not troposcatter?  We know the transmitters are 36,000km above the equator, this can be confirmed by measurements from different locations.  What keeps the balloon in position?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: inquisitive on February 19, 2018, 07:11:08 AM
How about evidence that troposcatter can work when the antennas are pointed more than a few degrees above the horizon?
Who said it would or wouldn't work in this instance?
Look it up.  Anyway, troposcatter can't be set up to transmit to eg a 500km radius with a defined footprint shape.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: markjo on February 19, 2018, 07:22:38 AM
How about evidence that troposcatter can work when the antennas are pointed more than a few degrees above the horizon?
Who said it would or wouldn't work in this instance?
I could be wrong, but I think that you are the one claiming that it would work in this instance.

Or are you just throwing out a bunch of random ideas and hoping that one of them might be plausible?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 19, 2018, 07:28:33 AM
And how you define a reception footprint.

https://www.ses.com/our-coverage/satellites/347
Again, a transponder is not necessarily operating from the comfort of a satellite.

That device can just as easily be attached to a balloon.

Quite behaving like a jack ass.

A footprint is the size of the area covered by the transponder.
So now you claim satellite tv is from a balloon and not troposcatter?  We know the transmitters are 36,000km above the equator, this can be confirmed by measurements from different locations.  What keeps the balloon in position?
Please read this very slowly and deliberately, as to understand.

You can easily read what I have "claimed," here and what I have postulated.

What I have postulated is possible and that is indisputable whether you like or not.

It is an alternative explanation as to how people can receive television signals via a dish antenna.

You do not "know," the signal is originating from 36,000 km up or 36 km up.

You have no clue and you possess no personal method of verifying the true altitude of the source.

It is that simple.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 19, 2018, 07:33:53 AM
How about evidence that troposcatter can work when the antennas are pointed more than a few degrees above the horizon?
Who said it would or wouldn't work in this instance?
I could be wrong...
No doubt.
...but I think that you are the one claiming that it would work in this instance.
You claiming it would not?
Or are you just throwing out a bunch of random ideas and hoping that one of them might be plausible?
I am not "hoping," anything.

It is plausible.

And you can read the thread as to what you believe constitutes, "a bunch of random ideas."

I proposed two alternatives as to how a person could receive signals via a dish antenna.

Both viable, both indisputable, whether you like it or not.

Typical shitposting on your part.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: inquisitive on February 19, 2018, 07:49:13 AM
How about evidence that troposcatter can work when the antennas are pointed more than a few degrees above the horizon?
Who said it would or wouldn't work in this instance?
I could be wrong...
No doubt.
...but I think that you are the one claiming that it would work in this instance.
You claiming it would not?
Or are you just throwing out a bunch of random ideas and hoping that one of them might be plausible?
I am not "hoping," anything.

It is plausible.

And you can read the thread as to what you believe constitutes, "a bunch of random ideas."

I proposed two alternatives as to how a person could receive signals via a dish antenna.

Both viable, both indisputable, whether you like it or not.

Typical shitposting on your part.
This is not about 'proposing', it is about how we actually receive multi channel broadcast tv.  We know where satellite dishes point to and we know who builds and operates satellites.  What is the problem with this?

Balloons and tropospheric scatter cannot not provide what we get with satellites.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 19, 2018, 08:58:07 AM
Balloons and tropospheric scatter cannot not provide what we get with satellites.
And I say you are full of it.

You have ZERO evidence to make this assertion.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Here to laugh at you on February 19, 2018, 09:10:05 AM
Where, when, and how are these thousands of balloons prepared, launched, and serviced?

Why do we never see any reports of them falling back to Earth?

How are they positioned to maintain the precision required for GPS ?


All of these questions are answered with satellite technology.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 19, 2018, 09:16:37 AM
Where, when, and how are these thousands of balloons prepared, launched, and serviced?
Who said "thousands?"

They are launched everyday by the military, government, universities, radio operators, etc.
Why do we never see any reports of them falling back to Earth?
Why would you?
How are they positioned to maintain the precision required for GPS ?
The same way any other balloon is positioned.
All of these questions are answered with satellite technology.
Sure, but it is also answered by balloons and troposcatter.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on February 19, 2018, 09:37:34 AM
I live in a 3rd world country with a shits for brains military. Seriously, our entire military budget could not even buy 1 frikken F35 if they wanted to. They as so underfunded that we only have 5 working attack helicopters.
Most of our TV comes from satellite because our national broadcasting stations are either broke or going on strike. South Africa has a surface area twice that of Texas USA.

And your telling me that there are thousands (yes, there would need to be thousands) of balloons being sent up by our military in secret to broadcast TV signals just to prove the world is flat for some reasons no one has yet figured out???

Then go expand this same logic to every other country in Africa.

This idea is beyond insane.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: inquisitive on February 19, 2018, 09:43:58 AM
Where, when, and how are these thousands of balloons prepared, launched, and serviced?
Who said "thousands?"

They are launched everyday by the military, government, universities, radio operators, etc.
Why do we never see any reports of them falling back to Earth?
Why would you?
How are they positioned to maintain the precision required for GPS ?
The same way any other balloon is positioned.
All of these questions are answered with satellite technology.
Sure, but it is also answered by balloons and troposcatter.
My satnav shows 18 satellites visable, how do you explain that?  Still waiting for links to details of operators of non satellite services.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: markjo on February 19, 2018, 09:52:03 AM
I proposed two alternatives as to how a person could receive signals via a dish antenna.

Both viable, both indisputable, whether you like it or not.
Do you agree with the premise that so-called "satellite dishes" must be pointed within one degree of a transmitter in order to receive a usable signal?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 19, 2018, 01:33:04 PM
I live in a 3rd world country with a shits for brains military. Seriously, our entire military budget could not even buy 1 frikken F35 if they wanted to. They as so underfunded that we only have 5 working attack helicopters.
Most of our TV comes from satellite because our national broadcasting stations are either broke or going on strike. South Africa has a surface area twice that of Texas USA.
South Africa is 3rd World?
And your telling me that there are thousands (yes, there would need to be thousands) of balloons being sent up by our military in secret to broadcast TV signals just to prove the world is flat for some reasons no one has yet figured out???

Then go expand this same logic to every other country in Africa.

This idea is beyond insane.
You can whine, cry, bitch, moan, jump and shout out, "it would need THOUSANDS," all you want.

Does not change the fact you have no clue what the real amount required is...I say it is less.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 19, 2018, 01:36:09 PM
My satnav shows 18 satellites visable, how do you explain that?  Still waiting for links to details of operators of non satellite services.
It is your satnav (whatever that is)...and you want me to explain it to you?

That would be like asking me to explain how your pet gerbil ended up inside your rectum, would it not?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: MicroBeta on February 19, 2018, 01:57:35 PM
And yet, forty million households in North America (DIRECTV & Dish combined) receive their TV service from a dish antenna and receiver.

When I provided info to show that troposcatter or balloons couldn’t reliably provide signal to all the dish antennas in North America you never addressed any of what I posted.  You never provided any support for you assertion that they can.
Horse hockey.

The vast majority of troposcatter antenna are DISH SHAPED.

WTF else do I need to provide?
 
You need to provide a lot.  Just because the antennas are dish shaped means nothing.  I’m the same height as Batman.  That doesn’t make me Bruce Wayne.

Troposcatter dishes are large (2m+) high gain dishes.  DIRECTV ka/ku dishes are small with an order of magnitude less gain.

DIRECTV’s installation specs require azimuth alignment to ±0.1°.  You can only get within 0.5° with a signal meter which is why installers need to use the dither procedure in the link I provided in a previous post.

Why ±0.1°?  Because the ka-band is very narrow and anything outside of this tolerance is subject to signal loss such as rain fade.

This tight tolerance, the smaller dish, and lower gain are the reasons troposcatter isn’t viable for receiving DIRECTV.

Most of this data is contained in the links I already provided.

You never provided any support to refute my information.
Again, you are full of it.

You denied the ability of balloon to maintain fixed positions in order to broadcast. That was clearly demonstrated to be false.
I stated

“I’ve read of proposed military LTA craft for high altitude surveillance but even that would only be able to maintain a station keeping radius of 2km at best.  IIRC, that would only apply for 50% of the time.  The proposed 95% station keeping is 150km.  I don’t know of any systems that have been implemented yet but those station keeping parameters aren’t good enough.”

I stated that these balloons station keeping abilities aren't good enough to keep alignment with the current DIRECTV dish antennas. 

You claimed the only way to get DirecTV is via satellite transmission.

It is not.
You are correct.  I erroneously assumed the discussion was about satellites and not about mobile streaming.  It didn’t occur to me that weren’t even talking about something other than satellites or dish antennas.  Silly me for assuming the discussion was on topic.

In fact, you have ZERO concrete evidence the signal received by the dish antenna is coming from a satellite. You have a belief and that is all.
 
Other than the fact that troposcatter and high-altitude balloons transmit, you’ve provided ZERO concrete evidence that either can provide reliable signal to DBS dish antennas.

You merely tried to redirect the discussion away from those things with DIRECTV’s mobile streaming service.  Why is that?
Because you made a false claim the only way to receive DirecTV is via satellite.
Can you show how troposcatter or high-altitude balloons can provide signal for several hundred HD channels to nearly forty million households that have DBS service?  Will you support your own claims or not?

Mike
"Troposcatter systems have evolved over the years. With communication satellites used for long-distance communication links, current troposcatter systems are employed over shorter distances than previous systems, use smaller antennas and amplifiers, and have much higher bandwidth capabilities."
You’re right.  Troposcatter systems have evolved and the dishes have gotten smaller.  They’ve gone from 10+ meters to 2 meters. 

You’re right.  Troposcatter systems do have much higher bandwidth capabilities.  AAMOF, these systems are capable of transmitting full HD video and data.  However, they are not designed to transmit hundreds of full HD channels.

Troposcatter systems have limitations which is why the military uses them in very limited situations.  The US military uses satellites for almost all of its communication and data transfer.  That is unless you can show how a ship in the South Pacific and communicate with the Pentagon via troposcatter.

Mike
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Here to laugh at you on February 19, 2018, 02:15:14 PM
Navigation satellites
Weather satellites
Communications satellites
Digital Television broadcast satellites
Digital radio broadcast satellites
Imaging satellites
Research satellites
Climate and environmental monitoring satellites
MANNED SPACE STATIONS
...and a whole host of military satellites.

A bit of digging comes up with an estimation of 8,000 man-made objects orbiting the earth. Including approximately 3,000 operational satellites.
Each one required AT LEAST one launch vehicle, some took several.

Each of these satellites had a large team of designers, engineers, manufacturers, and financiers.
Each of these satellites were launched by rockets requiring large teams of designers, engineers, manufacturers, launch crews, mission control staff, and financiers. Not to mention launch facilities.

Most of these launches were viewed by crowds of spectators.
All of these launches were financed by their various entities at great expense. Entities that purchased them to provide services.

It's completely INSANE to propose that EVERY LAST ONE of these launches were somehow "faked" or "launched into the ocean", for the sole purpose of concealing the shape of the earth. Something that you can determins by simply walking outside at the correct time of the day.

It's preposterous to claim that all that money was spent, and wasted into the ocean, when they could simply launch some ballons.

Use your brain, lackey!
If YOU dont, someone else will.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: inquisitive on February 19, 2018, 02:33:14 PM
My satnav shows 18 satellites visable, how do you explain that?  Still waiting for links to details of operators of non satellite services.
It is your satnav (whatever that is)...and you want me to explain it to you?

That would be like asking me to explain how your pet gerbil ended up inside your rectum, would it not?
Personal abuse shows you have no ability to discuss the subject.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: rabinoz on February 19, 2018, 02:36:05 PM
How about evidence that troposcatter can work when the antennas are pointed more than a few degrees above the horizon?
Who said it would or wouldn't work in this instance?
I've seen no comment on the capabilities of modern troposcatter systems. Here read it again!
I do not believe, I know.  You have not shown details with links to any proof of an alternative that is actually used.  Troposcatter cannot provide signals of multi channel HD and UHD TV to targetted areas.
Troposcatter specifically utilizes dish antennas.

What other support do I need to offer.
Plenty! You need to provide evidence that troposcatter could provide in 1984 the continent-wide coverage of the bandwidth and availability required for DBS satellite TV.

