Satellites and the ISS

Well, let's wait. I don't have the means, before you say it.

Actually on second thought, no, your idea will not work. The distance to celestial bodies are triangulated differently depending on whether a Flat Earth or a Round Earth is assumed. For example, simple triangulation can be used to calculate the sun to be 3,000 miles above the earth or 93 million miles above the earth depending on the earth model we assume.

Tom, you are losing your touch.  You are supposed to wait for us to finish the observations and post the results.  Then you are supposed to jump in and tell us that we assumed a spherical Earth for the calculations.

On the distance to the sun on an FE, for example: On March 21-22 the sun is directly overhead at the equator and appears 45 degrees above the horizon at 45 degrees north and south latitude. As the angle of sun above the earth at the equator is 90 degrees while it is 45 degrees at 45 degrees north or south latitude, it follows that the angle at the sun between the vertical from the horizon and the line from the observers at 45 degrees north and south must also be 45 degrees. The result is two right angled triangles with legs of equal length. The distance between the equator and the points at 45 degrees north or south is approximately 3,000 miles. Ergo, the sun must be an equal distance above the equator.

What if you aren't at 45° latitude on that day does the math still work?

I will save the time since that is the way that this thread is working.  You are right Tom, it does save time waiting for a response that we all know the answer to... it doesn't.

Here is data from our local noon position observation on 21 June...

Vessel Latitude - 28° 01.3' N
Sun Declination (Latitude) - 23° 26.3' N
Observed Altitude of the Sun - 83° 56.9'

Because of the fact that at Meridian Passage (Local Apparent Noon) the body being observed is directly south of your position, it is one of the best time to make an observation.  You can use one sight to determine your position.  It also happens to be the time that Mr. Rowbatham's observations were made...

The base line in any operation being horizontal and always a carefully measured one, the process becomes exceedingly simple.  Let the altitude of the Sun be taken on a given day at 12 o'clock...

Now my distance from the Sun's declination (the point where the Sun would be directly overhead) is is 363 nautical miles (417 statute miles).

Using planar trigonometry the equation would be...

Tangent of the observed = (altitude of the Sun)/(Distance from the Sun's declination)

or

Tan 83° 56.9' = (Altitude of the Sun)/363

or

Altitude of the Sun = Tan 83° 56.9' * 363

or

Altitude of the Sun = 3424 nm (3938 statute miles)

This is off by over 20% from the results that are used for 45° of difference in latitude and a observed height of 45° (21.1% to be exact).  That is a significant difference in the altitude of the sun.

Quote

Since such an event would be relevant to this discussion, I believe it could be organized right here in this thread. People just need to state their location and possible ISS sighting times, so we can find "sighting buddies".

Actually on second thought, no, your idea will not work. The distance to celestial bodies are triangulated differently depending on whether a Flat Earth or a Round Earth is assumed. For example, simple triangulation can be used to calculate the sun to be 3,000 miles above the earth or 93 million miles above the earth depending on the earth model we assume.

On the distance to the sun on an FE, for example: On March 21-22 the sun is directly overhead at the equator and appears 45 degrees above the horizon at 45 degrees north and south latitude. As the angle of sun above the earth at the equator is 90 degrees while it is 45 degrees at 45 degrees north or south latitude, it follows that the angle at the sun between the vertical from the horizon and the line from the observers at 45 degrees north and south must also be 45 degrees. The result is two right angled triangles with legs of equal length. The distance between the equator and the points at 45 degrees north or south is approximately 3,000 miles. Ergo, the sun must be an equal distance above the equator.

The same data an be used under the assumption of an RE, with a little extra trig to account for the curvature between the points, to calculate the sun to be 93 million miles away.

What if we look at people at 90°N or 90°S? Well, the sun is at an angle of 0° for them, and 90°at the equator. Therefore, assuming a FE, the sun must be touching the ground! No-wonder Africa is so hot, eh?

Quote

If the two people looking at the ISS were not too far away from each other, say 400-500km, the curvature of the Earth would not be so bad to completely throw the calculations off.

...

Hence after 311 miles the earth drops about 12.2 miles.

Now, I'm aware that there's involved math to more accurately calculate this sort of thing over long distances. If anyone can provide a more accurate method let me know.

Well, surprisingly, your maths is correct, and this is the mst sensible way to calculate this "drop".

However, I'm not sure how this would affect triangulation, especially if the two trig points were relatively close together (say, a few tens of km's).

Yeah. It's easy to take a picture of them through a telescope. Here's one I took in my backyard. Or NASA took somewhere. I don't remember which.


*photo compliments of FESSA

Oh yeah, because making the claim that amateurs who see and/or photograph the space station are all liars in cahoots with NASA is SUCH a strong argument.  Come to a florida star party or public viewing and I'll show you just how wrong this claim is in person.

