Satellites

  • 111 Replies
  • 26544 Views
*

The Real Celine Dion

  • 4423
  • +0/-0
  • Use as directed
Re: Satellites
« Reply #30 on: September 14, 2016, 02:34:10 PM »
Apart from a private company's data and claims, there's no substantial proof indicating the existence of Satellites in space, and people should dismiss that as part of their reality for sanity purposes.
Except that anybody can look at them and see them, and look through a telescope and see details.



Visualizing them isn't proof they are in space in fact.

Please provide evidence of how satellite tv reception works.
You can find this explanation scrolling up and searching for Stratellites. It can be easily understood. In case of disagreement, please argue.
Tom is making up a story, actually just a word.  Plenty of evidence and documentation for satellite operation.

Of course you definitely need lots of evidence to fool people into that trap. Much more than just a word. What's the news?
Plenty of people who understand how satellites are used. Maybe not you.  Check dish angles.

I have Direct TV satellite service, and my dish definitely points up towards the southern sky. Which would be expected since I live in the USA and the geosynchronous satellites are over the equator.
You just got Weskered, bitches!

*

SpJunk

  • 577
  • +0/-0
Re: Satellites
« Reply #31 on: September 14, 2016, 06:02:41 PM »
...
The thing is: when you have a question, you may resort to the easiest way to obtain a proper explanation. That's why you won't give chance for another shot. You've learned it wrong and is presenting dissonance here... take care. Cheers.

LOL

September 22nd is closing.
Equinox.
Sun directly above equator the whole day.

Print Flat Earth map.

Find the place where you live.
Draw straight line east-west.
(Perpendicular to your meridian - line from
north pole through your place towards Ice Wall).

Ignore daylight savings, to skip adding or subtracting one hour.

Where your meridian intersects equator, there is the Sun at your noon.
90 degrees along equator to the east Sun is at your 6 am for sunrise.
90 degrees to the west along equator Sun is at your 6 pm for sunset.

I presume you live at about 40-ish degrees north.
With equator curved to fit Flat Earth map, sunrise at your latitude will be at azimuth of about 60 degrees.
30 degrees to the north of east at your east-west line.
Sunset at your latitude would be at azimuth around 300 degrees.
30 degrees to the north of west at your eas-west line.

If you were at equator, your sunrise would be at azimuth of 45 degrees,
and sunset at azimuth of 315 degrees.

Now, keep in mind all these numbers to compare with real life.


In real life, for equinox, anywhere in the world, when comes 6 am sun rises directly at east,
at azimuth of 90 degrees, and at 6 pm sets directly at west, at azimuth of 270 degrees.
(With Daylight Saving taken into account it is 7 am and 7 pm. Solar noon is at 1 pm.)

That is how "usable" can Flat model be versus Globe model.

Measure each azimuth for yourself on September 22nd, and report here.
Bear in mind, others can measure themselves. People will know if you are telling the truth.

So, let us (mortals) know when you figure out
WHO ACTUALLY LEARNED SOMETHING WRONG, AND WHAT WAS THAT.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2016, 06:07:55 PM by SpJunk »
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein

"Your lack of simplicity is main reason why not many people would bother to try to understand you." - S.M.

*

Copper Knickers

  • 904
  • +0/-0
Re: Satellites
« Reply #32 on: September 15, 2016, 03:05:13 PM »
Visualizing them isn't proof they are in space in fact.
Okay, but visualizing them moving at orbital velocity definitely is.

Orbital velocity tells about they way it moves, right? Does that imply a certain altitude for that movement? Definitely not evidence enough. Otherwise you'd have to come into the details.

Yes, it implies a certain altitude for that movement. Roughly:

R ~ GM/V2

R = orbital radius
G = gravitational constant
M = mass of earth
V = orbital velocity

Sources: 1, 2

*

Uninvited Guest

  • 213
  • +0/-0
  • A clone cloned by a smartphone
Re: Satellites
« Reply #33 on: September 16, 2016, 06:46:56 AM »
Visualizing them isn't proof they are in space in fact.
Okay, but visualizing them moving at orbital velocity definitely is.