Anything less and you are simply guessing.

Quote from: totallackey
You do not know whether the signal is actually coming from a satellite or not.


Look at this major achievement for troposcatter, Troposcatter System Maintains 50-Mb/s Connection Over 100 Miles (http://Troposcatter System Maintains 50-Mb/s Connection Over 100 Miles) and look at the antenna needed!
(http://www.mwrf.com/sites/mwrf.com/files/styles/article_featured_standard/public/uploads/2015/02/3tsystemweb_0.png?itok=7xe45Epi)
A Tactical Transportable Troposcatter (3T) system recently completed successful testing providing
high bandwidth 50 Mb/s speeds over 100 miles. (Image courtesy of TeleCommunication Systems)
Not quite you home satellite dish is it Mr Totallackey? So may we scrub troposcatter from your guesses?

Troposcatter are essentially point-to-point systems, not broadcast as is necessary for television broadcasting.

Now come up with some solid evidence or admit that you haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about!
That troposcatter system is quite modern - DBS satellite has been in operation since 1984 ( ;D ;D that date rings a bell ;D ;D)

Only one totally ignorant on the propagation of microwave signals would claim that troposcatter can broadcast TV to whole continents.

But, totally ignorant does seem to fit the total lackey like a glove!

Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 19, 2018, 02:43:07 PM
You need to provide a lot.  Just because the antennas are dish shaped means nothing.  I’m the same height as Batman.  That doesn’t make me Bruce Wayne.

Troposcatter dishes are large (2m+) high gain dishes.  DIRECTV ka/ku dishes are small with an order of magnitude less gain.

DIRECTV’s installation specs require azimuth alignment to ±0.1°.  You can only get within 0.5° with a signal meter which is why installers need to use the dither procedure in the link I provided in a previous post.

Why ±0.1°?  Because the ka-band is very narrow and anything outside of this tolerance is subject to signal loss such as rain fade.

This tight tolerance, the smaller dish, and lower gain are the reasons troposcatter isn’t viable for receiving DIRECTV.

Most of this data is contained in the links I already provided.
Absolutely none of this is relevant to where the broadcast signal originates or type of transmitter.
You never provided any support to refute my information.
Again, you are full of it.

You denied the ability of balloon to maintain fixed positions in order to broadcast. That was clearly demonstrated to be false.
I stated

“I’ve read of proposed military LTA craft for high altitude surveillance but even that would only be able to maintain a station keeping radius of 2km at best.  IIRC, that would only apply for 50% of the time.  The proposed 95% station keeping is 150km.  I don’t know of any systems that have been implemented yet but those station keeping parameters aren’t good enough.”

I stated that these balloons station keeping abilities aren't good enough to keep alignment with the current DIRECTV dish antennas.
And that is false also, as demonstrated by video footage obtained from weather balloons demonstrating clear, stable picture.

You are correct.  I erroneously assumed the discussion was about satellites and not about mobile streaming.  It didn’t occur to me that weren’t even talking about something other than satellites or dish antennas.  Silly me for assuming the discussion was on topic.
Nice attempt at an apology and then totally shitposting it away.

You clearly know what the topic is by looking at the title of the OP: "Are satellites real?"

I have posted two plausible methods of broadcasting satellite TV and provided one proven and absolutely verifiable method of receiving "satellite TV," without the need of a satellite, all in keeping with OP.

So take your "Silly me," schtick and shove it.


Other than the fact that troposcatter and high-altitude balloons transmit, you’ve provided ZERO concrete evidence that either can provide reliable signal to DBS dish antennas.
Troposcatter transmission is a verifiable fact.

Transmission from balloons is a verifiable fact.

A dish antenna is a receiver of transmission signals.

Case closed.

You’re right.  Troposcatter systems have evolved and the dishes have gotten smaller.  They’ve gone from 10+ meters to 2 meters. 

You’re right.  Troposcatter systems do have much higher bandwidth capabilities.  AAMOF, these systems are capable of transmitting full HD video and data.  However, they are not designed to transmit hundreds of full HD channels.
How do you know this? How do you know design has not also improved in this area?
Troposcatter systems have limitations which is why the military uses them in very limited situations.  The US military uses satellites for almost all of its communication and data transfer.
No, they do not. They still utilize basic radio for the most part.
That is unless you can show how a ship in the South Pacific and communicate with the Pentagon via troposcatter.

Mike
LOL!

As soon as you show the need for a ship in the South Pacific to communicate directly with the Pentagon, maybe we will work on it.

You know, you engage in quite a bit of hyperbole...

Rather amusing at times, but really rather tiresome after a while...
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 19, 2018, 02:47:21 PM
My satnav shows 18 satellites visable, how do you explain that?  Still waiting for links to details of operators of non satellite services.
It is your satnav (whatever that is)...and you want me to explain it to you?

That would be like asking me to explain how your pet gerbil ended up inside your rectum, would it not?
Personal abuse shows you have no ability to discuss the subject.
What personal abuse?

Do you even own a gerbil?

Or are you truly unable to comprehend how your satnav thingy works?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 19, 2018, 02:54:59 PM
A picture of a dish antenna and bunch of blowhard words demanding "proof..." (still caught up with terms relating to alcohol, it appears)...
Pete, if you had one thousand of those dishes in your post, all of them pointed in the same general direction, each and every one of them would receive the same signal as the one in the picture...

WTF is the matter with you?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: inquisitive on February 19, 2018, 02:59:31 PM
My satnav shows 18 satellites visable, how do you explain that?  Still waiting for links to details of operators of non satellite services.
It is your satnav (whatever that is)...and you want me to explain it to you?

That would be like asking me to explain how your pet gerbil ended up inside your rectum, would it not?
Personal abuse shows you have no ability to discuss the subject.
What personal abuse?

Do you even own a gerbil?

Or are you truly unable to comprehend how your satnav thingy works?
Yes, receives from satellites orbiting the earth.  www.gps.gov explains it for you.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 19, 2018, 03:06:37 PM
My satnav shows 18 satellites visable, how do you explain that?  Still waiting for links to details of operators of non satellite services.
It is your satnav (whatever that is)...and you want me to explain it to you?

That would be like asking me to explain how your pet gerbil ended up inside your rectum, would it not?
Personal abuse shows you have no ability to discuss the subject.
What personal abuse?

Do you even own a gerbil?

Or are you truly unable to comprehend how your satnav thingy works?
Yes, receives from satellites orbiting the earth.  www.gps.gov explains it for you.
Oh, well if that explains it for you then why would you ask me to explain it for you?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: inquisitive on February 19, 2018, 03:09:07 PM
My satnav shows 18 satellites visable, how do you explain that?  Still waiting for links to details of operators of non satellite services.
It is your satnav (whatever that is)...and you want me to explain it to you?

That would be like asking me to explain how your pet gerbil ended up inside your rectum, would it not?
Personal abuse shows you have no ability to discuss the subject.
What personal abuse?

Do you even own a gerbil?

Or are you truly unable to comprehend how your satnav thingy works?
Yes, receives from satellites orbiting the earth.  www.gps.gov explains it for you.
Oh, well if that explains it for you then why would you ask me to explain it for you?
Seems to be different to your thoughts and consistent with the way we see GPS work.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 19, 2018, 03:12:07 PM
My satnav shows 18 satellites visable, how do you explain that?  Still waiting for links to details of operators of non satellite services.
It is your satnav (whatever that is)...and you want me to explain it to you?

That would be like asking me to explain how your pet gerbil ended up inside your rectum, would it not?
Personal abuse shows you have no ability to discuss the subject.
What personal abuse?

Do you even own a gerbil?

Or are you truly unable to comprehend how your satnav thingy works?
Yes, receives from satellites orbiting the earth.  www.gps.gov explains it for you.
Oh, well if that explains it for you then why would you ask me to explain it for you?
Seems to be different to your thoughts and consistent with the way we see GPS work.
Well, we are not all the same now are we,,,

And who is "we?"

Are you going to accuse me of attacking your gerbil again?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: markjo on February 19, 2018, 03:20:08 PM
A bit of digging comes up with an estimation of 8,000 man-made objects orbiting the earth. Including approximately 3,000 operational satellites.
Each one required AT LEAST one launch vehicle, some took several.
Not necessarily.  It's not uncommon for one launch vehicle to carry a number of smaller satellites at once.  For example, SpaceX launches 10 Iridium satellites at a time.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: inquisitive on February 19, 2018, 03:27:42 PM
My satnav shows 18 satellites visable, how do you explain that?  Still waiting for links to details of operators of non satellite services.
It is your satnav (whatever that is)...and you want me to explain it to you?

That would be like asking me to explain how your pet gerbil ended up inside your rectum, would it not?
Personal abuse shows you have no ability to discuss the subject.
What personal abuse?

Do you even own a gerbil?

Or are you truly unable to comprehend how your satnav thingy works?
Yes, receives from satellites orbiting the earth.  www.gps.gov explains it for you.
Oh, well if that explains it for you then why would you ask me to explain it for you?
Seems to be different to your thoughts and consistent with the way we see GPS work.
Well, we are not all the same now are we,,,

And who is "we?"

Are you going to accuse me of attacking your gerbil again?
You are not convincing anyone that satellites do not exist.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: MicroBeta on February 19, 2018, 04:08:53 PM
You need to provide a lot.  Just because the antennas are dish shaped means nothing.  I’m the same height as Batman.  That doesn’t make me Bruce Wayne.

Troposcatter dishes are large (2m+) high gain dishes.  DIRECTV ka/ku dishes are small with an order of magnitude less gain.

DIRECTV’s installation specs require azimuth alignment to ±0.1°.  You can only get within 0.5° with a signal meter which is why installers need to use the dither procedure in the link I provided in a previous post.

Why ±0.1°?  Because the ka-band is very narrow and anything outside of this tolerance is subject to signal loss such as rain fade.

This tight tolerance, the smaller dish, and lower gain are the reasons troposcatter isn’t viable for receiving DIRECTV.

Most of this data is contained in the links I already provided.
Absolutely none of this is relevant to where the broadcast signal originates or type of transmitter.
<snip>
 
If you really think none of this is relevant they you do not understand how these transmission/reception systems work.  It actually explains a lot.

Mike
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: rabinoz on February 19, 2018, 04:19:31 PM
A picture of a dish antenna and bunch of blowhard words demanding "proof..." (still caught up with terms relating to alcohol, it appears)...
Pete, if you had one thousand of those dishes in your post, all of them pointed in the same general direction, each and every one of them would receive the same signal as the one in the picture...

Quote from: totallackey

WTF is the matter with you?
Nothing at all is the matter with me, you must have been looking in a mirror when you wrote that !

What is wrong with you is that you are a totally ignorant deceiver who simply cannot face the fact that troposcatter cannot explain DBS satellite reception.

Now would you care to make a rational response?

Have a nice day wallowing in ignorance.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 20, 2018, 04:40:03 AM
If you really think none of this is relevant they you do not understand how these transmission/reception systems work.  It actually explains a lot.

Mike
I said it was irrelevant to whether or not the signal is transmitted via satellite.

It is, as that signal could be coming from another source.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: rabinoz on February 20, 2018, 04:51:56 AM
If you really think none of this is relevant they you do not understand how these transmission/reception systems work.  It actually explains a lot.

Mike
I said it was irrelevant to whether or not the signal is transmitted via satellite.

It is, as that signal could be coming from another source.
Sure, "that signal could be coming from another source" stationary over that equator at the same altitude and longitude as is claimed for the satellite.

I guess that now you'll be claiming that there are balloons up there approximately 35,786 km above mean sea level

If you really think none of this is relevant then you do not understand how these transmission/reception systems work.  It actually explains a lot.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 20, 2018, 05:00:06 AM
A picture of a dish antenna and bunch of blowhard words demanding "proof..." (still caught up with terms relating to alcohol, it appears)...
Pete, if you had one thousand of those dishes in your post, all of them pointed in the same general direction, each and every one of them would receive the same signal as the one in the picture...
  • I'm not Pete, why don't you go and ask him.

  • If those "one thousand . . . dishes" were spread all over USA...
Pete, like I wrote earlier...WTF is the matter with you?

Are you impersonating George Reeves and donning the Superman costume?