All kinds of things. This was before the days of the internet. You had to get star charts or books/pamphlets about satellite flyovers, comets, planets, etc.  There is plenty of room for operator error. Not even accounting for weather. The last thing an observer thinks when he misses a pass is "It's not there." They attribute it to any of the other causes that might cause them to miss the event.

How many of those who suffer from "operator error" calculated the pass on their computer and bothered to sync their watches to atomic time?  And weather?  And for the love of god, since when does cloud cover count as proof that "it's not there"?  You wouldn't expect to see it even if it WAS there!  Ski, the champion of intellectual dishonesty.

Quote

Since such an event would be relevant to this discussion, I believe it could be organized right here in this thread. People just need to state their location and possible ISS sighting times, so we can find "sighting buddies".

Actually on second thought, no, your idea will not work. The distance to celestial bodies are triangulated differently depending on whether a Flat Earth or a Round Earth is assumed. For example, simple triangulation can be used to calculate the sun to be 3,000 miles above the earth or 93 million miles above the earth depending on the earth model we assume.

That's because the baseline necessary for such a calculation of the sun's position is HUGE, therefore the differences of flat/curved earth will greatly affect the result.  The baseline needed for the ISS is relatively small, even a few miles will do, so the difference between an assumed flat and an assumed curved earth will be small as well. Sorry Tom, this excuse will not work in this case because ISS is relatively close to the observer (relative to the sun, moon, etc).  In fact, if you're trying to observe the ISS passing in front of the sun (if you attempt to do this without proper protection, don't blame me for going blind), your corridor for being able to see it happen is only a mile or two wide.  That's how quickly and how drastically parallax will change the apparent position of the ISS.  With the use of two telescopes you could use observers who are only separated by a few miles to see the effect of parallax and calculate the distance.

I've already contacted an acquantance of mine who lives in southern Germany (near Stuttgart, Baden-Württemberg). With a bit of luck, I'll be able to get the it verified this Sunday.

If anyone else is interested in doing this I live in florida and will be attempting to view the station tomorrow morning about about 5am, weather permitting.

Satellites and the ISS don't exist. When you see them, they are just figments of your imagination.

Satellites and the ISS don't exist. When you see them, they are just figments of your imagination.

Planned mass hysteria. Good one.

Quote from: the_flutist on June 30, 2008, 11:41:57 AM

Satellites and the ISS don't exist. When you see them, they are just figments of your imagination.

Planned mass hysteria. Good one.

 Seriously, there isn't any good proof that either exist.

Quote from: MadDogX on June 30, 2008, 11:46:22 AM

Quote from: the_flutist on June 30, 2008, 11:41:57 AM

Satellites and the ISS don't exist. When you see them, they are just figments of your imagination.

Planned mass hysteria. Good one.

 Seriously, there isn't any good proof that either exist.

Even if you do not have a telescope just look up when the ISS is passing overhead and you will hopefully see a star moving across the sky, so go ahead and tell us what that was

Quote from: the_flutist on June 30, 2008, 11:52:37 AM

Quote from: MadDogX on June 30, 2008, 11:46:22 AM

Quote from: the_flutist on June 30, 2008, 11:41:57 AM

Satellites and the ISS don't exist. When you see them, they are just figments of your imagination.

Planned mass hysteria. Good one.

 Seriously, there isn't any good proof that either exist.

Even if you do not have a telescope just look up when the ISS is passing overhead and you will hopefully see a star moving across the sky, so go ahead and tell us what that was

 How do you know it's the ISS? How do you know that it's not a shooting star or a meteor?

Quote from: cbarnett97 on June 30, 2008, 12:03:07 PM

Quote from: the_flutist on June 30, 2008, 11:52:37 AM

Quote from: MadDogX on June 30, 2008, 11:46:22 AM

Quote from: the_flutist on June 30, 2008, 11:41:57 AM

Satellites and the ISS don't exist. When you see them, they are just figments of your imagination.

Planned mass hysteria. Good one.

 Seriously, there isn't any good proof that either exist.

Even if you do not have a telescope just look up when the ISS is passing overhead and you will hopefully see a star moving across the sky, so go ahead and tell us what that was

 How do you know it's the ISS? How do you know that it's not a shooting star or a meteor?

Telescope. Functional brain. Both required.

How do you know it's the ISS? How do you know that it's not a shooting star or a meteor?

A meteor looks nothing like the ISS from Earth. Meteors are very fast and very brief. The ISS is slower (Although still very fast, much faster than all but the lowest planes I've seen going overhead) and tends to be visible for much longer.

How many of those who suffer from "operator error" calculated the pass on their computer and bothered to sync their watches to atomic time?  And weather?  And for the love of god, since when does cloud cover count as proof that "it's not there"?  You wouldn't expect to see it even if it WAS there!  Ski, the champion of intellectual dishonesty.

So you've honestly never missed the object that you went out to view that night (ISS or satellite)?

