Edge of space

  • 121 Replies
  • 22104 Views
?

ailfey

  • 58
  • +0/-0
Re: Edge of space
« Reply #60 on: December 28, 2008, 06:38:42 PM »
Quote
The best stratellites will only be able to cover a ground area with a 200 mile diameter.

Did you forget that a stratellite could see farther if the earth were flat?



Not by much. If the earth was flat wouldnt the Goverments and other Commercial and Media companies just build one large satelite to cover the whole earth? instead of 4 or 5 to cover the entire planet/disc?

?

ailfey

  • 58
  • +0/-0
Re: Edge of space
« Reply #61 on: December 28, 2008, 06:40:18 PM »
Quote
Tom, it's my satellite.  I built it to my custom specifications.  I programmed it with my custom software.  I'm the one that told the launch company the orbit that it needs to go into.  I'm the one that tells my customers where to aim their dishes.  Do you honestly think that someone is going to be able to reverse engineer my satellite hardware and software and secretly replace it with a fleet of pseudolites (that they would have to build, test and maintain) in a manner that is transparent even to me (the one who built the satellite in the first place)?

All they would need to do is take your antenna and circuit board an attach it to their pseudolite. It isn't exactly brain surgery.

thats cause its rocket science

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Edge of space
« Reply #62 on: December 28, 2008, 06:54:51 PM »
Quote
Not by much. If the earth was flat wouldnt the Goverments and other Commercial and Media companies just build one large satelite to cover the whole earth? instead of 4 or 5 to cover the entire planet/disc?

One stratellite wouldn't work because the atmosphere isn't perfectly transparent and it takes more power to send a signal farther.

?

ailfey

  • 58
  • +0/-0
Re: Edge of space
« Reply #63 on: December 28, 2008, 07:43:21 PM »
Quote
Not by much. If the earth was flat wouldnt the Goverments and other Commercial and Media companies just build one large satelite to cover the whole earth? instead of 4 or 5 to cover the entire planet/disc?

One stratellite wouldn't work because the atmosphere isn't perfectly transparent and it takes more power to send a signal farther.

Im sure Engeneers could figure out a powerfull enough satelite to beam to the whole FE.

*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Edge of space
« Reply #64 on: December 28, 2008, 09:00:01 PM »
Quote
Im sure Engeneers could figure out a powerfull enough satelite to beam to the whole FE.

Weight and cost may also be an issue.

It also might not be physically possible because the atmosphere is not perfectly transparent.

?

grogberries

  • 3468
  • +0/-0
  • I am large! I contain multitudes!
Re: Edge of space
« Reply #65 on: December 28, 2008, 10:10:34 PM »
Would bendy light also effect satellite signals?
Think hard. Think Flat.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45115
  • +87/-130
Re: Edge of space
« Reply #66 on: December 29, 2008, 07:38:53 AM »
Would bendy light also effect satellite signals?

Since radio waves are a form of electromagnetic radiation, then it seems that the answer would have to be yes.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

grogberries

  • 3468
  • +0/-0
  • I am large! I contain multitudes!
Re: Edge of space
« Reply #67 on: December 29, 2008, 09:28:40 AM »
What would the consequences of this be. I don't have a good understanding of bendy light.
Think hard. Think Flat.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • 45115
  • +87/-130
Re: Edge of space
« Reply #68 on: December 29, 2008, 09:32:10 AM »
What would the consequences of this be. I don't have a good understanding of bendy light.

I'm not sure either.  It seems that nobody really understands bendy light (bendy EMR?), even the people who support it.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

cbarnett97

  • 2746
  • +0/-0
Re: Edge of space
« Reply #69 on: December 29, 2008, 10:59:54 AM »
What would the consequences of this be. I don't have a good understanding of bendy light.

I'm not sure either.  It seems that nobody really understands bendy light (bendy EMR?), even the people who support it.
What is so hard to understand about it? It is such a simple theory, if it can not be explained by the FE model then it must be bendy light.
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

?

grogberries

  • 3468
  • +0/-0
  • I am large! I contain multitudes!
Re: Edge of space
« Reply #70 on: December 29, 2008, 05:57:56 PM »
What would the consequences of this be. I don't have a good understanding of bendy light.

I'm not sure either.  It seems that nobody really understands bendy light (bendy EMR?), even the people who support it.
What is so hard to understand about it? It is such a simple theory, if it can not be explained by the FE model then it must be bendy light.

