Satellites exist as do high altitude balloons. So what. They just don't orbit some fictional spinning globe. The sun is also real- just not the way you think it is. Your question is pedantic and probably pejorative. Hard
This reply doesn't really consist of anything and doesn't address the given justifications to the original assertion. You can reduce this reply down to " I agree satellites are real, and I don't believe the Earth is round".
The justifications presented in the original assertion being:
- If you tried to overlay the paths of satellites onto your FE azimuthal projection, you would have a mess.
- Highly elliptical orbits would be especially difficult to explain, with their peaks and troughs.
This claim thus far still stands, as it appears the assertion is valid and the response doesn't really mean anything in relation to the substantive content of the OPs claim.
----------
My post started with "Satellites exist as DO high altitude balloons" not "to high altitude balloons". Those two statements mean differing things.
Ok, but this is a "
not even wrong" fallacy, the point has no relation to the original claim. The question is to describe how orbital paths would work in the flat earth azimuthal projection, and to explain [given the justifications described] that the observations could only exist on a round Earth. Not whether there is any relation between high altitude balloons and satellites, or that they are the same thing. So this is a pointless misnomer.
As the Aether rushes by the earth objects that it intersects with are also pulled along the path taking them around the disc.
Can you prove the existence of Aether? This requires some evidence based, observable, substantive grounding. Without this, any claim to it's effects on any physical system are purely speculative and can't be used to substantiate a rebuttal to the original assertion.
We also have to remember that the disc (or earth) is also moving upward (along with the aether and the atmosphere) at a constant acceleration of 32/f/s/s.
Can you substantiate this claim? Are there any physical measurements of this, or models that describe this that have shown to be reliable in prediction and testability? (I presume this is an hypothesis challenging the General Relativistic notion of gravity?)
The objects (in this case satellites) that interact with the ethereal wind then travel lower, but along the edge of the Aetheric "whirl pool.
Again this is an unsubstantiated claim that lacks a credibly asserted backing. An extrapolation built upon an assumption. It can't rationally be accepted as substantive content to your attempted explanation. It's an
idea based on a completely unproven hypothesis. Unless there are measurements that show Aether as a real substance and there is some line of science I have not come across that observes and maps it's behavior and effect on physical objects.
The satellites experience the same "eye wash" effect as the sun and the moon- but with light reflected by such and with such low luminosity (compared to those latter two objects) that the "satellite Rise and Setting are not as noticeable.
Read my previous response: re. Aether. Also please explain the
eye wash effect and source which evidence this concept is derived from. Without these substantiations, this is another
idea based upon nothing substantive.
In respect to Aether and the claims thereof...
Argumentum ex culo my friend.
Newton (yep the believer in "Majick" his spelling btw) pretty much figured out that Aether and the aetheric wind had to exist for celestial body movement to occur.
This is known as one of his hypotheses to describe the
why in gravitational attraction. It's an extremely outdated and old hypothesis. Aether has never been proven to exist and the idea becomes redundant in explaining the
why behind gravity, as General Relativity explains the why in concrete, observable, predictive and testable terms, to a complete degree of accuracy.
This is an
outdated information fallacy. Simply, using outdated and redundant ideas as cause of a rebuttal. Almost a straw man, but not quite.
With regards to aetheric wind and whirlpool are very basic Flat Earth Tenets and can be explored more fully on the resource portion of the Website. I can also recommend some top notch books and sites that provide detailed scientific theories and experiments that conclusive show that the aetheric wind and not some invisible "gravitational attraction" account for much of what we see overhead.
But here is a link- but if you want book titles etc I can provide them. I would suggest the following
https://wiki.tfes.org/Aetheric_Whirlpool
Please link to these books and sites that provide detailed scientific theories and experiments (two very different things mind you) that
conclusively (wow) show that aetheric wind accounts for what we see overhead. - A point though. Isn't the idea of aetherial wind indistinguishable from gravitational attraction? - vis, some invisible force acting on things.
The link you posted as source makes several assertions, yet fails to substantiate any of them with any kind of justification. The description is by definition incomplete. In a claim, you must describe the why and how alongside the
is before it can be taken as an actual claim. It fails to do this so cannot be rationally taken as a description of anything beyond an [incomplete] idea. There is no substance wherein one can assess the validity of the assertion. As it stands, it can be taken on faith (which should never be done in cases like this), or discarded. I look forward to this scientific material on the conclusive nature of Aether, though.
As for Newton I think he had the right of it. I think he understood aether and his works have been buried and suppressed.
You're entitled to that opinion. Though you should know that all of Newton's ideas on Aether are publicly available and can be studied readily and found to be inadequate to describe gravitational attraction against General relativity, which does a much better job. We simply don't need the (unprovable) hypothesis any longer. Do you have any evidence of his work being buried and suppressed, or is it an ideological stance as a means to justify your position?
Having gone through this
huge derailment excersize consisting of an impressive catalog of fallacious reasoning (I've literally just been going along and nit picking the faults in the argument on a case by case basis - assumptions, presumptions, leaps of faith, conjecture, incomplete arguments, unbacked claims, formal and informal fallacies). We have come nowhere in addressing the central claim of the thread.
Which is this:
Given the Earth is Flat. How do you explain the
data expressed in satellite orbital paths in reference to an azimuthal projection. where they only seem to make sense in respect to a spherical earth.
How do you explain,
given the Earth is Flat, the
specific observed nature of the orbital flight paths in respect to:
- Polar orbits
- Molniya orbits
- Geosynchronous and Geostationary orbits
- Semi-synchronous orbits
- Tundra orbits
- Sun-synchronous polar orbits
The request here is to explain how these two seemingly incompatible concepts can co-exist. You must do this without resorting to vague hypotheses or unproven, ad hoc and outdated ideas as you have done this far. I'm not being rude here, this is an honest remark based on what you've actually been saying in attempting to refute (or otherwise sidestep) the original question.
The Op has made an assertion, and substantiated that assertion with reference to observable phenomena. It is now your job to successfully refute this assertion with a rational counter argument that logically stands. So far you have failed. It would be best to begin somewhere mathematical as this is essentially the nature of the claim.