# Proof of geostationary satellites

• 191 Replies
• 27518 Views
?

#### Thermal Detonator

• 3135
• Definitively the best avatar maker.
##### Proof of geostationary satellites
« on: January 01, 2010, 07:59:03 AM »
The flat guys believe that there are no geostationary satellites. Instead, they think signals from these are broadcast from hovering aircraft at high altitude. There is a simple way to disprove this.
The maximum altitude a balloon can reach is approximately 50km. Geostationary satellites orbit at a height of 36,000km.
Consider two houses with satellite TV dishes a couple of hundred miles apart. Both have to point directly at the object broadcasting the signal. If the signal comes from a satellite, the angles of the two dishes would be very similar. If the signal comes from a balloon or other much lower altitude object, the angles of the dishes would be greatly different to each other.
I think Sky TV engineers would notice when setting up the dishes, wouldn't you?

Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

?

#### Alchemist

• 38
##### Re: Proof of geostationary satellites
« Reply #1 on: January 01, 2010, 09:31:28 AM »
The flat guys believe that there are no geostationary satellites. Instead, they think signals from these are broadcast from hovering aircraft at high altitude. There is a simple way to disprove this.

While this is an interesting thought experiment, it is based on a couple of assumptions.

Quote
Consider two houses with satellite TV dishes a couple of hundred miles apart. Both have to point directly at the object broadcasting the signal.

Actually, this is not completely accurate.  RET teaches that signals bend or refract in the ionosphere.  As such, neither dish is pointing directly at the object.  Instead, each dish is adjusted to receive the best signal.  Therefore, neither dish is a reliable indicator of the true source.

Quote
If the signal comes from a satellite, the angles of the two dishes would be very similar. If the signal comes from a balloon or other much lower altitude object, the angles of the dishes would be greatly different to each other.

This is the other assumption.  ("a satellite" or "a balloon")  While both receivers may perceive a single source, the existence of more than one source has yet to be disproved or is at least still subject to debate.

All that said, I do like the proposal.  It just seems to assume too much.

Regards.

#### parsec

• 6196
• 206,265
##### Re: Proof of geostationary satellites
« Reply #2 on: January 01, 2010, 09:55:26 AM »
The flat guys believe that there are no geostationary satellites. Instead, they think signals from these are broadcast from hovering aircraft at high altitude. There is a simple way to disprove this.
The maximum altitude a balloon can reach is approximately 50km. Geostationary satellites orbit at a height of 36,000km.
Consider two houses with satellite TV dishes a couple of hundred miles apart. Both have to point directly at the object broadcasting the signal. If the signal comes from a satellite, the angles of the two dishes would be very similar. If the signal comes from a balloon or other much lower altitude object, the angles of the dishes would be greatly different to each other.
I think Sky TV engineers would notice when setting up the dishes, wouldn't you?

Assumption 1: You can actually measure the distance between two places;
Assumption 2: The signal travels in a straight path;
Assumption 3: You can find true North everywhere.

?

#### Thermal Detonator

• 3135
• Definitively the best avatar maker.
##### Re: Proof of geostationary satellites
« Reply #3 on: January 01, 2010, 10:58:54 AM »
The flat guys believe that there are no geostationary satellites. Instead, they think signals from these are broadcast from hovering aircraft at high altitude. There is a simple way to disprove this.

While this is an interesting thought experiment, it is based on a couple of assumptions.

Quote
Consider two houses with satellite TV dishes a couple of hundred miles apart. Both have to point directly at the object broadcasting the signal.

Actually, this is not completely accurate.  RET teaches that signals bend or refract in the ionosphere.  As such, neither dish is pointing directly at the object.  Instead, each dish is adjusted to receive the best signal.  Therefore, neither dish is a reliable indicator of the true source.

Quote
If the signal comes from a satellite, the angles of the two dishes would be very similar. If the signal comes from a balloon or other much lower altitude object, the angles of the dishes would be greatly different to each other.

This is the other assumption.  ("a satellite" or "a balloon")  While both receivers may perceive a single source, the existence of more than one source has yet to be disproved or is at least still subject to debate.

All that said, I do like the proposal.  It just seems to assume too much.

Regards.

Even allowing for ionospheric refraction, the angling of the dishes would remain very similar for a very distant source and very different for a much closer source.
If there were more than one much closer source, then there would need to be literally hundreds of them over Britain alone to mask this angling effect.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

?

#### Thermal Detonator

• 3135
• Definitively the best avatar maker.
##### Re: Proof of geostationary satellites
« Reply #4 on: January 01, 2010, 11:06:14 AM »

Assumption 1: You can actually measure the distance between two places;
Assumption 2: The signal travels in a straight path;
Assumption 3: You can find true North everywhere.

