The Flat Earth Society

Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: jon on January 17, 2019, 05:58:03 AM

Title: Satellite TV
Post by: jon on January 17, 2019, 05:58:03 AM
Reading another topic on satellites and GPS, and how it is proposed (by FE) that satellites dont exist and the signals are actually coming from ground based towers, how is it that you have to point your Sky dish up towards the sky to get a signal?

Surely if the signals were coming from gound level, then you should get a signal with the dish pointed along the ground, but no. If you use a signal detector, you can see that the signal is clearly coming from up above gound in the precise locations of the satellites.

Or have they come up with some way of bending the signals somehow?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on January 17, 2019, 06:01:23 AM
The direction of the dish does not mean the direction of the ground station. Its horizontal direction is important, it is true. But vertical direction has to be a few upward prevent land based parasites.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: jon on January 17, 2019, 06:15:28 AM
So if I follow the horizontal direction of the dish, I will find a ground station?

And when you say a few upward, do you mean a few degrees upward? As some dishes need to point up by about 60 degrees to get a signal. This seems a bit high for a ground based signal to get over even tall obstructions. If you were to move that dish down by say 10 degrees you would lose the signal which doesnt seem to follow your reasoning.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: chekinitout1 on January 17, 2019, 07:15:31 AM
My directv dish is in a corner on our upstairs balcony facing the building, and it is pointed up at the sky with just enough clearance to get a signal over the roof. It is surrounded on three sides by the building and the railing on the balcony is solid with fairly thick stucco walls that are roughly 4 feet tall, so it's completely blocked off on all sides except for a small point in the sky where it's aimed/gets signal. It is just my opinion but I don't see how this could be getting tv service from anything other than a satellite. Plus in the winter even a small amount of snow on the dish blocks the signal so I am sure the building is keeping any ground level signals from hitting the dish 
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: JackBlack on January 17, 2019, 12:17:34 PM
The direction of the dish does not mean the direction of the ground station. Its horizontal direction is important, it is true. But vertical direction has to be a few upward prevent land based parasites.
No, the vertical direction matters as well. If you change it by any significant amount you lose the signal. This makes no sense for a ground based transmitter.

What land parasites are you referring to?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: MicroBeta on January 17, 2019, 12:38:03 PM
So if I follow the horizontal direction of the dish, I will find a ground station?

And when you say a few upward, do you mean a few degrees upward? As some dishes need to point up by about 60 degrees to get a signal. This seems a bit high for a ground based signal to get over even tall obstructions. If you were to move that dish down by say 10 degrees you would lose the signal which doesnt seem to follow your reasoning.
Not only are they all point upward but they’re all pointing to the same position in the sky. 

For instance, I have DirecTV.  Every DirecTV dish in America points to the same patch of sky.  Some of those are aimed over the Gulf of Mexico making land based transmitters impossible. 

Further, on a flat plane all these dishes point different locations.  There is no convergence.  However, on a globe they all point to the same point in geostationary orbit where DirecTV has their satellites. 

Here is an excellent video with graphics showing how it’s impossible on a flat earth.



Mike
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: rabinoz on January 17, 2019, 01:30:46 PM
The direction of the dish does not mean the direction of the ground station. Its horizontal direction is important, it is true. But vertical direction has to be a few upward prevent land based parasites.
Incorrect. The reception angle (beam width) of a typical 90 cm dish at 14 GHz (in Ku band) is only about 1.6°.
So the dish must be aligned to within about 0.5° to avoid significant signal loss.
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/nita7n582fooauk/Satsig%20Beam%20Width%20Calculator%2090%20cm%20dish%20at%2014%20GHz.png?dl=1)
Satsig Beam Width Calculator 90 cm dish at 14 GHz From: Satsig Beam Width Calculator (http://www.satsig.net/pointing/antenna-beamwidth-calculator.htm).

Where are the ground stations for all the Caravans using satellite TV throughout Central Australia far from any ground stations?

Believe the people that use and install satellite TV systems not those trying to deny the truth.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: zohan on June 09, 2019, 01:14:55 PM
The direction of the dish does not mean the direction of the ground station. Its horizontal direction is important, it is true. But vertical direction has to be a few upward prevent land based parasites.

Can you explain this?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 09, 2019, 01:42:50 PM
The direction of the dish does not mean the direction of the ground station. Its horizontal direction is important, it is true. But vertical direction has to be a few upward prevent land based parasites.
Incorrect. The reception angle (beam width) of a typical 90 cm dish at 14 GHz (in Ku band) is only about 1.6°.
So the dish must be aligned to within about 0.5° to avoid significant signal loss.


Nope. Numbers can not defend you, but only truth. Satellites are so called moving but stationary dishes are not losing the signal. Because they are geting signals from a stationary station. Give up the evilness.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: JackBlack on June 09, 2019, 03:07:32 PM
Nope. Numbers can not defend you, but only truth. Satellites are so called moving but stationary dishes are not losing the signal. Because they are geting signals from a stationary station. Give up the evilness.
It is only in your imagination that the dishes are stationary.
In reality, both the dishes and the satellites are moving.

These dishes receive signals from geostationary satellites, i.e. satellites which are stationary relative to Earth. This only makes sense on a rotating round Earth, as that is the only model that allows these satellites to exist.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: turtles on June 09, 2019, 03:15:44 PM
The direction of the dish does not mean the direction of the ground station. Its horizontal direction is important, it is true. But vertical direction has to be a few upward prevent land based parasites.

At the equator the dishes point straight up.

If the dish had to point at a ground station you'd be able to find satellite dishes north of the equator pointing north as that's where their nearest transmitter and strongest signal is. Has anyone ever seen a satellite TV dish in Europe, North America or Russia which points north?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: rabinoz on June 09, 2019, 04:23:09 PM
The direction of the dish does not mean the direction of the ground station. Its horizontal direction is important, it is true. But vertical direction has to be a few upward prevent land based parasites.
Incorrect. The reception angle (beam width) of a typical 90 cm dish at 14 GHz (in Ku band) is only about 1.6°.
So the dish must be aligned to within about 0.5° to avoid significant signal loss.


Nope. Numbers can not defend you, but only truth. Satellites are so called moving but stationary dishes are not losing the signal. Because they are geting signals from a stationary station. Give up the evilness.
No, while the satellites must orbit the earth the ones used to transmit direct satellite TV signals are in geostationary orbits (their orbital period is exactly one sidereal day) and so remain in almost exactly the same place relative to the rotating earth.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 10, 2019, 12:39:11 AM
The direction of the dish does not mean the direction of the ground station. Its horizontal direction is important, it is true. But vertical direction has to be a few upward prevent land based parasites.

At the equator the dishes point straight up.

If the dish had to point at a ground station you'd be able to find satellite dishes north of the equator pointing north as that's where their nearest transmitter and strongest signal is. Has anyone ever seen a satellite TV dish in Europe, North America or Russia which points north?

Stop to create BS claims and prove what you say. Otherwise everybody can claim everything.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 10, 2019, 12:40:49 AM
The direction of the dish does not mean the direction of the ground station. Its horizontal direction is important, it is true. But vertical direction has to be a few upward prevent land based parasites.
Incorrect. The reception angle (beam width) of a typical 90 cm dish at 14 GHz (in Ku band) is only about 1.6°.
So the dish must be aligned to within about 0.5° to avoid significant signal loss.


Nope. Numbers can not defend you, but only truth. Satellites are so called moving but stationary dishes are not losing the signal. Because they are geting signals from a stationary station. Give up the evilness.
No, while the satellites must orbit the earth the ones used to transmit direct satellite TV signals are in geostationary orbits (their orbital period is exactly one sidereal day) and so remain in almost exactly the same place relative to the rotating earth.

Stop to create BS. There is phsics that you don't ever heard. It needs to rotate around the earth whatever they be but want to stay at the orbit. So, since you drawn on it, you will not give up the evilness.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 10, 2019, 12:41:43 AM
Nope. Numbers can not defend you, but only truth. Satellites are so called moving but stationary dishes are not losing the signal. Because they are geting signals from a stationary station. Give up the evilness.
It is only in your imagination that the dishes are stationary.
I don't touch my dish since years. And you are contradicting with rabblack. Because he explains why dishes are not moving.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 10, 2019, 12:43:16 AM
Which of are you telling true?

a) So dishes can be stationary.

No, while the satellites must orbit the earth the ones used to transmit direct satellite TV signals are in geostationary orbits (their orbital period is exactly one sidereal day) and so remain in almost exactly the same place relative to the rotating earth.

b) dishes can not be stationary.


It is only in your imagination that the dishes are stationary.


But rabblack has same imagination with me. If sat device stays almost same point so dish does not need to move. ;D

Please discuss with yourself each other than sound me with one voice.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: JackBlack on June 10, 2019, 02:47:23 AM
I don't touch my dish since years.
Which means it just kept on moving with Earth.

And you are contradicting with rabblack. Because he explains why dishes are not moving.
There is no rabblack here.
If you mean Rabinoz, then no, he said something quite similar to what I did.

Notice how he said the same position relative to Earth?
That doesn't mean they are stationary.
That means they move with Earth.

Again, it is in your imagination that Earth, and thus objects which remain in the same position relative to Earth, are stationary.
In reality, Earth is not stationary and thus objects which remain in the same position relative to Earth are not stationary.

Again, these geostationary satellites only make sense for a rotating Earth.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: rabinoz on June 10, 2019, 03:02:19 AM
It needs to rotate around the earth whatever they be but want to stay at the orbit.
The satellites are in an equatorial orbit and that orbit has exactly the same period as the rotational period of the earth.
That is why those direct TV satellites stay in almost exactly the same position relative to earth.

Now I do realise that you lack the intelligence and knowledge needed to understand all that but I assure that it is correct and it provides very good evidence that the earth is a rotating Globe.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 10, 2019, 03:47:21 AM
I don't touch my dish since years.
Which means it just kept on moving with Earth.
Its kept moving with earth (this is your claim) means it is stationary compared the earth. But satellites are not. Otherwise they had to get down the earth. Check mat. Shut your childish arguments down now.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 10, 2019, 03:48:20 AM
The satellites are in an equatorial orbit and that orbit has exactly the same period as the rotational period of the earth.

If they are really has equal orbit with earth it means they are stationary. Because space around the earth can be accepted as moving or stationary isn't change anything. So they are stopping, compared the earth relatively, so they have to down to the earth. Now go return to your kindergarden school and learn more phsics.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: rabinoz on June 10, 2019, 04:14:20 AM
The satellites are in an equatorial orbit and that orbit has exactly the same period as the rotational period of the earth.

If they are really has equal orbit with earth it means they are stationary.
Incorrect! The earth rotates, look a nice sped up image of the earth rotating and the far side of the moon:
Quote
NASA SCIENCE, SOLAR SYSTEM EXPLORATION: Face of Earth (https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/696/from-a-million-miles-away-moon-crossing-face-of-earth/)
(https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/696_dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif)
Source: NASA/NOAA
Published: January 30, 2018
Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite's EPIC maintains a constant view of the fully illuminated Earth as it rotates,
providing scientific observations of ozone, vegetation, cloud height and aerosols in the atmosphere.

About twice a year the camera captures the Moon and Earth together as the orbit of DSCOVR crosses the orbital plane of the Moon.

These images were taken between 3:50 p.m. and 8:45 p.m. EDT showing the moon moving over the Pacific Ocean near North America.
The North Pole is in the upper left corner of the image. It is in the original orientation as taken by the spacecraft.

            This image from the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite captured
            a unique view of the Moon as it moved in front of the sunlit side of Earth in 2015.
            It shows a view of the farside of the Moon, which faces the Sun,
            that is never directly visible to us here on Earth.
            I found this perspective profoundly moving and
            only through our satellite views could this have been shared.
                                               - Michael Freilich, Director NASA Earth Science Division
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Have fun! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: inquisitive on June 10, 2019, 04:18:50 AM
I don't touch my dish since years.
Which means it just kept on moving with Earth.
Its kept moving with earth (this is your claim) means it is stationary compared the earth. But satellites are not. Otherwise they had to get down the earth. Check mat. Shut your childish arguments down now.
Tv broadcast satelllites do not move relative to earth.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: JackBlack on June 10, 2019, 04:29:01 AM
Its kept moving with earth (this is your claim) means it is stationary compared the earth.
Yes, it means it remains in the same position relative to Earth.

But satellites are not. Otherwise they had to get down the earth.
Pure BS.
Most satellites do move relative to Earth, but not all.

The condition required for a satellites to orbit Earth in a circular orbit rather than fall down or get higher or go in an elliptical orbit is for the force from gravity to equal the force required to maintain the uniform circular motion, or to word it differently (and get rid of 1 variable) the acceleration due to gravity equals the acceleration required to maintain the orbit.
Both of these follow fairly simple rules.
Gravity has a=G M r-2.
Uniform circular motion has a=4 π2 r T-2.
This means these circular orbits exist when:
G M r-2=4 π2 r T-2
or r=(0.25 G M T2 π-2)1/3

In order for the satellite to remain stationary relative to a planet, it needs to be in such a circular orbit where the period of the orbit (T) is equal to the period of rotation of the planet, and it needs to be in an orbit above the equator.

This means there can be satellites which remain stationary relative to Earth.
More importantly, these satellites can only exist with a rotating Earth (otherwise the period is infinite and thus the radius is infinite).
That means the existence of these satellites, as demonstrated by satellite TV, is proof that Earth rotates.

Because space around the earth can be accepted as moving or stationary isn't change anything.
As Earth is rotating, not simply moving with linear motion, you can only change reference frames between them by using inertial forces, such as the centrifugal force. This simply replaces the acceleration required to maintain uniform circular motion with an outwards with the exact same formula.

Go actually learn physics before you tell others to.
This means for any given body
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 10, 2019, 04:47:40 AM
The satellites are in an equatorial orbit and that orbit has exactly the same period as the rotational period of the earth.

If they are really has equal orbit with earth it means they are stationary.
Incorrect! The earth rotates, look a nice sped up image of the earth rotating and the far side of the moon:
Quote
NASA SCIENCE, SOLAR SYSTEM EXPLORATION: Face of Earth (https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/696/from-a-million-miles-away-moon-crossing-face-of-earth/)
(https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/696_dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif)
Source: NASA/NOAA
Published: January 30, 2018
Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite's EPIC maintains a constant view of the fully illuminated Earth as it rotates,
providing scientific observations of ozone, vegetation, cloud height and aerosols in the atmosphere.

About twice a year the camera captures the Moon and Earth together as the orbit of DSCOVR crosses the orbital plane of the Moon.

These images were taken between 3:50 p.m. and 8:45 p.m. EDT showing the moon moving over the Pacific Ocean near North America.
The North Pole is in the upper left corner of the image. It is in the original orientation as taken by the spacecraft.

            This image from the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite captured
            a unique view of the Moon as it moved in front of the sunlit side of Earth in 2015.
            It shows a view of the farside of the Moon, which faces the Sun,
            that is never directly visible to us here on Earth.
            I found this perspective profoundly moving and
            only through our satellite views could this have been shared.
                                               - Michael Freilich, Director NASA Earth Science Division
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Have fun! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I hope you do not expect I accept this BS.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 10, 2019, 04:58:48 AM
Its kept moving with earth (this is your claim) means it is stationary compared the earth.
Yes, it means it remains in the same position relative to Earth.

But satellites are not. Otherwise they had to get down the earth.
Pure BS.
Most satellites do move relative to Earth, but not all.

The condition required for a satellites to orbit Earth in a circular orbit rather than fall down or get higher or go in an elliptical orbit is for the force from gravity to equal the force required to maintain the uniform circular motion, or to word it differently (and get rid of 1 variable) the acceleration due to gravity equals the acceleration required to maintain the orbit.
Both of these follow fairly simple rules.
Gravity has a=G M r-2.
Uniform circular motion has a=4 π2 r T-2.
This means these circular orbits exist when:
G M r-2=4 π2 r T-2
or r=(0.25 G M T2 π-2)1/3

In order for the satellite to remain stationary relative to a planet, it needs to be in such a circular orbit where the period of the orbit (T) is equal to the period of rotation of the planet, and it needs to be in an orbit above the equator.

This means there can be satellites which remain stationary relative to Earth.
More importantly, these satellites can only exist with a rotating Earth (otherwise the period is infinite and thus the radius is infinite).
That means the existence of these satellites, as demonstrated by satellite TV, is proof that Earth rotates.

Because space around the earth can be accepted as moving or stationary isn't change anything.
As Earth is rotating, not simply moving with linear motion, you can only change reference frames between them by using inertial forces, such as the centrifugal force. This simply replaces the acceleration required to maintain uniform circular motion with an outwards with the exact same formula.

Go actually learn physics before you tell others to.
This means for any given body

Ahahah how funny! Writing formula from somewhere by copy paste like this: a=4 π2 r T-2. does not magically teaches you the phsics. It is not a proof. You are as ignorant as does not aware writing simpliest formulas as evidence of something. Ahahah how you are funny.  ;D
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 10, 2019, 04:59:21 AM
I don't touch my dish since years.
Which means it just kept on moving with Earth.
Its kept moving with earth (this is your claim) means it is stationary compared the earth. But satellites are not. Otherwise they had to get down the earth. Check mat. Shut your childish arguments down now.
Tv broadcast satelllites do not move relative to earth.

But they have to move relative to earth. Otherwise the satellites down the earth.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: rabinoz on June 10, 2019, 04:59:38 AM
The satellites are in an equatorial orbit and that orbit has exactly the same period as the rotational period of the earth.

If they are really has equal orbit with earth it means they are stationary.
Incorrect! The earth rotates, look a nice sped up image of the earth rotating and the far side of the moon:
Quote
NASA SCIENCE, SOLAR SYSTEM EXPLORATION: Face of Earth (https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/696/from-a-million-miles-away-moon-crossing-face-of-earth/)
(https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/696_dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif)
Source: NASA/NOAA
Published: January 30, 2018
Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite's EPIC maintains a constant view of the fully illuminated Earth as it rotates,
providing scientific observations of ozone, vegetation, cloud height and aerosols in the atmosphere.

About twice a year the camera captures the Moon and Earth together as the orbit of DSCOVR crosses the orbital plane of the Moon.

These images were taken between 3:50 p.m. and 8:45 p.m. EDT showing the moon moving over the Pacific Ocean near North America.
The North Pole is in the upper left corner of the image. It is in the original orientation as taken by the spacecraft.

            This image from the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite captured
            a unique view of the Moon as it moved in front of the sunlit side of Earth in 2015.
            It shows a view of the farside of the Moon, which faces the Sun,
            that is never directly visible to us here on Earth.
            I found this perspective profoundly moving and
            only through our satellite views could this have been shared.
                                               - Michael Freilich, Director NASA Earth Science Division
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Have fun! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I hope you do not expect I accept this.
Of course you won't accept it! You are simply not smart enough to understand what that photo shows. I pity you, you poor ignorant fellow ;D!
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 10, 2019, 05:01:00 AM
The satellites are in an equatorial orbit and that orbit has exactly the same period as the rotational period of the earth.

If they are really has equal orbit with earth it means they are stationary.
Incorrect! The earth rotates, look a nice sped up image of the earth rotating and the far side of the moon:
Quote
NASA SCIENCE, SOLAR SYSTEM EXPLORATION: Face of Earth (https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/696/from-a-million-miles-away-moon-crossing-face-of-earth/)
(https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/696_dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif)
Source: NASA/NOAA
Published: January 30, 2018
Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite's EPIC maintains a constant view of the fully illuminated Earth as it rotates,
providing scientific observations of ozone, vegetation, cloud height and aerosols in the atmosphere.

