Another attempt at explaining satellites.

  • 288 Replies
  • 74309 Views
?

PeopleOnBehalfOfLogic

  • 130
  • +0/-0
  • RE'er (for now)
Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« on: November 28, 2008, 12:32:32 PM »
This topic has been brought up before, but never resolved. How do they move, what are they (balloons? projections?) how high are they, how come they move so fast for ages, etc.
Just noticed my name is actually pretty insulting. Apologies.

*

Perfect Circle

  • 734
  • +0/-0
  • You are a pirate!
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #1 on: November 28, 2008, 04:07:26 PM »
Kites.
Like the sun, the stars are also expanding and contracting their diameter as they spin around the hub every six months.

?

PeopleOnBehalfOfLogic

  • 130
  • +0/-0
  • RE'er (for now)
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #2 on: November 30, 2008, 02:52:03 PM »
Bump.
Just noticed my name is actually pretty insulting. Apologies.

?

pohsiB moT

Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #3 on: December 01, 2008, 11:54:08 AM »
Satellites aren't real.

?

Iskaros

  • 70
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth Cover up
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #4 on: December 01, 2008, 04:54:51 PM »
that just about covers it  ;D
"Always take an oblique approach" General Flavius Belisarius

I'm a teenager big whoop teenagers can be smart (every once in a million years)

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2734
  • +0/-0
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #5 on: December 02, 2008, 10:19:32 AM »
Holograms projected by secret NASA locations around the world.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #6 on: December 02, 2008, 10:35:50 AM »
Holograms projected by secret NASA locations around the world.

That somehow know to turn off when a cloud passes overhead.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2734
  • +0/-0
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #7 on: December 02, 2008, 10:39:01 AM »
Holograms projected by secret NASA locations around the world.

That somehow know to turn off when a cloud passes overhead.
Why do you think NASA/Military has planes like this:


*

its_amazing

  • 180
  • +0/-0
  • ?If the world were a pretzel, would it be salty?
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #8 on: December 02, 2008, 10:42:38 AM »
I asked this before but never got a reply: "would bendy-light have an inverse effect on a hologram projected into the sky?"
Having a little bit of gravity is like being a little bit pregnant.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2734
  • +0/-0
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #9 on: December 02, 2008, 10:45:19 AM »
Yes, but NASA knows how to calculate bendy light and the bending is negligible with their advanced projectors anyway.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #10 on: December 02, 2008, 10:48:35 AM »
Holograms projected by secret NASA locations around the world.

That somehow know to turn off when a cloud passes overhead.
Why do you think NASA/Military has planes like this:



That is not a projector.  Even if it was, the plane would be visible projecting the light.  Also, these satellites are tracked around the world by amateur hobbyists, that would require a lot of fuel, and a lot of people in on the conspiracy.  Also when the plane banks its going to really mess up that projection.  Even the slightest turn will send the satellite 300k feet above far off its course.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4540
  • +0/-0
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #11 on: December 02, 2008, 10:49:18 AM »
Yes, but NASA knows how to calculate bendy light and the bending is negligible with their advanced projectors anyway.

did I mention you are a troll and you have no evidence of this.  Stop making things up.

*

its_amazing

  • 180
  • +0/-0
  • ?If the world were a pretzel, would it be salty?
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #12 on: December 02, 2008, 10:54:19 AM »
So according to FE'rs....NASA (as well as other goverments around the world) have all this amazing technology to cover up FE, but none able to send anything into space.
Having a little bit of gravity is like being a little bit pregnant.

?

steveodom

  • 12
  • +0/-0
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #13 on: December 02, 2008, 11:45:01 AM »
Putting planes in the air to fake satellites?  Where is your evidence?  And what is the motivation for these pilots to keep quiet??
One of the overarching assumptions around the conspiracy side of things is that NASA and everyone else who has ever proposed evidence about the universe in which we live has something to gain from lying to the entire human race.  Have we clarified what, exactly, that is?  If you want to say funds for research, then my next question is: why wouldn't scientists, all of whom claim to search for knowledge and truth, simply fund research on discovering the flat earth universe?
A little off subject - but are all these people and everyone else who has ever explored Antarctica part of the conspiracy as well?  And their motivation is...?
http://www.south-pole.com/homepage.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amundsen%27s_South_Pole_expedition

*

Perfect Circle

  • 734
  • +0/-0
  • You are a pirate!
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #14 on: December 02, 2008, 02:37:11 PM »
Yes, but NASA knows how to calculate bendy light and the bending is negligible with their advanced projectors anyway.
Guess you forgot about the fact that holograms are not projected. They are especially not viewable from so many different angles while remaining consistent.
Like the sun, the stars are also expanding and contracting their diameter as they spin around the hub every six months.