1. You don't need an accurate distance measurement between the places, a rough one will do. The difference in angle will be quite considerable - we're not talking fractions of a degree here but several degrees. And all you need to do is compare where in the sky the dishes are pointing. An accurate distance is only needed if you're trying to triangulate the exact height of the object sending the signal. Which will either be 50km or less, or 36,000km.
2. See my answer above regarding ionospheric refraction.
3. You pretty much can find true north in most places to an accuracy greater than needed for this test.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

#### skeptical scientist

• 1285
• -2 Flamebait
##### Re: Proof of geostationary satellites
« Reply #5 on: January 01, 2010, 11:29:05 AM »
Is there a consistent account of bendy light anywhere? As far as I can tell, the theory of bendy light says that whenever you try to perform an experiment to tell whether the Earth is flat or round, light bends in whatever way will make the FE prediction agree with the RE prediction. Is there some way to actually tell how light bends in a given situation?
-David
E pur si muove!

#### parsec

• 6196
• 206,265
##### Re: Proof of geostationary satellites
« Reply #6 on: January 01, 2010, 12:23:47 PM »
Is there a consistent account of bendy light anywhere? As far as I can tell, the theory of bendy light says that whenever you try to perform an experiment to tell whether the Earth is flat or round, light bends in whatever way will make the FE prediction agree with the RE prediction. Is there some way to actually tell how light bends in a given situation?
Yes, Fermat's Principle.

?

#### Thermal Detonator

• 3135
• Definitively the best avatar maker.
##### Re: Proof of geostationary satellites
« Reply #7 on: January 01, 2010, 01:18:06 PM »
Is there a consistent account of bendy light anywhere? As far as I can tell, the theory of bendy light says that whenever you try to perform an experiment to tell whether the Earth is flat or round, light bends in whatever way will make the FE prediction agree with the RE prediction. Is there some way to actually tell how light bends in a given situation?

This isn't light, it's radio waves, which are immune to the made up bendy light crap (for which there is no evidence anyway). Fermat's principle is indeed the correct way to describe alterations of the path of light.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

#### parsec

• 6196
• 206,265
##### Re: Proof of geostationary satellites
« Reply #8 on: January 01, 2010, 01:29:42 PM »
Is there a consistent account of bendy light anywhere? As far as I can tell, the theory of bendy light says that whenever you try to perform an experiment to tell whether the Earth is flat or round, light bends in whatever way will make the FE prediction agree with the RE prediction. Is there some way to actually tell how light bends in a given situation?

This isn't light, it's radio waves, which are immune to the made up bendy light crap (for which there is no evidence anyway). Fermat's principle is indeed the correct way to describe alterations of the path of light.
orly? what is the difference between light and 'radio waves'?

?

#### Thermal Detonator

• 3135
• Definitively the best avatar maker.
##### Re: Proof of geostationary satellites
« Reply #9 on: January 01, 2010, 01:38:25 PM »
Is there a consistent account of bendy light anywhere? As far as I can tell, the theory of bendy light says that whenever you try to perform an experiment to tell whether the Earth is flat or round, light bends in whatever way will make the FE prediction agree with the RE prediction. Is there some way to actually tell how light bends in a given situation?

This isn't light, it's radio waves, which are immune to the made up bendy light crap (for which there is no evidence anyway). Fermat's principle is indeed the correct way to describe alterations of the path of light.
orly? what is the difference between light and 'radio waves'?

In real life, none. In FET, the claim of bending away from earth's surface is, as far as I can tell, claimed only for light rather than radio waves too. If radio waves bent like they claim light does, then ILS navigational glideslopes for airliners would be pretty screwed.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

#### skeptical scientist

• 1285
• -2 Flamebait
##### Re: Proof of geostationary satellites
« Reply #10 on: January 01, 2010, 02:14:43 PM »
Is there a consistent account of bendy light anywhere? As far as I can tell, the theory of bendy light says that whenever you try to perform an experiment to tell whether the Earth is flat or round, light bends in whatever way will make the FE prediction agree with the RE prediction. Is there some way to actually tell how light bends in a given situation?
Yes, Fermat's Principle.
I meant in the FE model, not the RE model. It's been said elsewhere that bendy light explains things like sunrises and sunsets, and now it's being invoked here, but if light bends ala Fermat's Principle (which it seems to) and the atmosphere is less dense the higher you go (as theory predicts and experimental observations confirm, at least for altitudes up to a few kilometers above the Earth's surface), then the light bends in the wrong direction to explain sunrises and sunsets. So Fermat's principle alone does not give a consistent account of how bendy light is used in the FE model.
-David
E pur si muove!

?