Orbital velocity tells about they way it moves, right? Does that imply a certain altitude for that movement? Definitely not evidence enough. Otherwise you'd have to come into the details.

Yes, it implies a certain altitude for that movement. Roughly:

R ~ GM/V2

R = orbital radius
G = gravitational constant
M = mass of earth
V = orbital velocity

Sources: 1, 2

from your first source: "Orbital Velocity Formula is used to find the orbital velocity or orbital speed of the any planet if mass M and radius R are known. It is expressed in meter per second (m/s)."

Where does it mention altitude?
The science in her trance will make the sign of cross
And we will light bonfires to appreciate the electric bulb.

Re: Satellites
« Reply #34 on: September 16, 2016, 07:32:27 AM »
Orbital radius is analogous to altitude.
I wonder how obnoxious I can make my signature?
Please give me ideas.

*

johnnyorbital

  • 867
  • +0/-0
Re: Satellites
« Reply #35 on: September 16, 2016, 09:44:57 AM »
Quote
Satellites can be seen from the ground. I have seen a few myself, without need for binoculars. They appear to be simple stars, but if you notice they seem to blink in the heavens.

You're looking at Stratellites, not Satellites.

Satellites don't exist.

Quote
isn't the fact that you can see the earth rotate from a satellite enough proof that the earth isn't flat?

No.

stratellites, again with no evidence, just a new word

the last person I asked claimed the evidence for stratellites is the same as for satellites
..but they're located in totally different places and must travel at drastically different speeds

meaning they're blatantly NOT the same when it comes to evidence

if you're claiming stratellites, present your reasoning

*

Copper Knickers

  • 904
  • +0/-0
Re: Satellites
« Reply #36 on: September 16, 2016, 10:02:04 AM »
Visualizing them isn't proof they are in space in fact.
Okay, but visualizing them moving at orbital velocity definitely is.

Orbital velocity tells about they way it moves, right? Does that imply a certain altitude for that movement? Definitely not evidence enough. Otherwise you'd have to come into the details.

Yes, it implies a certain altitude for that movement. Roughly:

R ~ GM/V2

R = orbital radius
G = gravitational constant
M = mass of earth
V = orbital velocity

Sources: 1, 2

from your first source: "Orbital Velocity Formula is used to find the orbital velocity or orbital speed of the any planet if mass M and radius R are known. It is expressed in meter per second (m/s)."

Where does it mention altitude?

Orbital radius is the distance of the orbit from the earth's centre of gravity and so is approximately equal to the radius of the earth plus the altitude of the orbit.

*

Uninvited Guest

  • 213
  • +0/-0
  • A clone cloned by a smartphone
Re: Satellites
« Reply #37 on: September 16, 2016, 10:56:45 AM »
Visualizing them isn't proof they are in space in fact.
Okay, but visualizing them moving at orbital velocity definitely is.

Orbital velocity tells about they way it moves, right? Does that imply a certain altitude for that movement? Definitely not evidence enough. Otherwise you'd have to come into the details.

Yes, it implies a certain altitude for that movement. Roughly:

R ~ GM/V2

R = orbital radius
G = gravitational constant
M = mass of earth
V = orbital velocity

Sources: 1, 2

from your first source: "Orbital Velocity Formula is used to find the orbital velocity or orbital speed of the any planet if mass M and radius R are known. It is expressed in meter per second (m/s)."

Where does it mention altitude?

Orbital radius is the distance of the orbit from the earth's centre of gravity and so is approximately equal to the radius of the earth plus the altitude of the orbit.

A wondrous explanation! I don't believe it.
The science in her trance will make the sign of cross
And we will light bonfires to appreciate the electric bulb.

*

Uninvited Guest

  • 213
  • +0/-0
  • A clone cloned by a smartphone
Re: Satellites
« Reply #38 on: September 16, 2016, 11:02:22 AM »
G = gravitational constant
M = mass of earth

How can we measure these things empirically? haha  :D
The science in her trance will make the sign of cross
And we will light bonfires to appreciate the electric bulb.

