Satellite dishes in Norfolk

Radio wave can reflect off almost any object and yes, even the atmosphere. That doesn't mean this is how we receive satellite TV signals. We are told that the satellites are 22,000 miles above the equator and are in sync with the earths orbit so they appear to stay in one spot all the time. As someone who doesn't believe the earth is spinning, I'm more inclined to believe satellites are of the inflatable kind that hang out in the stratosphere and can either reflect radio waves down to us or they work exactly the way they tell us they do. An uplink facility transmits the signal up to the satellite and the satellite re-transmits the signal back down to subscribers. I'm inclined to believe the latter. A transmitter broadcasting from that altitude would have no problem covering the area of a country spread out on a flat plane. They are not lying about all of it, only some of it. Rockets can still be used to get the electronic equipment up there and they can remain in the exact location indefinitely. I know, you want proof that will back up what I believe. Proof is not easy to come by because it is hidden from public view. We all know that when governments want to hide information, they can very well do so. Even if someone exposed the truth, no one would believe them. So governments don't have to worry about it very much.

I will happily do so if you can provide one piece of information: given your dish, what angle is it at, and where is the tower or installation that receives its signal? From that I can calculate where all dishes at the same angle on that radius. Without that, it is not physically possible for me to answer that question.

Satellite signals reflect off moisture, and a moisture layer would develop between the heat of the Sun and the cool of the ground: there is a point where it goes from gas to liquid and back to gas. The variation I gave only follows from the shape of the caloric field, and the Sun's influence.

Dishes can be said to converge many ways. If you wanted you could point every dish on Earth towards a place that would be over the equator, but the signal would still bounce and return to a point on Earth. So long as a sufficient 'satellite' is there (it might be no bigger than a lamppost, the main installation could be elsewhere) the system will remain.

I ask you again to please leave behind the bluster. I understand you believe the world is round, but a conversation cannot be had if you try to drag me into your worldview without comprehending mine. If it makes you happy I will concede this aspect of your model could work. I don't believe that is true, but I have no desire to get into that discussion. Now, if your model can in theory work, and my model can in theory work, what is it you intend to do to sort between them?

Here are 3 locations and angles:
(http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64682.msg1726741#msg1726741)

The Galaxy 19 satellite - There are almost 200 transmitters using this satellite.
(http://www.ftalist.com/galaxy19.php)

One channel - Daystar Television - transmits from KRMT (SW of Denver, CO) at (39° 35′ 59″ N, 105° 12′ 35″ W)
KRMT info (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KRMT)

Please show where they are on your FE.

And the signals transmitted to a satellite are different to those transmitted to the home.  The satellite processes the channels for the multiplexes.

Quote from: Jane on July 10, 2016, 04:26:05 AM

Quote from: Jadyyn on July 09, 2016, 09:19:06 PM

Because no FE model has a map. You don't know where you or anything is on your FE fantasy world. How can you measure or say what happens anywhere on it? You don't know where a dish (e.g. a house in Texas) is on a FE. You don't know where ANY transmitter is on a FE. So how do you know when a dish is pointing up, it hits a transmitter on Earth? It is all hand-waving - nothing scientific or measurable or verifiable.

That wasn't a good argument the first time you made it. Given the core of Triddles' argument is based on satellite signals bouncing off of moisture layers, the only claim that merits testing is that. Whether or not that happens isn't going to relate to how far Texas is from wherever. Asking for things that would be impossible to provide regardless of the shape of the Earth is just silly, especially if they aren't really relevant.

Actually you are correct. It is impossible to provide on a FE. On a FE, even if signals somehow could bounce off of moisture layers, how can you tell if you don't know where the transmitter is that is sending the signal or the receiver (dish) is? I don't even know if the height of these moisture layers can be measured. How can anything be measured?

On a RE, per latitude and longitude on a sphere, we know exactly where they are. Therefore, based on the calculated angles from software we can point the dishes at the target. They all converge on the target. We can set up telescopes (without even their motors running) to take pictures of the geostationary targets. All this conforms to documentation on how dishes are installed and work.

So against hand-waving at best with dubious scientific properties (bounding off of moisture layers) - another ad hoc explanation that probably only one FEer believes, we have reality that is testable, falsifiable, measurable and repeatable.

We know where they are on a RE because we've been told. You're asking an FEer to do the work of all those hundreds of people who did quite literally rocket science on the spur of the moment, for a forum post. It's a silly thing to ask for.
Like you pointed out: you don't know how to measure the height of these moisture layers. If the same holds for them, then you're literally asking the impossible. Similarly, if the world was round, you wouldn't easily be able to determine the location of satellites by just the angle of a dish. There are hypothetical experiments, relying on figuring out two dishes point to the same one, finding out the angles... But that's a lot of work to go through, and if you can't prove they're pointed at the same point, pointless.

All you're establishing is that FET lacks predictive power. Big woop. Let's wait for FET to pass a few more minor hurdles before we hold it up to that particular test. Wait for an FEer to walk before demanding they run.

Quote from: Jadyyn on July 10, 2016, 07:18:45 AM

Quote from: Jane on July 10, 2016, 04:26:05 AM

Quote from: Jadyyn on July 09, 2016, 09:19:06 PM

Because no FE model has a map. You don't know where you or anything is on your FE fantasy world. How can you measure or say what happens anywhere on it? You don't know where a dish (e.g. a house in Texas) is on a FE. You don't know where ANY transmitter is on a FE. So how do you know when a dish is pointing up, it hits a transmitter on Earth? It is all hand-waving - nothing scientific or measurable or verifiable.

That wasn't a good argument the first time you made it. Given the core of Triddles' argument is based on satellite signals bouncing off of moisture layers, the only claim that merits testing is that. Whether or not that happens isn't going to relate to how far Texas is from wherever. Asking for things that would be impossible to provide regardless of the shape of the Earth is just silly, especially if they aren't really relevant.

