Satellite Media?

Satellite receiver dishes point upward to the sky, to receive and send signals from the satellite.  If they send and receive signals from space, then there must be something up there (satellites) to communicate with it.  Therefore, satellites must exist.

An object broadcasting from altitude is not the same thing as a whirring bit of metal in some sort of nonsensical "perpetual free fall" circling about the earth.

If this is true, then how does the "object" stay up there, because the acceleration rate assigned to the flat earth would not be able to be compencated by the downward thrust produced by any engine or amount of fuel for long enough to make it practical, or even possible.

I agree, which is exactly why a "satellite" is nonsensical.

See, my point is that if the earth is really accelerating, then there could not be a manmade space object, but because of gravity, initial thrust, and the fact that space is a vacuum, makes it so that there can be satellites on a spherical earth.  And because the satellites must exist because of the previously stated reasons, then the earth must be spherical.

I agree, which is exactly why a "satellite" is nonsensical.

...then what are satellite dishes pointing at?  Really tall towers?

Perhaps in some cases. Obviously a psuedolite of some sort is present.

I have seen many dishes pointed perpendicular to the horizontal plane.  Where are your towers if it's pointing straight up?

Clearly a dish pointed straight up is not pointed at a tower.

Then what pray tell, if satellites don't exist, are they pointing at then?

A stratellite or other psuedolite.

Sorry, I'm not quite up to date, what is a stratolite?

Sorry, I'm not quite up to date, what is a stratolite?

Sort of like a hot air balloon.

If the earth was moving upward so fast, the stratallite would not have enough downward thrust to stay in the air.  Nor would airplanes, helicopters etc.

It says they're not commercially available yet.  I guess they're lying about that.

So how long has this technology been around?  After Sputnik was launched in the late 50s, any radio operator could verify its existence by listening to the signal.  Was that a stratellite, too?

Also, stratallytes orbit, which in the flat world, they can't do.  They orbit, just in the stratosphere.

It says they're not commercially available yet.  I guess they're lying about that.

So how long has this technology been around?  After Sputnik was launched in the late 50s, any radio operator could verify its existence by listening to the signal.  Was that a stratellite, too?

A friend of mine made contact with the space station when it went over Mobile.
He's a radio eccentric. Practically at the top of what you can do on those.
He isn't... "There" enough to, in my opinion, be part of the Conspiracy. Besides that; he is very open to questions.
Great fellow.
I could ask him if he's ever heard Sputnik if you like. But that won't be until at least next month.

If the earth was moving upward so fast, the stratallite would not have enough downward thrust to stay in the air.  Nor would airplanes, helicopters etc.

Everything is accelerating along with the Earth. Have you even bothered to read our FAQ?

a "stratalite" would be visible from earth.
"just like satelitles are with cheap telscopes"

The existence of geostationary satellites is proven by observations of the angle of satellite dishes on houses, which exhibit an angular variation exactly in keeping with getting a signal from an object 35,786km away above the equator.
FET has no explanation of this.

See, my point is that if the earth is really accelerating, then there could not be a manmade space object, but because of gravity, initial thrust, and the fact that space is a vacuum, makes it so that there can be satellites on a spherical earth.  And because the satellites must exist because of the previously stated reasons, then the earth must be spherical.

But I'm not at all sure they "must".  Balloon relays date to the 50's. I find that much more plausible than a whirring bit of metal forever falling without falling, don't you?

Actually, I find that it makes more sense to have something be eternally falling instead of having to perpetually power itself.

Quote from: RoundHard on March 29, 2012, 06:34:56 PM

See, my point is that if the earth is really accelerating, then there could not be a manmade space object, but because of gravity, initial thrust, and the fact that space is a vacuum, makes it so that there can be satellites on a spherical earth.  And because the satellites must exist because of the previously stated reasons, then the earth must be spherical.

But I'm not at all sure they "must".  Balloon relays date to the 50's. I find that much more plausible than a whirring bit of metal forever falling without falling, don't you?

Read the post right above this one.

But I'm not at all sure they "must".  Balloon relays date to the 50's. I find that much more plausible than a whirring bit of metal forever falling without falling, don't you?

It would be a plausible theory only if you could demonstrate a balloon relay holding position as accurately as a satellite.

Quote from: Ski on March 30, 2012, 12:49:06 PM

But I'm not at all sure they "must".  Balloon relays date to the 50's. I find that much more plausible than a whirring bit of metal forever falling without falling, don't you?

It would be a plausible theory only if you could demonstrate a balloon relay holding position as accurately as a satellite.

Agreed, a balloon would be easily buffeted around, and because of this it would no longer fulfill the requirement of being geostationary.

Ground-Based Stations were disproved a time ago because of the ionospherical absorption. Balloon-based emmiters ("Stratellites") are disproved by FE map trajectorie plot, the "How I canīt see balloons but I can see satellites?", and many more.The thing that disproves those FE solutions is that if they were useful, they would be being in use. And they are not.

Quote from: EireEngineer on March 31, 2012, 06:02:20 AM

Quote from: Ski on March 30, 2012, 12:49:06 PM

But I'm not at all sure they "must".  Balloon relays date to the 50's. I find that much more plausible than a whirring bit of metal forever falling without falling, don't you?

It would be a plausible theory only if you could demonstrate a balloon relay holding position as accurately as a satellite.

Agreed, a balloon would be easily buffeted around, and because of this it would no longer fulfill the requirement of being geostationary.

At stratospheric altitudes dirigibles are above most or all of the "weather" that might buffet it.

At stratospheric altitudes dirigibles are above most or all of the "weather" that might buffet it.

The jet streams are within the stratosphere.  Seems to me that they could cause quite a lot of buffeting.

Stratellites are designed for heights around 60,000' AGL. That is well above the highest of the jetstreams.