#### Thermal Detonator

• 3135
• Definitively the best avatar maker.
##### Re: Proof of geostationary satellites
« Reply #11 on: January 01, 2010, 03:21:00 PM »
Is there a consistent account of bendy light anywhere? As far as I can tell, the theory of bendy light says that whenever you try to perform an experiment to tell whether the Earth is flat or round, light bends in whatever way will make the FE prediction agree with the RE prediction. Is there some way to actually tell how light bends in a given situation?
Yes, Fermat's Principle.
I meant in the FE model, not the RE model. It's been said elsewhere that bendy light explains things like sunrises and sunsets, and now it's being invoked here, but if light bends ala Fermat's Principle (which it seems to) and the atmosphere is less dense the higher you go (as theory predicts and experimental observations confirm, at least for altitudes up to a few kilometers above the Earth's surface), then the light bends in the wrong direction to explain sunrises and sunsets. So Fermat's principle alone does not give a consistent account of how bendy light is used in the FE model.

Nobody is invoking bendy light to explain this one. So let's keep bendy light in the comedy bendy light threads.
Besides, even if bendy radio waves were involved in this they'd need to bend sideways.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

?

#### Alchemist

• 38
##### Re: Proof of geostationary satellites
« Reply #12 on: January 01, 2010, 06:04:32 PM »
Besides, even if bendy radio waves were involved in this they'd need to bend sideways.

Add in tropospheric ducting and multipath propagation and it doesn't seem too difficult to imagine.

?

#### Thermal Detonator

• 3135
• Definitively the best avatar maker.
##### Re: Proof of geostationary satellites
« Reply #13 on: January 01, 2010, 06:19:28 PM »
Besides, even if bendy radio waves were involved in this they'd need to bend sideways.

Add in tropospheric ducting and multipath propagation and it doesn't seem too difficult to imagine.

It seems pretty difficult to imagine it having such a massive effect it could simulate a signal coming from such a radically different point in the sky. And have that point being identical in location for everyone on the ground.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

?

#### Alchemist

• 38
##### Re: Proof of geostationary satellites
« Reply #14 on: January 01, 2010, 06:58:38 PM »
Besides, even if bendy radio waves were involved in this they'd need to bend sideways.

Add in tropospheric ducting and multipath propagation and it doesn't seem too difficult to imagine.

It seems pretty difficult to imagine it having such a massive effect it could simulate a signal coming from such a radically different point in the sky. And have that point being identical in location for everyone on the ground.

If there were more than one much closer source, then there would need to be literally hundreds of them over Britain alone to mask this angling effect.

Of course, a lower number of pseudolites would be required if configured as phased arrays.  An aviation VOR doesn't really transmit an infinite number of radials.  It simulates it with phasing.  Now, if you were a pseudolite provider, wouldn't you want to simplify installation and just have everyone point in one general direction?  I think you would.

?

#### Thermal Detonator

• 3135
• Definitively the best avatar maker.
##### Re: Proof of geostationary satellites
« Reply #15 on: January 01, 2010, 08:05:02 PM »
Of course, a lower number of pseudolites would be required if configured as phased arrays.  An aviation VOR doesn't really transmit an infinite number of radials.  It simulates it with phasing.  Now, if you were a pseudolite provider, wouldn't you want to simplify installation and just have everyone point in one general direction?  I think you would.

The plain fact is that satellite dishes don't pick up the signal unless they are pointing in the correct direction, i.e. towards where the signal is coming from. What you are describing is a non-directional signal which can be picked up from anywhere within range but which appears to only be detectable in one direction. The big problem with this is each satellite dish would have to be "tuned" to its particular location, which doesn't happen. You'd also be able to pick up the signal quite easily with non-directional aerials tuned to the broadcast frequency. Believe me, if it was possible to do this as easily as that then Sky would not be putting dishes on people's houses - they'd just give you an aerial and say it will pick up the satellite signal. Satellite TV companies lose a hell of a lot of business to people who don't want an "ugly" dish stuck on the side of their house. It's one of the primary objections people have to getting satellite TV.
It would also provide cover for the false location of the broadcast signal. But no, that's not what happens.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2010, 08:07:00 PM by Thermal Detonator »
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

?

#### Thermal Detonator

• 3135
• Definitively the best avatar maker.
##### Re: Proof of geostationary satellites
« Reply #16 on: January 04, 2010, 05:53:09 AM »
News just in: I got a friend of mine to do the maths on some examples (he not only has a degree in astrophysics but also rather conveniently works for Sky!)
If you had two houses 200km apart, with satellite dishes on them pointing at the source of the signal (we'll assume for simplicity's sake that the beam follows a straight line from satellite to dish, even though there may be a some slight change of path) then for a satellite at 36,000km the difference in angle between the two dishes would be 0.159 degrees. For a pseudolite floating at 50km altitude, the difference in angle between the two dishes would be a whopping great 63.49 degrees.
It's easy to see that this would not only be very noticeable but also it's so large that it far exceeds any errors in pointing caused by refraction through the atmosphere etc.
Conclusion: geostationary satellites proven. Consequence: satellites in general proven. Conclusion from consequence: Flat earth disproven. Again.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

#### SupahLovah

• 5167
• Santasaurus Rex!
##### Re: Proof of geostationary satellites
« Reply #17 on: January 04, 2010, 09:11:59 AM »
Maybe there are hundreds of magic cloaked balloons transmitting data.