Magnificent leap from what I wrote in my reply to: "...spread all over the USA."
and  all of them pointed in the same general direction, each and every one of them would" definitely NOT "receive the same signal as the one in the picture".
If I need to tell you that, either
     you didn't read my post but just looked at the pictures or
     you don't have the understanding to know what "Troposcatter System Maintains 50-Mb/s Connection Over 100 Miles" means.
Yeah they would Pete.

All they need is to be within the same range and tuned to the appropriate frequency.

I know what a 50 Mb/s connection is, Pete.

Either way you are totally too incompetent in these matters to intelligently debate it - but that won't stop you!
[/li][/list]

Quote from: totallackey

WTF is the matter with you?
Nothing at all is the matter with me, you must have been looking in a mirror when you wrote that !

What is wrong with you is that you are a totally ignorant deceiver who simply cannot face the fact that troposcatter cannot explain DBS satellite reception.

Now would you care to make a rational response?

Have a nice day wallowing in ignorance.
Sorry pete.

Troposcatter is a possible alternative to satellite transmission.

Here...
(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/t/baby-dummy-2718546.jpg)
Maybe that will help.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 20, 2018, 05:02:08 AM
If you really think none of this is relevant they you do not understand how these transmission/reception systems work.  It actually explains a lot.

Mike
I said it was irrelevant to whether or not the signal is transmitted via satellite.

It is, as that signal could be coming from another source.
Sure, "that signal could be coming from another source" stationary over that equator at the same altitude and longitude as is claimed for the satellite.

I guess that now you'll be claiming that there are balloons up there approximately 35,786 km above mean sea level

If you really think none of this is relevant then you do not understand how these transmission/reception systems work.  It actually explains a lot.
Actually, a balloon would not need to be at the same altitude Pete.

Put on your thinking cap...

If the balloon was closer, it could be much lower in altitude...
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: MicroBeta on February 20, 2018, 05:05:17 AM
If you really think none of this is relevant they you do not understand how these transmission/reception systems work.  It actually explains a lot.

Mike
I said it was irrelevant to whether or not the signal is transmitted via satellite.

It is, as that signal could be coming from another source.
Again, you're missing the point.  That data is relevant in that troposcatter and high-altitude balloons can't maintain the signal strength and alignment necessary eliminating them as probable sources.

Mike
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Macarios on February 20, 2018, 05:17:37 AM
If you really think none of this is relevant they you do not understand how these transmission/reception systems work.  It actually explains a lot.

Mike
I said it was irrelevant to whether or not the signal is transmitted via satellite.

It is, as that signal could be coming from another source.

Knowing that receiving angle of dish is very narrow and direction setting is very sensitive,
we have proof of the precise direction of the signal source.
To receive the signal from other source we should aim the dish in the direction of that other sourse.

Considering that no tower can be that tall, and no ballon can stay still in the sky, especially not for years,
we have proof that signal comes from geostationary satellites.

That is the only remaining possibility.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 20, 2018, 05:32:51 AM
If you really think none of this is relevant they you do not understand how these transmission/reception systems work.  It actually explains a lot.

Mike
I said it was irrelevant to whether or not the signal is transmitted via satellite.

It is, as that signal could be coming from another source.
Again, you're missing the point.  That data is relevant in that troposcatter and high-altitude balloons can't maintain the signal strength and alignment necessary eliminating them as probable sources.

Mike
Mike, you have made this claim before. Signal strength is simply a matter of the capabilities of the transmitter. Utilize/Attach a powerful enough transmitter and the issue you write about is moot.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 20, 2018, 05:35:39 AM
If you really think none of this is relevant they you do not understand how these transmission/reception systems work.  It actually explains a lot.

Mike
I said it was irrelevant to whether or not the signal is transmitted via satellite.

It is, as that signal could be coming from another source.

Knowing that receiving angle of dish is very narrow and direction setting is very sensitive,
we have proof of the precise direction of the signal source.
To receive the signal from other source we should aim the dish in the direction of that other sourse.

Considering that no tower can be that tall, and no ballon can stay still in the sky, especially not for years,
we have proof evidence that signal comes from geostationary satellites.

That is the one of the possibilities.

FTFY.

No need to thank me.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: NAZA on February 20, 2018, 06:14:00 AM
If you really think none of this is relevant they you do not understand how these transmission/reception systems work.  It actually explains a lot.

Mike
I said it was irrelevant to whether or not the signal is transmitted via satellite.

It is, as that signal could be coming from another source.
Sure, "that signal could be coming from another source" stationary over that equator at the same altitude and longitude as is claimed for the satellite.

I guess that now you'll be claiming that there are balloons up there approximately 35,786 km above mean sea level

If you really think none of this is relevant then you do not understand how these transmission/reception systems work.  It actually explains a lot.
Actually, a balloon would not to be at the same altitude Pete.

Put on your thinking cap...

If the balloon was closer, it could be much lower in altitude...

The sound you just heard was Lackey firing yet another round aimed  at his foot.

Let's examine this balloon bullshit.

We'll ignore for now the HUGE problem of the balloons maintaining the exact position needed for line of sight.


Not only would the balloons have to carry the microwave equipment necessary it also needs a power source. That means a generator and fuel.

So how big would a balloon have to be to carry all of this equipment to altitude?

Well that's easy since there are balloons that carry microwave equipment and generators aloft.

(https://i.imgur.com/8WnJvuY.jpg)

Millions see them almost every day.

(https://i.imgur.com/4zgcecY.jpg)

They are part of the Tethered Aerostat Radar System

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tethered_Aerostat_Radar_System

(https://i.imgur.com/cBsaFO1.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/8Rv4dkv.jpg)

These blimps operate at 15,000' and my DTV dish's elevation is around 50°.  This means a blimp would be tethered at a distance of <3 miles away.
But let's pretend they are at 100,000' and no airliner has hit the tether.   This puts the launch/recovery compound 16 miles away.
This also means that another dish just 23 miles away using the same blimp would be aligned 90° off from mine.
In reality the second dish points in almost the exact same direction as mine, which means it would require thousands of blimps that nobody has ever seen and launch compounds littering the landscape.

It is impossible to fake dtv.   Period.

Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Macarios on February 20, 2018, 06:45:08 AM
If you really think none of this is relevant they you do not understand how these transmission/reception systems work.  It actually explains a lot.

Mike
I said it was irrelevant to whether or not the signal is transmitted via satellite.

It is, as that signal could be coming from another source.

Knowing that receiving angle of dish is very narrow and direction setting is very sensitive,
we have proof of the precise direction of the signal source.
To receive the signal from other source we should aim the dish in the direction of that other sourse.

Considering that no tower can be that tall, and no ballon can stay still in the sky, especially not for years,
we have proof evidence that signal comes from geostationary satellites.

That is the one of the possibilities.

FTFY.

No need to thank me.

LOL
You are right. There in deed is no need to thank you. :-)
This is why:

New Orleans is 30 degrees north.
If people want to receive signal from 91W GALAXY 17, they have to point their dishes 55 degrees up.
They know it because there is online calculator that shows them where they can see it from their location.
One of those calculators is "dishpointer.com".

For signal source to have elevation of 55 degrees from one mile south it has to be 1.43 miles high.
For another home at one mile to the west you would need another source at 1.43 miles up.
Another source, because previous one wouldn't be seen at the same azimuth from new location.

Why we don't see tons of such sources all over the USA?

Now try to tell us that online calculators are "lies", and people "don't use them" to point their dishes.

Bear in mind that this forum is public and everyone, including those people, can read what would your answer be.

(You can use any calculator yourself, including DishPointer, to get the picture.
Play with locations and see where pointing directions intersect.
You can also see if their intersecting points can be consistent if the Earth was flat.
For example choose several cities at 90 degrees west at different latitudes.)

(http://i68.tinypic.com/zmhxkl.png)
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 20, 2018, 06:54:47 AM
If you really think none of this is relevant they you do not understand how these transmission/reception systems work.  It actually explains a lot.

Mike
I said it was irrelevant to whether or not the signal is transmitted via satellite.

It is, as that signal could be coming from another source.
Sure, "that signal could be coming from another source" stationary over that equator at the same altitude and longitude as is claimed for the satellite.

I guess that now you'll be claiming that there are balloons up there approximately 35,786 km above mean sea level

If you really think none of this is relevant then you do not understand how these transmission/reception systems work.  It actually explains a lot.
Actually, a balloon would not to be at the same altitude Pete.

Put on your thinking cap...

If the balloon was closer, it could be much lower in altitude...

The sound you just heard was Lackey firing yet another round aimed  at his foot.

Let's examine this balloon bullshit.

We'll ignore for now the HUGE problem of the balloons maintaining the exact position needed for line of sight.


Not only would the balloons have to carry the microwave equipment necessary it also needs a power source. That means a generator and fuel.

So how big would a balloon have to be to carry all of this equipment to altitude?

Well that's easy since there are balloons that carry microwave equipment and generators aloft.

(https://i.imgur.com/8WnJvuY.jpg)

Millions see them almost every day.

(https://i.imgur.com/4zgcecY.jpg)

They are part of the Tethered Aerostat Radar System

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tethered_Aerostat_Radar_System

(https://i.imgur.com/cBsaFO1.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/8Rv4dkv.jpg)

These blimps operate at 15,000' and my DTV dish's elevation is around 50°.  This means a blimp would be tethered at a distance of <3 miles away.
But let's pretend they are at 100,000' and no airliner has hit the tether.   This puts the launch/recovery compound 16 miles away.
This also means that another dish just 23 miles away using the same blimp would be aligned 90° off from mine.
In reality the second dish points in almost the exact same direction as mine, which means it would require thousands of blimps that nobody has ever seen and launch compounds littering the landscape.

It is impossible to fake dtv.   Period.
Who claimed "dtv" is fake?

WTF is the matter with you?

You do know blimps do not require tethers, correct?

Idiot...
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: markjo on February 20, 2018, 06:57:09 AM
You do know blimps do not require tethers, correct?
They do if you don't want to waste a whole lot of energy for station keeping.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: NAZA on February 20, 2018, 07:15:16 AM
If you really think none of this is relevant they you do not understand how these transmission/reception systems work.  It actually explains a lot.

Mike
I said it was irrelevant to whether or not the signal is transmitted via satellite.

It is, as that signal could be coming from another source.
Sure, "that signal could be coming from another source" stationary over that equator at the same altitude and longitude as is claimed for the satellite.

I guess that now you'll be claiming that there are balloons up there approximately 35,786 km above mean sea level

If you really think none of this is relevant then you do not understand how these transmission/reception systems work.  It actually explains a lot.
Actually, a balloon would not to be at the same altitude Pete.

Put on your thinking cap...

If the balloon was closer, it could be much lower in altitude...

The sound you just heard was Lackey firing yet another round aimed  at his foot.

Let's examine this balloon bullshit.

We'll ignore for now the HUGE problem of the balloons maintaining the exact position needed for line of sight.


Not only would the balloons have to carry the microwave equipment necessary it also needs a power source. That means a generator and fuel.

So how big would a balloon have to be to carry all of this equipment to altitude?

Well that's easy since there are balloons that carry microwave equipment and generators aloft.

(https://i.imgur.com/8WnJvuY.jpg)

Millions see them almost every day.

(https://i.imgur.com/4zgcecY.jpg)

They are part of the Tethered Aerostat Radar System

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tethered_Aerostat_Radar_System

(https://i.imgur.com/cBsaFO1.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/8Rv4dkv.jpg)

These blimps operate at 15,000' and my DTV dish's elevation is around 50°.  This means a blimp would be tethered at a distance of <3 miles away.
But let's pretend they are at 100,000' and no airliner has hit the tether.   This puts the launch/recovery compound 16 miles away.
This also means that another dish just 23 miles away using the same blimp would be aligned 90° off from mine.
In reality the second dish points in almost the exact same direction as mine, which means it would require thousands of blimps that nobody has ever seen and launch compounds littering the landscape.

It is impossible to fake dtv.   Period.
Who claimed "dtv" is fake?

WTF is the matter with you?

You do know blimps do not require tethers, correct?

Idiot...

Semantics and an irrelevant point.

YOU claim that companies are faking satellite transmission with balloons, I proved that is impossible.

And yes I do know that blimps do not have to be tethered, do you know that you just shot yourself in the foot again?

An untethered blimp would have even more problems maintaining position and would require more fuel to maintain position if it could at all.

