What evidence you have that satellites don't exist?

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 27, 2015, 06:00:05 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 27, 2015, 05:51:53 PM

This entire thread is a fallacy.  You can't prove a negative.  What proof do you have that the Lock Ness Monster does not exist?

Uh, I stated that in the OP. you're the one (or at least your comrades) that's saying they don't exists. You make the claim, you provide backing.

So, then, are you claiming that Nessie does exist, or agreeing that you can't prove a negative?

Actually, I do think Nessie exists. There have been over 1100 witnesses that saw it. However back on topic, the one making the claim has the burden of proof. You claim that they don't exist, why?

Quote from: jroa on December 27, 2015, 06:03:50 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 27, 2015, 06:00:05 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 27, 2015, 05:51:53 PM

This entire thread is a fallacy.  You can't prove a negative.  What proof do you have that the Lock Ness Monster does not exist?

Uh, I stated that in the OP. you're the one (or at least your comrades) that's saying they don't exists. You make the claim, you provide backing.

So, then, are you claiming that Nessie does exist, or agreeing that you can't prove a negative?

Actually, I do think Nessie exists. There have been over 1100 witnesses that saw it. However back on topic, the one making the claim has the burden of proof. You claim that they don't exist, why?

So, then, you are seriously claiming that it is possible to prove a negative?  Prove to me that there is not a family of fairies living in the woods behind my house, lol.  Go ahead, mister "I can prove negatives."

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 27, 2015, 06:11:10 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 27, 2015, 06:03:50 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 27, 2015, 06:00:05 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 27, 2015, 05:51:53 PM

This entire thread is a fallacy.  You can't prove a negative.  What proof do you have that the Lock Ness Monster does not exist?

Uh, I stated that in the OP. you're the one (or at least your comrades) that's saying they don't exists. You make the claim, you provide backing.

So, then, are you claiming that Nessie does exist, or agreeing that you can't prove a negative?

Actually, I do think Nessie exists. There have been over 1100 witnesses that saw it. However back on topic, the one making the claim has the burden of proof. You claim that they don't exist, why?

So, then, you are seriously claiming that it is possible to prove a negative?  Prove to me that there is not a family of fairies living in the woods behind my house, lol.  Go ahead, mister "I can prove negatives."

So are you saying that satellites exists?

Quote from: jroa on December 27, 2015, 06:21:10 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 27, 2015, 06:11:10 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 27, 2015, 06:03:50 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 27, 2015, 06:00:05 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 27, 2015, 05:51:53 PM

This entire thread is a fallacy.  You can't prove a negative.  What proof do you have that the Lock Ness Monster does not exist?

Uh, I stated that in the OP. you're the one (or at least your comrades) that's saying they don't exists. You make the claim, you provide backing.

So, then, are you claiming that Nessie does exist, or agreeing that you can't prove a negative?

Actually, I do think Nessie exists. There have been over 1100 witnesses that saw it. However back on topic, the one making the claim has the burden of proof. You claim that they don't exist, why?

So, then, you are seriously claiming that it is possible to prove a negative?  Prove to me that there is not a family of fairies living in the woods behind my house, lol.  Go ahead, mister "I can prove negatives."

So are you saying that satellites exists?

They are just as likely to exist as the faries behind my house or an old man with a beard living in the sky, lol. 

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 27, 2015, 06:45:02 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 27, 2015, 06:21:10 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 27, 2015, 06:11:10 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 27, 2015, 06:03:50 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 27, 2015, 06:00:05 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 27, 2015, 05:51:53 PM

This entire thread is a fallacy.  You can't prove a negative.  What proof do you have that the Lock Ness Monster does not exist?

Uh, I stated that in the OP. you're the one (or at least your comrades) that's saying they don't exists. You make the claim, you provide backing.

So, then, are you claiming that Nessie does exist, or agreeing that you can't prove a negative?

Actually, I do think Nessie exists. There have been over 1100 witnesses that saw it. However back on topic, the one making the claim has the burden of proof. You claim that they don't exist, why?

So, then, you are seriously claiming that it is possible to prove a negative?  Prove to me that there is not a family of fairies living in the woods behind my house, lol.  Go ahead, mister "I can prove negatives."

So are you saying that satellites exists?

They are just as likely to exist as the faries behind my house or an old man with a beard living in the sky, lol.

Why?