?

NTheGreat

  • 1019
  • +0/-0
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #15 on: December 02, 2008, 04:44:36 PM »
Quote
Why do you think NASA/Military has planes like this:

[big ass pic]

AWACs can't detect clouds, as far as I'm aware.

*

The One True Rat

  • 615
  • +0/-0
  • Cannot Understand Sarcasm
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #16 on: December 02, 2008, 05:28:21 PM »
finding a foriegn-looking contraption on a government plane simply can be used to explain anything.

by your conspiracy argument, that plane cannot be seen, the people who built it do not tell about it, the people that fly and operate it do not know what they are doing, and that picture cannot exist because the conspiracy is so vast and controlling.

it is possible that this is used to project your impossible holograms:

the world may never know...

EDIT: oops! may have voided copyright laws...

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2734
  • +0/-0
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #17 on: December 02, 2008, 05:55:41 PM »
Holograms projected by secret NASA locations around the world.

That somehow know to turn off when a cloud passes overhead.
Why do you think NASA/Military has planes like this:



That is not a projector.  Even if it was, the plane would be visible projecting the light.  Also, these satellites are tracked around the world by amateur hobbyists, that would require a lot of fuel, and a lot of people in on the conspiracy.  Also when the plane banks its going to really mess up that projection.  Even the slightest turn will send the satellite 300k feet above far off its course.
The plane gives the hologram projectors advanced weather data.

*

Perfect Circle

  • 734
  • +0/-0
  • You are a pirate!
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #18 on: December 02, 2008, 06:20:11 PM »
Holograms projected by secret NASA locations around the world.

That somehow know to turn off when a cloud passes overhead.
Why do you think NASA/Military has planes like this:



That is not a projector.  Even if it was, the plane would be visible projecting the light.  Also, these satellites are tracked around the world by amateur hobbyists, that would require a lot of fuel, and a lot of people in on the conspiracy.  Also when the plane banks its going to really mess up that projection.  Even the slightest turn will send the satellite 300k feet above far off its course.
The plane gives the hologram projectors advanced weather data.
From the Wikipedia article:
Quote
While holography is commonly used to display static 3-D pictures, it is not yet possible to generate arbitrary scenes by a holographic volumetric display.
Hologram theory fails.
Like the sun, the stars are also expanding and contracting their diameter as they spin around the hub every six months.

*

The One True Rat

  • 615
  • +0/-0
  • Cannot Understand Sarcasm
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #19 on: December 02, 2008, 06:24:39 PM »
if i was an FEer, i would say that NASA has developed hologram technology already and has lead us to believe that it has not yet been developed.
oh, and NASA has created hoverboard anti-gravity technology that nobody knows about as well as cures for every major known disease.
too bad they cannot create something that can fly in space...

*

Perfect Circle

  • 734
  • +0/-0
  • You are a pirate!
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #20 on: December 02, 2008, 06:35:34 PM »
if i was an FEer, i would say that NASA has developed hologram technology already and has lead us to believe that it has not yet been developed.
oh, and NASA has created hoverboard anti-gravity technology that nobody knows about as well as cures for every major known disease.
too bad they cannot create something that can fly in space...
If you say that burning rocket being ejected out of a nozzle fuel can lift multiple tons, it is far-fetched 'never-before-seen' technology. Magic holograms? Must be real.
Like the sun, the stars are also expanding and contracting their diameter as they spin around the hub every six months.

*

The One True Rat

  • 615
  • +0/-0
  • Cannot Understand Sarcasm
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #21 on: December 02, 2008, 06:38:59 PM »
funny how the organization who claims space travel is deeply responible for every major technological advancement BUT space flight.

?

Edtharan

  • 687
  • +0/-0
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #22 on: December 02, 2008, 09:56:13 PM »
Holograms projected by secret NASA locations around the world.

That somehow know to turn off when a cloud passes overhead.
Why do you think NASA/Military has planes like this:



That is not a projector.  Even if it was, the plane would be visible projecting the light.  Also, these satellites are tracked around the world by amateur hobbyists, that would require a lot of fuel, and a lot of people in on the conspiracy.  Also when the plane banks its going to really mess up that projection.  Even the slightest turn will send the satellite 300k feet above far off its course.
The plane gives the hologram projectors advanced weather data.
A Hologram is created by the interference of light waves on a film (I know, I have made them). To re-project the hologram, you need to have the person viewing the hologram to be able to see the film. This means that any hologram projectors have to be in the sky already. But to keep something in the sky like that, you need to have it move exactly the same way as a real satellite would (or they people could not see the hologram.

Now it would be possible to make a hologram on a curved piece of film, so as to allow a large spread of viewing angles, you would still need to have the film viewed by the viewers of the hologram.