Please tell us the altitude at which your magic invisible balloons operate.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 20, 2018, 07:37:14 AM
Semantics and an irrelevant point.
LMMFAO!
YOU claim that companies are faking satellite transmission with balloons, I proved that is impossible.
You will find no such post made by me on this thread and I expect you to retract this statement immediately and forthwith, you lying asshat.
And yes I do know that blimps do not have to be tethered, do you know that you just shot yourself in the foot again?

An untethered blimp would have even more problems maintaining position and would require more fuel to maintain position if it could at all.
You have ZERO corroborating evidence of this being the case...

Just a claim made by a hot air bag...
Please tell us the altitude at which your magic invisible balloons operate.
Balloons of all sorts occupy different heights each and every day.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 20, 2018, 08:55:49 AM
So, we left this thread with the rabbibot lying about gravity yet again, by confusing centripetal force with free fall:

And circular motion needs a "constant downwards acceleration" of v2/R to maintain a circular orbit.
Great.
Shame gravity isn't providing that.
It's providing a constant downwards acceleration of 9.8 m/s2.
They seem the same to me!

They don't to me.

One is a squared velocity divided by a radius.

The other is not.

You are attempting to confuse centripetal acceleration with free fall.

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/matthew_van_eerde/2010/01/24/deriving-the-centripetal-acceleration-formula/

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html

Please stop howling mad Pseudoscience at me.

It is unpleasant and dishonest.

Plus, the sending of digital information at frequencies below 40 mhz is perfectly possible...

Fast decoding of that information is the tricky bit, but luckily computers have been capable of the feat since the late 1970s...

See where I'm going with this?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: inquisitive on February 20, 2018, 08:56:26 AM
Semantics and an irrelevant point.
LMMFAO!
YOU claim that companies are faking satellite transmission with balloons, I proved that is impossible.
You will find no such post made by me on this thread and I expect you to retract this statement immediately and forthwith, you lying asshat.
And yes I do know that blimps do not have to be tethered, do you know that you just shot yourself in the foot again?

An untethered blimp would have even more problems maintaining position and would require more fuel to maintain position if it could at all.
You have ZERO corroborating evidence of this being the case...

Just a claim made by a hot air bag...
Please tell us the altitude at which your magic invisible balloons operate.
Balloons of all sorts occupy different heights each and every day.
Can we just establish if you are saying 'satellites do not exist' or 'satellites exist, but the are alternatives'.

The question was 'what height are balloons used for direct to home broadcasting?'

50M with troposcatter is not enough bandwidth for multichannel HD/UHD broadcasting.  If you believe tropscatter is used how do you explain reception in valleys etc.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: inquisitive on February 20, 2018, 09:01:49 AM
So, we left this thread with the rabbibot lying about gravity yet again, by confusing centripetal force with free fall:

And circular motion needs a "constant downwards acceleration" of v2/R to maintain a circular orbit.
Great.
Shame gravity isn't providing that.
It's providing a constant downwards acceleration of 9.8 m/s2.
They seem the same to me!

They don't to me.

One is a squared velocity divided by a radius.

The other is not.

You are attempting to confuse centripetal acceleration with free fall.

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/matthew_van_eerde/2010/01/24/deriving-the-centripetal-acceleration-formula/

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html

Please stop howling mad Pseudoscience at me.

It is unpleasant and dishonest.

Plus, the sending of digital information at frequencies below 40 mhz is perfectly possible...

Fast decoding of that information is the tricky bit, but luckily computers have been capable of the feat since the late 1970s...

See where I'm going with this?
Not for multichannel HD/UHD TV as we receive on our satellite receivers.  At ~11.5GHz
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 20, 2018, 09:32:08 AM
So, we left this thread with the rabbibot lying about gravity yet again, by confusing centripetal force with free fall:

And circular motion needs a "constant downwards acceleration" of v2/R to maintain a circular orbit.
Great.
Shame gravity isn't providing that.
It's providing a constant downwards acceleration of 9.8 m/s2.
They seem the same to me!

They don't to me.

One is a squared velocity divided by a radius.

The other is not.

You are attempting to confuse centripetal acceleration with free fall.

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/matthew_van_eerde/2010/01/24/deriving-the-centripetal-acceleration-formula/

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html

Please stop howling mad Pseudoscience at me.

It is unpleasant and dishonest.

Plus, the sending of digital information at frequencies below 40 mhz is perfectly possible...

Fast decoding of that information is the tricky bit, but luckily computers have been capable of the feat since the late 1970s...

See where I'm going with this?
Not for multichannel HD/UHD TV as we receive on our satellite receivers.  At ~11.5GHz

Which you know how?

I mean, centripetal acceleration and free fall are the same in your book,  so why wouldn't you be lying about everything else?

Legally, I'm allowed to assume you are btw:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsus_in_uno,_falsus_in_omnibus

So...

Where does that leave us?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: NAZA on February 20, 2018, 09:58:43 AM
Semantics and an irrelevant point.
LMMFAO!
YOU claim that companies are faking satellite transmission with balloons, I proved that is impossible.
You will find no such post made by me on this thread and I expect you to retract this statement immediately and forthwith, you lying asshat.


So my DTV is not receiving it's signal from a balloon?
Aim carefully.

Quote
And yes I do know that blimps do not have to be tethered, do you know that you just shot yourself in the foot again?

An untethered blimp would have even more problems maintaining position and would require more fuel to maintain position if it could at all.
You have ZERO corroborating evidence of this being the case...

Just a claim made by a hot air bag...


Perhaps you should ask Mommy to take you to a park and fly a kite.
Delusional moron.

Quote
Please tell us the altitude at which your magic invisible balloons operate.
Balloons of all sorts occupy different heights each and every day.

And what is the altitude of your magic balloons?
Why are you avoiding the question?
Foot hurting too much?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 20, 2018, 10:23:29 AM
Semantics and an irrelevant point.
LMMFAO!
YOU claim that companies are faking satellite transmission with balloons, I proved that is impossible.
You will find no such post made by me on this thread and I expect you to retract this statement immediately and forthwith, you lying asshat.


So my DTV is not receiving it's signal from a balloon?
Aim carefully.

Quote
And yes I do know that blimps do not have to be tethered, do you know that you just shot yourself in the foot again?

An untethered blimp would have even more problems maintaining position and would require more fuel to maintain position if it could at all.
You have ZERO corroborating evidence of this being the case...

Just a claim made by a hot air bag...


Perhaps you should ask Mommy to take you to a park and fly a kite.
Delusional moron.

Quote
Please tell us the altitude at which your magic invisible balloons operate.
Balloons of all sorts occupy different heights each and every day.

And what is the altitude of your magic balloons?
Why are you avoiding the question?
Foot hurting too much?

Digital information can easily be transmitted at frequencies below 40 mhz...

Care to discuss the implications?

As well as the implications of rabbibots lies about free fall being the same as centripetal acceleration?

Or will you use another sockpuppet to shitpost further?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Fild on February 20, 2018, 10:48:38 AM
Balloons definitively exists !




They used some kind of deep learning to simulate high altitudes winds to more or less steer the balloon ...


https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/project-loon-engineer-sees-a-tool-for-future-disaster-response-in-puerto-rico/


Be careful Google might have been taken over by FE'rs to divide us.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: markjo on February 20, 2018, 10:55:56 AM
Quote from: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsus_in_uno,_falsus_in_omnibus
Many legal scholars have criticized the continued use of the doctrine of falsus in uno to discredit a witness' entire testimony.[15] For example, Judge Richard Posner once remarked that falsus in uno was a "discredited doctrine" based on "primitive psychology."[16] Judge Posner argued that because witnesses "are prone to fudge, to fumble, to misspeak, to misstate, to exaggerate," few trials would reach a judgment if "any such pratfall warranted disbelieving a witness's entire testimony."

So...

Where does that leave us?
Indeed.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 20, 2018, 11:01:12 AM
Balloons definitively exists !




They used some kind of deep learning to simulate high altitudes winds to more or less steer the balloon ...


https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/project-loon-engineer-sees-a-tool-for-future-disaster-response-in-puerto-rico/


Be careful Google might have been taken over by FE'rs to divide us.

Embarrassingly obvious AI generated shitpost, created via scraping current forum trends.

Not much doubt at this point.

Of course the bot wishes to distract from the fact that digital info can be transmitted at frequencies below 40 mhz, and all this implies...

But meh.

Obvious shill forum is obvious.

Oh and markbot, lawyers pissing, moaning and quibbling is nothing new...

You should know.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Fild on February 20, 2018, 11:08:39 AM
Balloons definitively exists !




They used some kind of deep learning to simulate high altitudes winds to more or less steer the balloon ...


https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/project-loon-engineer-sees-a-tool-for-future-disaster-response-in-puerto-rico/


Be careful Google might have been taken over by FE'rs to divide us.

Embarrassingly obvious AI generated shitpost, created via scraping current forum trends.

Not much doubt at this point.

Of course the bot wishes to distract from the fact that digital info can be transmitted at frequencies below 40 mhz, and all this implies...

But meh.

Obvious shill forum is obvious.

Oh and markbot, lawyers pissing, moaning and quibbling is nothing new...

You should know.


I actually showed you that balloons exists and can actually be used to connect people to the internet without a fake satellite and you'r not happy ?

Some glitch in your script ?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: markjo on February 20, 2018, 11:15:34 AM
Of course the bot wishes to distract from the fact that digital info can be transmitted at frequencies below 40 mhz, and all this implies...
What kind of data rates do you suppose that frequencies below 40 mhz imply?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Macarios on February 20, 2018, 11:17:20 AM
Where does that leave us?

It leave us at false claims that:
- satellites "can't" stay in orbit
- satellites "don't" exist
- rockets "don't" work in vacuum
- Space "doesn't" exist
- you "can't" see object of magnitude 15.5 using telescope
- atoms in physical body are in "physical contact"
- inertia "doesn't" make body resist trajectory curving
- transversal acceleration "increase" longitudinal speed
- inertial forces are "not" forces, they "are" inertia itself (and inertia is not a force, which is correct)
- at all orbital altitudes, far away from Earth's surface, gravitational acceleration g "is still 9.8 m/s2"
etc.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: NAZA on February 20, 2018, 12:59:46 PM
.

(You can use any calculator yourself, including DishPointer, to get the picture.
Play with locations and see where pointing directions intersect.
You can also see if their intersecting points can be consistent if the Earth was flat.
For example choose several cities at 90 degrees west at different latitudes.)

(http://i68.tinypic.com/zmhxkl.png)

You will never, I repeat NEVER get a flatter to do this.  They'd slit the throats of their children to avoid it.
And, if you do the math for them they will ignore, change the subject, or flee the thread.

Watch.

The elevation for a dish in NOLA is 55°.
The elevation for a dish in
Memphis is 49°.
The distance between them is 350 miles.
We have 2 angles and one side of a triangle.
This means that the point in the sky on a flat earth that the dishes point to is 2527 miles from NOLA and 2742 miles from Memphis and it's altitude is 2069 MILES.

These numbers will of course change if you use different cities on a flat earth, but on a globe all cities will point to the same spot above the equator.

So I'll ask our expert marksman once again...

What is the altitude of your magic balloons?


Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 20, 2018, 01:14:38 PM
They'd slit the throats of their children to avoid it.

Okay, botty boy, listen up - real people do not talk like this.

Only mad AI algorithms do.

You need to stop it.

Trying to help you here!
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Lonegranger on February 20, 2018, 01:48:36 PM
They'd slit the throats of their children to avoid it.

Okay, botty boy, listen up - real people do not talk like this.

Only mad AI algorithms do.

You need to stop it.

Trying to help you here!

Thus talks the biggest botty bott around.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 20, 2018, 02:04:16 PM
They'd slit the throats of their children to avoid it.

Okay, botty boy, listen up - real people do not talk like this.

Only mad AI algorithms do.

You need to stop it.

Trying to help you here!

Thus talks the biggest botty bott around.

Getting the mad AI algorithm big guns out now...

Chatting shit about killing kids like it's normal.

Complete insanity imminent...
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: NAZA on February 20, 2018, 02:07:33 PM
Quote
And, if you do the math for them they will ignore, change the subject, or flee the thread. 

^
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 20, 2018, 02:12:57 PM
Quote
And, if you do the math for them they will ignore, change the subject, or flee the thread.

Or talk about murdering children:

They'd slit the throats of their children to avoid it.

