ISS proved to be what it's claimed to be, i.e a Satellite.

Sorry, that's nonsense. You don't have any proof of any of that, it contradicts all known physics governing light, and your wiki page does not constitute proof.

The effect is well known. There's an example in the link.

I have put the word you are selectively ignoring in red. Address it now or leave the thread.

I did address it. It doesn't matter if a car is driving on a black highway. It still isn't going to be seen from an international flight, let alone space.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 02, 2012, 04:40:50 PM

I already know for a fact that satellites cannot be seen. The only man-made object visible is the ISS, which is allegedly as large as two soccer fields.

While many of these objects cannot be seen in visible light, they all emit radio waves that are easily 'seen' by thousands of amateurs on a regular basis.

http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/trackin1.htm

Here is another repository of observations and tracking information: http://www.n2yo.com/

Stratellites.

Quote from: garygreen on September 02, 2012, 06:24:48 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 02, 2012, 04:40:50 PM

I already know for a fact that satellites cannot be seen. The only man-made object visible is the ISS, which is allegedly as large as two soccer fields.

While many of these objects cannot be seen in visible light, they all emit radio waves that are easily 'seen' by thousands of amateurs on a regular basis.

http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/trackin1.htm

Here is another repository of observations and tracking information: http://www.n2yo.com/

Stratellites.

This explanation is falsifiable for several reasons.  I'm more than happy to expand on any of these, but you don't seem too keen on entertaining the discussion.

1.  From the point of view of a terrestrial observer, most of these objects traverse the sky from horizon to horizon in minutes because the objects themselves orbit the Earth in a few hours.  And, these objects have very precise and well understood trajectories.  See the n2yo link.  I can think of no way for a blimp to maintain such extreme, constant velocities.  I also can't image how its course wouldn be unaffected by atmospheric turbulence.

2.  Radio hams routinely have to compensate for Doppler effects when communicating with these objects, especially the ISS.  These effects cannot be faked for all observers.  For one thing, you'd have to know exactly who was listening to your stratellite, and when/where they were listening.  And, compensating your signal for one observer would disrupt the signal for other observers.  http://www.qsl.net/ah6rh/am-radio/spacecomm/doppler-and-the-iss.html

3.  If these signals were broadcast from blimps floating above a flat Earth, all of their signals would be detectable to all observers at all times.  Radio waves are not absorbed and scattered by the atmosphere in the same way as visible light.  UHF and VHF radio waves, for example, are hardly affected by the atmosphere at all.  That these signals disappear when the object drops blow the horizon is proof that they are in orbit, not just out of sight.

4.  The geometry doesn't work.  See: my childish drawing.  Replace the Moon with a satellite and the drone with a stratellite.  It just wouldn't work.

Quote from: garygreen on September 02, 2012, 06:24:48 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 02, 2012, 04:40:50 PM

I already know for a fact that satellites cannot be seen. The only man-made object visible is the ISS, which is allegedly as large as two soccer fields.

While many of these objects cannot be seen in visible light, they all emit radio waves that are easily 'seen' by thousands of amateurs on a regular basis.

http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/trackin1.htm

Here is another repository of observations and tracking information: http://www.n2yo.com/

Stratellites.

Tom, Stratellites could not possibly travel at such speeds, by the nature of their construction.  They are gas-filled lighter-than-air craft and would therefore require massive amounts of energy at a constant rate, delivered from a propulsion system that weighs next-to-nothing.  Travelling supersonically would also be massively problematic for a blimp.

Also, another small problem:  I cannot find a single example of one currently in use.    Zero evidence.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 02, 2012, 04:40:50 PM

Most satellites are the size of a car or smaller. You can't see a car in space for the same reason you can't see a car on the ground from the height of an international flight. As they cannot be seen, those satellites may not exist at all. Downloading an app to see them is a waste of time.

You had this argument crushed years ago when people patiently explained to you that it's not just about size, it's about brightness and contrast. Since you don't listen, perhaps we should print out these old threads and nail them to your forehead.

Yes Knowledge, I'm afraid you're arguing with close-minded religious zealot with no capacity for reasoning. 

Also please bear in mind that Tom as no knowledge of optics:

Once side of the magnifying glass magnifies images, the other side of the magnifying glass shrinks images.

Quote from: The Knowledge on September 02, 2012, 05:31:48 PM

Sorry, that's nonsense. You don't have any proof of any of that, it contradicts all known physics governing light, and your wiki page does not constitute proof.

The effect is well known. There's an example in the link.

Quote from: The Knowledge on September 02, 2012, 05:32:49 PM

I have put the word you are selectively ignoring in red. Address it now or leave the thread.

I did address it. It doesn't matter if a car is driving on a black highway. It still isn't going to be seen from an international flight, let alone space.

Quote from: garygreen on September 02, 2012, 06:24:48 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 02, 2012, 04:40:50 PM

I already know for a fact that satellites cannot be seen. The only man-made object visible is the ISS, which is allegedly as large as two soccer fields.

While many of these objects cannot be seen in visible light, they all emit radio waves that are easily 'seen' by thousands of amateurs on a regular basis.

http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/trackin1.htm

Here is another repository of observations and tracking information: http://www.n2yo.com/

Stratellites.

Really? How would this work? Show me one is use today. Are these on my satracker? Did you download the apps I asked you and Rushy to download? Rushy has avoided answering that like the plague. I suspect you will too.

Quote from: The Knowledge on September 02, 2012, 05:31:48 PM

Sorry, that's nonsense. You don't have any proof of any of that, it contradicts all known physics governing light, and your wiki page does not constitute proof.

The effect is well known. There's an example in the link.

No, that's an example of you not understanding/deliberately misrepresenting a photographic effect.

Quote from: The Knowledge on September 02, 2012, 05:32:49 PM

I have put the word you are selectively ignoring in red. Address it now or leave the thread.

I did address it. It doesn't matter if a car is driving on a black highway. It still isn't going to be seen from an international flight, let alone space.

So Tom doesn't understand contrast whatsoever, but thinks he does. Noted.

Quote from: garygreen on September 02, 2012, 06:24:48 PM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on September 02, 2012, 04:40:50 PM

I already know for a fact that satellites cannot be seen. The only man-made object visible is the ISS, which is allegedly as large as two soccer fields.

While many of these objects cannot be seen in visible light, they all emit radio waves that are easily 'seen' by thousands of amateurs on a regular basis.

http://www.svengrahn.pp.se/trackind/trackin1.htm

Here is another repository of observations and tracking information: http://www.n2yo.com/

Stratellites.

Disproven by not only everyone elses's posts prior to mine regarding this, but also by my diagram that Rushy claims doesn't exist in the other thread. Do a search.