Satellites revisted

  • 11 Replies
  • 4180 Views
Satellites revisted
« on: June 14, 2006, 05:00:08 PM »
This question is based more on radio theory. But radio theory as applied to satellites. Let me introduce you to a phenomenon that is common in radio. It's called doppler shift. If a radio signal is transmitted from a stationary location ie.. a radio tower. It will broadcast a static frequency. In other words the frequency doesn't change. If it is being transmitted from a source that is moving directly into you it will change slightly, this is how radar from your local police car works. If it is being transmitted from a moving object that is moving in an arch around you the frequency changes quite a bit. The lower the frequency the less it changes. The higher the frequency the more noticeable the change is.

So when I am transmitting to a satellite the frequency is different when it appears over the horizon than when it is directly overhead. The change is slow and gradual. Now, someone else, using the same satellite, hundreds or thousands of miles away will use a different frequency than I am using. Thereby proving that the satellite is not only there, but is moving.

There are satellites!
7.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot

Satellites revisted
« Reply #1 on: June 14, 2006, 09:34:56 PM »
17 views and no answers.
7.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot

Re: Satellites revisted
« Reply #2 on: June 14, 2006, 10:16:35 PM »
Quote from: "lomfs24"
So when I am transmitting to a satellite the frequency is different when it appears over the horizon than when it is directly overhead. The change is slow and gradual. Now, someone else, using the same satellite, hundreds or thousands of miles away will use a different frequency than I am using. Thereby proving that the satellite is not only there, but is moving.

Sounds fair; if satellites existed, and they were moving, I'm willing to accept this phenomenon would occur.

Since satellites aren't real, though, I'm quite sure it doesn't.

If you can come up with an experiment to prove this phenomenon, then you'd have actually provided some evidence for the existence of satellites. Until then, all you've done is presented an "If : Then" scenario; If satellites existed, then the doppler effect would be noticeable in their transmissions.

Re: Satellites revisted
« Reply #3 on: June 15, 2006, 12:03:41 AM »
Quote from: "Unimportant"
Quote from: "lomfs24"
So when I am transmitting to a satellite the frequency is different when it appears over the horizon than when it is directly overhead. The change is slow and gradual. Now, someone else, using the same satellite, hundreds or thousands of miles away will use a different frequency than I am using. Thereby proving that the satellite is not only there, but is moving.

Sounds fair; if satellites existed, and they were moving, I'm willing to accept this phenomenon would occur.

Since satellites aren't real, though, I'm quite sure it doesn't.

If you can come up with an experiment to prove this phenomenon, then you'd have actually provided some evidence for the existence of satellites. Until then, all you've done is presented an "If : Then" scenario; If satellites existed, then the doppler effect would be noticeable in their transmissions.


errm. And example of the doppler effect would be the sound of a train as it rushes toward you while you are at a station. As it comes closer, it's horn is at a higher pitch. Then it passes and as it rushes away, it is at a lower and lower pitch. Why? Because the train is moving to you, the soundwaves reach your ear faster. As it moves away, the soundwaves reach your ear at a lower rate, making the pitch sound lower. If you were on the train however, the sound would not be modified in pitch as all as you are moving at the same speed as the horn on the train. here is a crappy diagram, the X being the stationary listener.:

Moving towards you:
______X(*(*(*(*(*(*(<<TRAIN<<
Frequency is higher as waves are closer together to your ear, higher pitch.

Moving away from you:
<<TRAIN<<)***)***)***)***)***)***)X_____
Frequency is lower as the waves are farther apart then each other to your ear, lower pitch.


Stationary or moving the same speed as the train:
______(**(**(**(**(**(<<TRAIN>>)**)**)**)**)**)
Sound is not distorted as you are stationary relative to the horn on the train.

Lightwaves and other Electromagnetic waves work the same way. If the source of a radio wave is moving towards you, it will be at a higher frequency then if it was stationary. And at a lower frequency is it moves away from you.

This is what causes the Redshift and Blueshift in light. If the source of the light is moving away, it will be shifted to the red or lower frequency of the spectrum as the waves will be at a lower frequency when they hit your eye. If the source is moving closer then it will be shifted blue, to the higher frequency end of the spectrum. Using a ratio of the amount of velocity required to shift light one way or the other we can figure out how fast objects are travelling away from or closer to us(This is how we figured out the universe was expanding). The same concept can be applied to radio waves. Infact that is how cop radar guns work. they bounce radio waves off your car, and utilizing the doppler effect of the reflected radio waves bouncing off your car, they can figure out exactly how fast you were going.

