Triangulation!

We all know that triangulation works. Agreed? (Doesn't matter where the signals origin are). We all use it in the GPS system (doesn't matter if it is satellites or towers), but if we were to try and triangulate a satellite it should show the objects relative position, agreed? If you took 4 points of reference and calculated the distance to a supposed satellite, is there no way for any kind of government technology to cheat this simple system. That would (in my opinion) prove that there are satellites and there movement around the earth.

No explaination on that one?

How does triangulating the height of a satellite prove that it is orbiting around a globular earth?

How would you make it orbit around a flat earth?

Lets suppose you were to triangulate the position of a near polar orbit satellite travelling down away from the north pole towards the outer edge of the earth. (Tracking of the positions of satellites happens all the time).
Would the satellite have to travel incredibly quickly back to the opposite end of the disc in order for the tracking station to see it as having passed 'across' the south pole? Or do these near polar orbit satellites not exist?

One possible explanation is a shortcut from one edge of the disc to the opposite end which these satellites could perhaps take to allow a NP orbit.

How would you make it orbit around a flat earth?

If you plot the paths of most satellites you'll find that they're just traversing the earth either eastwards or westwards, which is a circle around the North Pole. There are various methods for the satellite to stay aloft above the earth. I'll list a few hypotheticals here.

1.) In order to move in this circular path the satellite only needs to take advantage of the common barycenter of attraction which the Sun, Moon, and Stars move around. Provided that the government contractors who put up these satellites got their math right they could cause a satellites be captured geometrically by the multiple system above the North Pole.

2.) An alternative forms of satellite buoyancy includes lagrange points between the earth and stars, where the satellite is held aloft where the influences of gravitation and acceleration cancel out.

3.) One last possibility is what I like to call the "skipping stone mechanism" where satellites skip across the surface of the atmosphere like skipping stones over water:

In order for this to work - as the satellite hits the atmosphere it must be tilted up somewhat or at least the front edge must be beveled.  Otherwise, it can dig its way into the atmosphere, ending its skipping career. Then when the satellite strikes the upper air, it pushes the air down.  By Newton's Third Law (For every force there is an equal and opposite reaction force) the air exerts an upward and slightly backward force on the satellite. The upward force pushes the satellite back up into space and the backward force slows the satellite, hopefully slightly.

And if the satellite is given a strong spin it can, like a gyroscope, better keep and maintain its orientation.

I love that explanation and is the one I'm using from now on

Take a look at this. It's in danish I know but it's all about the animation.

http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/index/danmark/satellit/msg_fuldklode_animation.htm

This is taken directly from the METEOSAT-8 satellite. It's DMI's own satellite. It's a totally independent weatherstation. How and why would they fake this? I can also hand you these pics, which are taken by the same sattelite:

http://www.dmi.dk/dmi/index/nyheder/nyheder-2006/foerste_billeder_fra_ny_vejrsatellit/de_12_msg_1_kanaler.htm

Plz explain?

Another thing you would have to explain:

Now that you claim we have been in space then why haven't we taken any pics at all? That dosen't make any sense at all. We have agreed that there are satellite in space, right? Then please explain why these satellites haven't been taking any pics? Don't say that all satellites are controlled by NASA. That can easily be proven wrong.

Now that you claim we have been in space then why haven't we taken any pics at all?

I personally believe that we've been to space, just not anywhere past escape velocity.

At about 100 miles above the surface of the earth one is looking down at a curved horizon. Flat Earth Theory holds that there is elliptical curvature from the edge of space, one hundred miles in altitude. Any photograph showing a curved elliptical horizon from very high altitudes poses no affront to FE.

Example: http://www.natrium42.com/halo/flight2/

Curvature results from the fact that on a flat earth we are looking down at the circular spotlight of the sun. A circle is always curved in two dimensions.

The distant continents of the earth are still tens of thousands of miles away horizontally from the observer at an altitude of 100 miles (edge of space), and thus beyond the resolution of the human eye and merged with the line of the horizon, indiscernible and faded with the thickness of the atmosphere. This is why the view is limited to the immediate vicinity below the observer, and why the land fades into a blueish fog as it recedes.

We can confirm that we are looking down at the sun's circle of light upon the earth by noting that shots from amateur high altitude balloons show an elliptical horizon. If the earth were a globe, curving downwards in three dimensions, all curvature seen in photographs would appear as an arc of a circle. However, curvature does not appear as an arc of a circle. The earth is elliptical in most high altitude photographs. A striking indication of a Flat Earth.

Putting aside the fact that the sun being a 'spotlight' is the FE believers weakest argument/idea, and should be thought out again, the photos taken from a great height show too much terrain relief at the edges. From a great height the relief of the land can be seen around the edges of the visible earth more than should be seen on a FE.
For example if you were to take a bumpy basketball and lay it out flat the texture couldn't be seen as strongly as can be seen around the edges of a round bouncy ball.
As you get to a height, yes you can see the edges of mountainous regions, however if you were to also bend those regions away from you (i.e. using curvature of the earth if it existed) you would see even more of the sides of them.

However considering this topic started based around the satellites and orbits i'd still like to know how near polar orbit satellites work.

Also, don't think to much more about that skipping stone theory Tom, Firstly looking at a satellite would suggest that they couldn't bounce, they are too fragile, think about fatigue within their design lifetimes for a start. Secondly, and perhaps most importantly, stones can skim on water due to surface tension, air exhibits no such tension at the edge of the atmosphere or between atmospheric layers so this couldn't work.

Don't say that all satellites are controlled by NASA. That can easily be proven wrong.