About twice a year the camera captures the Moon and Earth together as the orbit of DSCOVR crosses the orbital plane of the Moon.

These images were taken between 3:50 p.m. and 8:45 p.m. EDT showing the moon moving over the Pacific Ocean near North America.
The North Pole is in the upper left corner of the image. It is in the original orientation as taken by the spacecraft.

            This image from the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite captured
            a unique view of the Moon as it moved in front of the sunlit side of Earth in 2015.
            It shows a view of the farside of the Moon, which faces the Sun,
            that is never directly visible to us here on Earth.
            I found this perspective profoundly moving and
            only through our satellite views could this have been shared.
                                               - Michael Freilich, Director NASA Earth Science Division
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Have fun! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I hope you do not expect I accept this.
Of course you won't accept it! You are simply not smart enough to understand what that photo shows. I pity you, you poor ignorant fellow ;D!

I see its disproving the globe earth theory. Thanks. You show the dark side of the moon in the light.  ;D
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: rabinoz on June 10, 2019, 05:07:50 AM
But they have to move relative to earth. Otherwise the satellites down the earth.
Incorrect!
They do not move relative to earth and they do not fall "down the earth".
But you wouldn't understand. It's orbital mechanics and a bit beyond professional ditch diggers like yourself.

Those satellites just sit fairly obediently up there just needing an occasional bit of thrust to get the few disobedient ones to sit still ;D.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: turtles on June 10, 2019, 05:13:21 AM
The direction of the dish does not mean the direction of the ground station. Its horizontal direction is important, it is true. But vertical direction has to be a few upward prevent land based parasites.

At the equator the dishes point straight up.

If the dish had to point at a ground station you'd be able to find satellite dishes north of the equator pointing north as that's where their nearest transmitter and strongest signal is. Has anyone ever seen a satellite TV dish in Europe, North America or Russia which points north?

Stop to create BS claims and prove what you say.

Which part do you think isn't true? That dishes on the equator point up? They always point at somewhere on the geostationary orbital path.

How can I prove that a northern hemisphere dish points North, I've never seen one, I don't think they exist. I want you to find one to back up your claim that geostationary TV is actually transmitted from ground antenna.

Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: rabinoz on June 10, 2019, 05:14:48 AM
I see its disproving the globe earth theory. Thanks. You show the dark side of the moon in the light.  ;D
Wrong again! The moon does not have a dark side! It has a far side that faces away from earth as I said in my post.

You must enjoy proving how little you know about these things because you show it with every post.

Carry on with the comedy show, don't let me stop your foolishness.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: turtles on June 10, 2019, 05:16:27 AM
I don't touch my dish since years.
Which means it just kept on moving with Earth.
Its kept moving with earth (this is your claim) means it is stationary compared the earth. But satellites are not. Otherwise they had to get down the earth. Check mat. Shut your childish arguments down now.

Oh wait.... you actually don't understand how a geostationary orbit works, do you?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 10, 2019, 05:31:03 AM
I don't touch my dish since years.
Which means it just kept on moving with Earth.
Its kept moving with earth (this is your claim) means it is stationary compared the earth. But satellites are not. Otherwise they had to get down the earth. Check mat. Shut your childish arguments down now.

Oh wait.... you actually don't understand how a geostationary orbit works, do you?

Surely, it works magically only how you imagine it, right?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 10, 2019, 05:34:06 AM
I see its disproving the globe earth theory. Thanks. You show the dark side of the moon in the light.  ;D
Wrong again! The moon does not have a dark side! It has a far side that faces away from earth as I said in my post.

You must enjoy proving how little you know about these things because you show it with every post.

Carry on with the comedy show, don't let me stop your foolishness.

You have started to insult again because you have cornered, right? But NASA who is your patron mentioning the dark side of the moon.
Quote
Dark side of the moon captured by Nasa satellite a million miles from Earth
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/06/dark-side-of-the-moon-captured-by-nasa-satellite-16m-kilometres-from-earth

So you deny the NASA, right? Wellcome to the flat earth society, fellow flat earther. Pay attention I am not calling you as fool, because I am a human, oppositely you are. You are coming from primates, according to sources you trust. Do you have a problem with being primate?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: turtles on June 10, 2019, 06:03:25 AM
I don't touch my dish since years.
Which means it just kept on moving with Earth.
Its kept moving with earth (this is your claim) means it is stationary compared the earth. But satellites are not. Otherwise they had to get down the earth. Check mat. Shut your childish arguments down now.

Oh wait.... you actually don't understand how a geostationary orbit works, do you?

Surely, it works magically only how you imagine it, right?

No magic required, only FET needs that.

No, what happens is you launch a satellite to an altitude where it orbits the earth once every 24 hours. The earth is also spinning once every 24 hours. This means the satellite is always orbiting above the same point in the earth's surface. Voila, a geostationary satellite.

(If it so happens that you only see your satellite once every 12 hours, you launched it in the wrong direction.)
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 10, 2019, 06:33:36 AM
I don't touch my dish since years.
Which means it just kept on moving with Earth.
Its kept moving with earth (this is your claim) means it is stationary compared the earth. But satellites are not. Otherwise they had to get down the earth. Check mat. Shut your childish arguments down now.

Oh wait.... you actually don't understand how a geostationary orbit works, do you?

Surely, it works magically only how you imagine it, right?

No magic required, only FET needs that.

No, what happens is you launch a satellite to an altitude where it orbits the earth once every 24 hours. The earth is also spinning once every 24 hours. This means the satellite is always orbiting above the same point in the earth's surface. Voila, a geostationary satellite.

(If it so happens that you only see your satellite once every 12 hours, you launched it in the wrong direction.)

Can you describe the movement of (so called) gravitational particles in the space? Which way do they move? do they catch particles that travel through space like fishing? if they are moving into space, why should they come back? Are they hunters hunting and downing the particles in the space?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: inquisitive on June 10, 2019, 06:38:11 AM
I don't touch my dish since years.
Which means it just kept on moving with Earth.
Its kept moving with earth (this is your claim) means it is stationary compared the earth. But satellites are not. Otherwise they had to get down the earth. Check mat. Shut your childish arguments down now.

Oh wait.... you actually don't understand how a geostationary orbit works, do you?

Surely, it works magically only how you imagine it, right?

No magic required, only FET needs that.

No, what happens is you launch a satellite to an altitude where it orbits the earth once every 24 hours. The earth is also spinning once every 24 hours. This means the satellite is always orbiting above the same point in the earth's surface. Voila, a geostationary satellite.

(If it so happens that you only see your satellite once every 12 hours, you launched it in the wrong direction.)

Can you describe the movement of (so called) gravitational particles in the space? Which way do they move? do they catch particles that travel through space like fishing? if they are moving into space, why should they come back? Are they hunters hunting and downing the particles in the space?
Off topic, look up elsewhere.  Meanwhile satellite TV works for millions.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 10, 2019, 06:53:38 AM
I don't touch my dish since years.
Which means it just kept on moving with Earth.
Its kept moving with earth (this is your claim) means it is stationary compared the earth. But satellites are not. Otherwise they had to get down the earth. Check mat. Shut your childish arguments down now.

Oh wait.... you actually don't understand how a geostationary orbit works, do you?

Surely, it works magically only how you imagine it, right?

No magic required, only FET needs that.

No, what happens is you launch a satellite to an altitude where it orbits the earth once every 24 hours. The earth is also spinning once every 24 hours. This means the satellite is always orbiting above the same point in the earth's surface. Voila, a geostationary satellite.

(If it so happens that you only see your satellite once every 12 hours, you launched it in the wrong direction.)

Can you describe the movement of (so called) gravitational particles in the space? Which way do they move? do they catch particles that travel through space like fishing? if they are moving into space, why should they come back? Are they hunters hunting and downing the particles in the space?
Off topic, look up elsewhere.  Meanwhile satellite TV works for millions.

Its name being satellite TV isn't an evidence of existance of satellites, is it?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: inquisitive on June 10, 2019, 07:05:39 AM
I don't touch my dish since years.
Which means it just kept on moving with Earth.
Its kept moving with earth (this is your claim) means it is stationary compared the earth. But satellites are not. Otherwise they had to get down the earth. Check mat. Shut your childish arguments down now.

Oh wait.... you actually don't understand how a geostationary orbit works, do you?

Surely, it works magically only how you imagine it, right?

No magic required, only FET needs that.

No, what happens is you launch a satellite to an altitude where it orbits the earth once every 24 hours. The earth is also spinning once every 24 hours. This means the satellite is always orbiting above the same point in the earth's surface. Voila, a geostationary satellite.

(If it so happens that you only see your satellite once every 12 hours, you launched it in the wrong direction.)

Can you describe the movement of (so called) gravitational particles in the space? Which way do they move? do they catch particles that travel through space like fishing? if they are moving into space, why should they come back? Are they hunters hunting and downing the particles in the space?
Off topic, look up elsewhere.  Meanwhile satellite TV works for millions.

Its name being satellite TV isn't an evidence of existence of satellites, is it?
It's the name of the things in the sky that send us TV.  What do dishes point at, documents please?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: turtles on June 10, 2019, 07:27:38 AM
I don't touch my dish since years.
Which means it just kept on moving with Earth.
Its kept moving with earth (this is your claim) means it is stationary compared the earth. But satellites are not. Otherwise they had to get down the earth. Check mat. Shut your childish arguments down now.

Oh wait.... you actually don't understand how a geostationary orbit works, do you?

Surely, it works magically only how you imagine it, right?

No magic required, only FET needs that.

No, what happens is you launch a satellite to an altitude where it orbits the earth once every 24 hours. The earth is also spinning once every 24 hours. This means the satellite is always orbiting above the same point in the earth's surface. Voila, a geostationary satellite.

(If it so happens that you only see your satellite once every 12 hours, you launched it in the wrong direction.)

Can you describe the movement of (so called) gravitational particles in the space? Which way do they move? do they catch particles that travel through space like fishing? if they are moving into space, why should they come back? Are they hunters hunting and downing the particles in the space?

What's a "gravitational particle"? I've never heard of such a thing, did you make it up? What's this got to do with how geostationary satellites work?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 10, 2019, 12:07:00 PM
I don't touch my dish since years.
Which means it just kept on moving with Earth.
Its kept moving with earth (this is your claim) means it is stationary compared the earth. But satellites are not. Otherwise they had to get down the earth. Check mat. Shut your childish arguments down now.

Oh wait.... you actually don't understand how a geostationary orbit works, do you?

Surely, it works magically only how you imagine it, right?

No magic required, only FET needs that.

No, what happens is you launch a satellite to an altitude where it orbits the earth once every 24 hours. The earth is also spinning once every 24 hours. This means the satellite is always orbiting above the same point in the earth's surface. Voila, a geostationary satellite.

(If it so happens that you only see your satellite once every 12 hours, you launched it in the wrong direction.)

Can you describe the movement of (so called) gravitational particles in the space? Which way do they move? do they catch particles that travel through space like fishing? if they are moving into space, why should they come back? Are they hunters hunting and downing the particles in the space?

What's a "gravitational particle"? I've never heard of such a thing, did you make it up? What's this got to do with how geostationary satellites work?

Oh, nice. I knew it. You are as ignorant as don't know what is gravitional particle and then you are discussing me. Lol. Please read a few, please. Education is the solve of your problem of being angry globularists. Read, just get read.

Quote
In theories of quantum gravity, the graviton is the hypothetical quantum of gravity, an elementary particle that mediates the force of gravity. ... If it exists, the graviton is expected to be massless because the gravitational force is very long range and appears to propagate at the speed of light.

So you've learned it now, right? wise, of course is your teacher who teaches you something new. But even so you do not have to respect the wise, because neither I am jesus, nor you are my followers; but a bunch of infidels of flat earth reality.

Your question about how geostationary satellites working is just ridiculus because I as a logical man denying at all the satellites existance. It is simple to reply. No working.  :)

PS: You youth people perhaps learned it as graviton.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: inquisitive on June 10, 2019, 12:19:51 PM
Please explain how what we call satellite tv works and what the dishes point at.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 10, 2019, 01:30:51 PM
Please explain how what we call satellite tv works and what the dishes point at.

The leader of angry globularists, boydster is threatening me to do not reply any of globularists otherwise he will give me vacation. Sorry, you won. BEcause controlled opposition, ie NASA backed boydster wants to see it so. It is a bloody victory but you, rabinoz and jackblack, macarios and other have no chance but need a victory by threatening me. I can not explain anything anymore. There is not freedom of thought here at the moment. Let boydster to explain it if he knows. In  one hand, he is critising people here whose discussing, on the other hand he has no idea about what people are discussing. If boydster can do it better so why does not he do it? I am not replying any of you anymore till boydster stops his childish angry globularist behaviour.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: JackBlack on June 10, 2019, 02:35:34 PM
Ahahah how funny! Writing formula
Previously you spoke of math and education, yet now I provide it and you run away.

What's wrong? Can't stand reality?
It is not a proof.
It is a key part of one.
It shows that for any roughly spherically symmetric rotating body there is a circular orbit where the period of the orbit will be equal to the rotational period of the body and thus there will exist orbits where the orbiting object remains stationary relative to the rotating body.

This shows your claim of "they have to move relative to Earth or they fall down" to be pure BS.

Yet you ignored this proof and just repeated the same lie.
WHY?
If you wish to assert such bullshit as "satellites need to move relative to Earth or they fall down", then you need to prove it.

You show the dark side of the moon in the light.
No, he showed the far side of the moon.
You do know there is a difference?
It was a new moon, as such the dark side is facing Earth.
So he showed the light side of the moon in light.

But NASA who is your patron mentioning the dark side of the moon.
www.theguardian.com
NASA is not our patron.
And notice the source of your quote? The guardian, not NASA.

I can not explain anything anymore.
There is no need for the "anymore". You were never able to explain anything here.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: turtles on June 10, 2019, 03:05:38 PM
Quote
In theories of quantum gravity, the graviton is the hypothetical quantum of gravity, an elementary particle that mediates the force of gravity. ... If it exists, the graviton is expected to be massless because the gravitational force is very long range and appears to propagate at the speed of light.

So you've learned it now, right? wise, of course is your teacher who teaches you something new. But even so you do not have to respect the wise, because neither I am jesus, nor you are my followers; but a bunch of infidels of flat earth reality.

Ah, you're talking about the graviton. Why didn't you say that originally.

Quote
Your question about how geostationary satellites working is just ridiculus because I as a logical man denying at all the satellites existance. It is simple to reply. No working.  :)

PS: You youth people perhaps learned it as graviton.

OK, but you understand how they would work in a round earth scenario don't you, even though you don't believe in it? (We'll gloss over the "logical man" part for now)
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: rabinoz on June 10, 2019, 04:20:33 PM
Please explain how what we call satellite tv works and what the dishes point at.
The leader of angry globularists, boydster is threatening me to do not reply any of globularists otherwise he will give me vacation.
No, Boydster is doing no such thing. Read again exactly what he said:
          Wise's white/black list « on: June 10, 2019, 05:17:47 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79752.msg2177112#msg2177112) and
          Disproving the gravity in 30 seconds « on: Today at 04:53:25 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=79868.msg2177528#msg2177528)

No one said that you could not "explain how what we call satellite tv works and what the dishes point at" or "Define what you mean by 'stringency'."
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: MouseWalker on June 10, 2019, 07:04:50 PM
The satellites are in an equatorial orbit and that orbit has exactly the same period as the rotational period of the earth.

If they are really has equal orbit with earth it means they are stationary.
Incorrect! The earth rotates, look a nice sped up image of the earth rotating and the far side of the moon:
Quote
NASA SCIENCE, SOLAR SYSTEM EXPLORATION: Face of Earth (https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/696/from-a-million-miles-away-moon-crossing-face-of-earth/)
(https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/696_dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif)
Source: NASA/NOAA
Published: January 30, 2018
Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite's EPIC maintains a constant view of the fully illuminated Earth as it rotates,
providing scientific observations of ozone, vegetation, cloud height and aerosols in the atmosphere.

About twice a year the camera captures the Moon and Earth together as the orbit of DSCOVR crosses the orbital plane of the Moon.

These images were taken between 3:50 p.m. and 8:45 p.m. EDT showing the moon moving over the Pacific Ocean near North America.
The North Pole is in the upper left corner of the image. It is in the original orientation as taken by the spacecraft.

            This image from the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite captured
            a unique view of the Moon as it moved in front of the sunlit side of Earth in 2015.
            It shows a view of the farside of the Moon, which faces the Sun,
            that is never directly visible to us here on Earth.
            I found this perspective profoundly moving and
            only through our satellite views could this have been shared.
                                               - Michael Freilich, Director NASA Earth Science Division
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Have fun! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I hope you do not expect I accept this.
Of course you won't accept it! You are simply not smart enough to understand what that photo shows. I pity you, you poor ignorant fellow ;D!

I see its disproving the globe earth theory. Thanks. You show the dark side of the moon in the light.  ;D
Understand that the dark side of the Moon, is a misnomer, it really should say the far side of the Moon, the side that never faces earth.
the Satellite is outside The orbit of the Moon and orbits the sun at the same rate of earth. So that you see the sunlit side of Earth, all the time.
If you cannot see this, you will remain, in your cave of Plato, seeing what you want to see and denying reality.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: rabinoz on June 10, 2019, 07:40:23 PM
I see its disproving the globe earth theory. Thanks. You show the dark side of the moon in the light.  ;D
Understand that the dark side of the Moon, is a misnomer, it really should say the far side of the Moon, the side that never faces earth.
the Satellite is outside The orbit of the Moon and orbits the sun at the same rate of earth. So that you see the sunlit side of Earth, all the time.
If you cannot see this, you will remain, in your cave of Plato, seeing what you want to see and denying reality.
I'm afraid that people like wise suffer from my newly discovered "IQ and EGO enhanced Dunning Kruger effect" and might forever remain on the "dark side" on the "farside" of real knowledge.

Someone with a very high IQ and a higher ego but little real knowledge thinks that they know everything and can work everything out unaided.
Even Einstein wrote, “The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know” and Oscar Wilde, “I am not young enough to know everything”.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 11, 2019, 02:30:04 AM
The satellites are in an equatorial orbit and that orbit has exactly the same period as the rotational period of the earth.

If they are really has equal orbit with earth it means they are stationary.
Incorrect! The earth rotates, look a nice sped up image of the earth rotating and the far side of the moon:
Quote
NASA SCIENCE, SOLAR SYSTEM EXPLORATION: Face of Earth (https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/696/from-a-million-miles-away-moon-crossing-face-of-earth/)
(https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/696_dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif)
Source: NASA/NOAA
Published: January 30, 2018
Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite's EPIC maintains a constant view of the fully illuminated Earth as it rotates,
providing scientific observations of ozone, vegetation, cloud height and aerosols in the atmosphere.

About twice a year the camera captures the Moon and Earth together as the orbit of DSCOVR crosses the orbital plane of the Moon.

These images were taken between 3:50 p.m. and 8:45 p.m. EDT showing the moon moving over the Pacific Ocean near North America.
The North Pole is in the upper left corner of the image. It is in the original orientation as taken by the spacecraft.