I like that idea!
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

#### parsec

• 6196
• 206,265
##### Re: Proof of geostationary satellites
« Reply #18 on: January 04, 2010, 09:22:10 AM »
Maybe the signal does not propagate along a straight line.

?

#### Thermal Detonator

• 3135
• Definitively the best avatar maker.
##### Re: Proof of geostationary satellites
« Reply #19 on: January 04, 2010, 10:44:57 AM »
Maybe the signal does not propagate along a straight line.

If you can find any evidence at all that radio signals can swerve around to the degree needed to keep the pseudolite theory in business, I'd sure love to hear it. Bear in mind it would need to explain how the radio waves bend so precisely that wherever you receive them from they appear to be coming from a point 36,000 km away with exactly the same location in the sky, even though the pseudolite could be north, south, east or west of where you are receiving it from, and why that point is always apparently on the celestial equator. It also would need to explain how radar manages to keep going in a straight line without swerving about much (otherwise it wouldn't work.)
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

?

#### Thermal Detonator

• 3135
• Definitively the best avatar maker.
##### Re: Proof of geostationary satellites
« Reply #20 on: January 04, 2010, 10:46:03 AM »
Maybe there are hundreds of magic cloaked balloons transmitting data.

I like that idea!

Yes, all operated by the 20 people who are in on Teh Conspiracys
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

?

#### flyingmonkey

• 728
• Troll trolling Trolls
##### Re: Proof of geostationary satellites
« Reply #21 on: January 04, 2010, 05:24:22 PM »
Maybe the signal does not propagate along a straight line.

Why would the signal bend to achieve the correct alignment to the dish?

I'd imagine that it wouldn't be easy to align a bendy signal.

?

#### onetwothreefour

• 243
##### Re: Proof of geostationary satellites
« Reply #22 on: January 04, 2010, 06:08:28 PM »
Maybe the signal does not propagate along a straight line.
This is RIDICULOUS. Now every satellite company is in on the conspiracy, and for whatever reason, the world's top scientists are hiding from THE REST OF THE WORLD that light bends unlike anyone had previously imagined. WHY?!?!? WHAT IS THE PURPOSE?!?!

?

#### flyingmonkey

• 728
• Troll trolling Trolls
##### Re: Proof of geostationary satellites
« Reply #23 on: January 04, 2010, 07:01:55 PM »
WHAT IS THE PURPOSE?!?!

To make it seem like these guys have an argument.

• 997
##### Re: Proof of geostationary satellites
« Reply #24 on: January 05, 2010, 08:39:01 AM »
Maybe the signal does not propagate along a straight line.

Don't say that. You don't want the conspiracy to grow any bigger.
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

#### parsec

• 6196
• 206,265
##### Re: Proof of geostationary satellites
« Reply #25 on: January 05, 2010, 09:04:44 AM »
Fuck you assholes. What does the conspiracy have to do with the propagation of electromagnetic waves in the atmolayer?

• 997
##### Re: Proof of geostationary satellites
« Reply #26 on: January 05, 2010, 09:06:13 AM »
Fuck you assholes. What does the conspiracy have to do with the propagation of electromagnetic waves in the atmolayer?

I'm saying the conspiracy is too big for its britches if its going to include everybody who ever worked in satellite research and development.
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

?

#### onetwothreefour

• 243
##### Re: Proof of geostationary satellites
« Reply #27 on: January 05, 2010, 09:08:22 AM »
Fuck you assholes. What does the conspiracy have to do with the propagation of electromagnetic waves in the atmolayer?

The people who, for business, rely on how electromagnetic waves travel set up their model based on how it is commonly understood that they travel in the atmolayer. Their entire system WOULDN'T WORK if waves bend as has been suggested here.

Either they don't bend, or they do, the businesses have figured that out, adapted, and then conspired to hide that information from the rest of the world.

Both can't be true. One or the other. Which is it?

#### parsec

• 6196
• 206,265
##### Re: Proof of geostationary satellites
« Reply #28 on: January 05, 2010, 09:23:13 AM »
People do not rely on how EM waves propagate. They only rely on how EM waves are transmitted from one point to another and with one direction to another. Everything in the middle is a black-box. If you really had any contact with an engineering course, you might be familiar with this concept.

#### Pseudointellect

• 376
##### Re: Proof of geostationary satellites
« Reply #29 on: January 05, 2010, 09:29:01 AM »
Bendy Light: the biggest ad hoc theory ever.