Actually NASA is involved with most Danish space ventures. NASA works in partnership with every country's space program. They admit so on their website.

Putting aside the fact that the sun being a 'spotlight' is the FE believers weakest argument/idea

I have my model for the spotlight sun here:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=154.0

the photos taken from a great height show too much terrain relief at the edges.

In my circular spotlight model, the edges to the spotlight would be pretty abrupt. The spotlight wouldn't fade out at the edges as you're thinking. This is what might be mistaken for your "terrain relief" around the edges.

oh yes, this NASA thing. bearing in mind that regardless of where space is in relation to the earth, be it above it or around it NASA would still have to obtain funding etc and would still want to explore it etc any of these arguments that NASA are behind some conspiracy shouldn't be used until they are at least founded or motivation for it has been put forward.

And I still want to know how near polar orbit satellites work.

oh yes, this NASA thing. bearing in mind that regardless of where space is in relation to the earth, be it above it or around it NASA would still have to obtain funding etc and would still want to explore it etc any of these arguments that NASA are behind some conspiracy shouldn't be used until they are at least founded or motivation for it has been put forward.

Read the FAQ.

And I still want to know how near polar orbit satellites work.

They either slingshot back and forth across the diameter of our local area or they don't exist. I haven't really put much research into that subject.

Read the FAQ.

I have read it, but you admit in it that you don't know any motives or reason for NASA being part of this conspiracy. For this reason you shouldn't use it as the basis to any of your arguments as it appears to be something you have completely fabricated to help back up your arguments. You don't see nearly as many examples on this forum of REers fabricating stuff to use as evidence. Apart from the things, i.e. photos from space, which you claim to be fabricated by NASA for reasons you can't even state.

Quote

And I still want to know how near polar orbit satellites work.

They either slingshot back and forth across the diameter of our local area or they don't exist. I haven't really put much research into that subject.

They definitely do exist, without them a huge amount of information about the earth we do know and use everyday to predict weather etc wouldn't exist.
And think about how much power it would take to accelerate then decelerate the satellite everytime it reached the edges in order to slingshot it back again.

I have read it, but you admit in it that you don't know any motives or reason for NASA being part of this conspiracy. For this reason you shouldn't use it as the basis to any of your arguments as it appears to be something you have completely fabricated to help back up your arguments. You don't see nearly as many examples on this forum of REers fabricating stuff to use as evidence. Apart from the things, i.e. photos from space, which you claim to be fabricated by NASA for reasons you can't even state.

NASA has received trillions of dollars over the last 50 years of its existence. If they were not actually sending men to the moon, robots to mars, and probes into the solar system, what were they doing with the money?

Also, the government needs the earth to be a globe because without the earth's orbit ICBM's could not exist. And as we know from the Space Race, the invention of ICBMs are critical to what has made America and her allies superpowers. For without the threat of near-instant Total Annihilation at the push of a button, America could not intimidate foreign nations to do what America wants them to do.

During the fifties everyone was in a frenzy to get into orbit. When a superpower started started faking the data and pretending that it could get bodies into orbit around a globe, it follows that the observations and earth model had to be maintained throughout the years even if they did eventually manage to get into space.

Quote

I have read it, but you admit in it that you don't know any motives or reason for NASA being part of this conspiracy. For this reason you shouldn't use it as the basis to any of your arguments as it appears to be something you have completely fabricated to help back up your arguments. You don't see nearly as many examples on this forum of REers fabricating stuff to use as evidence. Apart from the things, i.e. photos from space, which you claim to be fabricated by NASA for reasons you can't even state.

NASA has received trillions of dollars over the last 50 years of its existence. If they were not actually sending men to the moon, robots to mars, and probes into the solar system, what were they doing with the money?

Tom, if I've told you once, I've told you a trillion times, don't exaggerate.  Please show that NASA has received more that one trillion dollars in it entire history.  Several hundred billion?  Sure.  Trillions?  No.

Also, the government needs the earth to be a globe because without the earth's orbit ICBM's could not exist. And as we know from the Space Race, the invention of ICBMs are critical to what has made America and her allies superpowers. For without the threat of near-instant Total Annihilation at the push of a button, America could not intimidate foreign nations to do what America wants them to do.

Tom, ICBMs are SUB-ORBITAL.  Ballistic trajectory =/= orbit.

Quote

I have read it, but you admit in it that you don't know any motives or reason for NASA being part of this conspiracy. For this reason you shouldn't use it as the basis to any of your arguments as it appears to be something you have completely fabricated to help back up your arguments. You don't see nearly as many examples on this forum of REers fabricating stuff to use as evidence. Apart from the things, i.e. photos from space, which you claim to be fabricated by NASA for reasons you can't even state.

NASA has received trillions of dollars over the last 50 years of its existence. If they were not actually sending men to the moon, robots to mars, and probes into the solar system, what were they doing with the money?

And what do you estimate the conspiracy would have cost by now? Hm.. This should be a new thread.

Also, the government needs the earth to be a globe because without the earth's orbit ICBM's could not exist. And as we know from the Space Race, the invention of ICBMs are critical to what has made America and her allies superpowers. For without the threat of near-instant Total Annihilation at the push of a button, America could not intimidate foreign nations to do what America wants them to do.

Wouldnt that be possible with FE?

During the fifties everyone was in a frenzy to get into orbit. When a superpower started started faking the data and pretending that it could get bodies into orbit around a globe, it follows that the observations and earth model had to be maintained throughout the years even if they did eventually manage to get into space.

Your paranoia is endless..