            This image from the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite captured
            a unique view of the Moon as it moved in front of the sunlit side of Earth in 2015.
            It shows a view of the farside of the Moon, which faces the Sun,
            that is never directly visible to us here on Earth.
            I found this perspective profoundly moving and
            only through our satellite views could this have been shared.
                                               - Michael Freilich, Director NASA Earth Science Division
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D Have fun! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I hope you do not expect I accept this.
Of course you won't accept it! You are simply not smart enough to understand what that photo shows. I pity you, you poor ignorant fellow ;D!

I see its disproving the globe earth theory. Thanks. You show the dark side of the moon in the light.  ;D
Understand that the dark side of the Moon, is a misnomer, it really should say the far side of the Moon, the side that never faces earth.
the Satellite is outside The orbit of the Moon and orbits the sun at the same rate of earth. So that you see the sunlit side of Earth, all the time.
If you cannot see this, you will remain, in your cave of Plato, seeing what you want to see and denying reality.

Did you aware that moon is not spinning at all and shows the so called camera constantly same face, although the observation angle changes. It is clearly, fake!

I see its disproving the globe earth theory. Thanks. You show the dark side of the moon in the light.  ;D
Understand that the dark side of the Moon, is a misnomer, it really should say the far side of the Moon, the side that never faces earth.
the Satellite is outside The orbit of the Moon and orbits the sun at the same rate of earth. So that you see the sunlit side of Earth, all the time.
If you cannot see this, you will remain, in your cave of Plato, seeing what you want to see and denying reality.
I'm afraid that people like wise suffer from my newly discovered "IQ and EGO enhanced Dunning Kruger effect" and might forever remain on the "dark side" on the "farside" of real knowledge.

Someone with a very high IQ and a higher ego but little real knowledge thinks that they know everything and can work everything out unaided.
Even Einstein wrote, “The more I learn, the more I realize how much I don't know” and Oscar Wilde, “I am not young enough to know everything”.

Supporting his baseless dreams does not make your arguments magically stronger. Insulting to the wise is not an argument.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: turtles on June 11, 2019, 02:40:28 AM
Understand that the dark side of the Moon, is a misnomer, it really should say the far side of the Moon, the side that never faces earth.
the Satellite is outside The orbit of the Moon and orbits the sun at the same rate of earth. So that you see the sunlit side of Earth, all the time.
If you cannot see this, you will remain, in your cave of Plato, seeing what you want to see and denying reality.

Did you aware that moon is not spinning at all and shows the so called camera constantly same face, although the observation angle changes. It is clearly, fake!

It does spin once every 28 days. It also orbits the Earth once every 28 days, so the same side always faces us.

It's called tidal locking.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 11, 2019, 02:44:27 AM
Understand that the dark side of the Moon, is a misnomer, it really should say the far side of the Moon, the side that never faces earth.
the Satellite is outside The orbit of the Moon and orbits the sun at the same rate of earth. So that you see the sunlit side of Earth, all the time.
If you cannot see this, you will remain, in your cave of Plato, seeing what you want to see and denying reality.

Did you aware that moon is not spinning at all and shows the so called camera constantly same face, although the observation angle changes. It is clearly, fake!

It does spin once every 28 days. It also orbits the Earth once every 28 days, so the same side always faces us.

It's called tidal locking.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking

If you pay attention the video then you see that its angel changes relatively the observe point. It either has to same face to the earth or to the observer. Both can not be possible together.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: JackBlack on June 11, 2019, 03:14:22 AM
It either has to same face to the earth or to the observer. Both can not be possible together.
If the observer is on Earth (as we are), why can't both be possible together?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 11, 2019, 03:49:52 AM
It either has to same face to the earth or to the observer. Both can not be possible together.
If the observer is on Earth (as we are), why can't both be possible together?

Because it is not.

Quote
Source: NASA/NOAA
Published: January 30, 2018
Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite's EPIC maintains a constant view of the fully illuminated Earth as it rotates,
providing scientific observations of ozone, vegetation, cloud height and aerosols in the atmosphere.

About twice a year the camera captures the Moon and Earth together as the orbit of DSCOVR crosses the orbital plane of the Moon.

These images were taken between 3:50 p.m. and 8:45 p.m. EDT showing the moon moving over the Pacific Ocean near North America.
The North Pole is in the upper left corner of the image. It is in the original orientation as taken by the spacecraft.

            This image from the Deep Space Climate Observatory (DSCOVR) satellite captured
            a unique view of the Moon as it moved in front of the sunlit side of Earth in 2015.
            It shows a view of the farside of the Moon, which faces the Sun,
            that is never directly visible to us here on Earth.
            I found this perspective profoundly moving and
            only through our satellite views could this have been shared.
                                               - Michael Freilich, Director NASA Earth Science Division

You are not reading at all, nor your own childish claims. Perhaps you are boring to read even your own baseless childish BS.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: JackBlack on June 11, 2019, 04:17:42 AM
Because it is not.
He was clearly talking about an observer on Earth.
The moon's rotational and orbital period are the same so people on Earth see roughly the same face the entire time.

DSCOVR is not on Earth, which allows it to see the far side of the moon, something not visible from Earth.
If you meant the images from DSCOVR always show the same face, that is incorrect.
For example, here is a series of images (video) which shows the near side of the moon, during a full moon.
https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/epic-galleries/2015/lunar_occultation/lunar_occultation_translate_cropped720.mp4

If you mean just over that tiny time frame of the video provided before, firstly, that is only ~ 5 hours. The moon has a rotational period of roughly 28 days. That means over those 5 hours it would have turned a massive 3 degrees. So basically nothing. And the moon isn't even entirely in frame for a lot of it so you would expect even less.
But even then, IT DOES ROTATE.
It is only when watching the video and mentally trying to compare the 2 that it appears to not rotate due to how small the change is.
But if you isolate the first and last frame which has the moon entirely in view, and then overlay them so the moon is in the same location for both and rapidly switch between them you can easily see the motion.
https://i.imgur.com/btURe7m.gif
(I know you claim you wont be able to see the image here, but you can test yourself as you wouldn't trust what I present anyway, so this is provided for anyone else looking on, and not done as an image due to the rapid flashing, so those who suffer from epilepsy should probably avoid it).


But of course, all of this is still off topic.
Are you planning on either justifying your claim that satellites need to move relative to Earth or admitting your claim was wrong?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: inquisitive on June 11, 2019, 04:20:37 AM
Back to topic please.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 11, 2019, 05:09:36 AM
Because it is not.
He was clearly talking about an observer on Earth.
The moon's rotational and orbital period are the same so people on Earth see roughly the same face the entire time.

DSCOVR is not on Earth, which allows it to see the far side of the moon, something not visible from Earth.
If you meant the images from DSCOVR always show the same face, that is incorrect.
For example, here is a series of images (video) which shows the near side of the moon, during a full moon.
https://epic.gsfc.nasa.gov/epic-galleries/2015/lunar_occultation/lunar_occultation_translate_cropped720.mp4

If you mean just over that tiny time frame of the video provided before, firstly, that is only ~ 5 hours. The moon has a rotational period of roughly 28 days. That means over those 5 hours it would have turned a massive 3 degrees. So basically nothing. And the moon isn't even entirely in frame for a lot of it so you would expect even less.
But even then, IT DOES ROTATE.
It is only when watching the video and mentally trying to compare the 2 that it appears to not rotate due to how small the change is.
But if you isolate the first and last frame which has the moon entirely in view, and then overlay them so the moon is in the same location for both and rapidly switch between them you can easily see the motion.
https://i.imgur.com/btURe7m.gif
(I know you claim you wont be able to see the image here, but you can test yourself as you wouldn't trust what I present anyway, so this is provided for anyone else looking on, and not done as an image due to the rapid flashing, so those who suffer from epilepsy should probably avoid it).


But of course, all of this is still off topic.
Are you planning on either justifying your claim that satellites need to move relative to Earth or admitting your claim was wrong?

You've accepted you are talking off the topic.

Back to topic please.

He is aware of this.

I am aware of this and will not reply your off topic talkings.

So why does your globularist moderator lover isn't warning you who are talking clearly off the topic and warning me who is talking in the topic? Oh sure, he is in your side. You are using the moderator as your slave.

Turn the topic mister! Turn the topic!

Can you prove your GPS works inner oceans? You can not prove this. So get do not claim its being exist, instead of using our under controlled moderator against me. Use your arguments, and boydster isn't an argument but your using him as your slave proves how you are cornered and pityful. I pity you, you have no chance but use the boydster.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: turtles on June 11, 2019, 05:36:25 AM
Understand that the dark side of the Moon, is a misnomer, it really should say the far side of the Moon, the side that never faces earth.
the Satellite is outside The orbit of the Moon and orbits the sun at the same rate of earth. So that you see the sunlit side of Earth, all the time.
If you cannot see this, you will remain, in your cave of Plato, seeing what you want to see and denying reality.

Did you aware that moon is not spinning at all and shows the so called camera constantly same face, although the observation angle changes. It is clearly, fake!

It does spin once every 28 days. It also orbits the Earth once every 28 days, so the same side always faces us.

It's called tidal locking.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking

If you pay attention the video then you see that its angel changes relatively the observe point. It either has to same face to the earth or to the observer. Both can not be possible together.

It is if the observer is on Earth.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: inquisitive on June 11, 2019, 05:52:38 AM
Satellites used for GPS give near universal coverage.  Look it up and argue with the designers.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 11, 2019, 06:05:10 AM
Understand that the dark side of the Moon, is a misnomer, it really should say the far side of the Moon, the side that never faces earth.
the Satellite is outside The orbit of the Moon and orbits the sun at the same rate of earth. So that you see the sunlit side of Earth, all the time.
If you cannot see this, you will remain, in your cave of Plato, seeing what you want to see and denying reality.

Did you aware that moon is not spinning at all and shows the so called camera constantly same face, although the observation angle changes. It is clearly, fake!

It does spin once every 28 days. It also orbits the Earth once every 28 days, so the same side always faces us.

It's called tidal locking.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking

If you pay attention the video then you see that its angel changes relatively the observe point. It either has to same face to the earth or to the observer. Both can not be possible together.

It is if the observer is on Earth.

Are we talking about same image?

(https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/696_dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif)

In this image, we see the following things:

1- Earth is spinning prominently. It almost turn half of a way. It has started with America in left side and ended with Australia in the left side.

2- Moon rotating around earth, it almost runs half of earth.

3- Moon has to show same face to the earth, but our point of onservation is stationary out of the earth.

4- So we have to definitely see the moon's a "part of other side" because it has to save its position related to the earth's rotation. As how as we are seing the earth's seing face is changing, we have to see mon's rotating and show us a part of its other face. But we are seing constantly same face of the moon.

Debunked. This image is a fraud. So satellites are absent. If they would exist so they had to publish a reliable visual other than this one.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: rabinoz on June 11, 2019, 06:20:30 AM
It is if the observer is on Earth.

Are we talking about same image?

(https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/696_dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif)

In this image, we see the following things:
1- Earth is spinning prominently. It almost turn half of a way.
2- Moon rotating around earth, it almost runs half of earth.
3- Moon has to show same face to the earth, but our point of onservation is stationary out of the earth.
4- So we have to definitely see the moon's a "part of other side" because it has to save its position related to the earth's rotation. But we are seing constantly same face of the moon.

Debunked. This image is a fraud.
No, the image is not debunked!
So no, you observations do not prove that image is a fraud.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 11, 2019, 06:37:02 AM
It is if the observer is on Earth.

Are we talking about same image?

(https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/696_dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif)

In this image, we see the following things:
1- Earth is spinning prominently. It almost turn half of a way.
2- Moon rotating around earth, it almost runs half of earth.
3- Moon has to show same face to the earth, but our point of onservation is stationary out of the earth.
4- So we have to definitely see the moon's a "part of other side" because it has to save its position related to the earth's rotation. But we are seing constantly same face of the moon.

Debunked. This image is a fraud.
No, the image is not debunked!
  • Earth is spinning prominently. It almost turn half of a way:
    So let's say that the time is about 10 hours (a bit under half a day - when I get time I might calculate it more accurately)

  • Moon rotating around earth, it almost runs half of earth:
    No, because the moon takes about 29 days to orbit the earth so in 10 hours it has only travelled (10 x 360)/(24 x 29) = 5.17 degrees around its orbit.

  • Moon has to show same face to the earth, but our point of observation is stationary out of the earth: Yes, that is correct.

  • So we have to definitely see the moon's a "part of other side":
    But since the moon only rotates about 5° around its orbit we see so little of the "other side" that it quite unnoticeable.

So no, you observations do not prove that image is a fraud.

So there is another problem of this visual. Because as far as we see earth's hours seem about 10 hours or a bit less. But moon is traveling really a good distance clearly seem more than 1/58 of the orbit.

You are confusing moon phases and moon orbit. Are you as ignorant as boydster? Moon orbit is 27 days, but not 29. You're wellcome.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: turtles on June 11, 2019, 10:47:19 AM
Understand that the dark side of the Moon, is a misnomer, it really should say the far side of the Moon, the side that never faces earth.
the Satellite is outside The orbit of the Moon and orbits the sun at the same rate of earth. So that you see the sunlit side of Earth, all the time.
If you cannot see this, you will remain, in your cave of Plato, seeing what you want to see and denying reality.

Did you aware that moon is not spinning at all and shows the so called camera constantly same face, although the observation angle changes. It is clearly, fake!

It does spin once every 28 days. It also orbits the Earth once every 28 days, so the same side always faces us.

It's called tidal locking.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking

If you pay attention the video then you see that its angel changes relatively the observe point. It either has to same face to the earth or to the observer. Both can not be possible together.

It is if the observer is on Earth.

Are we talking about same image?

Ah, no I think not. I was referring to the diagrams in the Wikipedia article.

Quote
(https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/system/resources/detail_files/696_dscovrepicmoontransitfull.gif)

In this image, we see the following things:

1- Earth is spinning prominently. It almost turn half of a way. It has started with America in left side and ended with Australia in the left side.

2- Moon rotating around earth, it almost runs half of earth.

3- Moon has to show same face to the earth, but our point of onservation is stationary out of the earth.

4- So we have to definitely see the moon's a "part of other side" because it has to save its position related to the earth's rotation. As how as we are seing the earth's seing face is changing, we have to see mon's rotating and show us a part of its other face. But we are seing constantly same face of the moon.

Debunked. This image is a fraud. So satellites are absent. If they would exist so they had to publish a reliable visual other than this one.

I think rabinoz answered those well, so no, not even close to debunked.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: JackBlack on June 11, 2019, 02:39:50 PM
So why does your globularist moderator lover isn't warning you who are talking clearly off the topic and warning me who is talking in the topic?
Probably because we were responding directly to what you were saying which was off topic, and telling you to get back on topic.

Can you prove your GPS works inner oceans?
You were the one who brought up GPS working/not working in Oceans, so the burden of proof is on you to prove your claims.

And again, that is still off topic.
GPS is another thread entirely.
This thread is for discussing satellite TV.

1- Earth is spinning prominently. It almost turn half of a way. It has started with America in left side and ended with Australia in the left side.

2- Moon rotating around earth, it almost runs half of earth.

3- Moon has to show same face to the earth, but our point of onservation is stationary out of the earth.

4- So we have to definitely see the moon's a "part of other side" because it has to save its position related to the earth's rotation. As how as we are seing the earth's seing face is changing, we have to see mon's rotating and show us a part of its other face. But we are seing constantly same face of the moon.
Again, entirely off topic, and also massively wrong.
Yes, Earth rotates a lot as it is 5 hours of imagery. But not half way. No where near half way. Look at North America. It starts off roughly centred (i.e. the longitude of it is in line with the centre of the image) and ends up on the edge. This means it turns roughly 1/4 of the way around. Quite consistent with roughly 5 hours.

The moon does not rotate almost half of Earth, instead it merely passes in front of the camera.
It rotates roughly 2 degrees.

This rotation (while not measured to that accuracy) is observed if you actually compare the first and last image.
Again, here it is (epileptics beware): https://i.imgur.com/btURe7m.gif .
This ~2 degree rotation is far too small to notice by a mental comparison (i.e. watching it and seeing if it rotates by mentally comparing the 2).

So no, your analysis is wrong. You have failed to show that this image is a fraud. It is entirely consistent with what is expected of a round rotating Earth with the moon orbiting it as known by science.

But again, THIS IS ALL OFF TOPIC!
The topic is satellites used for TV, specifically the geostationary satellites.

You claimed satellites need to move relative to Earth or they would fall down.
I showed the math which clearly indicates that as long as Earth rotates there is an orbit where the satellite moves with Earth and thus appears to remain stationary relative to Earth, and showed that this requires Earth to be rotating.
That means not only are these satellites possible with a rotating round Earth, they require a rotating Earth, and thus these dishes and satellites prove Earth rotates.

Now, care to address the topic?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: rabinoz on June 11, 2019, 03:04:49 PM
2- Moon rotating around earth, it almost runs half of earth.
3- Moon has to show same face to the earth, but our point of onservation is stationary out of the earth.
4- So we have to definitely see the moon's a "part of other side" because it has to save its position related to the earth's rotation. As how as we are seing the earth's seing face is changing, we have to see mon's rotating and show us a part of its other face. But we are seing constantly same face of the moon.

Debunked. This image is a fraud. So satellites are absent. If they would exist so they had to publish a reliable visual other than this one.

I think rabinoz answered those well, so no, not even close to debunked.
Expect that I probably overestimate the angle. See JackBlack's post.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 14, 2019, 12:39:15 AM

Ah, no I think not. I was referring to the diagrams in the Wikipedia article.

Your using wikipedia diagrams do not make your argument stronger or weaker. wikipedia is an open source everybody including you or sokarul can add there a content, it means nothing.

I think rabinoz answered those well, so no, not even close to debunked.

Your thinking rabinoz'es answered well without an argument does not makes rabinoz' does it well, and does not mean its whether debunked or not debunked. and as a last, name of rabinoz isn't an argument. If it would be an argument it woulc be a negative argument represents ignorancy.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 14, 2019, 12:42:43 AM
2- Moon rotating around earth, it almost runs half of earth.
3- Moon has to show same face to the earth, but our point of onservation is stationary out of the earth.
4- So we have to definitely see the moon's a "part of other side" because it has to save its position related to the earth's rotation. As how as we are seing the earth's seing face is changing, we have to see mon's rotating and show us a part of its other face. But we are seing constantly same face of the moon.

Debunked. This image is a fraud. So satellites are absent. If they would exist so they had to publish a reliable visual other than this one.

I think rabinoz answered those well, so no, not even close to debunked.
Expect that  I probably overestimate the angle. See JackBlack's post.

We caal this as "rabinoz made mistake but denied made mistake", not like "rabinoz overestimated". You must learn to accept it when you make a mistake first. this will help you grow up earlier.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: JackBlack on June 14, 2019, 01:54:20 AM
We caal this as "rabinoz made mistake but denied made mistake"
So you lie?
He made a mistake. He admitted it by saying he probably overestimated.
An overestimation can be a mistake.

isn't an argument.
Do you know what else isn't an argument?
You repeatedly ignoring everything.

For example, how about you adress the fact that all 4 of the points you raised were false.
Earth didn't rotate half way around. You can verify that by the timing of the photos or by looking at Earth in the photos.
The moon didn't orbit half way around. You can verify that by again noting how much time passed, or just understanding that it just passed through the FOV.
Technically our POV isn't stationary, it is just not rotating with Earth or directly orbiting it. Instead it is orbiting the sun such that the Sun, it and Earth remain roughly in a line.
We do see the moon rotate in the images, it is just a fairly small amount which requires a direct comparison between the first and last images to see, rather than trying to notice over the course of the footage.

