"Satalites bring me TV. Definite"
Despite my claims, questions, and info prior in the thread. I have to say you cannot say definite fact. It is mathematically plausible that it is all ground based transmission. Mathematically probable....not so much.
Mathematically, it's a satellite. Fact.
Flat Earth Theory allows for both stationary and orbiting satellites. The existence of either is a fact and neither proves nor disproves the Flat Earth Theory.
Oh this is interesting...so satellites are allowed in flat earth theory?? Every theorist I have come across say satellites are just a lie. So if they are possible in this theory, then that would explain where my parts have went and what I have seen.
So with that said, how do they maintain "orbit" on a flat model or not come crashing down. I know how much fuel they take with them, and without the slingshot and gravitational orbit effect, it would be a matter of a day before they were crashing through the atmosphere out of fuel. They only make adjustments at a max of every six months and it is in a matter of seconds, some only need it once every couple years, it depends on how high their orbit is and the style of orbit.
This is a new bit of info on this theory to me. What do they oribit? How are they kept in position in both orbit and altitude ?
Well my Dear Fellow I feel like I am standing next to a human demolition hammer which is knocking out questions with a rapidly that almost defies comprehension. I am also very glad to see that you have learned a bit more about the flat earth theory- which is no more monolithic than that of the helio-centrists whose arguments about the size (or lack there of) of the bounded universe are endless and akin to two scholastics arguing about the wingspan of angels, but I digress.
I will keep this at a high level for you, please understand, or else I would be here, all of this this early Spring Sunday afternoon ,which I am now spending look over the expanse of my Garden here in Cornwall- perhaps the loveliest part of God's Green Earth.
First their is the matter of the Terrestrial Plane and the bounded surface. The Terrestrial plane is a bounded non Euclidian surface. If you are versed in math, and even if you are not, one may think of it in the same manner that hello-centrists think about Einstein's model of Space (which I disagree with) ...not I said SPACE not SPACETIME (Which are two differing things). Although the scale is much smaller (for the Terrestrial Plane) that Einsteins Space of the Universe, we can simply say this- if we increase the boundary constant large enough, we can create a non- euclidian surface (just like Einsteins very large Space but with a smaller boundary constant), given a finite size (the Terrestrial Plane) and we have a surface such that if I move in the direction X, and only x from spot X/Y I will eventually arrive in the place X/Y from whence I started.
Second to this there is the Celestial Sphere which is above the Terrestrial plane. The common link, if you will is the Aether which increases in density geometrically from its altitude from the Terrestrial Plane. In fact the density is so much greater that we refer to aether on the Terrestrial Plane as Quintessence. None the less it exists in the Celestial Sphere, as described by Einstein, and serves as the mechanism that keeps the celestial objects such as the Sun, Luna and the planets (that move about the Sphere) from crashing to the Earth. In addition as the Aether increases in density it increases it's rotation motion. So it might be helpful, although not accurate, to think of Aether as the fluid that the moving objects of the Celestial Sphere float in. In addition the aether is moving in a circular manner moving said objects, or affecting their movement.
The Celestial Sphere, however, is a Euclidian Surface, and thus we have a Euclidian Surface (spherical in shape, or semi-spherical, above a bounded non Euclidian Surface
Now were I to launch into the Celestial Sphere an object, with a low enough velocity such that it did not reach the rotation currents of the Aether, but at a high enough velocity where by the aether was dense enough to hold it in place I would have a stationary object, in the aether, but not affected by the rotational motion of such. Thus we see stationary satellites that "hover" in the same place above the Terrestrial plane.
If I were to do the same as above, but at a high enough velocity such that said object reached the rotational Currents of the aether, I would then have an object that was supported by the aether and also moved by its rotational motion. Thus we have moving satellites. The speed and path are dependent on the distance of said object from the Terrestrial plane, the density of the aether in which it rests and the rotational speed of the aether varies directly with the altitude above the Terrestrial Plane.
Furthermore when I trace the movement of a body in the Euclidian Space of the Celestial Sphere on the surface of a bounded non Euclidian Surface (the Terrestrial plane) I see the "sometimes strange" paths of motion.
Technically you are correct, the Flat Earth does not allow for orbiting bodies, so I stand corrected in my choice of words, but in the main my view is correct. We can move man made objects into the aether/Celestial Sphere and have them assume rotation motion in the celestial sphere and trace their paths in the non Euclidian Bounded surface. Conversely we can also put objects, low enough, into the aether whereby the are impinged on none at all and are thus stationary.
If I were to trace the move
Show Posts
Don't worry, Newton is doing fine, and so is Einstein with the detection of Gravitational Waves. 
