1

Flat Earth General / Re: What about a telescope aimed at the horizon?

« on: March 07, 2014, 02:14:26 PM »

If it was on a pizza a little to the edge, it would be brought into view.

Then again, theory and practice say otherwise. If the image doesn't contain the ship, one won't bring it back just by making the image bigger. You will also find that telescopes don't revert actual cases of inferior and superior mirages.

2

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How did Columbia get so high before is broke up?

« on: March 07, 2014, 08:45:32 AM »

Radio signals can be refracted by the atmoplane.  You can also reflect radio signals off the atmoplane.

I know atmosphere can refract and reflect. Some radio users even use this to actually communicate through larger distances.

The problem is that this real phenomenon doesn't look like with what you need here. It can't mimic movement, paralax and visual image of a satellite at the same time. Aditionally, this extreme distortion would be detectable by other means, like messing our view of the stars; yet the sky keeps looking like an undistorted background.

I understand what you are saying.  You are saying that I could not both see something and pick up radio signals from it, from the same direction unless the Earth is round?  Correct?

Not quite. I've even said that radio users manage to do this, in some restricted situations.

I'm saying that refraction and reflection alone are not enought to make a ground transmition look like a satellite in the sky, in the same way that they don't make a parked truck look like an airplane over your head.

Your attempted explanation raises questions. I've seen satellites by myself; if they are just refractions and reflections of something close to the ground, why don't we see cars and houses high and well defined in the sky too? And why does the sky look like a background without this heavy distortion?

3

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How did Columbia get so high before is broke up?

« on: March 07, 2014, 07:15:35 AM »

Radio signals can be refracted by the atmoplane.  You can also reflect radio signals off the atmoplane.

I know atmosphere can refract and reflect. Some radio users even use this to actually communicate through larger distances.

The problem is that this real phenomenon doesn't look like with what you need here. It can't mimic movement, paralax and visual image of a satellite at the same time. Aditionally, this extreme distortion would be detectable by other means, like messing our view of the stars; yet the sky keeps looking like an undistorted background.

4

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How did Columbia get so high before is broke up?

« on: March 07, 2014, 06:47:39 AM »

You can see a satellite from Earth, yet you can not see a satellite from outer space, where the satellite is?

Of course it's possible to see a satellite from outer space. It's just hard to photograph it with a satellite's usual capabilites (or claimed capabilities, if you don't belive in them). So there is no motive to think there "should" be good pictures of them (except for rendezvouz like the STS and Hubble, of course).

5

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How did Columbia get so high before is broke up?

« on: March 07, 2014, 06:36:59 AM »

Do you not believe in light refraction?  How about reflection?  Can other areas of the spectrum not experience the same effect?

I know refraction and reflection. I just don't know how refraction and reflection could mimic all the properties expected from a satellite. Do you?

Aditionally, one can also detect geostationary satellites with telescopes. If they are not things in orbit, what we are seeing there?

6

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How did Columbia get so high before is broke up?

« on: March 07, 2014, 06:23:26 AM »

I can't name you any, because they do not exist.

I know you don't belive in them.

But you just claimed they should be able make pictures of other satellites, considering "how big the space program is".

That's why I'm asking. What claim about the space program have you seen, to think they should be able to make such pictures?

7

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How did Columbia get so high before is broke up?

« on: March 07, 2014, 06:05:58 AM »

For something as big and as clear as this space program is, you would expect to see clear cut realistic images...

How?

I know of no satellite with capability to do that so easily. Could you name at least one for me?

8

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How did Columbia get so high before is broke up?

« on: March 07, 2014, 05:39:14 AM »

No, it only shows that it is direction that the signal is coming from, not where it is originating from.

So do you claim the signal is being sent from the surface and making a deep curve in space, back to Earth, by itself? Based in what?

And what about the stationary satellites which can actually be detected by telescope, in their expected positions?

9

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How did Columbia get so high before is broke up?

« on: March 07, 2014, 05:34:35 AM »

If a directional antenna works best when pointed to the alleged satellite's position, doesn't this already prove there's something there in the sky sending the signal?

If not, why?

10

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: How did Columbia get so high before is broke up?

« on: March 06, 2014, 06:34:24 PM »

It's just one excuse after another.  Not all those satellites are "wizing" by, hence geostationary.  If you can see them from Earth, there is no reason one of them can't take a photo of AT LEAST one other one up there.  Get real.

If you compare the difficulty of the task with the capacity of a satellite, it's an overwhelming reason. They are too small, distant and/or fast to be resolved by a satellite equiped to just track the sky or the surface. If they are not in close rendezvouz, it'd be hard to get anything better than a blurred dot (if the satellite even has a camera, that is).

By the way, if we can photograph satellites from Earth, and directional antennas do work best when pointed towards them, what's the point in demanding images from other satellites?

11

Flat Earth General / Re: What about a telescope aimed at the horizon?

« on: March 06, 2014, 05:38:52 PM »

I watched ships with telescopes for more than a decade, and I my personal experience is that it doesn't do what FEs claim.  If the ship is already blocked from naked eye, it will still be blocked when magnified. A telescope just makes the image bigger; it doesn't make one see around corners.

Besides that, we have optics theory and 400 years of practice confirming this. If an isolated case said otherwise, odds are it's just an error.