Or you could try to address the actual topic of discussion, satellites used for TV.
DSCOVR is not used for TV.
Instead geostationary satellites are.
As shown before, these satellites exist in an orbit at the right distance so their orbital period matches Earth and thus the remain stationary relative to Earth.
This is only possible due to Earth rotating.

So satellite TV is proof of Earth rotating.

If you wish to assert that satellites need to move relative to Earth or they fall down, you will need to back up your claim, especially as it has already been refuted.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: rabinoz on June 14, 2019, 01:59:17 AM
2- Moon rotating around earth, it almost runs half of earth.
3- Moon has to show same face to the earth, but our point of onservation is stationary out of the earth.
4- So we have to definitely see the moon's a "part of other side" because it has to save its position related to the earth's rotation. As how as we are seing the earth's seing face is changing, we have to see mon's rotating and show us a part of its other face. But we are seing constantly same face of the moon.

Debunked. This image is a fraud. So satellites are absent. If they would exist so they had to publish a reliable visual other than this one.

I think rabinoz answered those well, so no, not even close to debunked.
Expect that  I probably overestimate the angle[/b][/size]. See JackBlack's post.

We caal this as "rabinoz made mistake but denied made mistake", not like "rabinoz overestimated". You must learn to accept it when you make a mistake first. this will help you grow up earlier.
Try again, Mr Wise, I said that I only estimated the distance the moon travelled so my result may not have been accurate.
The reason I did not take the trouble to measure the distance more accurately, and given time I could easily do it, was simply that I could not spend more time on it.
JackBlack did put more effort in and arrived at a more accurate value.  But who cares whether JackBlack or I gave the better result, not I!

We both showed that your claims in,
2- Moon rotating around earth, it almost runs half of earth.
3- Moon has to show same face to the earth, but our point of onservation is stationary out of the earth.
4- So we have to definitely see the moon's a "part of other side" because it has to save its position related to the earth's rotation.
Debunked. This image is a fraud. So satellites are absent. If they would exist so they had to publish a reliable visual other than this one.
were debunked and completely wrong.

If you disagree please show how you worked out that the "Moon . . . . . almost runs half of earth." You just guessed and got it wrong!
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 14, 2019, 01:34:43 PM
2- Moon rotating around earth, it almost runs half of earth.
3- Moon has to show same face to the earth, but our point of onservation is stationary out of the earth.
4- So we have to definitely see the moon's a "part of other side" because it has to save its position related to the earth's rotation. As how as we are seing the earth's seing face is changing, we have to see mon's rotating and show us a part of its other face. But we are seing constantly same face of the moon.

Debunked. This image is a fraud. So satellites are absent. If they would exist so they had to publish a reliable visual other than this one.

I think rabinoz answered those well, so no, not even close to debunked.
Expect that  I probably overestimate the angle[/b][/size]. See JackBlack's post.

We caal this as "rabinoz made mistake but denied made mistake", not like "rabinoz overestimated". You must learn to accept it when you make a mistake first. this will help you grow up earlier.
Try again, Mr Wise, I said that I only estimated the distance the moon travelled so my result may not have been accurate.

So you have used an estimation as an argument, right? You have agreed you are using estimations as arguments. These arguments may be theory, evidence, claim or proof and actually they may be your estimates, because you have agreed you are using estimations as argument. Your turn mister rabinoz.  :)
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: JackBlack on June 14, 2019, 02:51:58 PM
So you have used an estimation as an argument, right?
That is common.
Rather than dealing with exact numbers and exact math which can be time consuming, people will make estimates.
Good people do so in their opponents favour, as he did.
Also notice that he used the numbers you provided.

Now again, how about you quit the childish BS and admit your claims were pure fiction, including your claim which actually deals with the topic, the claim about geostationary satellites.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: rabinoz on June 14, 2019, 06:24:32 PM
So you have used an estimation as an argument, right? You have agreed you are using estimations as arguments.
Your turn mister rabinoz.  :)
Yes, of course I agreed with that because I said it first. Do you have a problem with that?
Now I estimated my angle but how did you calculate your "Moon rotating around earth, it almost runs half of earth." in:
2- Moon rotating around earth, it almost runs half of earth.

According to you an estimate is inadequate so please show all your accurate calculations!

PS The time lapse images are quite genuine!
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: inquisitive on June 15, 2019, 02:56:45 AM
2- Moon rotating around earth, it almost runs half of earth.
3- Moon has to show same face to the earth, but our point of onservation is stationary out of the earth.
4- So we have to definitely see the moon's a "part of other side" because it has to save its position related to the earth's rotation. As how as we are seing the earth's seing face is changing, we have to see mon's rotating and show us a part of its other face. But we are seing constantly same face of the moon.

Debunked. This image is a fraud. So satellites are absent. If they would exist so they had to publish a reliable visual other than this one.

I think rabinoz answered those well, so no, not even close to debunked.
Expect that  I probably overestimate the angle[/b][/size]. See JackBlack's post.

We caal this as "rabinoz made mistake but denied made mistake", not like "rabinoz overestimated". You must learn to accept it when you make a mistake first. this will help you grow up earlier.
Try again, Mr Wise, I said that I only estimated the distance the moon travelled so my result may not have been accurate.

So you have used an estimation as an argument, right? You have agreed you are using estimations as arguments. These arguments may be theory, evidence, claim or proof and actually they may be your estimates, because you have agreed you are using estimations as argument. Your turn mister rabinoz.  :)
Do you discuss this with anyone outside of this forum?  If not it would appear you are just playing a game to argue.

Clearly satellites are used for communication and navigation by millions.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 16, 2019, 12:33:03 PM
So you have used an estimation as an argument, right?
That is common.
Rather than dealing with exact numbers and exact math which can be time consuming, people will make estimates.
Good people do so in their opponents favour, as he did.
Also notice that he used the numbers you provided.

Now again, how about you quit the childish BS and admit your claims were pure fiction, including your claim which actually deals with the topic, the claim about geostationary satellites.

You are still insisting use same offensive words like childish bullshit (you are shortened it to be so called legal). This is literally an insult and you are shortening it. Stop to use word salat. There is mountains of your insults in this forum talked by you as "bullshit, f*ck off,..." etc. I wonder when you will start to debate like a human? Look what did you mention from me? "So you have used an estimation as an argument, right? Where is a provocation here cause you started direct insult to me? Are you rounders can not continue a debate without using an insult?

As a result I used estimation but its being fewer does not change the result.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: rabinoz on June 16, 2019, 03:49:51 PM
Now again, how about you quit the childish BS and admit your claims were pure fiction, including your claim which actually deals with the topic, the claim about geostationary satellites.
You are still insisting use same offensive words like childish bullshit (you are shortened it to be so called legal).
So why do YOU use exactly the same "offensive words" to ME?
I've already told it. Stop to BS claims.
Now stop talking rubbish and prove your claims about the moon's angular movement in that motion gif.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 16, 2019, 11:53:52 PM
Now again, how about you quit the childish BS and admit your claims were pure fiction, including your claim which actually deals with the topic, the claim about geostationary satellites.
You are still insisting use same offensive words like childish bullshit (you are shortened it to be so called legal).
So why do YOU use exactly the same "offensive words" to ME?
I've already told it. Stop to BS claims.
Now stop talking rubbish and prove your claims about the moon's angular movement in that motion gif.

So you have agreed BS claims being an "offensive word", right? So why don't you warn jackblack to not do it? Because you think him is in your side? This mister, this simply proves you are unjustice.

In one hand you call me using offensive word because I used same work what jackblack use, on the other hand you are using different offensive word "talking rubbish". What kind of hypocrisy are you?

I do not have to prove moon's angular movement in that motion gif. I have just claimed it seems more than 1/29 of all orbit. It really seems so. Do I have to believe what I see or what you childishly claim? Exactly, I see it so it does not need to be proven. As we said countlessly , something you see and accepted with your own eyes live, does not need an extra evidence. So that I don't have to deal to prove it, if you want you can do so you can try to debunk it.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: rabinoz on June 17, 2019, 04:19:13 AM
I have just claimed it seems more than 1/29 of all orbit. It really seems so. Do I have to believe what I see or what you childishly claim? Exactly, I see it so it does not need to be proven.
And both JackBlack and I did not simply "claimed it seems more" than so and so but we estimated the distance the moon moved based on the diameter of the earth being 12,742 km.

So just get over the fact that our estimates are far better than your "claimed it seems more"?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 17, 2019, 04:37:35 AM
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/60MMPU.png)
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: rabinoz on June 17, 2019, 05:16:51 AM
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/60MMPU.png)
No it does not change the moon's visible face enough to notice.
There is no way that a few degrees would matter because we see up to 59% of the moon anyway.
Quote
Even so, over time, it's possible to see as much as 59% of the moon's surface, due to lunar libration. Lunar libration lets us see more than 50% of the moon.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 17, 2019, 05:19:13 AM
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/60MMPU.png)
No it does not change the moon's visible face enough to notice.
There is no way that a few degrees would matter because we see up to 59% of the moon anyway.
Quote
Even so, over time, it's possible to see as much as 59% of the moon's surface, due to lunar libration. Lunar libration lets us see more than 50% of the moon.
No, it changes.
What percentage of the moon orbit you say changes?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: inquisitive on June 17, 2019, 02:17:22 PM
Still we receive tv from satellites.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: sokarul on June 17, 2019, 02:21:57 PM
I like my satellite radio.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 24, 2019, 05:10:51 AM
I like people calls my land based wireless phone as GSM.  ;D
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: rabinoz on June 24, 2019, 05:16:19 AM
I like people calls my land based wireless phone as GSM.  ;D
So you have never used a Satellite Phone?
Well, I have used one in regions far removed from any GSM or CDMA phone towers but calls cost $2.00 per minute.
We did have a GSM and CDMA phone and would have preferred to use those because the call charges were a lot less.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 24, 2019, 06:06:22 AM
I like people calls my land based wireless phone as GSM.  ;D
So you have never used a Satellite Phone?
I've many times explained what satellites phones are, but silly ignorants can not get it. If you have more stations, the phone that uses the network you set up is called satellite phone. more money, more network connectivity, more powerful satellite phone. get it now?  ;)
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: sokarul on June 24, 2019, 10:10:21 AM
Why is it on the trip from Denver to aspen you will lose cell service 50 times but only lose satellite radio when you are in tunnels?

Why does satellite tv go out when it’s heavy clouds.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: JackBlack on June 24, 2019, 02:31:08 PM
I've many times explained what satellites phones are, but silly ignorants can not get it. If you have more stations, the phone that uses the network you set up is called satellite phone. more money, more network connectivity, more powerful satellite phone. get it now?  ;)
You mean you have ignored it many times.

The phone being called a sat phone is dependent upon what it uses.
If it uses satellites, it is a sat phone.
If it just uses cell towers, it is a cell phone (or one of the other names for them).
Having more towers doesn't magically convert a cell phone into a sat phone.

But this thread is about satellite TV.
They use geostationary satellites, with no ground station anywhere near where they are pointing.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: rabinoz on June 24, 2019, 06:34:47 PM
I like people calls my land based wireless phone as GSM.  ;D
So you have never used a Satellite Phone?
Well, I have used one in regions far removed from any GSM or CDMA phone towers but calls cost $2.00 per minute.
We did have a GSM and CDMA phone and would have preferred to use those because the call charges were a lot less.
I've many times explained what satellites phones are, but silly ignorants can not get it. If you have more stations, the phone that uses the network you set up is called satellite phone. more money, more network connectivity, more powerful satellite phone. get it now?  ;)
I don't care how many times you think you have explained it.

You have not yet explained how Satellite Phones can work far from any base stations including it remote regions of Australia and in oceans far from any land.
And I KNOW first hand that they do work in remote areas from personal experience.

So I KNOW that your explanation is incorrect. Try again!
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 25, 2019, 06:39:15 AM
I don't care how many times you think you have explained it.
But there may be people cares. Ordinary man care others. I already know you have a problem of care others.
You have not yet explained how Satellite Phones can work far from any base stations including it remote regions of Australia and in oceans far from any land.
Lie! I've already explained it many times. When you stay far to base stations then your GSM or satellite phones do not work. Need more explanation?
And I KNOW first hand that they do work in remote areas from personal experience.
You know only money first hand. They can not work and your claims are null because you are not a reliable person even does not care others! A man does not care others does not care saying true or lie. This is you.
So I KNOW that your explanation is incorrect.
So you've agreed I made an explanation. Look.

1-

You have not yet explained

2-

your explanation is incorrect

In one hand, you are claiming I did not explanaid how GPS does not work in deserted places. On the other hand, you are claiming my explanation is incorrect because you have experiences opposite of it.

You are a liar contradicing yourself. Oh, a man does not care others, can be it a surprise says contradicted serial lies without care others? Shame on you mister!
Try again!
I guess I don't take suggestions from a liar contradict himself and does not care me.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 25, 2019, 06:48:26 AM
You mean you have ignored it many times.

Nope. I've explanaied and you've agreed it, here:

your explanation is incorrect

So, stop saying lie. Contradicting yourself isn't an argument mister Rabblack!

The phone being called a sat phone is dependent upon what it uses.

Nope. A name means nothing. If you sincere of this decide so you have to accept me being wise. But you are sometimes calling me unwise and not scientist although management gave me scientist rank and I've assigned the name wise to this membership. But these names mean nothing to you. So names mean nothing. Stop to contradict yourself.

If it just uses cell towers, it is a cell phone (or one of the other names for them).

You mean GSM phone?

Having more towers doesn't magically convert a cell phone into a sat phone.

No need to magic. We are calling it as "changing its name". Magicians are working to your side.

But this thread is about satellite TV.

Oh, at last you've get it. So you have accepted you are talked out off topic. Do not repeat it. Shame on you.
They use geostationary satellites, with no ground station anywhere near where they are pointing.

Your baseless claims do not magically satellites exist. Either prove their existance or stop this baseless claim. Base stations do not magically your claims have some bases.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: inquisitive on June 25, 2019, 01:37:29 PM
You mean you have ignored it many times.

Nope. I've explanaied and you've agreed it, here:

your explanation is incorrect

So, stop saying lie. Contradicting yourself isn't an argument mister Rabblack!

The phone being called a sat phone is dependent upon what it uses.

Nope. A name means nothing. If you sincere of this decide so you have to accept me being wise. But you are sometimes calling me unwise and not scientist although management gave me scientist rank and I've assigned the name wise to this membership. But these names mean nothing to you. So names mean nothing. Stop to contradict yourself.

If it just uses cell towers, it is a cell phone (or one of the other names for them).

You mean GSM phone?

Having more towers doesn't magically convert a cell phone into a sat phone.

No need to magic. We are calling it as "changing its name". Magicians are working to your side.

But this thread is about satellite TV.

Oh, at last you've get it. So you have accepted you are talked out off topic. Do not repeat it. Shame on you.
They use geostationary satellites, with no ground station anywhere near where they are pointing.

Your baseless claims do not magically satellites exist. Either prove their existance or stop this baseless claim. Base stations do not magically your claims have some bases.
Please provide details of what satellite dishes point at, some transmitter locations.  If you cannot we can be sure you cannot be correct.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: JackBlack on June 25, 2019, 02:47:19 PM
Stop lying about who is posting.

Quotemining little snippets to pretend there is a contradiction doesn't magically make a contradiction. It just shows you have no argument and that you have resort to lying to pretend you have a case.

When you stay far to base stations then your GSM or satellite phones do not work. Need more explanation?
Yes, you need evidence of such a claim.
So far, all the available evidence indicates they do work in remote areas. All we have is your baseless claim that they don't.

Nope. I've explanaied and you've agreed it, here:
Stop lying. You are yet to provide any explanation.
So far all you have done is lied and said that the coverage is provided by cell towers.
Quoting rab and lying and saying it is me just further proves your dishonesty.

Nope. A name means nothing. If you sincere of this decide so you have to accept me being wise.
Why would I accept you as wise when all you have been able to do is spout a bunch of pure stupidity?
Not everyone is as dishonest with naming as you.

No need to magic. We are calling it as "changing its name". Magicians are working to your side.
It isn't a simple name change. It works fundamentally differently.
This is easily shown by regions where a cell phone has no coverage but a sat phone does, and vice versa.
If it as just a name change, then they would have identical coverage.

Oh, at last you've get it. So you have accepted you are talked out off topic.
No, I accept that you repeatedly run away from the topic because you cannot deal with it at all.
Rather than focus on the topic you need to look for pathetic excuses to pretend that you haven't been repeatedly refuted.

But if you like, I will not just dismiss anything you say on satellite phones as off topic garbage.

Your baseless claims do not magically satellites exist. Either prove their existance or stop this baseless claim. Base stations do not magically your claims have some bases.
Satellite TV proves they exist.
Being able to photograph them with time lapse photography proves they exist.
You being wilfully ignorant doesn't magically change it.

If you would like to object to this proof, explain what satellite TV uses other than these satellites.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: rabinoz on June 25, 2019, 03:44:04 PM
You mean you have ignored it many times.
I did not post that, JackBlack did!

Quote from: wise
Nope. I've explanaied and you've agreed it, here:

your explanation is incorrect
JackBlack did not post that, I posted that!

Quote from: wise
So, stop saying lie. Contradicting yourself isn't an argument mister Rabblack!

The phone being called a sat phone is dependent upon what it uses.
I did not post that, JackBlack did!

Quote from: wise
Nope. A name means nothing. If you sincere of this decide so you have to accept me being wise. But you are sometimes calling me unwise and not scientist although management gave me scientist rank and I've assigned the name wise to this membership. But these names mean nothing to you. So names mean nothing. Stop to contradict yourself.

If it just uses cell towers, it is a cell phone (or one of the other names for them).
I did not post that, JackBlack did!

Quote from: wise
You mean GSM phone?

Having more towers doesn't magically convert a cell phone into a sat phone.
I did not post that, JackBlack did!

Quote from: wise
No need to magic. We are calling it as "changing its name". Magicians are working to your side.

But this thread is about satellite TV.
I did not post that, JackBlack did!

Quote from: wise
Oh, at last you've get it. So you have accepted you are talked out off topic. Do not repeat it. Shame on you.
But who was the one that introduced phones into this thread? Was it YOU?
I like people calls my land based wireless phone as GSM.

Quote from: wise
They use geostationary satellites, with no ground station anywhere near where they are pointing.
I did not post that, JackBlack did!

Quote from: wise
Your baseless claims do not magically satellites exist. Either prove their existance or stop this baseless claim. Base stations do not magically your claims have some bases.
When are you going to learn that JackBlack and I are different people who live in quite different parts of Australia and have never even seen each other?

Keep this silly business for Complete Nonsense or Angry Ranting thank you, Mr Wise! Now run away and don't come back until you learn how to make an honest post.

Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 25, 2019, 11:29:04 PM
:'( :'(
 :'( :'(
I can't reply you. The arth is flat
 :'( :'(
 :'( :'(
Get stop to cry and reply the statements like a man!
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 26, 2019, 12:35:20 AM
Stop lying about who is posting.

Stop lying about what I post! I did not post anything like (  :'(  :'( ) but you and rabinoz two are doing it by changing my posts. This is its name. If you want to play, so don't cry when you concede a goal! If you want to play fair, so just get yourself play fair! You get this Jackblack?