Then how would bendy light effect the signals from the stratelites?
Think hard. Think Flat.

Re: Edge of space
« Reply #71 on: January 01, 2009, 12:28:43 PM »
Ok this has gone on long enough, I'm a nuclear engineer, so radiation is one of my areas of expertise, the transparency of the atmosphere wouldn't have damn thing to do with the attenuation of electromagnetic radiation, or any type of radiation for that matter, they only thing that affects em radiation is the density of the matter it is passing through and the energy of the radiation, gamma has the highest energy so it has the most penetrating power and it goes down from there, Tom get an education before posting again because u r hurting hour fellow FEers more than u r helping them, you are stupid tom, sorry but it's true, henry light is also crap, light does not bend, If u know how em radiation works than u know what I'm talking about, it is impossible for light to "bend" light appears to bend when it passes objects of extreme mass, this is because space-time is bent and therefore light is simply following the shape of space-time.  If you want to propose henry light again you will provide an explanation of how the light is bent(I'm sure I'll get a good laugh out of it). You FEers are the ones defending your theory here so that means the burden of proof is on you, why don't you act like it?  By the way dark energy does not interact with regular matter which is why if is called dark energy, it is only speculated to exist because it cannnot be measured because it does not interact with regular matter.

?

Cheryl Wiesbaden

  • 603
  • +0/-0
  • Zeteticist, Moralist, Feminist
Re: Edge of space
« Reply #72 on: January 01, 2009, 12:39:30 PM »
You FEers are the ones defending your theory here so that means the burden of proof is on you, why don't you act like it?
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Our position is the default position which may be verified simply by looking out of one's window.

Re: Edge of space
« Reply #73 on: January 01, 2009, 01:17:42 PM »
Wow that's an ultimate cop out, also you are the ones making a claim contrary to all physical evidence and the scientific community, so therefore the burden of proof is on you and so far you have given us very little scientific evidence to work with, so again I state, get an education and show some prooof before making outlandish claims, otherwise we might as well go back to the times of paganism, witch hunts, sorcery and magic!!  Well I guess your almost there anyways since you're theories are based on pfm.

?

Cheryl Wiesbaden

  • 603
  • +0/-0
  • Zeteticist, Moralist, Feminist
Re: Edge of space
« Reply #74 on: January 01, 2009, 01:20:07 PM »
You come to the Flat Earth Society forums and declare the earth to be round. How is the burden of proof not on you? ???

?

jargo

  • 161
  • +0/-0
Re: Edge of space
« Reply #75 on: January 01, 2009, 02:18:03 PM »
You FEers are the ones defending your theory here so that means the burden of proof is on you, why don't you act like it?
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Our position is the default position which may be verified simply by looking out of one's window.


There are loads of evidence that support the RE-model but none that support the FE-model. The horizon that you see when you look out of your window proves that earth is a globe. The FE-explanation for the horizon is that light bends upward which makes the earth only seem like a globe. In either case earth looks like a globe which makes it the default position.

?

Cheryl Wiesbaden

  • 603
  • +0/-0
  • Zeteticist, Moralist, Feminist
Re: Edge of space
« Reply #76 on: January 01, 2009, 02:20:50 PM »
You FEers are the ones defending your theory here so that means the burden of proof is on you, why don't you act like it?
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Our position is the default position which may be verified simply by looking out of one's window.


There are loads of evidence that support the RE-model but none that support the FE-model. The horizon that you see when you look out of your window proves that earth is a globe. The FE-explanation for the horizon is that light bends upward which makes the earth only seem like a globe. In either case earth looks like a globe which makes it the default position.
How does the fact that our eyes are limited prove the earth is a globe? ???

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: Edge of space
« Reply #77 on: January 01, 2009, 02:38:49 PM »
but it's true, henry light is also crap, light does not bend, If u know how em radiation works than u know what I'm talking about, it is impossible for light to "bend" light appears to bend when it passes objects of extreme mass, this is because space-time is bent and therefore light is simply following the shape of space-time. 
Relative to an inertial observer, the path of light remains constant. Relative to a non-inertial observer, the path of light bends. When gravitation=acceleration, a beam of light bends relative to a non-inertial observer inside an accelerating elevator. Therefore, gravitation bends light. You believe light does not bend because you are just looking at light from an inertial frame of reference.