Quote from: jroa on December 27, 2015, 06:56:50 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 27, 2015, 06:45:02 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 27, 2015, 06:21:10 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 27, 2015, 06:11:10 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 27, 2015, 06:03:50 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 27, 2015, 06:00:05 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 27, 2015, 05:51:53 PM

This entire thread is a fallacy.  You can't prove a negative.  What proof do you have that the Lock Ness Monster does not exist?

Uh, I stated that in the OP. you're the one (or at least your comrades) that's saying they don't exists. You make the claim, you provide backing.

So, then, are you claiming that Nessie does exist, or agreeing that you can't prove a negative?

Actually, I do think Nessie exists. There have been over 1100 witnesses that saw it. However back on topic, the one making the claim has the burden of proof. You claim that they don't exist, why?

So, then, you are seriously claiming that it is possible to prove a negative?  Prove to me that there is not a family of fairies living in the woods behind my house, lol.  Go ahead, mister "I can prove negatives."

So are you saying that satellites exists?

They are just as likely to exist as the faries behind my house or an old man with a beard living in the sky, lol.

Why?

Why not? Both you and I can't prove they don't exist. 

Ah, but I can prove that they do exist. I've told you many times that you can't rack the ISS for yourself.

Ah, but I can prove that they do exist. I've told you many times that you can't rack the ISS for yourself.

Please, then, by all means, prove that the fairies behind my house do, in fact, exist. 

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 27, 2015, 07:10:37 PM

Ah, but I can prove that they do exist. I've told you many times that you can't rack the ISS for yourself.

Please, then, by all means, prove that the fairies behind my house do, in fact, exist. 

Sorry, typo. You CAN track the ISS.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on December 27, 2015, 07:10:37 PM

Ah, but I can prove that they do exist. I've told you many times that you can't rack the ISS for yourself.

Please, then, by all means, prove that the fairies behind my house do, in fact, exist. 

You were going to identify the objects transmitting to satellite dishes with specific examples, still waiting.

And 4 pages in, FE can provide no evidence that satellites don't exist.

While anyone on the planet can clearly see that they do exist.

Does the existence of satellites change your view on FE at all?

You can't prove a negative.

Actually, you can. In science it is common to prove that something cannot exist, cannot work or cannot happen. Just look around, there is a "mountain of evidence" around you.

Quote from: jroa on December 27, 2015, 05:51:53 PM

You can't prove a negative.

Actually, you can. In science it is common to prove that something cannot exist, cannot work or cannot happen. Just look around, there is a "mountain of evidence" around you.

No, they theorize that something can't exist or happen, but they can't prove it.  And, often times things that they thought could not exist or happen are shown to actually be possible.  So, once again, you can not prove a negative. 

And 4 pages in, FE can provide no evidence that satellites don't exist.

While anyone on the planet can clearly see that they do exist.

Does the existence of satellites change your view on FE at all?

There are other explanations which haven't been mentioned. Satellites or craft of some kind can exist over a plane if they have their own propulsion. We do not know what technology is out there.

What I would like to know is, why do we need the ever expansion of ground based communications towers when we have all the satellites?
 

What I would like to know is, why do we need the ever expansion of ground based communications towers when we have all the satellites?
 

It takes more power to contact a satellite compared to a tower only a few miles away.  Far easier to build 10 towers than to launch 1 or 2 satellites.  Yet the satellites give the ability to contact when no towers are available.

Quote from: yobbo on December 28, 2015, 01:08:11 AM

And 4 pages in, FE can provide no evidence that satellites don't exist.

While anyone on the planet can clearly see that they do exist.

Does the existence of satellites change your view on FE at all?

There are other explanations which haven't been mentioned. Satellites or craft of some kind can exist over a plane if they have their own propulsion. We do not know what technology is out there.

What I would like to know is, why do we need the ever expansion of ground based communications towers when we have all the satellites?
 

I thought you were searching for truth?

Looks like you are dismissing solid evidence in the hope to prove a fantasy again to me.

Quote from: yobbo on December 28, 2015, 01:08:11 AM

And 4 pages in, FE can provide no evidence that satellites don't exist.
While anyone on the planet can clearly see that they do exist.
Does the existence of satellites change your view on FE at all?

There are other explanations which haven't been mentioned. Satellites or craft of some kind can exist over a plane if they have their own propulsion. We do not know what technology is out there.

What I would like to know is, why do we need the ever expansion of ground based communications towers when we have all the satellites?
 