Who did post this lie? (example 1)


:'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
I'm a big cry baby
 :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
Sorry, I have to do it because of bot protection. Unfortunately our management could not achieved to defend us from bots. You know what I mean.
If you want to do it for bot protection you need to obfuscate the text.

You posted it! You have changed my words! So, stop to cry and endure this reality! You are rabinoz when I want!

Quotemining little snippets to pretend there is a contradiction doesn't magically make a contradiction. It just shows you have no argument and that you have resort to lying to pretend you have a case.
if you are uncomfortable with this, stop splitting my posts. then I take this into consideration. Because this is a contradiction. In the one hand you are splitting my posts, on the other hand you are critizing me to I do it. You can't do it. Your argument is null. Until you continue to split my post, so you have to get used to see your posts being splitted to less parts.
Yes, you need evidence of such a claim.
Nope. The evidence is enough. Your can not get it because of being ignorant is your own problem.
So far, all the available evidence indicates they do work in remote areas.
Lie! There is no evidence about it. Your claiming there is evidences them working in remote areas does not magically the evidences exist. Stop to talk baseless.
All we have is your baseless claim that they don't.
Again, All we have is your baseless claim that they do.
Stop lying.
You are the only liar in this conversation.
You are yet to provide any explanation.
Your partner rabinoz has agreed I have made an explanation. And he has denied my explanation. I have made many explanations but your denying the explanations do not magically them absent.
So far all you have done is lied and said that the coverage is provided by cell towers.
And this is true. Prove its being lie.
Quoting rab and lying and saying it is me just further proves your dishonesty.
So you have admitted your own dishonesty now.

I did not send this post at all:


:'(
You have provided no actual justification for a pilot to record their flight.

Do you see what you did? So you have admitted your dishonesty. Don't you have a shame?

Why would I accept you as wise when all you have been able to do is spout a bunch of pure stupidity?

Your denying the facts are not making my arguments stupidy but yours. Your agreing or denying the wisdom can not change the reality.

Not everyone is as dishonest with naming as you.

You are for the first time meeting a real wise. You have meeted the fake ones earlier, so you have confused what is what.

It isn't a simple name change.
Nope, it is so.
It works fundamentally differently.
Yeah. It works different. if he can access more base stations, you call it as satellite phone. but it can be expressed differently: "dome phone", "flat phone", shell phone "," Longer phone ", "strong phone"... etc. My appeal is its being a perception management. Being a strong phone does not magically do it as a satellite phone. Actually this is relevant with your money. If you pay more then your GSM can turn to a satellite phone too. But I will still use dome phone. It used all of dome particles.  ;)

This is easily shown by regions where a cell phone has no coverage but a sat phone does, and vice versa.
But you cant. So it can not be shown. Stop to say lie. Your lying can not magically do it exist.
If it as just a name change,
You have admitted the truth. It is just a name change. If you don't change its name its already an ordinary GSM, just a bit stronger because of you have payed more money for it.

then they would have identical coverage.
It is relevant with your money.

If it as just a name change, then they would have identical coverage.
Again and again; when you pay more, your phone is called a "satellite phone", but this does not magically make it a satellite phone.
I accept that I repeatedly run away from the topic because you cannot deal with it at all.
Glad to see you admit what you do. See example 1.
Rather than focus on the topic you need to look for pathetic excuses to pretend that you haven't been repeatedly refuted.
This is what you are constantly doing and suggesting to me. No, you can free to re try your pathetic claims without evidences.
But if you like, I will not just dismiss anything you say on satellite phones as off topic garbage.
No you. If you like, I will not just dismiss anything you say on satellite phones as off topic garbage.

Satellite TV proves they exist.
Calling something as "satellite TV" does not magically them "satellite" TV. You can call it satellite TV or Zeus TV. Like Zeus continues being absent although you claim it as "Zeus TV", so satellites so. They are still absent how ever you call objects with its name.
Being able to photograph them with time lapse photography proves they exist.
Can you provide a solid evidence shows their photograph? With a photo fair, unobjectionable, and, repeatable! Where is photo? Your claiming them being exist do not magically them exist! Stop to use rabinoz for photo service, this is your job! You are not his GSM phone! Show us real, not manipulated photo! Or stop your childish baseless claims.
You being wilfully ignorant doesn't magically change it.
Your baseless insults do not change the fact that you have not provided an evidence and I am right to deny your baseless childish claims. Sorry, I am not a silly man accept your BS. Change your behave.
If you would like to object to this proof, explain what satellite TV uses other than these satellites.
Sorry? Where is proof? What kind of a man you are seing halutination. You have just claimed you have proved anything. You have said "satellites tv" is a proof with only its name being satellite. You can call yourself satellite but you are still a land based ignorant.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: JackBlack on June 26, 2019, 12:44:29 AM
[off topic BS]
The topic of disucssion for this thread is satellite TV.
As a reminder, people use satellite dishes to pick up signals from satellites in space to watch TV.
These dishes are fixed relative to Earth, requiring the satellites to be fixed relative to Earth.
This requires Earth to be rotating, and due to the numerous satellites which exist, needs to be roughly spherical (or at least cylindrical).
These satellites are also observable with cameras, which can easily time lapse pictures of the night sky showing these satellites in a belt.
The angles involved make no sense for a land based transmitter to be faking it. Nor does the requirements to have a signal.

Now if I recall correctly, the last thing you said on topic was that geostationary satellites were impossible because satellites need to move relative to Earth or they would fall down.
But I demonstrated that that is not the case. If Earth is rotating, there exists an orbit where satellites remain stationary relative to Earth because the orbital period is the same as Earth's rotational period, so there is no longitude drift, and it is on the equator, so there is no latitude drift.
So in fact it is further evidence that Earth rotates.

So are you going to accept that satellites can remain stationary relative to Earth, or will you try and back up your claims for once?

Stop lying about what I post! I did not post anything like (  :'(  :'( )
Then post in text.
If you post an image instead of text I will remove it and put in the cry face.
That is because you are making it so I can't easily quote the text I want to respond to.
That isn't lying about what you are saying.
That isn't changing what you said as you had no words there, just an image.

Can you provide a solid evidence shows their photograph?
You will just dismiss it as not solid evidence, dismissing the photo as fake.
All you need to do is go out at night and take a timelapse photo pointed towards the equator.
If you are happy with other people's photos, there are plenty on line.

Here is one with several satellites indicated:
https://s22380.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/Geosync-A-Sept-12-at-3_50-UT-ANNO_ST.jpg
Here is another:
https://s22380.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/Geosync-B-Sept-12-at-3_23-ANNO_ST2.jpg
and another:
http://www.sws.bom.gov.au/IPSHosted/neo/img/rdos/geosat3.jpg

If you just reject them don't bother asking for more as it is clear you don't actually want the photos, and just want to pretend they don't exist.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 26, 2019, 01:08:48 AM
I am a cry baby.  :'(  :'(  :'(  :'(  :'(
:'(  :'(  [I am talking off topic BS] :'(  :'(
I am a cry baby.  :'(  :'(  :'(  :'(  :'(
Stop to be a cry baby and Reply all the statements one by one.
Stop lying about who is posting.

Stop lying about what I post! I did not post anything like (  :'(  :'( ) but you and rabinoz two are doing it by changing my posts. This is its name. If you want to play, so don't cry when you concede a goal! If you want to play fair, so just get yourself play fair! You get this Jackblack?

Who did post this lie? (example 1)


:'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
I'm a big cry baby
 :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
Sorry, I have to do it because of bot protection. Unfortunately our management could not achieved to defend us from bots. You know what I mean.
If you want to do it for bot protection you need to obfuscate the text.

You posted it! You have changed my words! So, stop to cry and endure this reality! You are rabinoz when I want!

Quotemining little snippets to pretend there is a contradiction doesn't magically make a contradiction. It just shows you have no argument and that you have resort to lying to pretend you have a case.
if you are uncomfortable with this, stop splitting my posts. then I take this into consideration. Because this is a contradiction. In the one hand you are splitting my posts, on the other hand you are critizing me to I do it. You can't do it. Your argument is null. Until you continue to split my post, so you have to get used to see your posts being splitted to less parts.
Yes, you need evidence of such a claim.
Nope. The evidence is enough. Your can not get it because of being ignorant is your own problem.
So far, all the available evidence indicates they do work in remote areas.
Lie! There is no evidence about it. Your claiming there is evidences them working in remote areas does not magically the evidences exist. Stop to talk baseless.
All we have is your baseless claim that they don't.
Again, All we have is your baseless claim that they do.
Stop lying.
You are the only liar in this conversation.
You are yet to provide any explanation.
Your partner rabinoz has agreed I have made an explanation. And he has denied my explanation. I have made many explanations but your denying the explanations do not magically them absent.
So far all you have done is lied and said that the coverage is provided by cell towers.
And this is true. Prove its being lie.
Quoting rab and lying and saying it is me just further proves your dishonesty.
So you have admitted your own dishonesty now.

I did not send this post at all:


:'(
You have provided no actual justification for a pilot to record their flight.

Do you see what you did? So you have admitted your dishonesty. Don't you have a shame?

Why would I accept you as wise when all you have been able to do is spout a bunch of pure stupidity?

Your denying the facts are not making my arguments stupidy but yours. Your agreing or denying the wisdom can not change the reality.

Not everyone is as dishonest with naming as you.

You are for the first time meeting a real wise. You have meeted the fake ones earlier, so you have confused what is what.

It isn't a simple name change.
Nope, it is so.
It works fundamentally differently.
Yeah. It works different. if he can access more base stations, you call it as satellite phone. but it can be expressed differently: "dome phone", "flat phone", shell phone "," Longer phone ", "strong phone"... etc. My appeal is its being a perception management. Being a strong phone does not magically do it as a satellite phone. Actually this is relevant with your money. If you pay more then your GSM can turn to a satellite phone too. But I will still use dome phone. It used all of dome particles.  ;)

This is easily shown by regions where a cell phone has no coverage but a sat phone does, and vice versa.
But you cant. So it can not be shown. Stop to say lie. Your lying can not magically do it exist.
If it as just a name change,
You have admitted the truth. It is just a name change. If you don't change its name its already an ordinary GSM, just a bit stronger because of you have payed more money for it.

then they would have identical coverage.
It is relevant with your money.

If it as just a name change, then they would have identical coverage.
Again and again; when you pay more, your phone is called a "satellite phone", but this does not magically make it a satellite phone.
I accept that I repeatedly run away from the topic because you cannot deal with it at all.
Glad to see you admit what you do. See example 1.
Rather than focus on the topic you need to look for pathetic excuses to pretend that you haven't been repeatedly refuted.
This is what you are constantly doing and suggesting to me. No, you can free to re try your pathetic claims without evidences.
But if you like, I will not just dismiss anything you say on satellite phones as off topic garbage.
No you. If you like, I will not just dismiss anything you say on satellite phones as off topic garbage.

Satellite TV proves they exist.
Calling something as "satellite TV" does not magically them "satellite" TV. You can call it satellite TV or Zeus TV. Like Zeus continues being absent although you claim it as "Zeus TV", so satellites so. They are still absent how ever you call objects with its name.
Being able to photograph them with time lapse photography proves they exist.
Can you provide a solid evidence shows their photograph? With a photo fair, unobjectionable, and, repeatable! Where is photo? Your claiming them being exist do not magically them exist! Stop to use rabinoz for photo service, this is your job! You are not his GSM phone! Show us real, not manipulated photo! Or stop your childish baseless claims.
You being wilfully ignorant doesn't magically change it.
Your baseless insults do not change the fact that you have not provided an evidence and I am right to deny your baseless childish claims. Sorry, I am not a silly man accept your BS. Change your behave.
If you would like to object to this proof, explain what satellite TV uses other than these satellites.
Sorry? Where is proof? What kind of a man you are seing halutination. You have just claimed you have proved anything. You have said "satellites tv" is a proof with only its name being satellite. You can call yourself satellite but you are still a land based ignorant.

Are you really believing I agree this so called image as a proof of satellites being exist? This is a simple drawing can be drawn by many softwares:

(https://s22380.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/Geosync-A-Sept-12-at-3_50-UT-ANNO_ST.jpg)

This one too.

(https://s22380.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/Geosync-B-Sept-12-at-3_23-ANNO_ST2.jpg)

If you pay attention, the so called star trail passing inside tree and behind of it.  ;D  ;D  ;D

What kind of retard thinks we agree this BS?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 26, 2019, 01:18:26 AM
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/xPdbPT.png)

All we are satellites now. You agree this, Jackstar? ;D
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: JackBlack on June 26, 2019, 03:02:08 AM
Are you really believing I agree this so called image as a proof of satellites being exist?
You asked for a photo so I gave you one.
Thanks for proving my point.
You had no interest in getting a photo. You were just using it as an excuse to dismiss reality.
If you want to doubt the authenticity of the photo, go take one yourself.

Now care to comment on the rest of my post?
Do you accept that satellites do not need to move w.r.t. Earth to remain up? That they can remain in a geostationary orbit?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 26, 2019, 03:48:30 AM
Are you really believing I agree this so called image as a proof of satellites being exist?
You asked for a photo so I gave you one.
It was half photo and half cartoon network. And I have proved how easy to manipulate it without remains any doubt.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: JackBlack on June 26, 2019, 04:18:07 AM
I have proved how easy to manipulate it without remains any doubt.
No.
You have proven that you have no intention of ever accepting evidence provided by others.
What was the point in asking for a photo when you will just dismiss it as fake?

So stop asking people for evidence and go and get it yourself.

Now address the issue raised.
Do you accept that geostationary satellites can exist?
If not, back up your claim that satellites need to move relative to Earth to stay up.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: rabinoz on June 26, 2019, 04:25:17 AM
And herd are more photos of geostationary satellites at this German site:
Quote from: M. Rudolf
Geostationary satellites Astra and Hot Bird 12.3.2002 (http://www.eurastro.de/observ/mr/GEOSTAT.HTM)
Sure you have already heard about the Astra telecommunication satellites; perhaps you even receive radio and TV programs from Astra with your satellite dish. Then you might be interested to see images of the geosynchronous Astra satellites which I shot on 12.3.2002:

The first image shows seven Astra satellites (as far as I know they are Astra 1B,1C,1E,1F,1G,1H,1K) as pointlike objects against the night sky. The streaks in the image are the trails of stars which have moved during this 15-second exposure.

(http://www.eurastro.de/observ/mr/aststat.jpg)

The next image was shot with the camera following the movement of the stars, therefore the satellites appear as short trails whereas the stars remain pointlike.

(http://www.eurastro.de/observ/mr/astmov.jpg)

If you receive your favorite TV/radio programs from Eutelsat - Hot Bird, have a look at the third image: it shows the Hotbird 1-5 satellites.

(http://www.eurastro.de/observ/mr/hotbd.jpg)

The Astras as well as the Hotbirds are in a geostationary orbit in a distance of ca. 36000 kms, straight above the terrestrial equator and at a longitude 19° east (Astra), or 13° east (Hotbird).

The above images have been obtained with a CCD camera and a lens with 900 mm focal length. Exposure time was 15 seconds, field of view is approximately 45x30 arcminutes.

As the geostationary satellites orbit around the Earth, they occasionally immerse into the Earth's shadow. The sequence below shows the Astra satellites disappear. The Earth's shadow approaches from the left (east) and gradually hides the satellites.

(http://www.eurastro.de/observ/mr/astsum.jpg)

Note also that the positions of the Astra satellites relative to each other have changed, compared with the above pictures of the Astras which have been taken ca 2 hours earlier. The images were shot with 1 sec exposure time; some stars drift through the field of view from left to right during the exposures).

The animated GIF below shows the immersion of the Astra satellites into the Earth's shadow from 22:17:35 to 22:20:43 UT.
Images with 1 second exposure times were taken every 5 seconds for this animation.
(http://www.eurastro.de/observ/mr/astani.gif)
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: rabinoz on June 26, 2019, 04:34:38 AM
And a motion gif showing the stars appearing to move past the geostationary satellites:
Show me a real picture of a geosynchronous satellite hoovering over the earth.
That should be easy, just point your telescope where your satellite dish is pointed. You should get a good picture of it. Then present it to us so we all can see it.
Bam!
(https://media.giphy.com/media/xTiTnJZREDwfAZR02s/giphy.gif)

You can see the most of the satellites lined up along the earth's equator, and the others are following analemmas, as geosynchronous satellites do.  Each of these satellites can be tied to a specific launch.  They can't be natural satellites, because they only started appearing when we started launching them, and they are in orbits that were carefully chosen for their intended purpose, as are all artificial satellites.  It's much easier to observe lower satellites, though.  Geostationary satellites are too far away to get anything but a faint image.
Those TV satellites are up there all right!

And a time-lapse video of 4 more "geostationary" satellites:

2018-03-19 Geostationary satellites (timelapse about 700x) by Amrum astronomer
.

Note that while there are called "geostationary" satellites, most wander slightly because the orbits are not precisely circular and often have a slight inclination to the equator.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 26, 2019, 05:29:33 AM
And a motion gif showing the stars appearing to move past the geostationary satellites


Like this? pay attention to all the satellites.

(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/PN9xy5.gif)

I've added an affect to fakesat001, it disappears sometimes like how yours do. Do you accept now we have 4 more satellites on orbit?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: rabinoz on June 26, 2019, 05:50:38 AM
And a motion gif showing the stars appearing to move past the geostationary satellites


Like this? pay attention to all the satellites.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/xTiTnJZREDwfAZR02s/giphy.gif)
I've added an affect to fakesat001, it disappears sometimes like how yours do. Do you accept now we have 4 more satellites on orbit?
Have you? I don't see any! And if you are so ignorant that you don't realise what the photo represents there's not much that I can do.

But satellite dishes point UP at the correct angle to receive signals from those satellites - if you don't believe it well too bad!

You might convince a few gullible Flat Earthers but you won't convince anybody that understands a little bit about antenna design!

Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 26, 2019, 06:22:54 AM

 :'(  :'(

I am a liar

 :'(  :'(


Like this? pay attention to all the satellites.

(https://resimyukle.xyz/d/PN9xy5.gif)
I've added an affect to fakesat001, it disappears sometimes like how yours do. Do you accept now we have 4 more satellites on orbit?
Have you? I don't see any! And if you are so ignorant that you don't realise what the photo represents there's not much that I can do.

But satellite dishes point UP at the correct angle to receive signals from those satellites - if you don't believe it well too bad!

You might convince a few gullible Flat Earthers but you won't convince anybody that understands a little bit about antenna design!

I guess I see what photo represents. There are so called stars are rotating as an estimation. There are some satellites there can be done by everybody with a very bit working. And you are trying to prove something with this worthless image. It clearly means nothing in the name of being an evidence of anything.