Re: Edge of space
« Reply #78 on: January 01, 2009, 03:35:28 PM »
Ok that entire statement is crap, and even so, assing it's true, light appearing to bend is not the same as light bending, which the argument is whether or not light is actually bendng on earths atmosphere, which is impossible, and since we are relying on physical evidence not assumptions so therfore since the earth has a horizon the earth is round because light cannot bend AT ALL! 

*

Perfect Circle

  • 734
  • +0/-0
  • You are a pirate!
Re: Edge of space
« Reply #79 on: January 01, 2009, 03:39:24 PM »
You FEers are the ones defending your theory here so that means the burden of proof is on you, why don't you act like it?
The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Our position is the default position which may be verified simply by looking out of one's window.


There are loads of evidence that support the RE-model but none that support the FE-model. The horizon that you see when you look out of your window proves that earth is a globe. The FE-explanation for the horizon is that light bends upward which makes the earth only seem like a globe. In either case earth looks like a globe which makes it the default position.
How does the fact that our eyes are limited prove the earth is a globe? ???
Simple laws of perspective. Our eyes are limited by the vanishing point, which is always at level (0 degrees relative to the eye). Going to a high altitude and using a level shows the horizon several degrees below level, which means that the horizon is not at the vanishing point, and eye limitations have nothing to do with the observed horizon.
Like the sun, the stars are also expanding and contracting their diameter as they spin around the hub every six months.

Re: Edge of space
« Reply #80 on: January 01, 2009, 03:44:47 PM »
This is mere speculation and probably should not b discussed further because it is going nowhere, because either way there is still horizon, and yes it does change with perspective, it has slot to do with area of visibility

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: Edge of space
« Reply #81 on: January 01, 2009, 04:51:10 PM »
Ok that entire statement is crap
The statement is crap, because you don't understand it?

and even so, assing it's true, light appearing to bend is not the same as light bending
So by your logic, from an inertial observer's point of view, light appearing not to bend is not the same as light does not bend? Sorry, but Einstein relativity does not work that way. It all depends on your frame of reference, which is the framework of his theory. There is no absolute FoR to tell whether the path of light is bent or not.

Re: Edge of space
« Reply #82 on: January 01, 2009, 05:02:02 PM »
LOL, that's not what I meant and you know it, just because einstein said something appears to be bent doesn't mean that actually is, Einstein also said that light cannot b bent, but light simply follows bent space which is why light would appear to be bent

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: Edge of space
« Reply #83 on: January 01, 2009, 05:02:42 PM »
There is no absolute FoR to tell whether the path of light is bent or not.

?

cbarnett97

  • 2746
  • +0/-0
Re: Edge of space
« Reply #84 on: January 01, 2009, 05:58:25 PM »
There is no absolute FoR to tell whether the path of light is bent or not.
Talk to a Particle Physicist and he will be happy to show you how you are wrong and how we have built upon Einstein's Theories
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: Edge of space
« Reply #85 on: January 01, 2009, 05:59:59 PM »
So, from your frame of reference, how do you know that light does not bend even though it appears to be bending? Sounds like magic to me.

?

cbarnett97

  • 2746
  • +0/-0
Re: Edge of space
« Reply #86 on: January 01, 2009, 06:09:55 PM »
So, from your frame of reference, how do you know that light does not bend even though it appears to be bending? Sounds like magic to me.
You take the math from the Inertial Frame and then you take the math from any outside frame and then you can use those 2 to make your math Frame Invariant, which is how physicists study the effects from particle accelerators
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: Edge of space
« Reply #87 on: January 01, 2009, 06:24:03 PM »
How about answering my question?

Also,
There is no absolute FoR to tell whether the path of light is bent or not.
Talk to a Particle Physicist and he will be happy to show you how you are wrong and how we have built upon Einstein's Theories
Are you saying that an absolute FoR exists?

?

cbarnett97

  • 2746
  • +0/-0
Re: Edge of space
« Reply #88 on: January 01, 2009, 06:29:42 PM »
So, from your frame of reference, how do you know that light does not bend even though it appears to be bending? Sounds like magic to me.
You take the math from the Inertial Frame and then you take the math from any outside frame and then you can use those 2 to make your math Frame Invariant, which is how physicists study the effects from particle accelerators
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

Jack

  • Administrator
  • 5180
  • +2/-6
Re: Edge of space
« Reply #89 on: January 01, 2009, 06:41:35 PM »