You're a psycho.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: inquisitive on February 20, 2018, 02:14:13 PM
They'd slit the throats of their children to avoid it.

Okay, botty boy, listen up - real people do not talk like this.

Only mad AI algorithms do.

You need to stop it.

Trying to help you here!

Thus talks the biggest botty bott around.

Getting the mad AI algorithm big guns out now...

Chatting shit about killing kids like it's normal.

Complete insanity imminent...
So you accept that dish angles show a round earth,  unless you have actual proof of something else.  Polite reply please.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: MicroBeta on February 20, 2018, 02:35:52 PM
If you really think none of this is relevant they you do not understand how these transmission/reception systems work.  It actually explains a lot.

Mike
I said it was irrelevant to whether or not the signal is transmitted via satellite.

It is, as that signal could be coming from another source.
Again, you're missing the point.  That data is relevant in that troposcatter and high-altitude balloons can't maintain the signal strength and alignment necessary eliminating them as probable sources.

Mike
Mike, you have made this claim before. Signal strength is simply a matter of the capabilities of the transmitter. Utilize/Attach a powerful enough transmitter and the issue you write about is moot.
That is incorrect.  A powerful enough transmitter is useless if alignment to the reflector can’t be maintained.  This is especially true for ka-band.  Balloons are for sure out. 

Troposcatter propagation distances are variable.  They are subject to changes in atmospheric conditions.  Conditions that not only effect propagation distances but angles and directions.   

If you look at this objectively, high-altitude balloons and troposcatter aren’t viable for DBS.   

Additionally, nobody has ever seen a mythical fleet of troposcatter transmitters or high-altitude providing signal to a  hundred million dishes worldwide. 

Mike
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 20, 2018, 02:45:13 PM
If you really think none of this is relevant they you do not understand how these transmission/reception systems work.  It actually explains a lot.

Mike
I said it was irrelevant to whether or not the signal is transmitted via satellite.

It is, as that signal could be coming from another source.
Again, you're missing the point.  That data is relevant in that troposcatter and high-altitude balloons can't maintain the signal strength and alignment necessary eliminating them as probable sources.

Mike
Mike, you have made this claim before. Signal strength is simply a matter of the capabilities of the transmitter. Utilize/Attach a powerful enough transmitter and the issue you write about is moot.
That is incorrect.  A powerful enough transmitter is useless if alignment to the reflector can’t be maintained.  This is especially true for ka-band.  Balloons are for sure out. 

Troposcatter propagation distances are variable.  They are subject to changes in atmospheric conditions.  Conditions that not only effect propagation distances but angles and directions.   

If you look at this objectively, high-altitude balloons and troposcatter aren’t viable for DBS.   

Additionally, nobody has ever seen a mythical fleet of troposcatter transmitters or high-altitude providing signal to a  hundred million dishes worldwide. 

Mike

What is wrong with you?

One of the members is talking about murdering kids and you carry on like nothing happened...

Are you human?

What the fuck?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: markjo on February 20, 2018, 03:13:26 PM
What is wrong with you?

One of the members is talking about murdering kids and you carry on like nothing happened...

Are you human?

What the fuck?
Haven't you already been warned for spamming stuff like this?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Googleotomy on February 20, 2018, 04:18:12 PM
What is wrong with you?

One of the members is talking about murdering kids and you carry on like nothing happened...

Are you human?

What the fuck?
Haven't you already been warned for spamming stuff like this?

One (among many others) of the things I have noticed on this website are that there are some absolutely idiotic posts from supposedly flat earthers who supposedly know nothing about the subjects.

I wonder if these were made by some over-zealous so-called "round earthers" to make this website look worse than it already is ?
One of my early posts was about how some amateur radio operators "Moon Bounce" transmitted radio signals to the moon, where they  "bounced" off the moon and were received back on earth . Using the time and multiplying it by speed of radio waves they could estimate the distance from the earth to the moon. After all, that's all that radar is.
Some of the choice replies were.:
"A ham radio operator in his shack talking to truckers can't do this." Unlicensed "CB" operators do this. Licensed amateur radio operators don't.They have to pass exams for their license. (Issued by the FCC in the USA). All you need for a "CB" is about $50 US. However, the majority of "CB'ers" do operate in a sane and legal manner for its intended purpose.

"It would take an antenna the size of a footbal field to do this." Amateur radio operators do "Moon Bounce" on UHF and above.
For example : The size of an element for an antenna on the 144 MHZ ham  band is about 2 Meters in length (About 6 Feet). Not quite as large as a football field. LOL

Anyway, that's typical for flat earthers, so just realize what's up against you on this FES website !

Hey, fellow round earthers !
You don't need to do this !
Just leave it to the flat earthers !
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: MicroBeta on February 20, 2018, 04:55:48 PM
If you really think none of this is relevant they you do not understand how these transmission/reception systems work.  It actually explains a lot.

Mike
I said it was irrelevant to whether or not the signal is transmitted via satellite.

It is, as that signal could be coming from another source.
Again, you're missing the point.  That data is relevant in that troposcatter and high-altitude balloons can't maintain the signal strength and alignment necessary eliminating them as probable sources.

Mike
Mike, you have made this claim before. Signal strength is simply a matter of the capabilities of the transmitter. Utilize/Attach a powerful enough transmitter and the issue you write about is moot.
That is incorrect.  A powerful enough transmitter is useless if alignment to the reflector can’t be maintained.  This is especially true for ka-band.  Balloons are for sure out. 

Troposcatter propagation distances are variable.  They are subject to changes in atmospheric conditions.  Conditions that not only effect propagation distances but angles and directions.   

If you look at this objectively, high-altitude balloons and troposcatter aren’t viable for DBS.   

Additionally, nobody has ever seen a mythical fleet of troposcatter transmitters or high-altitude providing signal to a  hundred million dishes worldwide. 

Mike

What is wrong with you?

One of the members is talking about murdering kids and you carry on like nothing happened...

Are you human?

What the fuck?
Report the offending post and stay on topic.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 21, 2018, 02:07:28 AM
That is incorrect.  A powerful enough transmitter is useless if alignment to the reflector can’t be maintained.  This is especially true for ka-band.  Balloons are for sure out. 

Troposcatter propagation distances are variable.  They are subject to changes in atmospheric conditions.  Conditions that not only effect propagation distances but angles and directions.   

If you look at this objectively, high-altitude balloons and troposcatter aren’t viable for DBS.   

Additionally, nobody has ever seen a mythical fleet of troposcatter transmitters or high-altitude providing signal to a  hundred million dishes worldwide. 

Mike
Your insistence on maintaining this lame argument is so tiring.

Transmission/Reception of signal is not rocket surgery.

There is plenty of documented footage from balloons/blimps demonstrating they can be very stable transmission platforms.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: inquisitive on February 21, 2018, 02:14:16 AM
That is incorrect.  A powerful enough transmitter is useless if alignment to the reflector can’t be maintained.  This is especially true for ka-band.  Balloons are for sure out. 

Troposcatter propagation distances are variable.  They are subject to changes in atmospheric conditions.  Conditions that not only effect propagation distances but angles and directions.   

If you look at this objectively, high-altitude balloons and troposcatter aren’t viable for DBS.   

Additionally, nobody has ever seen a mythical fleet of troposcatter transmitters or high-altitude providing signal to a  hundred million dishes worldwide. 

Mike
Your insistence on maintaining this lame argument is so tiring.

Transmission/Reception of signal is not rocket surgery.

There is plenty of documented footage from balloons/blimps demonstrating they can be very stable transmission platforms.
'can be' but are not used, unless you can provide actual details for broadcast tv.  Satellites are proven technology.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: rvlvr on February 21, 2018, 02:16:53 AM
There is plenty of documented footage from balloons/blimps demonstrating they can be very stable transmission platforms.
Is there evidence they are used in this capacity instead of the satellites? How many are there, and where are they? How can I spot or track them?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 21, 2018, 02:31:20 AM
So my DTV is not receiving it's signal from a balloon?
Aim carefully.
I do not even know if you have DTV.
Perhaps you should ask Mommy to take you to a park and fly a kite.
Delusional moron.
Why would I use a tethered kite to demonstrate the stability of an untethered blimp?

You have never seen a blimp in operation before, have you asshat...

Moran...
And what is the altitude of your magic balloons?
Why are you avoiding the question?
Foot hurting too much?
There is no magic involved in in balloons.

I know, you are confusing this:
(https://fthmb.tqn.com/5dBIAtDpzUWuLsShl5tZPYlUXLY=/960x0/filters:no_upscale()/GettyImages-90339990-586b54d73df78ce2c33d2deb.jpg)
with this:
(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/vector-cartoon-character-magician-holding-magic-wand-rabbit-55588003.jpg)
but all they have in common is childrens' parties...

Again, balloons of all types can be found at various altitudes at a various times throughout the day and night.

And my foot is hurting from kicking your
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSelODAr87CGWAnHZBFuPhjsKEVs_6CCeXpCFr3ewwE1MYiYN1g)
in this debate.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 21, 2018, 02:39:06 AM
There is plenty of documented footage from balloons/blimps demonstrating they can be very stable transmission platforms.
Is there evidence they are used in this capacity instead of the satellites? How many are there, and where are they? How can I spot or track them?
The issue is possible alternatives to satellite transmission.

Possible alternatives were put forth.

Transmission of signals via troposcatter and balloons is axiomatic.

Specific frequency has not been debated and as I have stated before, I have not claimed they have been used for this.

Balloons are all over the place. I am sure troposcatter is used all over the globe, especially in difficult areas to access.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: rvlvr on February 21, 2018, 02:56:56 AM
Balloons are all over the place. I am sure troposcatter is used all over the globe, especially in difficult to access.
It is this part here which interests me the most.

I had not heard of troposcatter before I read of it here. Goes to show there is valuable (at least for me) information here in addition to fun and games.

The following (apologies, if repost) says it is being revisited by the military as an alternative to satellite communications, and it has been used in some capacity since the 1960s. How this translated into volume of use I cannot say. Nor can I say how viable an alternative it is nowadays.

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2013/07/army-troposcatter-communications.html (http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2013/07/army-troposcatter-communications.html)

So, what I am trying to get to is, yes, troposcatter does appear to work, but can that really be said to disprove the use of communications satellites is questionable.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Macarios on February 21, 2018, 03:03:41 AM
There is plenty of documented footage from balloons/blimps demonstrating they can be very stable transmission platforms.
Is there evidence they are used in this capacity instead of the satellites? How many are there, and where are they? How can I spot or track them?
The issue is possible alternatives to satellite transmission.

Possible alternatives were put forth.

Transmission of signals via troposcatter and balloons is axiomatic.

Specific frequency has not been debated and as I have stated before, I have not claimed they have been used for this.

Balloons are all over the place. I am sure troposcatter is used all over the globe, especially in difficult to access.

Any possible alternative source designed to mimic geostationary satellites has to be "geostationary" for years.
Not to move in relation to the grond for more than half of a degree.
This eliminates any kind of objects flying in the air.
The only two ways to achieve this are fixed towers or very well anchored balloons.

The alternative also has to be high enough to appear at the same elevation and azimuth for large areas on the ground.
You can calculate height yourself from data published on several web sites, and used from there for orienting dishes all over the world.
Knowing that the highest high altitude balloon flight in history was 32.9 miles high, and it was not anchored (fixed in the sky),
this eliminates ballons, because the alternative source has to be many times higher.
Additionally, we don't see anchors every couple of miles required to keep in place that many balloons.

Towers are already eliminated, as the tallest man made structure is Burj Khalifa, 828 meters. 830 with antenna on top of it.
Every structure like that can be seen from 64 miles away, and in real life we don't see such towers every mile or two all around.

EDIT: By using alternative source you can fool small number of people concentrated in small area, like same household or very small village.
But in attempt to scale up the same thing to vast population the system quickly grows beyond concealability.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: rabinoz on February 21, 2018, 03:14:30 AM
So my DTV is not receiving it's signal from a balloon?
Aim carefully.
I do not even know if you have DTV.
Perhaps you should ask Mommy to take you to a park and fly a kite.
Delusional moron.
Why would I use a tethered kite to demonstrate the stability of an untethered blimp?

You have never seen a blimp in operation before, have you asshat...

Moran...
And what is the altitude of your magic balloons?
Why are you avoiding the question?
Foot hurting too much?
There is no magic involved in in balloons.