I don't have to convince antenna designers because they are already cooperatives of land based networks. I don't think they accept anything I say because of their benefits. I'm not sure simple workers know the truth. because when they come, only angles are told to them. these angles do not necessarily represent what they are told. For example, "eutelsat 42 degrees" does not mean eutelsat being there, but there is a station in that angle. He does not have to know this but only know "turn antenna to 42 degrees eutelsat". I hope you get this.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: inquisitive on June 26, 2019, 08:47:19 AM
Wise said 'For example, "eutelsat 42 degrees" does not mean eutelsat being there, but there is a station in that angle. He does not have to know this but only know "turn antenna to 42 degrees eutelsat". '

There are 2 angles, horizontal and vertical that an installer needs to know, and it varies for every home.  The 42 degrees refers to the satellite location over the equator, not the pointing angles.  I have set up a dish so I know it points to something in the sky.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: Heavenly Breeze on June 26, 2019, 08:59:49 AM
Ha ha, I did not expect such a turn from the "balls". How interesting it all comes out, when I talk about satellites, then believers in the ball throw their hooves like they do not understand me. Ha ha And now they themselves have found all these photos and prove their case to them.
And now the question for rabinoz and JackBlack ... Show me on your photos the satellites that move along the meridians (RPS satellites) - and do not say that their radiation frequencies are invisible on the sky radar. They almost coincide with the range of TV. And can not be filtered by the receiver. All satellites hang over the equator or move only in a circle along the equator! We see a lot of Iridium satellites that are moving in different directions ... but on radar, we do not see them! Why? Who can explain this phenomenon to me?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: inquisitive on June 26, 2019, 09:05:33 AM
Ha ha, I did not expect such a turn from the "balls". How interesting it all comes out, when I talk about satellites, then believers in the ball throw their hooves like they do not understand me. Ha ha And now they themselves have found all these photos and prove their case to them.
And now the question for rabinoz and JackBlack ... Show me on your photos the satellites that move along the meridians (RPS satellites) - and do not say that their radiation frequencies are invisible on the sky radar. They almost coincide with the range of TV. And can not be filtered by the receiver. All satellites hang over the equator or move only in a circle along the equator! We see a lot of Iridium satellites that are moving in different directions ... but on radar, we do not see them! Why? Who can explain this phenomenon to me?
What radar?  GPS satellites are not over the equator.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: Heavenly Breeze on June 26, 2019, 10:13:11 AM
Oh you ... forever everyone does not want to think. Or maybe this is a component of the conspiracy? When do ponies just speak memorized phrases? I am becoming more and more convinced that I am just wasting my time when I try to tell anything here ...
Comrades teach " матчасть " and you will be happy.
I turned around and waving my tail in frustration, flew in my own business ..
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: EvolvedMantisShrimp on June 26, 2019, 01:08:32 PM
If there were 'antennas' instead of satellites in orbit responsible for satellite TV, etc. Then why South? Our TV satellite dishes point South. Wouldn't it be far more practical to place the antennas at or near the North Pole? You'd need less of them and they could serve the entirety of the Flat Earth. Shouldn't our TV dishes point North?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: JackBlack on June 26, 2019, 02:46:46 PM
And you are trying to prove something with this worthless image.
This image isn't worthless.
It shows you are wrong and that you have no interest in the truth.
You asked for photos of these satellites which remain stationary relative to Earth.
They were provided.
And what do you do?
You just reject the photos.

What was the point in asking for photos you had no intention of accepting?

If you didn't want to accept any photo provided, the honest thing to do would have been to not have asked for any and instead obtained them yourself.
All you are doing is showing you have no concern for the truth.
GROW UP!

Again, you can easily go and obtain pictures like this yourself.
You can even pick a particular satellite, then go take a picture like this showing where it is, and point a satellite dish at it and check that you get a signal from it.
You can even go one step further and see how the position varies around Earth, to confirm that all these dishes pointing to the same satellite are in fact pointing to a satellite roughly 35000 km above the surface of a round, rotating Earth.

You choosing to remain wilfully ignorant of this fact by ignoring the evidence presented and refusing to get any evidence yourself just means you are wilfully ignorant.
It doesn't refute a round Earth or magically make Earth flat.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: JackBlack on June 26, 2019, 02:52:56 PM
Show me on your photos the satellites that move along the meridians
These photos are time-lapse photos with the camera stationary relative to Earth.
The satellites they show are those that remain in place.
Satellites in polar orbits would be nothing more than brief streaks or series of dots, if the camera can pick it up.

This is a thread for discussing satellite TV, which uses geostationary orbits.
If you want to discuss satellites in polar orbits, do so elsewhere.

If you want to try and take a photo of it, your best bet is a complex mount that will keep the camera stationary relative to it.
Failing that you should get an equatorial mount telescope and see if you can observe it then.

And yes, you do seem to be wasting your time, coming in with a baseless claim, then running away.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 26, 2019, 03:03:55 PM
If there were 'antennas' instead of satellites in orbit responsible for satellite TV, etc. Then why South? Our TV satellite dishes point South. Wouldn't it be far more practical to place the antennas at or near the North Pole? You'd need less of them and they could serve the entirety of the Flat Earth. Shouldn't our TV dishes point North?

It is generally south but not everytime. In order to avoid confusion when the base stations are installed, the transmitter direction is turned to the north. in other words, the radio wave comes from the south. so you must turn the antenna south. but this is not always the case. In rare cases, the base station is misplaced and you may see the antenna in a different direction.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on June 26, 2019, 03:05:26 PM
And you are trying to prove something with this worthless image.
This image isn't worthless.
It shows you are wrong and that you have no interest in the truth.
Your imaginary, fake, manipulated gif photos can not be magically an argument. I've added there something shows you are wrong, so you have accepted there are fake satellites, right?

Look at there is a fakesat 001. Are you happy with it?

(https://resimyukle.xyz/d/PN9xy5.gif)
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: JackBlack on June 26, 2019, 03:33:20 PM
It is generally south but not everytime. In order to avoid confusion when the base stations are installed, the transmitter direction is turned to the north. in other words, the radio wave comes from the south. so you must turn the antenna south. but this is not always the case. In rare cases, the base station is misplaced and you may see the antenna in a different direction.
Care to provide some examples of these "misplaced" satellites dishes, which still allegedly use satellites.
All I have seen point to the equator.

I've added there something shows you are wrong
You have shown nothing to be wrong with the image.
All you have done is shown that you have no interest in ever accepting evidence that shows you are wrong.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: rabinoz on June 26, 2019, 06:13:45 PM
And a motion gif showing the stars appearing to move past the geostationary satellites

And a time-lapse video of 4 more "geostationary" satellites:

2018-03-19 Geostationary satellites (timelapse about 700x) by Amrum astronomer
.

Note that while they are called "geostationary" satellites, most wander slightly because the orbits are not precisely circular and often have a slight inclination to the equator.
Like this? pay attention to all the satellites.

(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/PN9xy5.gif)

I've added an affect to fakesat001, it disappears sometimes like how yours do. Do you accept now we have 4 more satellites on orbit?
No I don't! Now stop your dishonest and amateurish attempt to deceive people with fake fotoshopping!
The real satellite images are not steady like your fakes and if you look carefully you might see that some  wander slightly.

The time lapse video that I added that post shows that slight movement more clearly.

Maybe you can't see it, well tough! At least you can't try your deceptive but childish fakery on that.

Now, Mr Wise, if you have real evidence please present it! Your silly deceptions are too crude to fool anyone!
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: inquisitive on June 26, 2019, 06:45:50 PM
If there were 'antennas' instead of satellites in orbit responsible for satellite TV, etc. Then why South? Our TV satellite dishes point South. Wouldn't it be far more practical to place the antennas at or near the North Pole? You'd need less of them and they could serve the entirety of the Flat Earth. Shouldn't our TV dishes point North?

It is generally south but not everytime. In order to avoid confusion when the base stations are installed, the transmitter direction is turned to the north. in other words, the radio wave comes from the south. so you must turn the antenna south. but this is not always the case. In rare cases, the base station is misplaced and you may see the antenna in a different direction.
Please explain the vertical angles needed to align a dish.  Where do I find a list of transmitter locations?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: Heavenly Breeze on June 26, 2019, 08:31:47 PM
Listen my dear - "Proffessor
Flat Earth Scientist ". You are very wise, but wise - from this world ... that's enough to carry complete nonsense. I’ve given you an example - the sea Gyrocompass has already argued that you have no idea where you live. And you don’t know how to lose. How are you debunk, you come up with new, even more fantastic stories. This is not good. Now I understand why you do not want to write to you in the mail. I think you wise - you are not worthy of being called a flat earthling. You're a shame!
You cannot deny real-life satellites!
I am also 100% sure that you wise cannot explain how lunar eclipses occur - above flat earth. Just do not invent new stories for children.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: inquisitive on July 01, 2019, 06:37:10 AM
With no other explanations we can now all agree how satellite tv works with geosynchronous satellites in orbit above the equator.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: turtles on July 01, 2019, 08:35:48 AM
If there were 'antennas' instead of satellites in orbit responsible for satellite TV, etc. Then why South? Our TV satellite dishes point South. Wouldn't it be far more practical to place the antennas at or near the North Pole? You'd need less of them and they could serve the entirety of the Flat Earth. Shouldn't our TV dishes point North?

It is generally south but not everytime. In order to avoid confusion when the base stations are installed, the transmitter direction is turned to the north. in other words, the radio wave comes from the south. so you must turn the antenna south. but this is not always the case. In rare cases, the base station is misplaced and you may see the antenna in a different direction.

You've been shown the locations of the satellites as per "round earth". You have called them all fakes.

Can you now tell us where the "flat earth" ground station fake satellite transmitters are please? I presume you have found some of them near where you live. What techniques did you use to detect them so we can go looking for the ones near us? Do you have photos of the transmitter dishes? Have you been able to confirm the satellite TV signal strength increases in an inverse square as you approach the transmitter, that should be quite apparent as you are able to get close to them.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on July 01, 2019, 09:17:35 AM
Listen my dear - "Proffessor

So, are you denying the wisesat 17K on orbit? You saw it in gif showing the satellites on orbit.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on July 01, 2019, 09:38:43 AM
With no other explanations we can now all agree how satellite tv works with geosynchronous satellites in orbit above the equator.

all you minus one.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: turtles on July 01, 2019, 12:24:54 PM
Listen my dear - "Proffessor

So, are you denying the wisesat 17K on orbit? You saw it in gif showing the satellites on orbit.

Haha, are you saying 2009-071A is yours?  ;)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide-field_Infrared_Survey_Explorer

Ironic that it's proving stuff you don't believe in.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on July 01, 2019, 01:06:51 PM
Listen my dear - "Proffessor

So, are you denying the wisesat 17K on orbit? You saw it in gif showing the satellites on orbit.

Haha, are you saying 2009-071A is yours?  ;)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide-field_Infrared_Survey_Explorer

Ironic that it's proving stuff you don't believe in.

It is wisesat 17K! I don't believe others but only wisesat. If you give me 200$ then I can send a rocket to orbit has your name.  ;D
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: JackBlack on July 01, 2019, 02:24:06 PM
So, are you denying the wisesat 17K on orbit? You saw it in gif showing the satellites on orbit.
With your poor photoshop skills, the original being available, and no one else being able to obtain such a picture, we are rejecting it as your fictitious nonsense.

If you don't like the evidence provided and just instead on rejecting it, stop asking for it and get it yourself.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on July 02, 2019, 03:43:40 AM
So, are you denying the wisesat 17K on orbit? You saw it in gif showing the satellites on orbit.
With your poor photoshop skills, the original being available, and no one else being able to obtain such a picture, we are rejecting it as your fictitious nonsense.

If you don't like the evidence provided and just instead on rejecting it, stop asking for it and get it yourself.

It is not evidence. I have proved its being BS but nothing else. Either provide real evidences or shut up.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: JackBlack on July 02, 2019, 04:02:07 AM
It is not evidence. I have proved its being BS but nothing else.
It is evidence. You not liking it because it shows you are wrong doesn't mean it isn't evidence.

You have proven nothing except your unwillingness to accept evidence.
You have been unable to show anything wrong with the evidence provided.
The sole reason you reject it is because it shows you are wrong.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on July 02, 2019, 04:14:31 AM
It is evidence. You not liking it because it shows you are wrong doesn't mean it isn't evidence.

It's not an evidence. Your can not find an evidence and claiming a BS drawing being an evidence does not magically make it an evidence. Your dreamings aren't evidence. Grow up and give up crying. Either present real evidences or you have accepted as loser of this case. Because your only argument is rabinoz'es dreaming so called satellites gif that I have added there some imaginary satellites too and proved its being wrong. But you have no chance but defend it because you have not an argument and hope I accept a BS drawing. Go ahead, grow up.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: JackBlack on July 02, 2019, 04:17:25 AM
It's not an evidence
Why not?
You dismissing it because it shows you are wrong doesn't mean it isn't evidence.
You are yet to present a single problem with it.

If you weren't willing to accept evidence, why repeatedly demand it?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on July 02, 2019, 04:18:49 AM
It's not an evidence
Why not?
You dismissing it because it shows you are wrong doesn't mean it isn't evidence.
You are yet to present a single problem with it.

If you weren't willing to accept evidence, why repeatedly demand it?

It is just a cartoon means nothing. So this is an evidence too with same logic you use, are you accepting this? If you are not, so why not?

(https://resimyukle.xyz/d/PN9xy5.gif)

Are you child? Grow up! gif arts aren't evidences. This proves your being in a hopeless case and hope a fake gif like this BS. You need BS because you haven't another arguments but BS.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: JackBlack on July 02, 2019, 04:21:23 AM
It is just a cartoon
No it isn't.
You editing it in a very obvious way in no way suggests the original is not evidence.

Can you provide any reason for it to be dismissed (other than it shows you to be wrong)?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on July 02, 2019, 04:34:31 AM
It is just a cartoon
No it isn't.
yes it is. believing in it requires supernatural silliness. I am not, but I don't care if you are or not.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: rabinoz on July 02, 2019, 05:12:46 AM
It is just a cartoon
No it isn't.
yes it is. believing in it requires supernatural silliness. I am not, but I don't care if you are or not.
Stop your silly attempts at deceiving everybody like when deceptively changed MY diagram to try to prove your case
and when you did you childish attempt to photoshop that genuine photo of geostationary satellites.

So have another look at the satellites that are really up there.
And a motion gif showing the stars appearing to move past the geostationary satellites:
Show me a real picture of a geosynchronous satellite hoovering over the earth.
That should be easy, just point your telescope where your satellite dish is pointed. You should get a good picture of it. Then present it to us so we all can see it.
Bam!
(https://media.giphy.com/media/xTiTnJZREDwfAZR02s/giphy.gif)

You can see the most of the satellites lined up along the earth's equator, and the others are following analemmas, as geosynchronous satellites do.  Each of these satellites can be tied to a specific launch.  They can't be natural satellites, because they only started appearing when we started launching them, and they are in orbits that were carefully chosen for their intended purpose, as are all artificial satellites.  It's much easier to observe lower satellites, though.  Geostationary satellites are too far away to get anything but a faint image.
Those TV satellites are up there all right!

And a time-lapse video of 4 more "geostationary" satellites:

2018-03-19 Geostationary satellites (timelapse about 700x) by Amrum astronomer - much better full screen
.

Note that while there are called "geostationary" satellites, most wander slightly because the orbits are not precisely circular and often have a slight inclination to the equator.
You don't have to believe that they are real but stop your silly continued deception!
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on July 02, 2019, 06:00:28 AM
Stop your silly attempts at deceiving everybody like when deceptively changed MY diagram to try to prove your case
This is not a silly attemp. This is a proof how manipulating a gif cartoon easy. Your denying the proof and insist your childish claims prove you are cornered and can not provide arguments.

(https://resimyukle.xyz/d/PN9xy5.gif)

2018-03-19 Geostationary satellites (timelapse about 700x) by Amrum astronomer - much better full screen.

Note that while there are called "geostationary" satellites, most wander slightly because the orbits are not precisely circular and often have a slight inclination to the equator.
You don't have to believe that they are real but stop your silly continued deception!

yeah man! Talk it to yourself. So you know your continued your silly deception, right? Grow up and accet you made a mistake, because you are lying, the earth is flat and you are claiming its not because in cost of some benefits. Shame on you mister.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: sokarul on July 02, 2019, 06:08:58 AM
You are the last person who should be telling someone to grow up.

You edited an image and then claimed it was fake.

You said you couldn’t watch YouTube videos so they can’t be evidence. Then you posted YouTube videos as evidence.

You are a fool.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: rabinoz on July 02, 2019, 06:25:53 AM
Stop your silly attempts at deceiving everybody like when deceptively changed MY diagram to try to prove your case
This is not a silly attemp. This is a proof how manipulating a gif cartoon easy. Your denying the proof and insist your childish claims prove you are cornered and can not provide arguments.

(https://resimyukle.xyz/d/PN9xy5.gif)

2018-03-19 Geostationary satellites (timelapse about 700x) by Amrum astronomer - much better full screen.

Note that while there are called "geostationary" satellites, most wander slightly because the orbits are not precisely circular and often have a slight inclination to the equator.
You don't have to believe that they are real but stop your silly continued deception!
yeah man! Talk it to yourself. So you know your continued your silly deception, right? Grow up and accet you made a mistake, because you are lying, the earth is flat and you are claiming its not because in cost of some benefits. Shame on you mister.
Still faking pictures I see! Do you ever stop trying to deceive people?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on July 02, 2019, 06:35:50 AM
Still faking pictures I see! Do you ever stop trying to deceive people?
Since you are faking the picture you have to accept this one as true too. There is nothing wrong here. Your graphic designers can better than this BS. So get give up childish behaviours.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: inquisitive on July 02, 2019, 11:32:41 AM
If there were 'antennas' instead of satellites in orbit responsible for satellite TV, etc. Then why South? Our TV satellite dishes point South. Wouldn't it be far more practical to place the antennas at or near the North Pole? You'd need less of them and they could serve the entirety of the Flat Earth. Shouldn't our TV dishes point North?

It is generally south but not everytime. In order to avoid confusion when the base stations are installed, the transmitter direction is turned to the north. in other words, the radio wave comes from the south. so you must turn the antenna south. but this is not always the case. In rare cases, the base station is misplaced and you may see the antenna in a different direction.

You've been shown the locations of the satellites as per "round earth". You have called them all fakes.

Can you now tell us where the "flat earth" ground station fake satellite transmitters are please? I presume you have found some of them near where you live. What techniques did you use to detect them so we can go looking for the ones near us? Do you have photos of the transmitter dishes? Have you been able to confirm the satellite TV signal strength increases in an inverse square as you approach the transmitter, that should be quite apparent as you are able to get close to them.
Do we have a reply from Wise?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: JackBlack on July 02, 2019, 02:52:27 PM
believing in it requires supernatural silliness.
No, it just requires you to go out and take one yourself, or to not be a paranoid nutcase with a deep seeded need to reject reality.

You are yet to show a single issue with the image which would indicate it is fake, you just dismiss it as fake.

Do you notice the massive difference between your fake squares and the very real satellites?
The very real satellites are very small, taking up only 4 pixels at most, blurring with the background.
Importantly, these vary over time, quite dramatically. The most extreme example is when another star appears to pass behind it, where it just blurs and is overwhelmed by the star, such that you cannot tell the satellite is there for that frame.
Your 5 year old paint skills instead have very large fake satellites which have a well defined border, which remain well separated when stars pass behind them. They do not display any of the signs associated with actual photos.

So it is quite clear that your fake satellites are fake.
There is no reason to think the very real satellites are fake.

So no, you have provided no reason to doubt this very real evidence, but plenty can be provided to doubt your paint crap.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: rabinoz on July 02, 2019, 06:58:44 PM
Still faking pictures I see! Do you ever stop trying to deceive people?
Since you are faking the picture you have to accept this one as true too. There is nothing wrong here. Your graphic designers can better than this BS. So get give up childish behaviours.
I have faked no pictures! I have shown a genuine photo of geostationary satellites.
Of you don't believe it that's your problem, not mine!