*

SpJunk

  • 577
  • +0/-0
Re: Satellites
« Reply #39 on: September 16, 2016, 11:36:08 AM »
G = gravitational constant
M = mass of earth

How can we measure these things empirically? haha  :D

Gravitational constant is measured and published, together with error margin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant

Within the same accuracy we can measure Earth's mass by measuring weight
of an object with known mass and resolving it in gravitational formula against Earth.

F = G * m1 * m2 / R2

F - weight of the known object (in Newtons)
G - gravitational constant - ( for our purposes here, we can accept current value of 6.67408 * 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 )
m1, m2 - masses of Earth and known object (in kilograms)
R - distance from the center of the Earth to the center of the known object (in meters)

We can enter correction for weight due to centrifugal force of Earth spin,
but that difference goes from zero at poles to 0.52% at equator.

If we measure F at equator, and disregard the maximum value of 0.52%, then in final calculations for geostationary
orbit (22 250 miles from sea level at equator) it can make a difference of almost 120 miles (mile or two less).
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein

"Your lack of simplicity is main reason why not many people would bother to try to understand you." - S.M.

Re: Satellites
« Reply #40 on: September 16, 2016, 12:07:10 PM »
Visualizing them isn't proof they are in space in fact.
Okay, but visualizing them moving at orbital velocity definitely is.

Orbital velocity tells about they way it moves, right? Does that imply a certain altitude for that movement? Definitely not evidence enough. Otherwise you'd have to come into the details.

Yes, it implies a certain altitude for that movement. Roughly:

R ~ GM/V2

R = orbital radius
G = gravitational constant
M = mass of earth
V = orbital velocity

Sources: 1, 2

from your first source: "Orbital Velocity Formula is used to find the orbital velocity or orbital speed of the any planet if mass M and radius R are known. It is expressed in meter per second (m/s)."

Where does it mention altitude?

Orbital radius is the distance of the orbit from the earth's centre of gravity and so is approximately equal to the radius of the earth plus the altitude of the orbit.

A wondrous explanation! I don't believe it.
You don't believe the definition of orbital radius? I guess the dictionary writers are in on the conspiracy too.
I wonder how obnoxious I can make my signature?
Please give me ideas.

*

Uninvited Guest

  • 213
  • +0/-0
  • A clone cloned by a smartphone
Re: Satellites
« Reply #41 on: September 16, 2016, 01:17:01 PM »
G = gravitational constant
M = mass of earth

How can we measure these things empirically? haha  :D

Gravitational constant is measured and published, together with error margin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant

Within the same accuracy we can measure Earth's mass by measuring weight
of an object with known mass and resolving it in gravitational formula against Earth.

F = G * m1 * m2 / R2

F - weight of the known object (in Newtons)
G - gravitational constant - ( for our purposes here, we can accept current value of 6.67408 * 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 )
m1, m2 - masses of Earth and known object (in kilograms)
R - distance from the center of the Earth to the center of the known object (in meters)

We can enter correction for weight due to centrifugal force of Earth spin,
but that difference goes from zero at poles to 0.52% at equator.

If we measure F at equator, and disregard the maximum value of 0.52%, then in final calculations for geostationary
orbit (22 250 miles from sea level at equator) it can make a difference of almost 120 miles (mile or two less).

"Within the same accuracy we can measure Earth's mass by measuring weight
of an object with known mass and resolving it in gravitational formula against Earth."

I see where this logic leads to. But I refuse the premise. Sorry.
The science in her trance will make the sign of cross
And we will light bonfires to appreciate the electric bulb.

*

Uninvited Guest

  • 213
  • +0/-0
  • A clone cloned by a smartphone
Re: Satellites
« Reply #42 on: September 16, 2016, 01:20:39 PM »
Visualizing them isn't proof they are in space in fact.
Okay, but visualizing them moving at orbital velocity definitely is.

Orbital velocity tells about they way it moves, right? Does that imply a certain altitude for that movement? Definitely not evidence enough. Otherwise you'd have to come into the details.

