Question

  • 55 Replies
  • 8011 Views
Question
« Reply #30 on: November 06, 2006, 07:00:23 PM »
Quote from: "Cheech6"
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "Cheech6"


so you think directv, sirius, xm, hughesnet, directway, GPS are all ran by airplane satellites ?


Possibly.


i have seen the damm satellites with my telescope for directv.


No no, no. Engineer just told you, they're from Lighter than air platforms. Which includes lighter than air broadcasting equipment that no one ever saw. No one ever saw those platforms because they're too high to bee seen (unlike "satellites", which are higher but can still be seen because of an optical illusion) and no airplane has ever flown anywhere near them either. You can't see them with telescopes either because the material they're made with is telescope proof. Engineer will explain how that works.

There is a lot of material on earth that you can use to make lighter than air broadcasting stations, you've just never seen it by some coincidence.

Of course, we don't just pretend that lighter than air broadcasting platforms exists. We can prove and demonstrate that they do, Engineer will show you evidence of this shortly.

The fact that people can see satellites but not those stations is irrelevant, so don't bother pointing that out. Besides, you probably didn't see what you think you saw. I mean, you were there and we weren't, so we we know what it was better than you.
atttttttup was right when he said joseph bloom is right, The Engineer is a douchebag.

Question
« Reply #31 on: November 06, 2006, 07:12:15 PM »
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "Cheech6"


i was at a university with my astrological professor and he verified it along with 5 people who believe the earth to be flat.


You mean they verified that it looked like what a satellite is generally presumed to look like through a telescope, not that they could actually make out any detail. The fact is that it is virtually impossible to verify with any degree of accuracy that what you saw was, in fact, a satellite.


IT had a logo like this



so i think it was the right one.
isclaimer
The views expressed in this post are solely those of the author. Also the earth is round.

?

GeoGuy

Question
« Reply #32 on: November 06, 2006, 07:15:09 PM »
Quote from: "Cheech6"

IT had a logo like this

so i think it was the right one.


You must have been using a bloody huge telescope, as you can't even make out that much detail on a low-flying airplane with mine.

Question
« Reply #33 on: November 06, 2006, 07:17:45 PM »
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
Quote from: "Cheech6"

IT had a logo like this

so i think it was the right one.


You must have been using a bloody huge telescope, as you can't even make out that much detail on a low-flying airplane with mine.
.



like i said this was at the university. uf to be exact. (go gators)
isclaimer
The views expressed in this post are solely those of the author. Also the earth is round.

?

GeoGuy

Question
« Reply #34 on: November 06, 2006, 07:23:01 PM »
Quote from: "Cheech6"
like i said this was at the university. uf to be exact. (go gators)


What was the magnification on the telescope you were using?
Because if it was anything near what you say it was, the satellite would have been in your field of view for less that half a second- hardly enough time to make out any logos on the side.

?

Erasmus

  • The Elder Ones
  • 4242
Question
« Reply #35 on: November 06, 2006, 07:26:17 PM »
Quote from: "GeoGuy"
You must have been using a bloody huge telescope, as you can't even make out that much detail on a low-flying airplane with mine.


And a bloody steady one too.
Why did the chicken cross the Möbius strip?

?

GeoGuy

Question
« Reply #36 on: November 06, 2006, 07:26:41 PM »
Exactly.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Question
« Reply #37 on: November 06, 2006, 07:50:56 PM »
Quote from: "phaseshifter"

No no, no. Engineer just told you, they're from Lighter than air platforms. Which includes lighter than air broadcasting equipment that no one ever saw. No one ever saw those platforms because they're too high to bee seen (unlike "satellites", which are higher but can still be seen because of an optical illusion) and no airplane has ever flown anywhere near them either.

People have seen them.  The government has been working on this technology since WWII.  Recently, the private sector has started research into doing the same thing.  They normally operate at 180,000 ft, which is way to high for an airplane to go.
Quote
You can't see them with telescopes either because the material they're made with is telescope proof. Engineer will explain how that works.


The material is telescope proof? Uh, yea, don't know how that would work.
Quote
There is a lot of material on earth that you can use to make lighter than air broadcasting stations, you've just never seen it by some coincidence.

You've never seen metal, composites, plastics and textiles?  Where do you live?
Quote
Of course, we don't just pretend that lighter than air broadcasting platforms exists. We can prove and demonstrate that they do, Engineer will show you evidence of this shortly.

Unfortunately, I can't find the link the article about the 'next gen' version, which is undergoing testing.  I will link it when I find it.  In the mean time, here's the basic idea:

Quote
A group of researchers in Sweden have completed a successful trial this week, launching a 12,000 cubic meter weather balloon at an altitude of 24 kilometers. The balloon transmitted a steady data link at a transmission speed of 11Mbps.