But if those satellites are not up at that point there is no reasonable explanation for the directions satellite TV dishes need to be directed.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on July 03, 2019, 12:39:38 AM
Still faking pictures I see! Do you ever stop trying to deceive people?
Since you are faking the picture you have to accept this one as true too. There is nothing wrong here. Your graphic designers can better than this BS. So get give up childish behaviours.
I have faked no pictures! I have shown a genuine photo of geostationary satellites.
Of you don't believe it that's your problem, not mine!

But if those satellites are not up at that point there is no reasonable explanation for the directions satellite TV dishes need to be directed.

You have showed a photo which has been faked. So you have the sharer of same sin. I've proved how easy to create it. Do not publish anymore BS again please.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: JackBlack on July 03, 2019, 12:50:20 AM
You have showed a photo which has been faked.
No. He provided a photo which you dismissed as fake because you cannot handle the truth.
You have provided no reason for anyone to think it is fake.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on July 03, 2019, 12:51:45 AM
You have showed a photo which has been faked.
No. He provided a photo which you dismissed as fake because you cannot handle the truth.
You have provided no reason for anyone to think it is fake.
No. It is obviously fake that you can not deceive even a 10 years old child with it.  Stop claim childish BS, grow up.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: JackBlack on July 03, 2019, 12:53:44 AM
No. It is obviously fake
WHY?
If it was so obviously fake you would be able to explain why.
So far all you have done is just lie and say it is fake.

Why do you claim it is fake?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on July 03, 2019, 12:56:42 AM
No. It is obviously fake
WHY?
If it was so obviously fake you would be able to explain why.
So far all you have done is just lie and say it is fake.

Why do you claim it is fake?

Are you child? Can not you get that you can add here other satellites how ever you want like I did.

(https://resimyukle.xyz/d/PN9xy5.gif)

If they are really so why can't you zoom them?

Simple. Fake. Believing it needs to be ultra silly beyond being an angry globularist.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: rabinoz on July 03, 2019, 01:18:28 AM
No. It is obviously fake
WHY?
If it was so obviously fake you would be able to explain why.
So far all you have done is just lie and say it is fake.

Why do you claim it is fake?

Are you child? Can not you get that you can add here other satellites how ever you want like I did.
No because I do not make fake photographs like you do.
Quote from: wise
If they are really so why can't you zoom them?
Why should be able to "zoom them"?
Quote from: wise
Simple. Fake. Believing it needs to be ultra silly beyond being an angry globularist.
No Mr Wise, I do not fake photographs like you do! I prefer to be honest and leave the deceit to you.

Here, go and find some more: Some Geostationary Satellites I Photographed Last Night (https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/3norjc/some_geostationary_satellites_i_photographed_last/). I didn't take it.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: inquisitive on July 03, 2019, 01:34:52 AM
No. It is obviously fake
WHY?
If it was so obviously fake you would be able to explain why.
So far all you have done is just lie and say it is fake.

Why do you claim it is fake?

Are you child? Can not you get that you can add here other satellites how ever you want like I did.

(https://resimyukle.xyz/d/PN9xy5.gif)

If they are really so why can't you zoom them?

Simple. Fake. Believing it needs to be ultra silly beyond being an angry globularist.
Details of what dishes point to please.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: JackBlack on July 03, 2019, 01:52:03 AM
Are you child?
No. But you sure seem to be.
Again, you modifying a picture to produce BS doesn't make the original picture BS.
I have explained why your crappy picture is a fake.
You have been unable to do so for the original.

Can can you provide a reason to think it is fake?

Note: Even being able to produce a fake doesn't provide a reason to think the original is fake.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on July 03, 2019, 03:56:38 AM
Why should be able to "zoom them"?
because by this way you can prove this gif is not proven to be fake. since you did not do it so it is fake.
No Mr Wise, I do not fake photographs like you do!
I did not say you did it. You just took it from somewhere you use at a source fake database, fraudment center.
I prefer to be honest and leave the deceit to you.
This is not you, really. Be yourself, ie a deceitfull.
Here, go and find some more: Some Geostationary Satellites I Photographed Last Night. I didn't take it.
Again, I did not say you did it. You are just using these fake cgis. And your source is funny and not convincing at all. Same BS. Presenting some BS isn't an argument. Grow up and work for real arguments.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on July 03, 2019, 03:58:08 AM
<blabbing>
You don't create photos and can not provide evidence about them, just blabbing. You are doing it because you have programmed to do it. [remove satellite TV] enter, maybe works.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: inquisitive on July 03, 2019, 04:10:41 AM
<blabbing>
You don't create photos and can not provide evidence about them, just blabbing. You are doing it because you have programmed to do it. [remove satellite TV] enter, maybe works.
As requested please give details of what dishes point at.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on July 03, 2019, 04:20:00 AM
<blabbing>
You don't create photos and can not provide evidence about them, just blabbing. You are doing it because you have programmed to do it. [remove satellite TV] enter, maybe works.
As requested please give details of what dishes point at.
So you have accepted you need extra support to support the jackblack, right? How many accounts more you have?

Are you computer, rabinoz is tablet and jackblack is MSN? So you feel yourself free because behind of a VPN, right?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: JackBlack on July 03, 2019, 04:21:15 AM
because by this way you can prove this gif is not proven to be fake. since you did not do it so it is fake.
Quite the opposite.
If you could zoom in and resolve the satellites it would prove the image is fake due to what is required.
Remember, these satellites are 35000 km away from the equator and on the order of m wide.
If you were on the equator, looking up 35000 km to a satellite directly overhead and wanted to resolve each m of the satellite using blue light with a wavelength of 400 nm you would need a telescope with a lens that is 17 m wide.

You are just using these fake
Again, you are yet to provide any reason to think these are fake.
If this supported you, you would happily accept it as real and promote it.

Again, why be so dishonest asking for evidence you would just reject?

Just what evidence would you accept, because it doesn't appear to be any.


Again, all the evidence points to satellite TV using satellites, which shows Earth is round and rotating.
So far all we have to oppose it is your baseless claims that it is all fake.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: frenat on July 03, 2019, 05:04:25 AM
You have showed a photo which has been faked.
No. He provided a photo which you dismissed as fake because you cannot handle the truth.
You have provided no reason for anyone to think it is fake.
No. It is obviously fake that you can not deceive even a 10 years old child with it.  Stop claim childish BS, grow up.
You've provided nothing but your opinion that it is faked. Meanwhile, anyone can take a long exposure photo of the sky and get the same results and see the same relatively stationary dots of the satellites overhead.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on July 03, 2019, 05:08:46 AM
You have showed a photo which has been faked.
No. He provided a photo which you dismissed as fake because you cannot handle the truth.
You have provided no reason for anyone to think it is fake.
No. It is obviously fake that you can not deceive even a 10 years old child with it.  Stop claim childish BS, grow up.
You've provided nothing but your opinion that it is faked. Meanwhile, anyone can take a long exposure photo of the sky and get the same results and see the same relatively stationary dots of the satellites overhead.
Nobody did it but only your own fake claims.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: frenat on July 03, 2019, 05:10:05 AM
You have showed a photo which has been faked.
No. He provided a photo which you dismissed as fake because you cannot handle the truth.
You have provided no reason for anyone to think it is fake.
No. It is obviously fake that you can not deceive even a 10 years old child with it.  Stop claim childish BS, grow up.
You've provided nothing but your opinion that it is faked. Meanwhile, anyone can take a long exposure photo of the sky and get the same results and see the same relatively stationary dots of the satellites overhead.
Nobody did it but only your own fake claims.
the only claim I made is that anybody can do it. I KNOW that is true. YOU haven't tried. Thanks for the humor!
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on July 03, 2019, 05:17:46 AM
You have showed a photo which has been faked.
No. He provided a photo which you dismissed as fake because you cannot handle the truth.
You have provided no reason for anyone to think it is fake.
No. It is obviously fake that you can not deceive even a 10 years old child with it.  Stop claim childish BS, grow up.
You've provided nothing but your opinion that it is faked. Meanwhile, anyone can take a long exposure photo of the sky and get the same results and see the same relatively stationary dots of the satellites overhead.
Nobody did it but only your own fake claims.
the only claim I made is that anybody can do it. I KNOW that is true. YOU haven't tried. Thanks for the humor!
You have a claim and I have not. You claim its being true does not magically do it true. You still have a claim does not proven.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: frenat on July 03, 2019, 06:27:48 AM
You have showed a photo which has been faked.
No. He provided a photo which you dismissed as fake because you cannot handle the truth.
You have provided no reason for anyone to think it is fake.
No. It is obviously fake that you can not deceive even a 10 years old child with it.  Stop claim childish BS, grow up.
You've provided nothing but your opinion that it is faked. Meanwhile, anyone can take a long exposure photo of the sky and get the same results and see the same relatively stationary dots of the satellites overhead.
Nobody did it but only your own fake claims.
the only claim I made is that anybody can do it. I KNOW that is true. YOU haven't tried. Thanks for the humor!
You have a claim and I have not. You claim its being true does not magically do it true. You still have a claim does not proven.
Wrong. We both have claims. I claim that anyone can do it. You claim that it is fake. The difference is that mine can be backed up. Thanks for the humor!
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on July 03, 2019, 08:37:05 AM
You have showed a photo which has been faked.
No. He provided a photo which you dismissed as fake because you cannot handle the truth.
You have provided no reason for anyone to think it is fake.
No. It is obviously fake that you can not deceive even a 10 years old child with it.  Stop claim childish BS, grow up.
You've provided nothing but your opinion that it is faked. Meanwhile, anyone can take a long exposure photo of the sky and get the same results and see the same relatively stationary dots of the satellites overhead.
Nobody did it but only your own fake claims.
the only claim I made is that anybody can do it. I KNOW that is true. YOU haven't tried. Thanks for the humor!
You have a claim and I have not. You claim its being true does not magically do it true. You still have a claim does not proven.
Wrong. We both have claims. I claim that anyone can do it. You claim that it is fake. The difference is that mine can be backed up. Thanks for the humor!
You claim that anyone can do it then I ask prove it, since you can't prove it so it is absent. It is not a claim. If you have a claim so burden of proof is in your side. Get the difference?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on July 03, 2019, 08:39:12 AM
because by this way you can prove this gif is not proven to be fake. since you did not do it so it is fake.
Quite the opposite.
If you could zoom in and resolve the satellites it would prove the image is fake due to what is required.
You have agreed same thing. If you could zoom in and resolve the satellites it would prove the image is fake due to what is required. Yeah. So lets do it, why don't you do that? Because you know it is fake. Thanks
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: frenat on July 03, 2019, 09:27:05 AM
You have showed a photo which has been faked.
No. He provided a photo which you dismissed as fake because you cannot handle the truth.
You have provided no reason for anyone to think it is fake.
No. It is obviously fake that you can not deceive even a 10 years old child with it.  Stop claim childish BS, grow up.
You've provided nothing but your opinion that it is faked. Meanwhile, anyone can take a long exposure photo of the sky and get the same results and see the same relatively stationary dots of the satellites overhead.
Nobody did it but only your own fake claims.
the only claim I made is that anybody can do it. I KNOW that is true. YOU haven't tried. Thanks for the humor!
You have a claim and I have not. You claim its being true does not magically do it true. You still have a claim does not proven.
Wrong. We both have claims. I claim that anyone can do it. You claim that it is fake. The difference is that mine can be backed up. Thanks for the humor!
You claim that anyone can do it then I ask prove it, since you can't prove it so it is absent. It is not a claim. If you have a claim so burden of proof is in your side. Get the difference?
You never asked me to prove it. You just said it was faked.
You wouldn't accept a proof from me. The only one you'd accept is if you did it yourself and everyone knows you're afraid to try. But thanks for the humor. You're always entertaining.

Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: inquisitive on July 03, 2019, 09:27:54 AM
because by this way you can prove this gif is not proven to be fake. since you did not do it so it is fake.
Quite the opposite.
If you could zoom in and resolve the satellites it would prove the image is fake due to what is required.
You have agreed same thing. If you could zoom in and resolve the satellites it would prove the image is fake due to what is required. Yeah. So lets do it, why don't you do that? Because you know it is fake. Thanks
still asking what our dishes point at, links to transmitters etc.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on July 03, 2019, 09:29:14 AM
You have showed a photo which has been faked.
No. He provided a photo which you dismissed as fake because you cannot handle the truth.
You have provided no reason for anyone to think it is fake.
No. It is obviously fake that you can not deceive even a 10 years old child with it.  Stop claim childish BS, grow up.
You've provided nothing but your opinion that it is faked. Meanwhile, anyone can take a long exposure photo of the sky and get the same results and see the same relatively stationary dots of the satellites overhead.
Nobody did it but only your own fake claims.
the only claim I made is that anybody can do it. I KNOW that is true. YOU haven't tried. Thanks for the humor!
You have a claim and I have not. You claim its being true does not magically do it true. You still have a claim does not proven.
Wrong. We both have claims. I claim that anyone can do it. You claim that it is fake. The difference is that mine can be backed up. Thanks for the humor!
You claim that anyone can do it then I ask prove it, since you can't prove it so it is absent. It is not a claim. If you have a claim so burden of proof is in your side. Get the difference?
You never asked me to prove it.
Prove it.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: frenat on July 03, 2019, 09:58:55 AM
You have showed a photo which has been faked.
No. He provided a photo which you dismissed as fake because you cannot handle the truth.
You have provided no reason for anyone to think it is fake.
No. It is obviously fake that you can not deceive even a 10 years old child with it.  Stop claim childish BS, grow up.
You've provided nothing but your opinion that it is faked. Meanwhile, anyone can take a long exposure photo of the sky and get the same results and see the same relatively stationary dots of the satellites overhead.
Nobody did it but only your own fake claims.
the only claim I made is that anybody can do it. I KNOW that is true. YOU haven't tried. Thanks for the humor!
You have a claim and I have not. You claim its being true does not magically do it true. You still have a claim does not proven.
Wrong. We both have claims. I claim that anyone can do it. You claim that it is fake. The difference is that mine can be backed up. Thanks for the humor!
You claim that anyone can do it then I ask prove it, since you can't prove it so it is absent. It is not a claim. If you have a claim so burden of proof is in your side. Get the difference?
You never asked me to prove it.
Prove it.
Do I have ANY assurance that you would accept it if I did?  Have you bothered to try it yourself?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: JackBlack on July 03, 2019, 03:07:37 PM
You have agreed same thing. If you could zoom in and resolve the satellites it would prove the image is fake
Do you understand English at all?
I stated the exact opposite.
Cameras do not have enough resolving power to be able to resolve the satellites.
If you could zoom in on the geostationary communication/observation satellites the picture would be a fake because it would have more resolution than is physically possible.

Do you understand that?
If the picture is real, you wont be able to zoom in and see the satellites resolved.
If you can zoom in and see the satellites resolves the picture is fake.

Understand?

Prove it.
If they do, you will just dismiss it as fake again.
You are not willing to accept any evidence which shows you are wrong.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: inquisitive on July 11, 2019, 02:11:18 PM
because by this way you can prove this gif is not proven to be fake. since you did not do it so it is fake.
Quite the opposite.
If you could zoom in and resolve the satellites it would prove the image is fake due to what is required.
You have agreed same thing. If you could zoom in and resolve the satellites it would prove the image is fake due to what is required. Yeah. So lets do it, why don't you do that? Because you know it is fake. Thanks
still asking what our dishes point at, links to transmitters etc.
What is difficult about providing links to transmitter locations for dish alignment?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on July 11, 2019, 02:14:41 PM
If they do, you will just dismiss it as fake again.
You are not willing to accept any evidence which shows you are wrong.

I deny the lies only. You are just claiming some baseless claim and I deny them. If you would put forward real evidences then I would accept them. But you are only telling lies just to deny what I say, hence they are lie, hence they are worthless. If you would zoom a satellite you would see them as fake. So that your so called gifs mean nothing.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on July 11, 2019, 02:16:26 PM
because by this way you can prove this gif is not proven to be fake. since you did not do it so it is fake.
Quite the opposite.
If you could zoom in and resolve the satellites it would prove the image is fake due to what is required.
You have agreed same thing. If you could zoom in and resolve the satellites it would prove the image is fake due to what is required. Yeah. So lets do it, why don't you do that? Because you know it is fake. Thanks
still asking what our dishes point at, links to transmitters etc.
What is difficult about providing links to transmitter locations for dish alignment?
transmitter wave direction. Transmitters generally work through north hence your dish turns to south.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: inquisitive on July 11, 2019, 02:41:57 PM
because by this way you can prove this gif is not proven to be fake. since you did not do it so it is fake.
Quite the opposite.
If you could zoom in and resolve the satellites it would prove the image is fake due to what is required.
You have agreed same thing. If you could zoom in and resolve the satellites it would prove the image is fake due to what is required. Yeah. So lets do it, why don't you do that? Because you know it is fake. Thanks
still asking what our dishes point at, links to transmitters etc.
What is difficult about providing links to transmitter locations for dish alignment?
transmitter wave direction. Transmitters generally work through north hence your dish turns to south.
some specific locations please.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on July 11, 2019, 02:52:23 PM
because by this way you can prove this gif is not proven to be fake. since you did not do it so it is fake.
Quite the opposite.
If you could zoom in and resolve the satellites it would prove the image is fake due to what is required.
You have agreed same thing. If you could zoom in and resolve the satellites it would prove the image is fake due to what is required. Yeah. So lets do it, why don't you do that? Because you know it is fake. Thanks
still asking what our dishes point at, links to transmitters etc.
What is difficult about providing links to transmitter locations for dish alignment?
transmitter wave direction. Transmitters generally work through north hence your dish turns to south.
some specific locations please.
I set out the principles. it is the job of people like you, rabinoz and jackblack to watch them in its place.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: JackBlack on July 11, 2019, 03:41:09 PM
I deny the lies only.
You have no justification for it being a lie.
The only reason you assert it is a lie is because it shows you are wrong.
Any evidence that is provided to you which shows you are wrong, you dismiss as a lie or fake or so on.

That is why I told you to go and obtain the photo yourself. That way no one can be lying to you.
But you don't want to do that, almost as if you know it will show you are wrong.

If you would zoom a satellite you would see them as fake.
No, you wouldn't, as you can't resolve the satellites with a typical camera.

transmitter wave direction. Transmitters generally work through north hence your dish turns to south.
So why do the ones in the south point north?

What is the point of all the lies?
Why bother claiming they are using satellites rather than just using ground based transmitters and saying so?
There is absolutely no justification ever provided for the massive scale of lies required to pretend Earth is round.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: rabinoz on July 11, 2019, 06:03:24 PM
What is difficult about providing links to transmitter locations for dish alignment?
transmitter wave direction. Transmitters generally work through north hence your dish turns to south.
some specific locations please.
I set out the principles. it is the job of people like you, rabinoz and jackblack to watch them in its place.
No, it is not!
It's your problem because inquisitive, JackBlack and I all know that the transmitters for Satellite TV are almost 36,000 km above the equator.

You claimed that, "Transmitters generally work through north hence your dish turns to south".
So exactly where are the "specific locations" of these transmitters?