I know, you are confusing this:
(https://fthmb.tqn.com/5dBIAtDpzUWuLsShl5tZPYlUXLY=/960x0/filters:no_upscale()/GettyImages-90339990-586b54d73df78ce2c33d2deb.jpg)
with this:
(https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/vector-cartoon-character-magician-holding-magic-wand-rabbit-55588003.jpg)
but all they have in common is childrens' parties...

Again, balloons of all types can be found at various altitudes at a various times throughout the day and night.

And my foot is hurting from kicking your
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSelODAr87CGWAnHZBFuPhjsKEVs_6CCeXpCFr3ewwE1MYiYN1g)
in this debate.
All a loser can do is resort to ridicule, which you do in spades.

I really that think you've lost all sense of reason and gone ballistic!

DBS Satellite TV has been in operation since 1984, yet all you can provide guesses that can cover local areas and are not yet in wide service.

And a point that you refuse to face is that the receiver dishes for a specific satellite service all point to one point approximately 35,786 km above the globe. Those dishes simply will not point to one location at any height above your flat earth.
If you disagree, you show how the meet at your hypothetical balloon locations!

How do you explain broadband data and TV services to aircraft flying far from any land?
You might read, QANTAS SWITCHES ON FAST, FREE INFLIGHT WIFI (https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media-releases/qantas-switches-on-fast-free-inflight-wifi/)

Current ADS-B systems use ground based link, so can only track area within about 200 km of a land or ship based transmitter.
The soon to be implemented satellite ADS-B system extends that coverage over the whole earth,
see Aireon, SPACE-BASED ADS-B MAKING GLOBAL AIR TRAFFIC SURVEILLANCE A POWERFUL REALITY (https://aireon.com/).
Quote
Global Air Traffic Surveillance
In 2018, Aireon will provide the first truly global air traffic surveillance system using a space-based ADS-B network that makes it possible to extend visibility across the entire planet. Aireon will enable real-time transmission of ADS-B reports from equipped aircraft to Air Traffic Management automation platforms and Air Traffic Controllers in every Flight Information Region throughout the world.

But, all the wonderful Total Lackey can do is is to guess and ridicule!
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 21, 2018, 04:58:35 AM
All a loser can do is resort to ridicule, which you do in spades.

I really that think you've lost all sense of reason and gone ballistic!

DBS Satellite TV has been in operation since 1984, yet all you can provide guesses that can cover local areas and are not yet in wide service.

How do you explain broadband data and TV services to aircraft flying far from any land?
You might read, QANTAS SWITCHES ON FAST, FREE INFLIGHT WIFI (https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media-releases/qantas-switches-on-fast-free-inflight-wifi/)

Current ADS-B systems use ground based link, so can only track area within about 200 km of a land or ship based transmitter.
The soon to be implemented satellite ADS-B system extends that coverage over the whole earth,
see Aireon, SPACE-BASED ADS-B MAKING GLOBAL AIR TRAFFIC SURVEILLANCE A POWERFUL REALITY (https://aireon.com/).
Quote
Global Air Traffic Surveillance
In 2018, Aireon will provide the first truly global air traffic surveillance system using a space-based ADS-B network that makes it possible to extend visibility across the entire planet. Aireon will enable real-time transmission of ADS-B reports from equipped aircraft to Air Traffic Management automation platforms and Air Traffic Controllers in every Flight Information Region throughout the world.

But, all the wonderful Total Lackey can do is is to guess and ridicule!
Pete, how you doin' today!

Did you sleep it off well enough to offer anything worthwhile?
(https://dashthebook.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/egg-on-face.png)
I don't know Pete...

Still looking a little rough there...

You sure you up for today's game?

Let's see!

Here's the first pitch...

1) DBS Satellite TV has been in operation since 1984, yet all you can provide guesses that can cover local areas and are not yet in wide service.
AT&T offers DirecTV and you do not even need a dish or receiver.

Wide area covered.

Ah Pete...that's strike one...

2)And a point that you refuse to face is that the receiver dishes for a specific satellite service all point to one point approximately 35,786 km above the globe. Those dishes simply will not point to one location at any height above your flat earth.
If you disagree, you show how the meet at your hypothetical balloon locations!

Nice cut Pete!

But a swing and a miss nonetheless!

Any transmitter occupying or intercepting the line of sight of the dish can be at any altitude along that line of sight.

Strike two!

3) How do you explain broadband data and TV services to aircraft flying far from any land? You might read, QANTAS SWITCHES ON FAST, FREE INFLIGHT WIFI (https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media-releases/qantas-switches-on-fast-free-inflight-wifi/)

Ah PETE!!!

Strike 3 and your out!

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/21/facebook-solar-powered-internet-plane-test-flight-aquila
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: inquisitive on February 21, 2018, 05:16:11 AM
The existance of a does not prove the non existance of b.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: ItsRoundIPromise on February 21, 2018, 05:54:02 AM

2)And a point that you refuse to face is that the receiver dishes for a specific satellite service all point to one point approximately 35,786 km above the globe. Those dishes simply will not point to one location at any height above your flat earth.
If you disagree, you show how the meet at your hypothetical balloon locations!

Nice cut Pete!

But a swing and a miss nonetheless!

Any transmitter occupying or intercepting the line of sight of the dish can be at any altitude along that line of sight.

Strike two!
This has been explained to you in great detail several times, but I'll try to make it simpler for you.  Yes, and transmitter can be at any altitude along the line of sight for ANY SINGLE DISH.  But when you have multiple dishes, simple trigonometry will follow their separate lines of sight to a single point at a single altitude.  If there were only one dish on the planet you would have a great point.  Because there are many, the point you're trying to make is at best superfluous and irrelevant, and at worst deliberately dishonest and misleading.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 21, 2018, 06:35:11 AM
This has been explained to you in great detail several times, but I'll try to make it simpler for you.  Yes, and transmitter can be at any altitude along the line of sight for ANY SINGLE DISH.  But when you have multiple dishes, simple trigonometry will follow their separate lines of sight to a single point at a single altitude.  If there were only one dish on the planet you would have a great point.  Because there are many, the point you're trying to make is at best superfluous and irrelevant, and at worst deliberately dishonest and misleading.
You are so full of crap it is amazing you were able to type this bull shit.

You are going to claim because a transmitter occupies only a very specific altitude it is able to reach multitudes of dishes?

That is just bull shit.

Wireless internet, available by dish reception, is also transmitted at ground level. and any dish that can be aimed at the transmission tower can receive the signal.

Go peddle your papers elsewhere.

You are the one being disingenuous, dishonest, and misleading.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: markjo on February 21, 2018, 06:46:27 AM
There is plenty of documented footage from balloons/blimps demonstrating they can be very stable transmission platforms.
Is there evidence they are used in this capacity instead of the satellites? How many are there, and where are they? How can I spot or track them?
The issue is possible alternatives to satellite transmission.

Possible alternatives were put forth.

Transmission of signals via troposcatter and balloons is axiomatic.

Specific frequency has not been debated and as I have stated before, I have not claimed they have been used for this.

Balloons are all over the place. I am sure troposcatter is used all over the globe, especially in difficult to access.
You keep advocating the possibility of using balloons and troposcatter without acknowledging their practical limitations.

I wonder why that is.

You keep bringing up new technologies without explaining how the same commercial satellite services could have been provided 30 years ago.

You do understand that various satellite based services are a growing commercial industry, don't you?  Do you honestly think that these providers can fool  all of their customers all of the time?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 21, 2018, 07:10:29 AM
The issue is possible alternatives to satellite transmission.

Possible alternatives were put forth.

Transmission of signals via troposcatter and balloons is axiomatic.

Specific frequency has not been debated and as I have stated before, I have not claimed they have been used for this.

Balloons are all over the place. I am sure troposcatter is used all over the globe, especially in difficult to access.
You keep advocating the possibility of using balloons and troposcatter without acknowledging their practical limitations.

I wonder why that is.

You keep bringing up new technologies without explaining how the same commercial satellite services could have been provided 30 years ago.

You do understand that various satellite based services are a growing commercial industry, don't you?  Do you honestly think that these providers can fool  all of their customers all of the time?
[/quote]
What are you whining about Opus?

Does it bother you supposed "satellite services" are totally available without the use of a "satellite?"

Are you gonna cry?

Do you want me to call your mommy?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Macarios on February 21, 2018, 07:22:47 AM
Does it bother you supposed "satellite services" are totally available partially possible without the use of a "satellite?"

FTFY :-)

The signals are possible, but not the locations of sources.

Think about plausibility of alternative locations.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: ItsRoundIPromise on February 21, 2018, 08:52:24 AM
This has been explained to you in great detail several times, but I'll try to make it simpler for you.  Yes, and transmitter can be at any altitude along the line of sight for ANY SINGLE DISH.  But when you have multiple dishes, simple trigonometry will follow their separate lines of sight to a single point at a single altitude.  If there were only one dish on the planet you would have a great point.  Because there are many, the point you're trying to make is at best superfluous and irrelevant, and at worst deliberately dishonest and misleading.
You are so full of crap it is amazing you were able to type this bull shit.

You are going to claim because a transmitter occupies only a very specific altitude it is able to reach multitudes of dishes?

That is just bull shit.

Wireless internet, available by dish reception, is also transmitted at ground level. and any dish that can be aimed at the transmission tower can receive the signal.

Go peddle your papers elsewhere.

You are the one being disingenuous, dishonest, and misleading.
I'll try this again slower.

Fact: Dishes are pointed to a place in the sky.  We agree on this, right?

Fact: These dishes can receive a signal from any transmitter in their direct line.  Again, we agree, right?

Fact: If you follow the line from any number of dishes that allegedly use the same satellite transmitter, each of the lines will intersect at a point where the alleged satellite is supposedly located.  This is trigonometry.

Fact: If you claim that satellite service is being provided by some means other than satellites, you need to have a separate transmitter for each of these dishes, because there is only one point where their lines of sight intersect, and it's at the satellite's orbital position.  That means DirecTV and Dish Network would have an individual balloon for every single customer.

Fact: A balloon could provide service to multiple dishes, but the dishes would need to be aimed differently than what we observe.

Do you get it yet?



Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Fild on February 21, 2018, 09:01:20 AM
Already mentioned them on the previous page .....

Balloons exists and are currently used in Puerto Rico to provide internet after the hurricane destroyed the ground infrastructure .
They hover around 20 km up and are steered by going up and down in high altitude winds .
Google made them, not some obscur start up looking for financing .
They can't probably replace the signals from a satellite to dishes but you may be able to broadcast TV channels trough the 4G network they provide.





https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/project-loon-engineer-sees-a-tool-for-future-disaster-response-in-puerto-rico/
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: inquisitive on February 21, 2018, 09:22:40 AM
The conclusion to this discussion is that satellites are real.  All agree?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: markjo on February 21, 2018, 10:02:49 AM
Quote
The issue is possible alternatives to satellite transmission.

Possible alternatives were put forth.

Transmission of signals via troposcatter and balloons is axiomatic.

Specific frequency has not been debated and as I have stated before, I have not claimed they have been used for this.

Balloons are all over the place. I am sure troposcatter is used all over the globe, especially in difficult to access.
You keep advocating the possibility of using balloons and troposcatter without acknowledging their practical limitations.

I wonder why that is.

You keep bringing up new technologies without explaining how the same commercial satellite services could have been provided 30 years ago.

You do understand that various satellite based services are a growing commercial industry, don't you?  Do you honestly think that these providers can fool  all of their customers all of the time?
What are you whining about Opus?

Does it bother you supposed "satellite services" are totally available without the use of a "satellite?"
Not at all. 

It bothers me that you think that no one can tell the difference between satellite services and those alternatives that you propose, even if they were viable on a wide scale.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: rvlvr on February 21, 2018, 10:12:25 AM
The conclusion to this discussion is that satellites are real.  All agree?
Hear, hear!
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: MicroBeta on February 21, 2018, 10:49:46 AM
That is incorrect.  A powerful enough transmitter is useless if alignment to the reflector can’t be maintained.  This is especially true for ka-band.  Balloons are for sure out. 

Troposcatter propagation distances are variable.  They are subject to changes in atmospheric conditions.  Conditions that not only effect propagation distances but angles and directions.   

If you look at this objectively, high-altitude balloons and troposcatter aren’t viable for DBS.   