This test is the latest in a series of efforts to prove that transmitting broadband Internet via lighter-than-air craft is not only technically feasible but economically practical. Ultimately, the goal is to launch balloons that can transmit at speeds that are much higher. Dr. David Grace, the projects' lead scientific officer, explained:


Proving the ability to operate a high data rate link from a moving stratospheric balloon is a critical step in moving towards the longer term aim of providing data rates of 120Mbps.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Question
« Reply #38 on: November 10, 2006, 11:29:03 AM »
bite my boner flatty
hy are people so stupid? i guess years of satelite evidence can't prove that the earth is round? satelites are a conspiracy? yea that's why we have cell phones and xm radio.

Re: Question
« Reply #39 on: November 10, 2006, 11:31:23 AM »
Quote from: "TheEngineer"
Fine, if it will make you happy:
Quote from: "7string"
Are any of the members of the flat earth society actually scientists? Or Ivy League graduates?

I'm an engineer, does that count?
Quote
Why are there no satellite photos of this "flat earth"?

Satellites don't exist.
Quote
How come there are "ice barriers" surrounding the earth, yet we have seasons.

The ice wall is the furthest point on the FE from the sun.  That's why it's cold there and it is warm somewhere else.
Quote
In Australia, it is always warm, while here in Ohio, the temperature changes with the seasons. Explain that. If the earth was flat, the weather would be equivalent throughout the world.

Change in the sun's 'orbit'.
Quote
We're a planet, not a fucking pancake.

 :shock:
Quote
There's no such thing as a government conspiracy...

It wouldn't be much of a conspiracy if everyone knew about it.
Quote
 Show me a VIDEO or a REAL PICTURE of the flat earth rather than arguing with negations. Haven't you guys ever downloaded Google Earth? Do it, put in and put in any address and there you'll find ACTUAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that will prove to you what every preschooler knows.

It will prove to me what?  That pictures can be taken from above my house?
Quote
Oh yeah, and gravity. If gravity is in the center of the earth, than there would be less of it the further you go away from it.

It's a good thing the FE doesn't have any.

Oh my, your a fucking engineer and you dont think Satellites exist, you should be fired and shot.

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Question
« Reply #40 on: November 10, 2006, 12:00:34 PM »
A 'fucking' engineer?  Well only in my spare time!  In my professional life, I'm a mechanical engineer.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Question
« Reply #41 on: November 10, 2006, 02:44:26 PM »
Engineer, you know as well as I do that anything in the atmosphere at that height would need a good sized fuel expenditure to maintain steady location.   Fuel is heavy, especially for lighter than air equipment.  Textiles and plastics are one thing, but keeping that much helium within a balloon like structure is not pheasable.  Not to mention the size those things would have to be to support massive broadcasting equipment.

180,000 ft.  Nice, round number, and utterly impossible.  Remember freshman physics?  It's coming back to bite you.  There's this little thing called density, and you cannot have something float above a certain height due to the lack of air to push up.  You are looking at less than a single kPa at that height.  That means that your baloon's density must be below (PV = NRT, M/V = MM * P/R/T (.01 atm* 29 g / T/ .0826) .03 grams/Liter.  That's impossibly small.  The size of the balloon would have to be fantasticly large to stay airborne.  No matter the color, it would be noticeable above the clouds and from its shadow.  Now you are talking dozens, hundreds of them, with no photographic proof or even suspicion.  This isn't even laughable anymore it's getting annoying.

*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
Question
« Reply #42 on: November 10, 2006, 02:49:36 PM »
Why would it need to expend fuel to maintain constant position? It could have solar-powered propellers.
the cake is a lie

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Question
« Reply #43 on: November 10, 2006, 02:51:07 PM »
Quote from: "Benjamin1986"
utterly impossible.

Maybe you should read your referenced site a little better.


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Question
« Reply #44 on: November 10, 2006, 06:08:52 PM »
Quote from: "dysfunction"
Why would it need to expend fuel to maintain constant position? It could have solar-powered propellers.


That would make it too heavy.
atttttttup was right when he said joseph bloom is right, The Engineer is a douchebag.

Question
« Reply #45 on: November 10, 2006, 10:59:50 PM »
I apologize for my poor wording, though I fail to see what I was mistaken about in my reference.

It is utterly impossible to have massive broadcasting equipment.  The maximum balloon height ever was 140,000 feet, and that was an extraordinary feat.

You know that density I calculated (.03 grams/Liter).  Refute that while I explain how big this baloon of yours would have to be.