Yes, it implies a certain altitude for that movement. Roughly:

R ~ GM/V2

R = orbital radius
G = gravitational constant
M = mass of earth
V = orbital velocity

Sources: 1, 2

from your first source: "Orbital Velocity Formula is used to find the orbital velocity or orbital speed of the any planet if mass M and radius R are known. It is expressed in meter per second (m/s)."

Where does it mention altitude?

Orbital radius is the distance of the orbit from the earth's centre of gravity and so is approximately equal to the radius of the earth plus the altitude of the orbit.

A wondrous explanation! I don't believe it.
You don't believe the definition of orbital radius? I guess the dictionary writers are in on the conspiracy too.

Problems with don'ts?
The science in her trance will make the sign of cross
And we will light bonfires to appreciate the electric bulb.

*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • +0/-0
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: Satellites
« Reply #43 on: September 16, 2016, 01:49:07 PM »
Orbital radius, along with other variables, are common in satellites because it allows you to work out where it is, how fast it is travelling and so on. Something travelling covering a ground path of 100 km is not going to travel 100km when it is at 200km altitude, in order to work out how far it has travelled you need to know the circumference of the circle it is following, for which you need the radius.

In this volume of support data for Apollo's mapping cameras:

http://apollo.sese.asu.edu/SUPPORT_DATA/Apollo16_APE_Data_Book.pdf

You'll find various references to measurements from the moon's centre of mass.
Facts won't do what I want them to.

We went from a round Earth to a round Moon: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html

*

N30

  • 592
  • +0/-0
  • I can only show you the door.
Re: Satellites
« Reply #44 on: September 16, 2016, 02:44:11 PM »
in order to work out how far it has travelled you need to know the circumference of the circle it is following,

Earth is supposedly an oblate spheroid, yet all math used assumes it is a perfect circle.

R ~ GM/V2

R = orbital radius
G = gravitational constant
M = mass of earth
V = orbital velocity

Solving for M requires calculating Earth diameter, then dividing by 2 and pie, which is for a perfect circle.
Using 360 degrees to find the diameter is an assumption of a perfect circle.
Never once has Earth truly been measured to be globular, only assumed!

So, below is the method for "proving" Earth to be a globe.
I hope you the best of luck and Gods speed in finding suitable conditions to test this.
Nonetheless it was conducted in 240 BC, with no problem, and claims accuracy within 1% of "reality"!

Quote
"You will need to accurately measure the length of the shadow cast by two sticks that are several hundred miles north and south of each other on (or about) the same day."

"Make the measurements at local noon (when the sun is directly overhead).  You can do this by looking in the local paper for the time of sunrise and sunset - local noon is half way between these times."

http://www.physics.usu.edu/coburn/Measurement%20Projects/Diameter%20of%20the%20Earth.html

After obtaining measurements dependent on a moving object, please plug them into a formula made for a circle.



*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • +0/-0
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: Satellites
« Reply #45 on: September 16, 2016, 02:58:40 PM »
I may not have been here long, but I've been here long enough to know that you've been told repeatedly what the oblate spheroid means and exactly how much Earth deviates from a perfect sphere. Earth has been measured, and photographed and filmed, as a sphere.

Feel free to prove those calculation methods you gave to be incorrect.
Facts won't do what I want them to.

We went from a round Earth to a round Moon: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html

*

The Real Celine Dion

  • 4423
  • +0/-0
  • Use as directed
Re: Satellites
« Reply #46 on: September 16, 2016, 03:03:23 PM »
It's kind of funny how when there is a heavy storm blowing through my satellite tv services gets interrupted, almost as if something(heavy cloud cover) is blocking the signal. My ground based cell service doesn't get interrupted though, which is where the flat earthers claim satellite service comes from.
You just got Weskered, bitches!

*

N30

  • 592
  • +0/-0
  • I can only show you the door.
Re: Satellites
« Reply #47 on: September 16, 2016, 03:19:12 PM »
Pick any number.
Multiply it by two.
Then add ten.
Divide the total by two.
Subtract the current number from the original number chosen.
Your answer is five.

Feel free to prove those calculation methods you gave to be incorrect.