There are two main types of hologram. The first is a transmission hologram. This is where the light source for the hologram projection lies behind the film. That is the light passes through the film and the interference pattern on the film reconstructs the hologram.

The other type is a reflection hologram and with this type the light is not behind the film, but it is reflected off it. But the image for the hologram is still on the film and the viewer must still see the film to see the hologram.

Johannes Kepler, I know you have the pet belief in holograms as a solution, but knowing how holograms work (as I have made them myself, it is not hard. The hardest part is making sure that no movement occurs during the exposure - other than that it is almost identical to making a photo on a piece of film, rather than a digital photo). If you were to learn about holograms (and even attempt to make one yourself), you would quickly learn why such a "solution" to the problem of satellites will not work.

You seem to have got your knowledge of holograms from bad sci-fi movies. The reason that holograms work like they do in the movies is because movies are not real. Movies do not have to conform to the laws of physics.
Everyday household experimentation.

?

Iskaros

  • 70
  • +0/-0
  • Flat Earth Cover up
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #23 on: December 02, 2008, 10:18:14 PM »
 :o ??? did that sound like gibberish or is that just me?
"Always take an oblique approach" General Flavius Belisarius

I'm a teenager big whoop teenagers can be smart (every once in a million years)

?

Edtharan

  • 687
  • +0/-0
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #24 on: December 03, 2008, 02:35:57 AM »
:o ??? did that sound like gibberish or is that just me?
It is not gibberish. It is actual information based on actual science. Just because something sounds simple, does not mean it is correct. And, just because you understand something does not make it correct.

The biggest problem that I have seen on this site is due to not actually understanding the science behind the claims that are being made. People seem to feel free in invoking Quantum Mechanics, or Holograms, or any other catch phrase without actually understanding what they are invoking in an attempt to explain the shortcomings of FET (and they are short comings or they wouldn't need explaining).

Just because someone says that "light bends due to quantum mechanical effect" does not make it so. If they make that claim they ahve to support that claim, not by saying that FE needs bendy light so therefore light must bend (that is circular arguments and is a logical fallacy - ie false reasoning).

Just because someone claims that Satellites are explained by "Holograms", then they must show how Holograms can actually produce the effect that they say it can. The thing is, you can't "project" a hologram into the sky from a ground based station.

It is physically impossible.

You could project a hologram from a sky based projector, but then you would need the sky based projector to move exactly like the Satellite would. If you can place a projector so that it moves exactly like a satellite, wouldn't that projector then be a satellite? So why would you need to fake the satellite if you already can build satellites?

If you learn a bit about how Holograms work, it is actually quite obvious why "Johannes Kepler's" Hologram projector explanation of satellites fails.

You can actually buy real holograms from most toy shops. You can experiment with these and you can see that you can't view the hologram without actually looking at the surface (it is a film, just like photographic film and you can make holograms with actual photographic film, you don't need any special materials besides a laser - and you can get them easily enough anyway now days) that the hologram is stored on.

It is even possible to make holograms using some Laser Pointer lasers (some don't work due to the lack of frequency stabilisation of the circuits, but you can get them). A quick search on the net will revel many different techniques on how to make holograms (even with laser pointers). It will help if you know a bit about optics, lasers and photography but these aren't essential if you can follow instructions. And if you can get (or make) a sand table (a wide/long/flat box of sand on a table) it helps to keep everything vibration free.

I will stress again, when making holograms you need to keep it vibration free as any vibration can ruin the hologram, even the vibration caused by the sound of people talking can be enough.
Everyday household experimentation.

?

NTheGreat

  • 1019
  • +0/-0
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #25 on: December 03, 2008, 05:04:11 AM »
Quote
The plane gives the hologram projectors advanced weather data.

AWACs can't detect clouds, as far as I'm aware.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2734
  • +0/-0
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #26 on: December 03, 2008, 06:57:32 AM »
Holograms projected by secret NASA locations around the world.

That somehow know to turn off when a cloud passes overhead.
Why do you think NASA/Military has planes like this:



That is not a projector.  Even if it was, the plane would be visible projecting the light.  Also, these satellites are tracked around the world by amateur hobbyists, that would require a lot of fuel, and a lot of people in on the conspiracy.  Also when the plane banks its going to really mess up that projection.  Even the slightest turn will send the satellite 300k feet above far off its course.
The plane gives the hologram projectors advanced weather data.
A Hologram is created by the interference of light waves on a film (I know, I have made them). To re-project the hologram, you need to have the person viewing the hologram to be able to see the film. This means that any hologram projectors have to be in the sky already. But to keep something in the sky like that, you need to have it move exactly the same way as a real satellite would (or they people could not see the hologram.

