Proof of Satellites

  • 66 Replies
  • 8559 Views
?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Proof of Satellites
« Reply #60 on: May 15, 2008, 03:58:51 PM »
Well...the "satellites" aren't moving through air, there are channels of vacum in the upper atmosphere & "satellites" zip through those at whatever speed they want!  Or they are going slowly & they look like they are going fast because of atmospheric refraction!  Or all reports of the ISS are faked by the conspiracy!

Another victory for FE!
Care to tell us how you came up with channels of vacuum? Care to tell us how refraction makes the satellites seem to move faster, not slower? Of course, a simple diagram is enough to show us all how you understand refraction. Just remember, atmospheric pressure is lower at high altitudes.

And, please read the OP. The whole idea is for you to find your own moment where you can look at the ISS, or any other satellite, with your own eyes and maybe some help from a telescope. That is not a report faked by the conspiracy. If you do not have any interest in doing your own observation, there is no point in loosing your time in this thread.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15202
  • Quantum Ab Hoc
Re: Proof of Satellites
« Reply #61 on: May 15, 2008, 04:00:09 PM »
If I wanted to argue that satellites were held up by aether, in the Cambridge Model, then I would say that earth accelerating through the space medium causes predictable "eddies" in the aether in which satellites could be launched into and carried.
[John Davis is a DANGEROUS TERRORIST who MAKES US LOOK BAD

*

Colonel Gaydafi

  • Spam Moderator
  • Planar Moderator
  • 64334
  • Queen of the gays!
Re: Proof of Satellites
« Reply #62 on: May 15, 2008, 04:56:21 PM »
Has MessiahOfFire taken a leaf out of Eric's book in his writing style?

The truth is that my water source has been tapped with LSD. And it may come across in my writings.

Damn
Quote from: WardoggKC130FE
If Gayer doesn't remember you, you might as well do yourself a favor and become an hero.
Quote from: Raa
there is a difference between touching a muff and putting your hand into it isn't there?

?

drizzlefrizzle

  • 167
  • Rubiks Cube Personal Best Time: 1 Min 38 Sec
Re: Proof of Satellites
« Reply #63 on: May 15, 2008, 05:07:06 PM »
ive seen the iss twice...its real, and has always gone from one side of my sky to the other. not in random directions as it would if it were in an eddie...same with all the satalites ive watched fly over top
"my mind goes in  and  out  of focus"
The spaces between in and and and and and out are, unfortunately, incorrect.

?

fshy94

  • 1560
  • ^^^ This is the Earth ...die alien invaders!!
Re: Proof of Satellites
« Reply #64 on: May 15, 2008, 05:55:41 PM »
Allow me to propose a simple solution which answers all our doubts. We find two people at two different locations, and ask them to keep time with the atomic clock(the online one). At precisely the right second, they attempt to measure the approximate angle of a satellite which is visible to both of them(we can check an online thing to find out when). Then, using the data, we calculate the approximate distance from a plane. Then, using the distance, we can calculate at what speed they are travelling, and I think we can agree that if they are travelling faster than the speed of sound, it is impossible for it to be a stratellite, and must be a satellite.
Proof the Earth is round!
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=19341.0

Quote from: Althalus
The conspiracy has made it impossible to adequately explain FE theory in English.
^^LOL!

?

trig

  • 2240
Re: Proof of Satellites
« Reply #65 on: May 16, 2008, 07:42:42 AM »
If I wanted to argue that satellites were held up by aether, in the Cambridge Model, then I would say that earth accelerating through the space medium causes predictable "eddies" in the aether in which satellites could be launched into and carried.
Care to explain to us how the massless aether for which you cannot give us a set of properties can push a satellite in a path that, assuming a spherical earth, is almost perfectly elliptical? Of course, if you are prepared to tell us the mass of the aether, we would be thrilled.

For those who have not followed the "aether" thread, aether is a hypothetical substance or non-substance for which there are no known properties, no test to detect its existence or density and no place in any theory (that is, a model with a set of predicted results, experimental evidence, observational evidence and the sort). And no reason to believe that it may form eddies except for the guess that if you know nothing then nothing can be ruled out. But lets not bring the already stale aether thread here.


Re: Proof of Satellites
« Reply #66 on: May 16, 2008, 12:41:50 PM »
The aether thread is pretty interesting stuff.  It points directly to the weakness in assuming modern science has everything all neatly wrappred up and packaged.

Care to explain to us how the massless aether for which you cannot give us a set of properties can push a satellite in a path that, assuming a spherical earth, is almost perfectly elliptical? Of course, if you are prepared to tell us the mass of the aether, we would be thrilled.

Well, we still don't know exactly how the sun moves in its orbit.  I don't think aether is the right answer for satellites (and still haven't seen proof of their movement relative to an observer), but something is directing the traffic up there.