You claimed it so you must justify it to prive that you're not making up stories.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: turtles on July 12, 2019, 01:26:24 AM
I'm getting deja vu here, already been asking wise for how the ground transmitters faking the satellites work, where are they, how he has been detecting them, why some northern dishes don't point north towards their nearest ground transmitter, what do the transmitter antenna look like, etc.

Predictably at this point he starts ignoring me.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on July 12, 2019, 01:26:58 PM
I'm getting deja vu here, already been asking wise for how the ground transmitters faking the satellites work, where are they, how he has been detecting them, why some northern dishes don't point north towards their nearest ground transmitter, what do the transmitter antenna look like, etc.

Predictably at this point he starts ignoring me.

I am constantly repying similar questions with same way. But you and others are constantly claiming same baseless claims. What is new here other than dejavu for yourself?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on July 12, 2019, 01:35:25 PM
You have no justification for it being a lie.
It is completely fair. You deny it because debunks your baseless so called satellites.
The only reason you assert it is a lie is because it shows you are wrong.
The only reason I assert its being lie because its being lie. You are telling opposite because it shows you are wrong.
Any evidence that is provided to you which shows you are wrong, you dismiss as a lie or fake or so on.
This is what you and your crime partners doing.
That is why I told you to go and obtain the photo yourself. That way no one can be lying to you.
Do you really believe I do what you want? Your all suggestions are evil and badly minded. The opposite is true generally what you say. Your main role is fraudment, you know, I know, he knows.
But you don't want to do that, almost as if you know it will show you are wrong.
If you sure so you do it yourself. Then lets look the photos all together. You have zero evidence.
No, you wouldn't, as you can't resolve the satellites with a typical camera.
You are zooming the stars millions of light year far, but can not zoom a satellite 20k miles, and wait me believe it. get the hell out of here man! You are talking with a flat earther, not a silly rounder. Get go to an astronomical observation center and look at the stars and make yourself happy.
So why do the ones in the south point north?
the transmitters in the south are facing south. Look how simple it is.

Anymore childish question? Grow up. Grow up and give up the childish behaves.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on July 12, 2019, 01:36:54 PM
What is difficult about providing links to transmitter locations for dish alignment?
transmitter wave direction. Transmitters generally work through north hence your dish turns to south.
some specific locations please.
I set out the principles. it is the job of people like you, rabinoz and jackblack to watch them in its place.
No, it is not!
It's your problem because inquisitive, JackBlack and I all know that the transmitters for Satellite TV are almost 36,000 km above the equator.

You claimed that, "Transmitters generally work through north hence your dish turns to south".
So exactly where are the "specific locations" of these transmitters?

You claimed it so you must justify it to prive that you're not making up stories.

I can't observe anything isn't exist. It is absent so how can I see it? You claim its being exist so burden of proof is in your side.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: inquisitive on July 12, 2019, 01:39:07 PM
I'm getting deja vu here, already been asking wise for how the ground transmitters faking the satellites work, where are they, how he has been detecting them, why some northern dishes don't point north towards their nearest ground transmitter, what do the transmitter antenna look like, etc.

Predictably at this point he starts ignoring me.

I am constantly repying similar questions with same way. But you and others are constantly claiming same baseless claims. What is new here other than dejavu for yourself?
Satellite dish alignment is proven, ask an installer.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on July 12, 2019, 01:45:16 PM
I'm getting deja vu here, already been asking wise for how the ground transmitters faking the satellites work, where are they, how he has been detecting them, why some northern dishes don't point north towards their nearest ground transmitter, what do the transmitter antenna look like, etc.

Predictably at this point he starts ignoring me.

I am constantly repying similar questions with same way. But you and others are constantly claiming same baseless claims. What is new here other than dejavu for yourself?
Satellite dish alignment is proven, ask an installer.
And installer will tell me its being proven then I'll believe it, right? Is it a scientist?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: inquisitive on July 12, 2019, 02:03:13 PM
I'm getting deja vu here, already been asking wise for how the ground transmitters faking the satellites work, where are they, how he has been detecting them, why some northern dishes don't point north towards their nearest ground transmitter, what do the transmitter antenna look like, etc.

Predictably at this point he starts ignoring me.

I am constantly repying similar questions with same way. But you and others are constantly claiming same baseless claims. What is new here other than dejavu for yourself?
Satellite dish alignment is proven, ask an installer.
And installer will tell me its being proven then I'll believe it, right? Is it a scientist?
As you have failed to list the locations of any transmitters we can be sure you have no evidence for your claim.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on July 12, 2019, 02:05:09 PM
I'm getting deja vu here, already been asking wise for how the ground transmitters faking the satellites work, where are they, how he has been detecting them, why some northern dishes don't point north towards their nearest ground transmitter, what do the transmitter antenna look like, etc.

Predictably at this point he starts ignoring me.

I am constantly repying similar questions with same way. But you and others are constantly claiming same baseless claims. What is new here other than dejavu for yourself?
Satellite dish alignment is proven, ask an installer.
And installer will tell me its being proven then I'll believe it, right? Is it a scientist?
As you have failed to list the locations of any transmitters we can be sure you have no evidence for your claim.
I have a separate and independent work on the location of transmitters. So the earth's being flat is proved according to your mentality. Give up the childish behaves. Grow up, be a man, be a flat earther.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: inquisitive on July 12, 2019, 02:37:03 PM
I'm getting deja vu here, already been asking wise for how the ground transmitters faking the satellites work, where are they, how he has been detecting them, why some northern dishes don't point north towards their nearest ground transmitter, what do the transmitter antenna look like, etc.

Predictably at this point he starts ignoring me.

I am constantly repying similar questions with same way. But you and others are constantly claiming same baseless claims. What is new here other than dejavu for yourself?
Satellite dish alignment is proven, ask an installer.
And installer will tell me its being proven then I'll believe it, right? Is it a scientist?
As you have failed to list the locations of any transmitters we can be sure you have no evidence for your claim.
I have a separate and independent work on the location of transmitters. So the earth's being flat is proved according to your mentality. Give up the childish behaves. Grow up, be a man, be a flat earther.
Where are the details?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: JackBlack on July 12, 2019, 04:50:29 PM
It is completely fair. You deny it because debunks your baseless so called satellites.
The only reason I assert its being lie because its being lie. You are telling opposite because it shows you are wrong.
If it was completley fair for you to dismiss it as fake you would have provided an explanation for why you think it is fake.
But you have provided none. So far all you have done is assert is obviously fake.
This shows you have no real justification and are only dismissing it because it shows you are wrong.

And no, even if it was fake, it wouldn't debunk satellites.
You would need to show satellites don't exist to debunk them. The closest you have come to that is just asserting that satellites need to move relative to Earth, which I quickly demonstrated was pure nonsense.

Do you really believe I do what you want? Your all suggestions are evil and badly minded.
No I don't.
I never indicated I thought you would.
I know you hate the truth so much you would never even attempt to obtain evidence which shows you are wrong.

But if you actually cared about the truth and wanted to determine if satellites were real, you would go set up a camera on a tripod and record a long exposure video or time-lapse photo of the night sky near the equator (i.e. have your camera pointing towards the equator and up, not away from it) and see if you see stationary dots, i.e. the geostationary satellites.
You can even look up where to aim a satellite dish and point the camera there and see if you see the satellite.

Just what is evil or badly minded about suggesting how you can obtain the evidence yourself considering you dismiss it as fake whenever anyone else provide it?
Do you think suggesting how you can find out you are wrong is evil or badly minded?

Then lets look the photos all together.
No. That is entirely pointless.
You have already shown you will not accept any evidence.
Telling me to do it is just telling me to go waste my time.

If you were willing to look at/discuss photos together you would have done it with the photos provided.
I'm not going to waste my time taking a picture just for you to dismiss it as fake.

You are zooming the stars millions of light year far
No you aren't.
They remain as an unresolved point of light.
Also, they are typically only up to a hundred of thousand light years away.
The others are more often galaxies which you can't resolve either without a good telescope.

the transmitters in the south are facing south. Look how simple it is.
I know how simple it is to just reject reality.
It is much harder to deal with while trying to prop up nonsense.
here is a dish in Australia:
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-33.9384376,150.8957755,3a,89.2y,352.24h,80.56t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-800pGhG8StMsDcmUH1crA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Is it pointing south? NO!
This one?
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-33.939571,150.8945482,3a,75y,226.9h,85.34t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLmMzWRZmWmx5r-bikNkDYQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Still north.
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-33.939571,150.8945482,3a,75y,47.39h,79.11t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLmMzWRZmWmx5r-bikNkDYQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Still north.
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-27.5849644,151.9354707,3a,51.9y,358.96h,83.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHjggFkVtxF9C6PO4wrKjBw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Still north.
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-27.5717296,151.9559813,3a,75y,99.01h,88.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZVi1TCnnvSDSBjT13VtemQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Still north.
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-33.4280934,-70.7146154,3a,75y,194.03h,94.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s77tGwSjLYuvChveccdkxdw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Still north.
Just where are these magical satellite dishes in the south that point south?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on July 13, 2019, 03:40:52 AM
<tltr;
I think you are unemployed. Find a job youself. Nobody read your BS as long as this much. You are not a flat earther. You do not need spend all your times to discuss with flat earthers wast in vain. You have never convinced any flat earther in anyway. See a doctor.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on July 13, 2019, 03:41:40 AM
I'm getting deja vu here, already been asking wise for how the ground transmitters faking the satellites work, where are they, how he has been detecting them, why some northern dishes don't point north towards their nearest ground transmitter, what do the transmitter antenna look like, etc.

Predictably at this point he starts ignoring me.

I am constantly repying similar questions with same way. But you and others are constantly claiming same baseless claims. What is new here other than dejavu for yourself?
Satellite dish alignment is proven, ask an installer.
And installer will tell me its being proven then I'll believe it, right? Is it a scientist?
As you have failed to list the locations of any transmitters we can be sure you have no evidence for your claim.
I have a separate and independent work on the location of transmitters. So the earth's being flat is proved according to your mentality. Give up the childish behaves. Grow up, be a man, be a flat earther.
Where are the details?
Which detail? Everything is detailed. Read jackblack how explaines everything detailed with his infinite free time. I haven't infinite time, I am not unemployed like you angry globularists.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: rabinoz on July 13, 2019, 04:20:48 AM
<tltr;
I think you are unemployed. Find a job youself. Nobody read your BS as long as this much. You are not a flat earther. You do not need spend all your times to discuss with flat earthers wast in vain. You have never convinced any flat earther in anyway. See a doctor.
In other words, you have no answers when facts are presented to you so you post nonsense.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on July 13, 2019, 06:55:04 AM
<tltr;
I think you are unemployed. Find a job youself. Nobody read your BS as long as this much. You are not a flat earther. You do not need spend all your times to discuss with flat earthers wast in vain. You have never convinced any flat earther in anyway. See a doctor.
In other words, you have no answers when facts are presented to you so you post nonsense.

Sorry there isn't any fact I can not deal here. I do not have to read all the BS. writing more and unnecessary does not require me to respond to every unnecessary sentence. subject is certain, satellite tv. and I haven't seen a video showing the satellites yet. You send satellites into space, you communicate from space to earth and from earth to space, but you don't put a small camera on that satellite because you don't have to? Stop telling the fable.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: JackBlack on July 13, 2019, 06:27:44 PM
I think you are unemployed. Find a job youself. Nobody read your BS as long as this much. You are not a flat earther. You do not need spend all your times to discuss with flat earthers wast in vain. You have never convinced any flat earther in anyway. See a doctor.
If you don't want to read what I say, then just dont respond. Remain silent and let those who actually want to disucss to discuss them.


You claimed that satellite dishes in the south, still point south.
So I provided a few links to Google street view clearly showing satellite dishes in the south pointing north.
This refutes your claim.

In general satellite dishes point to the equator, as if there are satellites above the equator in a geostationary orbit around a RE.

Do you have any alternative explanation for why these dishes are all appearing to point towards a satellite over the equator?
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: rabinoz on July 13, 2019, 06:52:49 PM
<tltr;
I think you are unemployed. Find a job youself. Nobody read your BS as long as this much. You are not a flat earther. You do not need spend all your times to discuss with flat earthers wast in vain. You have never convinced any flat earther in anyway. See a doctor.
In other words, you have no answers when facts are presented to you so you post nonsense.

Sorry there isn't any fact I can not deal here. I do not have to read all the BS. writing more and unnecessary does not require me to respond to every unnecessary sentence. subject is certain, satellite tv. and I haven't seen a video showing the satellites yet. You send satellites into space, you communicate from space to earth and from earth to space, but you don't put a small camera on that satellite because you don't have to? Stop telling the fable.
In other words, once again you have no answers, noted!

What would be the use of a small camera on the satellite?

I have shown video of those satellites - THIS ONE!
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/67H6Hc.jpg)
2018-03-19 Geostationary satellites (timelapse about 700x) by Amrum astronomer
Four Arab TV satellites (left) and Eutelsat 25 (right).
C95 remote station with 0.60-m/f3.2 Newton and about 1200 images, each 15sec.
(https://www.youtube.co/watch?v=8tkhy5dKygo&feature=youtu.be)
Click the photo to see the video!

Those are satellites are for direct TV broadcast and are almost 35,786 km above the earth but are only the size of a big car so how do you suggest that a more detailed video be taken?

But here is a video of Arabsat TV satellites being deployed at a lower altitude:
(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/IC5bO5.jpg)
Arabsat-6A deployment by SciNews
The Arabsat-6A telecommunications satellite was successfully deployed approximately 34 minutes after being launched
by a SpaceX Falcon Heavy rocket from Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A), at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center, Florida, on
 11 April 2019, at 22:35 UTC (18:35 EDT). Credit: SpaceX
(https://www.youtube.co/watch?v=NMd8qljdXoA)
Click the photo to see the video!
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on July 13, 2019, 11:11:34 PM
It is not satellite TV, it is land based TV.

(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/HWLy3z.png)
Submarine Cable Map of the world

You see, rabinoz has admitted everything is underground cable system, but not satellites.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: Macarios on July 13, 2019, 11:32:45 PM
To receive satellite TV signal from ground cables you would have to point your satellite dish down, to the groiund.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on July 13, 2019, 11:38:06 PM
What happened to the transmission of radio / internet / TV signals by reflecting from the stratosphere? Globularists are not talking about it anymore. I think it does not needed to mention anymore. No need to cloud technology for explanation, so no need to mention.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: Macarios on July 13, 2019, 11:46:04 PM
Radio waves below 40 MHz are significantly affected by the ionosphere,
primarily because radio waves in this frequency range are effectively reflected
by the ionosphere. The E and F layers are the most important for this process.

Satellites use frequencies between 1 and 40 GHz.
Through Ionosphere they behave much more like visible light.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on July 13, 2019, 11:52:28 PM
Radio waves below 40 MHz are significantly affected by the ionosphere,
primarily because radio waves in this frequency range are effectively reflected
by the ionosphere. The E and F layers are the most important for this process.

Satellites use frequencies between 1 and 40 GHz.
Through Ionosphere they behave much more like visible light.

What function has mezosfer has? It wants to be useful too. you can also send them a signal and ask them to transfer from 500 kilometers away.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: inquisitive on July 14, 2019, 02:17:06 AM
It is not satellite TV, it is land based TV.

(https://i.resimyukle.xyz/HWLy3z.png)
Submarine Cable Map of the world

You see, rabinoz has admitted everything is underground cable system, but not satellites.
No, not everything.  Please explain with links what satellite dishes point at.

Interesting that you fail to give links to manufacturers and suppliers and then tell us they are wrong.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: rabinoz on July 14, 2019, 02:25:49 AM
What happened to the transmission of radio / internet / TV signals by reflecting from the stratosphere? Globularists are not talking about it anymore. I think it does not needed to mention anymore. No need to cloud technology for explanation, so no need to mention.
I assume that you mean "Tropospheric Scatter Propogation". Read about it in: tropospheric propogation (https://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/tropospheric-propogation).
Is has been used for military transmission but is of little use for TV broadcasting because of its unpredictability and very hight path loss.

In addition it is useless for the Ku-band (12–18 GHz) and Ka-band (26–40 GHz) commonly used for satellite TV!
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: rabinoz on July 14, 2019, 02:35:54 AM
You see, rabinoz has admitted everything is underground cable system, but not satellites.
I did not "admit everything is underground cable system, but not satellites." Learn to read what is written!
For a start, I never mentioned "underground cable system" in that post! So stop making false quotes and stop deceiving people.

The ping times you gave were for under-sea cables between continents and I showed a map of those submarine cables.

Look under the map! Submarine Cable Map of the world - there can you read that!
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: wise on July 14, 2019, 01:45:43 PM
You see, rabinoz has admitted everything is underground cable system, but not satellites.
I did not "admit everything is underground cable system, but not satellites." Learn to read what is written!
For a start, I never mentioned "underground cable system" in that post! So stop making false quotes and stop deceiving people.

The ping times you gave were for under-sea cables between continents and I showed a map of those submarine cables.

Look under the map! Submarine Cable Map of the world - there can you read that!

I meant Submarine Cable Map, what has changed? You have showed submarine cablo map as internet. They are under ground in grounds and submarine in oceans. What has changed? Nothing.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: boydster on July 14, 2019, 02:34:50 PM
There are cables that make up most of the internet backbone. There are satellites that also deliver internet to people who do not have ground-based access to the internet. Both things can exist, they are not mutually exclusive.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: inquisitive on July 15, 2019, 12:26:52 AM
You see, rabinoz has admitted everything is underground cable system, but not satellites.
I did not "admit everything is underground cable system, but not satellites." Learn to read what is written!
For a start, I never mentioned "underground cable system" in that post! So stop making false quotes and stop deceiving people.

The ping times you gave were for under-sea cables between continents and I showed a map of those submarine cables.

Look under the map! Submarine Cable Map of the world - there can you read that!

I meant Submarine Cable Map, what has changed? You have showed submarine cablo map as internet. They are under ground in grounds and submarine in oceans. What has changed? Nothing.
This is about sarellite tv and you should provide transmitter locations.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: turtles on July 15, 2019, 03:11:35 AM
I'm getting deja vu here, already been asking wise for how the ground transmitters faking the satellites work, where are they, how he has been detecting them, why some northern dishes don't point north towards their nearest ground transmitter, what do the transmitter antenna look like, etc.

Predictably at this point he starts ignoring me.

I am constantly repying similar questions with same way. But you and others are constantly claiming same baseless claims. What is new here other than dejavu for yourself?

What baseless claims? I asked you "how the ground transmitters faking the satellites work, where are they, how he has been detecting them, why some northern dishes don't point north towards their nearest ground transmitter, what do the transmitter antenna look like, etc". I've made no claims at all there, I'm asking you to provide information about your claims.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: inquisitive on August 05, 2019, 07:47:05 AM
With no reply we can be confident there is no alternative explanation to satellites above the round earth equator.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: Ozymandias74 on August 22, 2019, 09:45:43 PM
You can receive satellite tv signal anywhere in north america, as long as you have line of sight to the satellite.  You could be in the mountains of Colorado, 100 miles from anything (no cell signal or internet) and still receive the tv signal.   Same goes for satellite radio as well.
I use the mountains of Colorado as an example because the mountains would block any other land based transmission method.
Title: Re: Satellite TV
Post by: Art on August 29, 2019, 11:58:23 AM
With a $30 USB SDR you can download images from passing weather satellites yourself,
which also requires you follow them with the antenna.

As far as geostationary, and every other satellite goes, the frequencies they employ are useless for long range terrestrial propagation.