Now it would be possible to make a hologram on a curved piece of film, so as to allow a large spread of viewing angles, you would still need to have the film viewed by the viewers of the hologram.

There are two main types of hologram. The first is a transmission hologram. This is where the light source for the hologram projection lies behind the film. That is the light passes through the film and the interference pattern on the film reconstructs the hologram.

The other type is a reflection hologram and with this type the light is not behind the film, but it is reflected off it. But the image for the hologram is still on the film and the viewer must still see the film to see the hologram.

Johannes Kepler, I know you have the pet belief in holograms as a solution, but knowing how holograms work (as I have made them myself, it is not hard. The hardest part is making sure that no movement occurs during the exposure - other than that it is almost identical to making a photo on a piece of film, rather than a digital photo). If you were to learn about holograms (and even attempt to make one yourself), you would quickly learn why such a "solution" to the problem of satellites will not work.

You seem to have got your knowledge of holograms from bad sci-fi movies. The reason that holograms work like they do in the movies is because movies are not real. Movies do not have to conform to the laws of physics.

How convincing..... not

?

Edtharan

  • 687
  • +0/-0
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #27 on: December 03, 2008, 07:18:46 AM »
How convincing..... not
Ok, Optics 101 here. Light must travel form the object to your eye so that you can see it. If the light source and film are in a position where the light does not go into your eye, can you or can you not see the light?  ::)

If the projector is on the ground, and you are looking up into the sky, there is no why that the light form that projector will reach your eye. Hence you can not see a hologram if the projector is on the ground and you are looking up into the sky.

You just prove that you have no idea what you are talking about and just gave RET a victory. If you don't know what you are talking about, then making stuff up only weakens the position you are trying to argue, especially if someone calls you out on it.
Everyday household experimentation.

?

PeopleOnBehalfOfLogic

  • 130
  • +0/-0
  • RE'er (for now)
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #28 on: December 03, 2008, 01:33:37 PM »
When it comes to holograms, Edtharen sure knows more than you Mr Kepler. Now I myself know next to nothing about holograms. But I still think that projecting such a high quality 3D image onto either A: nothing but air or B: an ultra-stable, weather immune, wind immune, fuel-less plane. In short, an even more never-before-seen technology.
Just noticed my name is actually pretty insulting. Apologies.

*

Perfect Circle

  • 734
  • +0/-0
  • You are a pirate!
Re: Another attempt at explaining satellites.
« Reply #29 on: December 03, 2008, 03:17:36 PM »
Holograms projected by secret NASA locations around the world.

That somehow know to turn off when a cloud passes overhead.
Why do you think NASA/Military has planes like this:



That is not a projector.  Even if it was, the plane would be visible projecting the light.  Also, these satellites are tracked around the world by amateur hobbyists, that would require a lot of fuel, and a lot of people in on the conspiracy.  Also when the plane banks its going to really mess up that projection.  Even the slightest turn will send the satellite 300k feet above far off its course.
The plane gives the hologram projectors advanced weather data.
A Hologram is created by the interference of light waves on a film (I know, I have made them). To re-project the hologram, you need to have the person viewing the hologram to be able to see the film. This means that any hologram projectors have to be in the sky already. But to keep something in the sky like that, you need to have it move exactly the same way as a real satellite would (or they people could not see the hologram.

Now it would be possible to make a hologram on a curved piece of film, so as to allow a large spread of viewing angles, you would still need to have the film viewed by the viewers of the hologram.

There are two main types of hologram. The first is a transmission hologram. This is where the light source for the hologram projection lies behind the film. That is the light passes through the film and the interference pattern on the film reconstructs the hologram.

The other type is a reflection hologram and with this type the light is not behind the film, but it is reflected off it. But the image for the hologram is still on the film and the viewer must still see the film to see the hologram.

Johannes Kepler, I know you have the pet belief in holograms as a solution, but knowing how holograms work (as I have made them myself, it is not hard. The hardest part is making sure that no movement occurs during the exposure - other than that it is almost identical to making a photo on a piece of film, rather than a digital photo). If you were to learn about holograms (and even attempt to make one yourself), you would quickly learn why such a "solution" to the problem of satellites will not work.

You seem to have got your knowledge of holograms from bad sci-fi movies. The reason that holograms work like they do in the movies is because movies are not real. Movies do not have to conform to the laws of physics.

How convincing..... not
Hologram projectors cannot project 3D images into the sky. Since you are proposing 'outlandish, never-before-seen technology', the burden of proof is on you to explain how a projector like this would function. Otherwise, your theory fails.
Like the sun, the stars are also expanding and contracting their diameter as they spin around the hub every six months.