The same can be applied to sattilites that emit any kind of electromagnetic signals, be it radio, infrared, microwave, etc etc. We can figure out if they are moving from the change in frequency of the signal as it moves.

Satellites revisted
« Reply #4 on: June 15, 2006, 05:14:14 AM »
Unimportant, this is not an "if/then" scenario. This is not even something that I have to set up an experiment for. This is something that I use nearly daily with ham radio. If you were interested you could gain your ham radio license with little difficulty. If you are not interested in ham radio contact a ham radio operator in your area that operates on satellites and have him demostrate it to you.

This is not an if/then scenario.
7.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot

Satellites revisted
« Reply #5 on: June 15, 2006, 08:34:39 AM »
then obviously all ham radio operators are in on the conspiracy ;-)

Satellites revisted
« Reply #6 on: June 15, 2006, 08:51:28 AM »
Oh, bloody 'ell. You caught me.  :roll:
7.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot

Re: Satellites revisted
« Reply #7 on: June 15, 2006, 10:30:06 AM »
Quote from: "lomfs24"
This question is based more on radio theory. But radio theory as applied to satellites. Let me introduce you to a phenomenon that is common in radio. It's called doppler shift. If a radio signal is transmitted from a stationary location ie.. a radio tower. It will broadcast a static frequency. In other words the frequency doesn't change. If it is being transmitted from a source that is moving directly into you it will change slightly, this is how radar from your local police car works. If it is being transmitted from a moving object that is moving in an arch around you the frequency changes quite a bit. The lower the frequency the less it changes. The higher the frequency the more noticeable the change is.

So when I am transmitting to a satellite the frequency is different when it appears over the horizon than when it is directly overhead. The change is slow and gradual. Now, someone else, using the same satellite, hundreds or thousands of miles away will use a different frequency than I am using. Thereby proving that the satellite is not only there, but is moving.

There are satellites!


Try again.  By using satellites to prove satellites, you null your entire proposition.
ttp://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/search.php

"Against criticism a man can neither protest nor defend himself; he must act in spite of it, and then it will gradually yield to him." -Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Satellites revisted
« Reply #8 on: June 15, 2006, 12:52:32 PM »
No, please follow along. I am not using satellites to prove satellites. I am using radio theory to prove satellites. Try that on for size and see how it works for you.
7.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot

Satellites revisted
« Reply #9 on: June 15, 2006, 01:23:57 PM »
Quote from: "DrQuak"
then obviously all ham radio operators are in on the conspiracy ;-)

No, I would say that the ham radio operators are being fooled by some element of the government conspiracy into thinking the doppler shift that influences their transmissions is the result of a moving satellite, when in fact it is something else.
Obviously.

Satellites revisted
« Reply #10 on: June 15, 2006, 05:24:55 PM »
Quote from: "Unimportant"
Quote from: "DrQuak"
then obviously all ham radio operators are in on the conspiracy ;-)

No, I would say that the ham radio operators are being fooled by some element of the government conspiracy into thinking the doppler shift that influences their transmissions is the result of a moving satellite, when in fact it is something else.
Obviously.


It is obviously something else that you have no clue about. That's a good argument. I might use it later myself.
7.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot

Re: Satellites revisted
« Reply #11 on: June 16, 2006, 12:19:15 AM »
Quote from: "Mephistopheles"
Quote from: "lomfs24"
This question is based more on radio theory. But radio theory as applied to satellites. Let me introduce you to a phenomenon that is common in radio. It's called doppler shift. If a radio signal is transmitted from a stationary location ie.. a radio tower. It will broadcast a static frequency. In other words the frequency doesn't change. If it is being transmitted from a source that is moving directly into you it will change slightly, this is how radar from your local police car works. If it is being transmitted from a moving object that is moving in an arch around you the frequency changes quite a bit. The lower the frequency the less it changes. The higher the frequency the more noticeable the change is.

So when I am transmitting to a satellite the frequency is different when it appears over the horizon than when it is directly overhead. The change is slow and gradual. Now, someone else, using the same satellite, hundreds or thousands of miles away will use a different frequency than I am using. Thereby proving that the satellite is not only there, but is moving.

There are satellites!


Try again.  By using satellites to prove satellites, you null your entire proposition.


There ARE geostationary Sattellites that do not change latitude and longitude and orbit at a fixed spot over the earth. one could concieviblally use them to measure the velocities of other sattellites relative to earth, if set up to receive them.