NASA into space

  • 42 Replies
  • 8800 Views
?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
NASA into space
« Reply #30 on: October 25, 2006, 10:39:51 AM »
Quote from: "Max Fagin"
Geostationary satellites orbit at about 20,000 miles.  These satellites are much harder to observe, but it can be done in principle.


Sounds difficult.

Quote
If I performed this experiment with a satellite that orbited higher then 3000 miles, would anyone accept that as evidence?


... that the fixed stars are higher than previously suspected?  Yes.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

NASA into space
« Reply #31 on: October 25, 2006, 12:04:03 PM »
Quote
... that the fixed stars are higher than previously suspected?  Yes.


It's hard to observe satellites in high orbits, but showing that the stars are more then 3000 miles away is easy.

I know you don't think that the Earth orbits the sun, but the fact remains that the "fixed" stars do shift slightly relative to each other throughout the year. (To the exact amount predicted by heliocentrism by the way) This effect is called stellar parallax, and it's how I got the idea to measure the altitude of the ISS in the first place.

Using this method, the Hubble telescope can accurately measure the distance of stars that are about 100 light years away.

Hubble is part of the conspiracy?

Ok, how about this.  Good ground based observatories can measure stars distances up to about 20 light years away.

Professional astronomers are in on the conspiracy to?

Ok, fine.  I personally can observe stellar parallax with my telescope for a few of our nearest stellar neighbors.  They are not fixed in some "celestial sphere."  And while I don't have a powerful enough telescope to measure their distances to the light year, I can tell you that they are much more then 3000 miles away.
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student

NASA into space
« Reply #32 on: October 27, 2006, 09:47:15 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "Max Fagin"
Geostationary satellites orbit at about 20,000 miles.  These satellites are much harder to observe, but it can be done in principle.


Sounds difficult.



... that the fixed stars are higher than previously suspected?  Yes.


Which part is difficult? viewing the sat, or keeping it in orbit?

NASA into space
« Reply #33 on: October 27, 2006, 10:20:38 PM »
Find a place with low light pollution and low pollution on a clear, moonless night and you can see satelites with unaided eyes.
 captain is sailing through the arctic. The first mate runs up and says to him, "captain, there is an iceberg dead ahead. What should we do?" The captain looks at the iceberg, then glances at his map and says, "there's no iceberg here! Keep going!"

NASA into space
« Reply #34 on: October 27, 2006, 10:35:51 PM »
Quote from: "fathomak"
Find a place with low light pollution and low pollution on a clear, moonless night and you can see satelites with unaided eyes.


yep, and you can also see the same satellite each time it orbits (im forgetting what the average time is between orbits). It's best to view it when it's below freezing outside. (when theres low moisture in the air).

NASA into space
« Reply #35 on: October 28, 2006, 09:55:20 AM »
I meant that it will be difficult to view sats at an altitude of 20,000 miles, but not imposible.

But I would like to know what FE'ers think about stellar parallax.  Doesn't that kind of destroy the notion of a fixed celestial sphere?
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student

NASA into space
« Reply #36 on: October 28, 2006, 10:23:46 AM »
Clearly the sky is moving.
 captain is sailing through the arctic. The first mate runs up and says to him, "captain, there is an iceberg dead ahead. What should we do?" The captain looks at the iceberg, then glances at his map and says, "there's no iceberg here! Keep going!"

?

Lord Rasputin

NASA into space
« Reply #37 on: October 30, 2006, 02:12:33 AM »
FOOLISH MORTAL, IT MERELY APPEARS AS THOUGH THE SKY MOVES BECAUSE WE, THE HIGHER BEINGS, WHOM YOU PATHETIC MORTALS CAN ONLY REFER TO AS GODS, HAVE SEEN FIT TO AID THE CONSPIRACY.

NASA into space
« Reply #38 on: October 30, 2006, 02:13:13 AM »
cool!

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
NASA into space
« Reply #39 on: October 30, 2006, 09:45:46 AM »
Quote from: "msu320"
Which part is difficult? viewing the sat, or keeping it in orbit?


Viewing it.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

NASA into space
« Reply #40 on: October 30, 2006, 03:10:30 PM »
Quote from: "Erasmus"
Quote from: "msu320"
Which part is difficult? viewing the sat, or keeping it in orbit?


Viewing it.


But not impossible.  I'll admit, I don't have the motivation to follow this up right now.  My telescope is probably to weak for this experiment, and I don't have acsses right now to the 30 inch scope at my college, but maybe someday. . .
"The earth looks flat; therefore it is flat."
-Flat Earthers

"Triangle ABC looks isosceles; therefore . . ."
-3rd grade geometry student

Re: NASA into space
« Reply #41 on: May 10, 2021, 09:59:13 PM »
An important argument for the supporters of this theory was the death in 1967 of three astronauts who were preparing for the manned flight to the Moon - but they were burned a month before the scheduled start. They allegedly intended to tell the world the truth about the impending falsification, for which they were killed by the American authorities. But do you even realize how much money the government would have spent on implementation that unbelievable killings? I guess if the government was intended to kill those people - they'd pick up another way.

*

boydster

  • Assistant to the Regional Manager
  • Planar Moderator
  • 16482
  • FREEDOIS IS ᗡIИIRG!
Re: NASA into space
« Reply #42 on: May 11, 2021, 05:25:49 AM »
Welcome to the forum, cannon_gray. Please read the rules before posting. The Q&A section is strictly for people to ask FE questions and be provided with FE answers.