This has been answered but what the heck, in for a penny, in for a pound!
Yes, "Satellites or craft of some kind can exist over a plane if they have their own propulsion", but propulsion requires a lot of energy.
No craft could travel at the 6800 mph to 17500 mph for typical orbits IN the atmosphere - even 2,000 mph presents almost insurmountable heating problems and observed satellite speeds agree with this range.
Hence "satellites" (stratolites or whatever) would need something to maintain altitude (whatever that might be) - rockets? - but rockets use extreme amounts of energy AND FEers claim they don't work outside the atmosphere!
So what holds them up - more magic?  Where do you suggest this energy might come from?

Then "why do we need the ever expansion of ground based communications towers when we have all the satellites?".  This has been answered numerous times, but:
Satellite links are good for remote area communication, but are extremely expensive for two-way wide-band applications - such as internet connections and mobile phones (cell phones), so ground based services are best.  Also undersea fibre-optic cables provide the most economical extremely wide-band intercontinental links.

GPS would not be feasible if many thousands of surface stations (over all oceans and all polar regions) were needed.

If they are not as high as you have been told they are, then they would not need to go as fast as you have been told they go. 

If they are not as high as you have been told they are, then they would not need to go as fast as you have been told they go.

Calculated height of the ISS:

Using:




See (http://www.universetoday.com/64776/incredible-image-atlantis-and-iss-transit-the-sun/) for details (3rd paragraph)...

• Sun ~1920 arcseconds in the sky (32' 00" average); ~17.125" on my monitor
• ISS height - 356' high; ~.5" on my monitor
• ISS angle ~56.06 arcseconds
• Calculated distance ~248.1 mi.
• Per orbital info, 249 mi.

Not bad...

Calculated height of dish TV satellite:

Quote from: Jadyyn on November 03, 2015, 04:52:17 PM

OK, here it is - your proof that satellite dishes are point at the same object. I am using towns at the 97° longitude to make this a 2D trigonometric problem:

Satellite:

• Galaxy 19
• latitude, longitude (0°, 96.96° W)

Victoria, TX:

• latitude, longitude (28.8169° N, 96.9933° W)
• dish angle, north alignment (56.441°, 179.93°)
• Geosynchronous distance = 42,601 km

Augusta, KS:

• latitude, longitude (37.6925° N, 96.9800° W)
• dish angle, north alignment (46.382°, 179.97°)
• Geosynchronous distance = 42,572 km

Grand Forks, ND:

• latitude, longitude (47.9253° N, 97.0325° W)
• dish angle, north alignment (35.034°, 179.90°)
• Geosynchronous distance = 42,559 km

These are all within 42 km. The 3 dishes are pointing at the same object. It is not a bird, balloon or plane 42,000+ km in the sky.

The other satellites in the area:

• 98.39 W Inmarsat, approximately 1060 km away from Galaxy 19
• 96.19 W Echostar 6, approximately 570 km away from Galaxy 19

These are MUCH farther than 42 km away. The dishes are not pointing at any other satellite.

Now can you demonstrate that the ISS and dish TV satellites are lower as you claim?

You do realize that you did not actually calculate anything, right?  Is calculate another big word that you do not know the meaning of?

You do realize that you did not actually calculate anything, right?  Is calculate another big word that you do not know the meaning of?

Calculate - determine (the amount or number of something) mathematically.

ISS - 248 mi up.
Galaxy 19 satellite - ~42,500+ mi.

Um... I used math to determine altitude...

So, I think I do know the meaning, do you?

So based on LOTS of pictures of the ISS against the Sun and Moon, what do you CALCULATE the altitude of the ISS is? I've done my math, let's see yours.

Based on software Dish TV installers use to align REAL TV dishes, I got the Galaxy 19's altitude. What do you CALCULATE the altitude to be?

Quote from: jroa on December 28, 2015, 06:19:23 PM

You do realize that you did not actually calculate anything, right?  Is calculate another big word that you do not know the meaning of?

Calculate - determine (the amount or number of something) mathematically.

ISS - 248 mi up.
Galaxy 19 satellite - ~42,500+ mi.

Um... I used math to determine altitude...

So, I think I do know the meaning, do you?

So based on LOTS of pictures of the ISS against the Sun and Moon, what do you CALCULATE the altitude of the ISS is? I've done my math, let's see yours.

Based on software Dish TV installers use to align REAL TV dishes, I got the Galaxy 19's altitude. What do you CALCULATE the altitude to be?

What altitude formula did you use and what were the values for the variables? 