Broadcasting equipment with range of >30 miles straight down, plus a minimum 100 mile radius on the ground.  That's not light, at least 50 kg.  Propellers to keep it stationary and solar panels to power it are at a bare minimum (and this is very, very generous), 10 kg, not that it matters.

That's 60 kg.  To keep that amount up, you need a size of 2,000 cubic meters.  Assuming a perfect sphere, that's 7 meters in radius, or 14 meters in diameter.

But, that's not all.  You also need the balloon.  Nylon isn't heavy, but you need a lot of it.  Say, 1 mm thickness.  I know that most balloons aren't that thick, but most baloons don't stay up for decades at a time.  The density of nylon is 1150 kg/cubic m

.03 = (60 kg+ 1150*.001*4*Pi*r^2)/(4/3 Pi r^3)

The solution is that the radius is almost 12 meters.  Therefore, the balloon is At MINIMUM 20 meters across.  That is supported by A METRIC TON of nylon.  Even if there is no additional load, you need 11.5 meters of radius for the balloon to keep itself airborne.  Did I forget to mention that I'm not counting the weight of the 1500 of cubic meters of helium in the baloon?  Now, tell me how dozens or hundreds of 60 foot wide balls aren't showing up in everyone's telescopes and binoculars.  Heck, you might even be able to see those with the naked eye.    They should be observable everywhere, but they aren't.

Need I go on about how ludicrous your balloon concept is?

*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
Question
« Reply #46 on: November 11, 2006, 11:00:51 AM »
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Quote from: "dysfunction"
Why would it need to expend fuel to maintain constant position? It could have solar-powered propellers.


That would make it too heavy.


http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/2002/02-44_pf.html
the cake is a lie

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Question
« Reply #47 on: November 11, 2006, 02:12:30 PM »
Quote from: "Benjamin1986"

Need I go on about how ludicrous your balloon concept is?


It would be ludicrous if I had made it up.  However, this is a very real concept.  

However, I can not locate my source of the 180,000ft operational ceiling (I think it was in a trade publication).  This altitude is attainable by what is called an orbital airship, which is a two or three stage system.  Until the source can be located, I will recind the 180,000ft claim and generalize the service ceiling to be 'the stratosphere' (The max ceiling for a conventional airship is about 130,000ft).


Now, the private sector has been working on this concept in this and simpler forms with much success.  For example:

A spherical broadcasting system, tested right here in Arizona.

A larger unmanned version for national security.

Here is a plan to carry telescopes into the stratosphere.

This is a Stratellite, which the company says will stay aloft for 18 months at a time.

Boeing and another company are looking at a lighter than air cargo craft, for those of you who think they can't lift a payload.

This is a Korean company giving it a try.

An abstract of a larger write up about a Japaneese company using a 'stratellite' for navigation/postioning service.

Here is a patent for one of the technologies needed.  Here is another one.

This is just from the private sector.  Imagine what the military has achieved since it began work on them during WWII!


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Question
« Reply #48 on: November 12, 2006, 08:48:07 AM »
So why make up the satellites?  It makes no sense to make up satelites when you have no need for them and just publically use balloons.  

There is a simple explanation where the satelites we see are shot up into space and orbit the Earth doing what everyone claims they do, and a complex explanation, where the satelites are shot up nowhere (there is no way that a standard satelite rocket could hold a balloon of that size, they don't save much fuel by not going into space), are taken care of by explosives or whatever in the upper stratosphere so they don't fall back to Earth (which is impossible since there are amature astronomers who track those things from launch pad to orbit).  Then, in secret, giant balloon-based broadcasting equipment is launched (also impossible, nothing that big can be kept secret when so many people have to know and could give the story of the century to the media), and are somehow not dectected as they maintain geosynchronous orbit (also impossible, as shown above).

So, according to Occam's razor, you have two choices, a rational one that assumes the Earth is round, or an impossible one which the government and businesses have no real reason to enact while keeping up the satelite facade.  It costs tens of millions to launch something into orbit, a cost that is impossible to hide due to all the people recieving money (money has to come from somewhere), and probably a million or more to create one of your arial platforms.  Why didn't they just say "Satellites are too expensive, our arial platforms can do the work for a fraction of the price"?  Why don't they do that now?  Maintaining satellites is not necessary for your flat-Earth conspiracy, and it makes a whole lot of holes and opportunities for people to look into.

Rational or irrational, impossible, and ludicrous.

*

skeptical scientist

  • 1285
  • -2 Flamebait
Re: Question
« Reply #49 on: November 12, 2006, 09:06:22 AM »
Quote from: "7string"
Are any of the members of the flat earth society actually scientists? Or Ivy League graduates?