They are correct, but for the same reason that the above "magic" formula is correct.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Satellites
« Reply #48 on: September 16, 2016, 04:18:41 PM »
G = gravitational constant
M = mass of earth

How can we measure these things empirically? haha  :D

Gravitational constant is measured and published, together with error margin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant

Within the same accuracy we can measure Earth's mass by measuring weight
of an object with known mass and resolving it in gravitational formula against Earth.

F = G * m1 * m2 / R2

F - weight of the known object (in Newtons)
G - gravitational constant - ( for our purposes here, we can accept current value of 6.67408 * 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 )
m1, m2 - masses of Earth and known object (in kilograms)
R - distance from the center of the Earth to the center of the known object (in meters)

We can enter correction for weight due to centrifugal force of Earth spin,
but that difference goes from zero at poles to 0.52% at equator.

If we measure F at equator, and disregard the maximum value of 0.52%, then in final calculations for geostationary
orbit (22 250 miles from sea level at equator) it can make a difference of almost 120 miles (mile or two less).

"Within the same accuracy we can measure Earth's mass by measuring weight
of an object with known mass and resolving it in gravitational formula against Earth."

I see where this logic leads to. But I refuse the premise. Sorry.

I am sorry to have to tell you this, but satellites don't need you understanding or permission to orbit the earth.

?

Woody

  • 1144
  • +0/-0
Re: Satellites
« Reply #49 on: September 16, 2016, 04:23:20 PM »
Here you have a timelapse of (near-)geostationary satellites.


If you happened to miss them, here is another with few of them marked:



I have posted that image and others more than once.

FE's consistently avoid addressing those images are just dismiss them as lights in the sky that appear not to move.  They also tend to ignore the fact that those lights have never been recorded until the dates we are told those satellites where launched. 

*

N30

  • 592
  • +0/-0
  • I can only show you the door.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Satellites
« Reply #51 on: September 16, 2016, 07:20:31 PM »
"...but satellites don't need your understanding..."

Then you, sir, are retarded.

Yes, those satellites orbit around up there giving us GPS, satellite weather photos and satellite TV (for better or for worse!)
all without your understanding or permission.

No, don't question authority!  ;D They are more ignorant on these things than the rest of us.  ;D

You might get a lot further if you questioned the scientists and engineers who do know!

Here's a great place to start, this site is designed as a solid but not too technical introduction:
Quote from: Robert A. Braeunig
Welcome to Rocket and Space Technology.
This Web page can trace its roots to the author's project to write a computer program simulating the launch of a rocket to orbit.  As I performed my research it became apparent that most information on the subject tended toward one of two extremes:  it was either too simplistic to be very helpful, or it was advanced texts written for engineers.  I could find little information suitable for the space enthusiast who wanted to progress beyond the beginner level but who lacked the advanced math and science skills needed to understand the more complex texts.
After spending months digging through books and Internet sites I finally found the information needed to complete my project.  Not wanting others to go through the same frustrating search, I decided to organize all the information into a single resource.  Thus, in 1996 this Web page was created.
More in Braenig, Rocket and Space Technology

Jut consider this: If you understand this stuff yourself, you might be able to criticize it so much more effectively.
Instead of making yourself out to be more and more ignorant with each post!
Then you'll be arguing from strength, so much more effective!

*

N30

  • 592
  • +0/-0
  • I can only show you the door.
Re: Satellites
« Reply #52 on: September 16, 2016, 07:32:21 PM »
Jut consider this: If you understand this stuff yourself, you might be able to criticize it so much more effectively.

I suggest listening to your own words, for your post had many of them, but little meaning.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • +0/-0
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Satellites
« Reply #53 on: September 16, 2016, 08:16:38 PM »
Just consider this: If you understand this stuff yourself, you might be able to criticize it so much more effectively.

I suggest listening to your own words, for your post had many of them, but little meaning.

Please explain what words had "little meaning"? Maybe you simply cannot understand them, sorry for thinking you had some understanding of these things.

I did mean exactly what I said with
"Just consider this: If you understand this stuff yourself, you might be able to criticize it so much more effectively."
because from what you write, you don't seem to understand anything about orbits etc.