Additionally, nobody has ever seen a mythical fleet of troposcatter transmitters or high-altitude providing signal to a  hundred million dishes worldwide. 

Mike
Your insistence on maintaining this lame argument is so tiring.

Transmission/Reception of signal is not rocket surgery.

There is plenty of documented footage from balloons/blimps demonstrating they can be very stable transmission platforms.
The fact is you're incorrect.  Either you don't understand why you're wrong of you just won't admit it.  Either way you have failed to refute anything I've posted.

Mike
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Here to laugh at you on February 21, 2018, 11:00:41 AM
The conclusion to this discussion is that satellites are real.  All agree?

Agree

Though it was never really in doubt.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: NAZA on February 21, 2018, 11:04:15 AM
The conclusion to this discussion is that satellites are real.  All agree?

Agreed, but don't hold your breath waiting for Lackey.   He'd sooner throw his mother off a cliff than admit the truth.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Here to laugh at you on February 21, 2018, 11:41:50 AM
The conclusion to this discussion is that satellites are real.  All agree?

Agreed, but don't hold your breath waiting for Lackey.   He'd sooner throw his mother off a cliff than admit the truth.

You do know he doesn't have a mother?
he has two fathers.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: markjo on February 21, 2018, 11:54:00 AM
The conclusion to this discussion is that satellites are real.  All agree?

Agreed, but don't hold your breath waiting for Lackey.   He'd sooner throw his mother off a cliff than admit the truth.
Be careful what you say, lest Papa Legba accuse you of endorsing matricide.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: rabinoz on February 21, 2018, 05:32:48 PM
All a loser can do is resort to ridicule, which you do in spades.

I really that think you've lost all sense of reason and gone ballistic!

DBS Satellite TV has been in operation since 1984, yet all you can provide guesses that can cover local areas and are not yet in wide service.

How do you explain broadband data and TV services to aircraft flying far from any land?
You might read, QANTAS SWITCHES ON FAST, FREE INFLIGHT WIFI (https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media-releases/qantas-switches-on-fast-free-inflight-wifi/)

Current ADS-B systems use ground based link, so can only track area within about 200 km of a land or ship based transmitter.
The soon to be implemented satellite ADS-B system extends that coverage over the whole earth,
see Aireon, SPACE-BASED ADS-B MAKING GLOBAL AIR TRAFFIC SURVEILLANCE A POWERFUL REALITY (https://aireon.com/).
Quote
Global Air Traffic Surveillance
In 2018, Aireon will provide the first truly global air traffic surveillance system using a space-based ADS-B network that makes it possible to extend visibility across the entire planet. Aireon will enable real-time transmission of ADS-B reports from equipped aircraft to Air Traffic Management automation platforms and Air Traffic Controllers in every Flight Information Region throughout the world.

But, all the wonderful Total Lackey can do is is to guess and ridicule!

1) DBS Satellite TV has been in operation since 1984, yet all you can provide guesses that can cover local areas and are not yet in wide service.
AT&T offers DirecTV and you do not even need a dish or receiver.

Wide area covered.
After all your ridicule, I guess I'm allowed a bit - you do come up with such Total Lunacy after all!
Are you a total ignoramus? Read this about  AT&T DirecTV:
Quote
At-a-Glance Equipment Requirements:
  • A minimum connection speed of 750Kbps (DSL or cable modem) is required. 2Mbps or higher is recommended.
    A wireless router connected to your home Internet service. If you don't have a wireless router, please schedule a professional installation by calling 1-800-531-5000.
Connecting your Genie® or HD DVR to the Internet opens the door to a whole new world of entertainment, like access to thousands of DIRECTV On Demand movies and shows, Pandora Internet Radio, your live and recorded shows (model HR44 and above) on your mobile device, and more. Go to directv.com/getconnected to learn more about all the benefits of Getting Connected.

AT&T DirecTV requires an internet connection of at least 750Kbps!
And the internet connection requires "DSL or cable modem", though I imagine wireless or satellite could be used.
I get faster service here with 4g wireless (at 38Mbps download and 39Mbps upload right now) than cable (at 35Mbps download and 5Mbps upload max).

So your strike one never was! It's not a good start for your Totally Lacklustre guesswork!
Quote from: totallackey
Ah Pete...that's strike one...
Nope sorry, your wonderful AT&T DirecTV might be good, but it must have internet access!

Quote from: totallackey
2)And a point that you refuse to face is that the receiver dishes for a specific satellite service all point to one point approximately 35,786 km above the globe. Those dishes simply will not point to one location at any height above your flat earth.
If you disagree, you show how the meet at your hypothetical balloon locations!


But a swing and a miss nonetheless!
Nope, I swing pretty straight and unerringly!
Quote from: totallackey
Any transmitter occupying or intercepting the line of sight of the dish can be at any altitude along that line of sight.
So, your are suggesting that for every location in the whole of Australia or New Zealand entered into
Satsig, Satellite dish pointing angle calculator for Australia and New Zealand (http://www.satsig.net/maps/satellite-tv-dish-pointing-australia-new-zealand.htm) that there is a Loon or similar just sitting there?

If that were true, the whole sky would be covered in Loons. You'd have to be  Totally Looney to even consider it!
So, since they can't cover the whole sky, you show where your hypothetical balloons are located!
;D Still, you Totally Looney idea could shade the outback! It does get awfully hot out there! ;D
Bingo - your strike two just flew out the window.
Quote from: totallackey
Strike two!
So Strike two gets struck out. Not fairin' too well are we, Lackey boy?

Quote from: totallackey
3) How do you explain broadband data and TV services to aircraft flying far from any land? You might read, QANTAS SWITCHES ON FAST, FREE INFLIGHT WIFI (https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media-releases/qantas-switches-on-fast-free-inflight-wifi/)

Strike 3 and your out!

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/21/facebook-solar-powered-internet-plane-test-flight-aquila
Totally irrelevant to DBS Satellite TV in 1984, satellite ADS-B and wide band links to in-flight aircraft.

Mr Totally Lacking, it's a pity (for you) that you have no understanding of the issues involved.

I do so apologise, but I had to strike-out all your "Strikes", tough cheese.


Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: totallackey on February 21, 2018, 09:15:56 PM
After all your ridicule, I guess I'm allowed a bit - you do come up with such Total Lunacy after all!
Are you a total ignoramus? Read this about  AT&T DirecTV:
Quote
At-a-Glance Equipment Requirements:
  • A minimum connection speed of 750Kbps (DSL or cable modem) is required. 2Mbps or higher is recommended.
    A wireless router connected to your home Internet service. If you don't have a wireless router, please schedule a professional installation by calling 1-800-531-5000.
Connecting your Genie® or HD DVR to the Internet opens the door to a whole new world of entertainment, like access to thousands of DIRECTV On Demand movies and shows, Pandora Internet Radio, your live and recorded shows (model HR44 and above) on your mobile device, and more. Go to directv.com/getconnected to learn more about all the benefits of Getting Connected.

AT&T DirecTV requires an internet connection of at least 750Kbps!
And the internet connection requires "DSL or cable modem", though I imagine wireless or satellite could be used.
I get faster service here with 4g wireless (at 38Mbps download and 39Mbps upload right now) than cable (at 35Mbps download and 5Mbps upload max).

So your strike one never was! It's not a good start for your Totally Lacklustre guesswork!
Quote from: totallackey
Ah Pete...that's strike one...
Nope sorry, your wonderful AT&T DirecTV might be good, but it must have internet access!
Admits a satellite dish and receiver is not required!

Wide service area still in place!

Arguing balls and strikes!

First warning and appeal denied!

Strike one!
Quote from: totallackey
Any transmitter occupying or intercepting the line of sight of the dish can be at any altitude along that line of sight.
So, your are suggesting that for every location in the whole of Australia or New Zealand entered into
Satsig, Satellite dish pointing angle calculator for Australia and New Zealand (http://www.satsig.net/maps/satellite-tv-dish-pointing-australia-new-zealand.htm) that there is a Loon or similar just sitting there?

If that were true, the whole sky would be covered in Loons. You'd have to be  Totally Looney to even consider it!
So, since they can't cover the whole sky, you show where your hypothetical balloons are located!
;D Still, you Totally Looney idea could shade the outback! It does get awfully hot out there! ;D
Bingo - your strike two just flew out the window.
Your assumption of the amount necessary is simply that Pete...

An assumption.

You cannot argue balls and strikes Pete!

Final warning!

Strike two and appeal denied!
Quote from: totallackey
3) How do you explain broadband data and TV services to aircraft flying far from any land? You might read, QANTAS SWITCHES ON FAST, FREE INFLIGHT WIFI (https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media-releases/qantas-switches-on-fast-free-inflight-wifi/)

Strike 3 and your out!

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/21/facebook-solar-powered-internet-plane-test-flight-aquila
Totally irrelevant to DBS Satellite TV in 1984, satellite ADS-B and wide band links to in-flight aircraft.

Mr Totally Lacking, it's a pity (for you) that you have no understanding of the issues involved.

I do so apologise, but I had to strike-out all your "Strikes", tough cheese.
Oh, so you simply do not like the fact a plane could be receiving a wifi internet signal from another plane that can stay aloft for months...no real argument against it or that it cannot be done...
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_ltvjO1nK7zw/TAFiU6umvrI/AAAAAAAAAv8/XH7t43S-rpk/s1600/ingle_000.jpg)
STRIKE THREE!

Pete is ejected from the game!

Your outta here, Pete!
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: rvlvr on February 21, 2018, 10:03:50 PM
So everything relies on a conspiracy. It is just planes there relaying signals.

I forgot if you were a flat Earther or just like conspiracies, so not sure what it is "they" try to accomplish by this.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: wise on February 22, 2018, 12:47:35 AM
Surely they are, in NASA fables before childs sleeping.

I blame you for the moonlit sky
And the dream that died
With the Eagle's flight
I blame you for the moonlit nights
When I wonder why
Are the seas still dry?
Don't blame this sleeping satellite

Did we fly to the moon too soon
Did we squander the chance
In the rush of the race
The reason we chase is lost in romance
And still we try
To justify the waste
For a taste of man's greatest adventure

I blame you for the moonlit sky
And the dream that died
With the Eagle's flight
I blame you for the moonlit nights
When I wonder why
Are the seas still dry?
Don't blame this sleeping satellite

Have we lost what it takes to advance?
Have we peaked too soon?
If the world is so green
Then why does it scream under a blue moon
We wonder why
If the earth's sacrificed
For the price of it's greatest treasure

I blame you for the moonlit sky
And the dream that died
With the Eagle's flight
I blame you for the moonlit nights
When I wonder why
Are the seas still dry?
Don't blame this sleeping satellite

And when we shoot for stars
What a giant step
Have we got what it takes
To carry the weight of this concept
Or pass it by like a shot in the dark
Miss the mark with a sense of adventure

I blame you for the moonlit sky
And the dream that died
With the Eagle's flight
I blame you for the moonlit nights
When I wonder why
Are the seas still dry?
Don't blame this sleeping satellite
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: rvlvr on February 22, 2018, 12:48:59 AM
Is Tasmin Archer a part of the conspiracy?!  :o
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: rabinoz on February 22, 2018, 03:02:37 AM
After all your ridicule, I guess I'm allowed a bit - you do come up with such Total Lunacy after all!
Are you a total ignoramus? Read this about  AT&T DirecTV:
Quote
At-a-Glance Equipment Requirements:
  • A minimum connection speed of 750Kbps (DSL or cable modem) is required. 2Mbps or higher is recommended.
    A wireless router connected to your home Internet service. If you don't have a wireless router, please schedule a professional installation by calling 1-800-531-5000.
Connecting your Genie® or HD DVR to the Internet opens the door to a whole new world of entertainment, like access to thousands of DIRECTV On Demand movies and shows, Pandora Internet Radio, your live and recorded shows (model HR44 and above) on your mobile device, and more. Go to directv.com/getconnected to learn more about all the benefits of Getting Connected.

AT&T DirecTV requires an internet connection of at least 750Kbps!
And the internet connection requires "DSL or cable modem", though I imagine wireless or satellite could be used.
I get faster service here with 4g wireless (at 38Mbps download and 39Mbps upload right now) than cable (at 35Mbps download and 5Mbps upload max).