Quote from: cbarnett97 on June 30, 2008, 12:03:07 PM

Quote from: the_flutist on June 30, 2008, 11:52:37 AM

Quote from: MadDogX on June 30, 2008, 11:46:22 AM

Quote from: the_flutist on June 30, 2008, 11:41:57 AM

Satellites and the ISS don't exist. When you see them, they are just figments of your imagination.

Planned mass hysteria. Good one.

 Seriously, there isn't any good proof that either exist.

Even if you do not have a telescope just look up when the ISS is passing overhead and you will hopefully see a star moving across the sky, so go ahead and tell us what that was

 How do you know it's the ISS? How do you know that it's not a shooting star or a meteor?

Shooting stars steark across the sky for a very short time while the ISS will be a point in the sky that moves across it pretty quickly

Quote from: messierhunter on June 30, 2008, 10:56:12 AM

How many of those who suffer from "operator error" calculated the pass on their computer and bothered to sync their watches to atomic time?  And weather?  And for the love of god, since when does cloud cover count as proof that "it's not there"?  You wouldn't expect to see it even if it WAS there!  Ski, the champion of intellectual dishonesty.

So you've honestly never missed the object that you went out to view that night (ISS or satellite)?

Not counting weather, I've never missed the ISS or shuttle when I've gone out to view them.  In some cases I fail to get my telescope set up and focused in time for the pass, or my computer gives me the blue screen of death just before the pass, but even when that happens I still end up visually seeing the ISS pass overhead visually right on time, on the predicted path, every time.

Quote from: Ski on June 30, 2008, 01:40:45 PM

Quote from: messierhunter on June 30, 2008, 10:56:12 AM

How many of those who suffer from "operator error" calculated the pass on their computer and bothered to sync their watches to atomic time?  And weather?  And for the love of god, since when does cloud cover count as proof that "it's not there"?  You wouldn't expect to see it even if it WAS there!  Ski, the champion of intellectual dishonesty.

So you've honestly never missed the object that you went out to view that night (ISS or satellite)?

Not counting weather, I've never missed the ISS or shuttle when I've gone out to view them.  In some cases I fail to get my telescope set up and focused in time for the pass, or my computer gives me the blue screen of death just before the pass, but even when that happens I still end up visually seeing the ISS pass overhead visually right on time, on the predicted path, every time.

Which is obviously an illusion. Or a figment of your imagination. Or maybe NASA is projecting a holographic image of a space station and all other fake orbital objects into the sky - that's probably the most likely explanation. Don't forget that all the planets you can see are also not really orbiting around the sun, even though the (almost) universally accepted model of the solar system proves this. In fact the other planets of our solar system probably don't really exists. It is much more likely that NASA is projecting them into the sky in order to further convince us of the laughable round Earth hoax. 

</sarcasm>

I tend to think all the planets orbit the sun. I'm not sure of it, but am reasonably convinced. I'm rather less convinced that a space station is in continuous free fall around the earth.

I tend to think all the planets orbit the sun. I'm not sure of it, but am reasonably convinced. I'm rather less convinced that a space station is in continuous free fall around the earth.

Why? Are you going to offer arguments, or simply state your personal opinion like we give a damn?

I tend to think all the planets orbit the sun. I'm not sure of it, but am reasonably convinced. I'm rather less convinced that a space station is in continuous free fall around the earth.

The bigger planets that are further away from the sun, do they orbit around underneath us?  Because if they do not then they would transverse across the front of the sun like Mercury and Venus do. 

I tend to think all the planets orbit the sun. I'm not sure of it, but am reasonably convinced. I'm rather less convinced that a space station is in continuous free fall around the earth.

So things are allowed to orbit the Sun, but not orbit the Earth?

What do you think of Moons? Do they orbit their host planets, and can things orbit them?

I tend to think all the planets orbit the sun. I'm not sure of it, but am reasonably convinced. I'm rather less convinced that a space station is in continuous free fall around the earth.

Why? Are you going to offer arguments, or simply state your personal opinion like we give a damn?

The retrograde motion of the planets suggests that they are orbiting the sun.

So things are allowed to orbit the Sun, but not orbit the Earth?

The earth is a very different body for one; it's an infinite (or near-infinite) plane which bisects the universe.

The earth is a very different body for one; it's an infinite (or near-infinite) plane which bisects the universe.

Funny stuff. 

Well Tom at least you good for a laugh every now and then.

I'm not a believer of the infinite plane model, but I'm not sure what's so funny about it.   

I just get this picture in my head of this infinately large flat plane with only a small part of it illuminated and/or habitable flying through space faster than light itself.  It just makes me laugh thats all.

Since there is no gravity in FE theory, why the hell would the other planets orbit the sun?

Because of their gravitational field, silly.

Since there is no gravity in FE theory, why the hell would the other planets orbit the sun?

Because of their gravitational field, silly.

Since there is no gravity (and thus no gravitational fields) in FE theory, why the hell would the other planets orbit the sun, silly?