Alaso, are you saying that you estimated the hight of the ISS based on its relative size to the sun and moon? 

You do realize that you did not actually calculate anything, right?  Is calculate another big word that you do not know the meaning of?

Those sums are a bit outside the range of my slide-rule (if I could remember how to use it).
Since Jadyyn "did not actually calculate anything", would you please show us how to do the correct calculations to give the effective heights of the ISS and geosynchronous satellites.

Quote from: Jadyyn on December 28, 2015, 06:31:37 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 28, 2015, 06:19:23 PM

You do realize that you did not actually calculate anything, right?  Is calculate another big word that you do not know the meaning of?

Calculate - determine (the amount or number of something) mathematically.

ISS - 248 mi up.
Galaxy 19 satellite - ~42,500+ mi.

Um... I used math to determine altitude...

So, I think I do know the meaning, do you?

So based on LOTS of pictures of the ISS against the Sun and Moon, what do you CALCULATE the altitude of the ISS is? I've done my math, let's see yours.

Based on software Dish TV installers use to align REAL TV dishes, I got the Galaxy 19's altitude. What do you CALCULATE the altitude to be?

What altitude formula did you use and what were the values for the variables?

For ISS, I used the picture without the "img width=800" parameter to measure the image on my monitor.

1920 x 0.5 / 17.125 = 56.06 arc sec
356 / 5280 / tan(56.06") = 248.1 mi

For the satellite, using (http://www.satellite-calculations.com/Satellite/lookangles.htm)
and:
Satellite:
  Galaxy 19
  latitude, longitude (0°, 96.96° W)

Victoria, TX:
  latitude, longitude (28.8169° N, 96.9933° W)
  dish angle, north alignment (56.441°, 179.93°)

Earth radius - 6371 km avg... the rest is trigonometry 101.

Based on latitude:
x1 = 6371 x cos(28.8169°) = 5582.0 km
y1 = 6371 x sin(28.8169°)  = 3070.9 km

then:
angle = 56.441° + 28.8169° = 85.2579°
x2 = 3070.9 x tan(85.2579°) = 37,019 km

x1+x2 = 42,601 km

Alaso, are you saying that you estimated the hight of the ISS based on its relative size to the sun and moon?

Based on the angular size of the Sun, ISS and ISS's actual length, you can figure out its altitude, yes.

Quote from: jroa on December 28, 2015, 06:39:35 PM

Alaso, are you saying that you estimated the hight of the ISS based on its relative size to the sun and moon?

Based on the angular size of the Sun, ISS and ISS's actual length, you can figure out its altitude, yes.

You would have to make an assumption on the length of the ISS in order for that to work. 

Quote from: Jadyyn on December 28, 2015, 08:01:29 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 28, 2015, 06:39:35 PM

Alaso, are you saying that you estimated the hight of the ISS based on its relative size to the sun and moon?

Based on the angular size of the Sun, ISS and ISS's actual length, you can figure out its altitude, yes.

You would have to make an assumption on the length of the ISS in order for that to work.

356' per documentation - http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65210.msg1743577#msg1743577

Quote from: jroa on December 28, 2015, 08:11:11 PM

Quote from: Jadyyn on December 28, 2015, 08:01:29 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 28, 2015, 06:39:35 PM

Alaso, are you saying that you estimated the hight of the ISS based on its relative size to the sun and moon?

Based on the angular size of the Sun, ISS and ISS's actual length, you can figure out its altitude, yes.

You would have to make an assumption on the length of the ISS in order for that to work.

356' per documentation - http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65210.msg1743577#msg1743577

If you are going to take their word for it, then you might as well not even calculate the altitude. 

Quote from: Jadyyn on December 28, 2015, 08:19:51 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 28, 2015, 08:11:11 PM

Quote from: Jadyyn on December 28, 2015, 08:01:29 PM

Quote from: jroa on December 28, 2015, 06:39:35 PM

Alaso, are you saying that you estimated the hight of the ISS based on its relative size to the sun and moon?

Based on the angular size of the Sun, ISS and ISS's actual length, you can figure out its altitude, yes.

You would have to make an assumption on the length of the ISS in order for that to work.

356' per documentation - http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=65210.msg1743577#msg1743577

If you are going to take their word for it, then you might as well not even calculate the altitude.

Well, you can see the size of the shuttle vs the ISS against the Sun. We can measure the shuttle on Earth. So, probably the 356' is close...