Almost there are some scientists who are members of the forums, and are even arguing that the earth is flat. We definitely have engineers and graduate students. I would be very surprised if any of them actually believe that the earth is flat.
Quote
Why are there no satellite photos of this "flat earth"? How come there are "ice barriers" surrounding the earth, yet we have seasons. In Australia, it is always warm, while here in Ohio, the temperature changes with the seasons. Explain that. If the earth was flat, the weather would be equivalent throughout the world.

Answered elsewhere, mostly in the FAQ
Quote
We're a planet, not a fucking pancake.

Is this an angry rant? This sounds like an angry rant.
Quote
There's no such thing as a government conspiracy.

Excuse me? Ever hear of Iran-Contra? The weapons of mass destruction we were supposed to find in Iraq (e.g. the yellowcake forgery)? Watergate?
Quote
What's the point of this society?

To give us a break from all that internet porn.
-David
E pur si muove!

*

TheEngineer

  • Planar Moderator
  • 15483
  • GPS does not require satellites.
Question
« Reply #50 on: November 13, 2006, 12:03:42 AM »
Quote from: "Benjamin1986"
So why make up the satellites?  It makes no sense to make up satelites when you have no need for them and just publically use balloons.  

Money.  Operating a stratellite costs a fraction of operating a satellite.  You simply launch a rocket with a dummy payload and pocket the money you saved by using a lighter than air broadcasting system.


 
Quote
also impossible, nothing that big can be kept secret when so many people have to know and could give the story of the century to the media

You didn't know about it.  You thought I was making it all up.
Quote
and are somehow not dectected as they maintain geosynchronous orbit (also impossible, as shown above).

Who is to say they havn't been detected?  How do you know you have not seen one and assumed it was a satellite, since that is what you expected to see?
Quote
a cost that is impossible to hide due to all the people recieving money (money has to come from somewhere)

Do you know where all your tax dollars go?


"I haven't been wrong since 1961, when I thought I made a mistake."
        -- Bob Hudson

Question
« Reply #51 on: November 13, 2006, 07:46:08 AM »
The cost to launch a satellite is on the order of 10s to 100s of millions of dollars.  This is paid to everyone making the satellites, rockets, launchpads, insurance companies, and hundreds of other people involved.  Unless you believe the IRS is in on the conspiracy as well, there's nothing to pocket, and no single part is nearly enough for hush money.

You never answered a couple of impossibles there.  People claim to track the satellites from ground to orbit.  Wait, of course they're in on the conspiracy.

And there's a big difference between missing some minor headlines about balloon research and missing hundreds of orbital balloon launches.  You dismissed the question instead of answering it.

Why haven't corporations just go out and say how their balloons can perform the functions of satellites at a fraction of the price, therefore ignoring billions of dollars in expenses bribing everyone at NASA?

*

dysfunction

  • The Elder Ones
  • 2261
Question
« Reply #52 on: November 13, 2006, 08:03:09 AM »
Quote from: "dysfunction"
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Quote from: "dysfunction"
Why would it need to expend fuel to maintain constant position? It could have solar-powered propellers.


That would make it too heavy.


http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/2002/02-44_pf.html
the cake is a lie

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16862
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Question
« Reply #53 on: December 17, 2006, 06:20:59 PM »
Quote from: "7string"
YOU'RE OWN TAX DOLLARS  ... what a genius you are ... And obviously Google Earth is just an airplane ..


I believe software is an airplane.  VROOOOOM!
Quantum Ab Hoc

Question
« Reply #54 on: December 17, 2006, 06:37:59 PM »
Quote from: "dysfunction"
Quote from: "dysfunction"
Quote from: "phaseshifter"
Quote from: "dysfunction"
Why would it need to expend fuel to maintain constant position? It could have solar-powered propellers.


That would make it too heavy.


http://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/news/NewsReleases/2002/02-44_pf.html


That's not exactly a baloon is it?

being stationary above Hawai is not exactly the same as beinf in orbit around the earth either is it? How would someone that doesn't live in Hawai ever see it?
atttttttup was right when he said joseph bloom is right, The Engineer is a douchebag.

*

midgard

  • 1300
Re: Question
« Reply #55 on: December 18, 2006, 04:04:50 AM »
Quote from: "7string"
In Australia, it is always warm, while here in Ohio, the temperature changes with the seasons.


This is pretty good evidence of 7string's intelligence. I'm sure Rick James got a good laugh at that (Canberra can get extremely cold in winter) and probably Beast too (not sure though - I've never been to Tasmania). The funny thing is that the whole sentence implies that Australia doesn't have seasons, which would go against a round earth.