Though I guess I am doing a lot better than you then!
I suggest listening to your own words, for many your posts have no meaning at all.

*

SpJunk

  • 577
  • +0/-0
Re: Satellites
« Reply #54 on: September 16, 2016, 09:24:48 PM »
G = gravitational constant
M = mass of earth

How can we measure these things empirically? haha  :D

Gravitational constant is measured and published, together with error margin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_constant

Within the same accuracy we can measure Earth's mass by measuring weight
of an object with known mass and resolving it in gravitational formula against Earth.

F = G * m1 * m2 / R2

F - weight of the known object (in Newtons)
G - gravitational constant - ( for our purposes here, we can accept current value of 6.67408 * 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2 )
m1, m2 - masses of Earth and known object (in kilograms)
R - distance from the center of the Earth to the center of the known object (in meters)

We can enter correction for weight due to centrifugal force of Earth spin,
but that difference goes from zero at poles to 0.52% at equator.

If we measure F at equator, and disregard the maximum value of 0.52%, then in final calculations for geostationary
orbit (22 250 miles from sea level at equator) it can make a difference of almost 120 miles (mile or two less).

"Within the same accuracy we can measure Earth's mass by measuring weight
of an object with known mass and resolving it in gravitational formula against Earth."

I see where this logic leads to. But I refuse the premise. Sorry.

It leads to:

m1 = ( F * R2 ) / ( G * m2 )

You can refuse it as much as you want, but it will not change the mass of the Earth.
It will still be 5.972 × 1024 kg.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein

"Your lack of simplicity is main reason why not many people would bother to try to understand you." - S.M.

Re: Satellites
« Reply #55 on: September 17, 2016, 12:17:31 AM »
Pick any number.
Multiply it by two.
Then add ten.
Divide the total by two.
Subtract the current number from the original number chosen.
Your answer is five.

Feel free to prove those calculation methods you gave to be incorrect.

They are correct, but for the same reason that the above "magic" formula is correct.

I pick -2.

*2=-4

+10=6

/2=3

3=/=5

You might want to do some real math for a change.
I wonder how obnoxious I can make my signature?
Please give me ideas.

*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • +0/-0
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: Satellites
« Reply #56 on: September 17, 2016, 12:49:36 AM »
Pick any number.
Multiply it by two.
Then add ten.
Divide the total by two.
Subtract the current number from the original number chosen.
Your answer is five.

Feel free to prove those calculation methods you gave to be incorrect.

They are correct, but for the same reason that the above "magic" formula is correct.

That might impress them in the playground, but it isn't what was asked of you.
Facts won't do what I want them to.

We went from a round Earth to a round Moon: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html

*

Uninvited Guest

  • 213
  • +0/-0
  • A clone cloned by a smartphone
Re: Satellites
« Reply #57 on: September 19, 2016, 06:26:58 AM »
Pick any number.
Multiply it by two.
Then add ten.
Divide the total by two.
Subtract the current number from the original number chosen.
Your answer is five.

Feel free to prove those calculation methods you gave to be incorrect.

They are correct, but for the same reason that the above "magic" formula is correct.

Hahaha... good one.
The science in her trance will make the sign of cross
And we will light bonfires to appreciate the electric bulb.

*

Uninvited Guest

  • 213
  • +0/-0
  • A clone cloned by a smartphone
Re: Satellites
« Reply #58 on: September 19, 2016, 06:32:33 AM »
Here you have a timelapse of (near-)geostationary satellites.


If you happened to miss them, here is another with few of them marked:



I have posted that image and others more than once.

FE's consistently avoid addressing those images are just dismiss them as lights in the sky that appear not to move.  They also tend to ignore the fact that those lights have never been recorded until the dates we are told those satellites where launched.

Why are you so sure these arrows are truer than this one drawn randomly by me:


The science in her trance will make the sign of cross
And we will light bonfires to appreciate the electric bulb.

Re: Satellites
« Reply #59 on: September 19, 2016, 07:11:38 AM »
Because there are sattelites there. You can even see them.
I wonder how obnoxious I can make my signature?
Please give me ideas.