So your strike one never was! It's not a good start for your Totally Lacklustre guesswork!
Quote from: totallackey
Ah Pete...that's strike one...
Nope sorry, your wonderful AT&T DirecTV might be good, but it must have internet access!
Admits a satellite dish and receiver is not required!

Wide service area still in place!

Arguing balls and strikes!

First warning and appeal denied!
Maybe for Pete, that's strike one but since I have no connection with your Pete there are no strikes against me!
Mr Total Lackey since your wonderful AT&T DirecTV must have internet access it does not help you one little bit!
So Strike One against Mr Total Lackey!
And you're
Quote from: totallackey
Strike one!
Quote from: totallackey
Any transmitter occupying or intercepting the line of sight of the dish can be at any altitude along that line of sight.
So, your are suggesting that for every location in the whole of Australia or New Zealand entered into
Satsig, Satellite dish pointing angle calculator for Australia and New Zealand (http://www.satsig.net/maps/satellite-tv-dish-pointing-australia-new-zealand.htm) that there is a Loon or similar just sitting there?

If that were true, the whole sky would be covered in Loons. You'd have to be  Totally Looney to even consider it!
So, since they can't cover the whole sky, you show where your hypothetical balloons are located!
;D Still, you Totally Looney idea could shade the outback! It does get awfully hot out there! ;D
Bingo - your strike two just flew out the window.
Your assumption of the amount necessary is simply that Pete...
An assumption.
Since I'm not Pete, it might have been a bit of an exaggeration, but not an assumption.
Loons float about 18 km high and for there to be one show up within the 1° beam width of a correctly directed "satellite" dish these Loons would need to be spaced about 300 m apart (from 18,000 x tan(1°) m).
Now the area of Australia is 7.692 million km2, so about 80,000,000 Loons would be needed just to cover it in this way!

And what makes your Looney suggestion even Loonier is that Loons are still just in the experimental stage and Australia has had satellite TV since before 1990.

So even though Petey's nowhere to be seen you've stuck out altogether!

Quote from: totallackey
You cannot argue balls and strikes Pete!
Final warning!
Strike two and appeal denied!
No need for any warnings and I'm not arguing balls, I'm claiming that your arguments are purely imaginary fairytales - you really should lay off that LSD.

Quote from: totallackey
Quote from: totallackey
3) How do you explain broadband data and TV services to aircraft flying far from any land? You might read, QANTAS SWITCHES ON FAST, FREE INFLIGHT WIFI (https://www.qantasnewsroom.com.au/media-releases/qantas-switches-on-fast-free-inflight-wifi/)

Strike 3 and your out!

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/21/facebook-solar-powered-internet-plane-test-flight-aquila
Totally irrelevant to DBS Satellite TV in 1984, satellite ADS-B and wide band links to in-flight aircraft.

Mr Totally Lacking, it's a pity (for you) that you have no understanding of the issues involved.

I do so apologise, but I had to strike-out all your "Strikes", tough cheese.
Oh, so you simply do not like the fact a plane could be receiving a wifi internet signal from another plane that can stay aloft for months...no real argument against it or that it cannot be done...

STRIKE THREE!
Pete is ejected from the game!
Your outta here, Pete!
Sorry, Totally Crappy, Pete was never here and you have to contend with me!

All of you arguments seem to be like "a plane could be receiving a wifi internet signal"! All could be or might be and guesswork, no evidence of how things are done in the real world. 

No, I don't have to prove that it cannot be done, you have to show that this is the way that these things are done.
You just chuck up ideas that are proposed are in some cases being tested,  but you have not shown that satellites are not being used.

Final score
Totally Lost it: might as well not have bothered, with all you Totally Crappy guesses.
Pete: never even heard there was a contest,  but I'm sure Pete knows that satellites are real!
Me: totally unscathed!

As I said before, Mr Totally Lacking, it's a pity (for you) that you have no understanding of the issues involved.
Here's a couple of videos for your delectation!

ISS passing in front of the moon Nikon P900,
Movie Vertigo, Published on Apr 8, 2017
         
Nikon P900 Captures ISS Lunar Transit,
Reds Rhetoric, Published on Nov 7, 2017
I know that the images are small, but the object in those videos looks like a very a fast moving satellite and not an almost stationary Loon.

So, Mr Totally Lost It, go cry on Pete's shoulder, being a medico he might have more sympathy for you plight than I do!
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: MicroBeta on February 22, 2018, 03:24:30 AM
After all your ridicule, I guess I'm allowed a bit - you do come up with such Total Lunacy after all!
Are you a total ignoramus? Read this about  AT&T DirecTV:
Quote
At-a-Glance Equipment Requirements:
  • A minimum connection speed of 750Kbps (DSL or cable modem) is required. 2Mbps or higher is recommended.
    A wireless router connected to your home Internet service. If you don't have a wireless router, please schedule a professional installation by calling 1-800-531-5000.
Connecting your Genie® or HD DVR to the Internet opens the door to a whole new world of entertainment, like access to thousands of DIRECTV On Demand movies and shows, Pandora Internet Radio, your live and recorded shows (model HR44 and above) on your mobile device, and more. Go to directv.com/getconnected to learn more about all the benefits of Getting Connected.

AT&T DirecTV requires an internet connection of at least 750Kbps!
And the internet connection requires "DSL or cable modem", though I imagine wireless or satellite could be used.
I get faster service here with 4g wireless (at 38Mbps download and 39Mbps upload right now) than cable (at 35Mbps download and 5Mbps upload max).

So your strike one never was! It's not a good start for your Totally Lacklustre guesswork!
Quote from: totallackey
Ah Pete...that's strike one...
Nope sorry, your wonderful AT&T DirecTV might be good, but it must have internet access!
Admits a satellite dish and receiver is not required!

<snip>
Why do you keep bringing up DIRECTV’s streaming service?  DIRECTV NOW isn’t even for TV.  It’s for mobile devices.  If you want to watch on your TV you DO need a receiver to get the service so you're misrepresenting it's use.  Every TV service provider has a mobile streaming service and DIRECTV NOW is no different.

Not to mention it has absolutely nothing to do with the twenty million of us with satellite service.  It’s a red herring, a strawman with absolutely no bearing on the existence of satellites.

Mike
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: ItsRoundIPromise on February 22, 2018, 04:42:35 AM
Quote from: totallackey
Any transmitter occupying or intercepting the line of sight of the dish can be at any altitude along that line of sight.
So, your are suggesting that for every location in the whole of Australia or New Zealand entered into
Satsig, Satellite dish pointing angle calculator for Australia and New Zealand (http://www.satsig.net/maps/satellite-tv-dish-pointing-australia-new-zealand.htm) that there is a Loon or similar just sitting there?

If that were true, the whole sky would be covered in Loons. You'd have to be  Totally Looney to even consider it!
So, since they can't cover the whole sky, you show where your hypothetical balloons are located!
;D Still, you Totally Looney idea could shade the outback! It does get awfully hot out there! ;D
Bingo - your strike two just flew out the window.
Your assumption of the amount necessary is simply that Pete...

An assumption.
It's not an assumption, as I've explained to you twice already.  The dishes are pointing somewhere; this is an observed fact.  Their lines of sight intersect at exactly one point.  That point is the geosynchronous satellite that is transmitting to them.  If you refuse to accept that transmitter, then you need a separate transmitter for every single dish.  It's not an assumption, it's the logical conclusion of your assumption that a transmitter isn't at the one point where it could be to have line of sight with all of the receiving dishes simultaneously.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: markjo on February 22, 2018, 06:19:37 AM
After all your ridicule, I guess I'm allowed a bit - you do come up with such Total Lunacy after all!
Are you a total ignoramus? Read this about  AT&T DirecTV:
Quote
At-a-Glance Equipment Requirements:
  • A minimum connection speed of 750Kbps (DSL or cable modem) is required. 2Mbps or higher is recommended.
    A wireless router connected to your home Internet service. If you don't have a wireless router, please schedule a professional installation by calling 1-800-531-5000.
Connecting your Genie® or HD DVR to the Internet opens the door to a whole new world of entertainment, like access to thousands of DIRECTV On Demand movies and shows, Pandora Internet Radio, your live and recorded shows (model HR44 and above) on your mobile device, and more. Go to directv.com/getconnected to learn more about all the benefits of Getting Connected.

AT&T DirecTV requires an internet connection of at least 750Kbps!
And the internet connection requires "DSL or cable modem", though I imagine wireless or satellite could be used.
I get faster service here with 4g wireless (at 38Mbps download and 39Mbps upload right now) than cable (at 35Mbps download and 5Mbps upload max).

So your strike one never was! It's not a good start for your Totally Lacklustre guesswork!
Quote from: totallackey
Ah Pete...that's strike one...
Nope sorry, your wonderful AT&T DirecTV might be good, but it must have internet access!
Admits a satellite dish and receiver is not required!
Still does not want to discuss how satellite service was provide before broadband internet became available.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: dutchy on February 22, 2018, 01:04:14 PM
The conclusion to this discussion is that satellites are real.  All agree?

Agreed, but don't hold your breath waiting for Lackey.   He'd sooner throw his mother off a cliff than admit the truth.
Be careful what you say, lest Papa Legba accuse you of endorsing matricide.
Well i for one think that ''here to laugh at you'' is indeed a sick little pervert that has expressed intentionally numerous Freudian slips ..that indicate surpressed sexual desires that are socially unaccepted still......
And the fact that he receives applause and support for his appalling behaviour by the frontmen of the globe/space troopers reminds me a lot of current politics where the sick Podesta brothers are defended while having sickening art preferences that are filty, wicked and perverted for everyone with  working eyes.

But because ''it doesn't look right'' is the most rediculed phrase, i perfectly understand that globe/space troopers buy into everything as long as some math, jargon and cgi will explain away what any set of eyes can easily detect from a countrymile.......

BTW yes  satellites are real....look flatheads look !!!
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OJjVRpKul8s/VWBMq90tBaI/AAAAAAAAJ3Q/oR6sVgs2qvg/s640/space-station.jpg)

Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Here to laugh at you on February 22, 2018, 01:12:49 PM
Delusional, as always...

Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: markjo on February 22, 2018, 01:20:56 PM
The conclusion to this discussion is that satellites are real.  All agree?

Agreed, but don't hold your breath waiting for Lackey.   He'd sooner throw his mother off a cliff than admit the truth.
Be careful what you say, lest Papa Legba accuse you of endorsing matricide.
Well i for one think that ''here to laugh at you'' is indeed a sick little pervert that has expressed intentionally numerous Freudian slips ..that indicate surpressed sexual desires that are socially unaccepted still......
And the fact that he receives applause and support for his appalling behaviour by the frontmen of the globe/space troopers reminds me a lot of current politics where the sick Podesta brothers are defended while having sickening art preferences that are filty, wicked and perverted for everyone with  working eyes.

But because ''it doesn't look right'' is the most rediculed phrase, i perfectly understand that globe/space troopers buy into everything as long as some math, jargon and cgi will explain away what any set of eyes can easily detect from a countrymile.......

BTW yes  satellites are real....look flatheads look !!!
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OJjVRpKul8s/VWBMq90tBaI/AAAAAAAAJ3Q/oR6sVgs2qvg/s640/space-station.jpg)
Ah yes. When you run out of real arguments, schlep out the scifi CGI as if no one knows the difference.  ::)
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: inquisitive on February 22, 2018, 11:58:57 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43090226
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: rvlvr on February 23, 2018, 12:15:38 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43090226
Nice :D

But, of course, fake, as we know.

And as the chief executive is an Israeli ex-fighter pilot, and the company is British, that surely means it is an Illuminati plot.
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Macarios on February 23, 2018, 07:21:07 AM
BTW yes  satellites are real....look flatheads look !!!
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OJjVRpKul8s/VWBMq90tBaI/AAAAAAAAJ3Q/oR6sVgs2qvg/s640/space-station.jpg)

hehehe

We were talking about satellites that we receive signals from them.
Which signal you receive from the one in your image?
At what azimuth and elevation you can aim at it from Oklahoma City?
Title: Re: Are satellites real?
Post by: Nightsky on February 23, 2018, 07:34:03 AM
Are satellites real?

Of course, they are you silly billy. New ones are launched every week. tHose silly flat-earthers have to cry foul, for what else can they do. Acceptance of satellites and space travel renders their whole belief system null and void. They really have no option but to heap factless scorn on any debate relating to satellites.