Actually you are correct. It is impossible to provide on a FE. On a FE, even if signals somehow could bounce off of moisture layers, how can you tell if you don't know where the transmitter is that is sending the signal or the receiver (dish) is? I don't even know if the height of these moisture layers can be measured. How can anything be measured?

On a RE, per latitude and longitude on a sphere, we know exactly where they are. Therefore, based on the calculated angles from software we can point the dishes at the target. They all converge on the target. We can set up telescopes (without even their motors running) to take pictures of the geostationary targets. All this conforms to documentation on how dishes are installed and work.

So against hand-waving at best with dubious scientific properties (bounding off of moisture layers) - another ad hoc explanation that probably only one FEer believes, we have reality that is testable, falsifiable, measurable and repeatable.

We know where they are on a RE because we've been told. You're asking an FEer to do the work of all those hundreds of people who did quite literally rocket science on the spur of the moment, for a forum post. It's a silly thing to ask for.
Like you pointed out: you don't know how to measure the height of these moisture layers. If the same holds for them, then you're literally asking the impossible. Similarly, if the world was round, you wouldn't easily be able to determine the location of satellites by just the angle of a dish. There are hypothetical experiments, relying on figuring out two dishes point to the same one, finding out the angles... But that's a lot of work to go through, and if you can't prove they're pointed at the same point, pointless.

All you're establishing is that FET lacks predictive power. Big woop. Let's wait for FET to pass a few more minor hurdles before we hold it up to that particular test. Wait for an FEer to walk before demanding they run.

This is no doubt that the information regarding satellites is correct, the elevation and azimuth details are available and correct.  For multiple locations they show a single satellite for a particular service is located over the equator.

Maybe you can post a link showing the satellite and dish alignment information has been found to be incorrect by those in the industry, including installers.  Also please show details of transmitters for satellite services that are actually not satellites.

Quote from: Jadyyn on July 10, 2016, 07:18:45 AM

Quote from: Jane on July 10, 2016, 04:26:05 AM

Quote from: Jadyyn on July 09, 2016, 09:19:06 PM

Because no FE model has a map. You don't know where you or anything is on your FE fantasy world. How can you measure or say what happens anywhere on it? You don't know where a dish (e.g. a house in Texas) is on a FE. You don't know where ANY transmitter is on a FE. So how do you know when a dish is pointing up, it hits a transmitter on Earth? It is all hand-waving - nothing scientific or measurable or verifiable.

That wasn't a good argument the first time you made it. Given the core of Triddles' argument is based on satellite signals bouncing off of moisture layers, the only claim that merits testing is that. Whether or not that happens isn't going to relate to how far Texas is from wherever. Asking for things that would be impossible to provide regardless of the shape of the Earth is just silly, especially if they aren't really relevant.

Actually you are correct. It is impossible to provide on a FE. On a FE, even if signals somehow could bounce off of moisture layers, how can you tell if you don't know where the transmitter is that is sending the signal or the receiver (dish) is? I don't even know if the height of these moisture layers can be measured. How can anything be measured?

On a RE, per latitude and longitude on a sphere, we know exactly where they are. Therefore, based on the calculated angles from software we can point the dishes at the target. They all converge on the target. We can set up telescopes (without even their motors running) to take pictures of the geostationary targets. All this conforms to documentation on how dishes are installed and work.

So against hand-waving at best with dubious scientific properties (bounding off of moisture layers) - another ad hoc explanation that probably only one FEer believes, we have reality that is testable, falsifiable, measurable and repeatable.

We know where they are on a RE because we've been told. You're asking an FEer to do the work of all those hundreds of people who did quite literally rocket science on the spur of the moment, for a forum post. It's a silly thing to ask for.
Like you pointed out: you don't know how to measure the height of these moisture layers. If the same holds for them, then you're literally asking the impossible. Similarly, if the world was round, you wouldn't easily be able to determine the location of satellites by just the angle of a dish. There are hypothetical experiments, relying on figuring out two dishes point to the same one, finding out the angles... But that's a lot of work to go through, and if you can't prove they're pointed at the same point, pointless.

All you're establishing is that FET lacks predictive power. Big woop. Let's wait for FET to pass a few more minor hurdles before we hold it up to that particular test. Wait for an FEer to walk before demanding they run.

It's more like being born before they can crawl.

I typically point out that (1) you can't have people living on just one side of a FE because of rotational issues (Earth/sky). (2) Then per amateur astronomy, the sky/heavens are all wrong on FE models (S. Celestial Pole, sunrises/sunsets, etc.). (3) Then any type of FE map causes major distortions that are hidden by oceans and the ignoring of peoples' complaints who are south of the equator (as demonstrated by the S.Pole being in the middle rather than the N.Pole). Therefore, the FE concept is truly a fantasy only in the minds of individuals (who probably have their own versions of a FE). So, discussing how various things would work *IF* a FE existed is silly to me - at best a mind game/exercise.

It is like a car. The triangular wheels don't work (geometry). The body of the car doesn't exist (sky). The engine and powertrain doesn't exist (Earth/map). So hey, let's discuss how seat belts would work on it (Dish TV, gravity, etc. usually with some off-the-wall ad hoc explanations not supported by what actually happens in the real world). Sorry if this all gets nonsensical and tiring.

This is no doubt that the information regarding satellites is correct, the elevation and azimuth details are available and correct.  For multiple locations they show a single satellite for a particular service is located over the equator.

Maybe you can post a link showing the satellite and dish alignment information has been found to be incorrect by those in the industry, including installers.  Also please show details of transmitters for satellite services that are actually not satellites.

Given that I think the world is round, think satellites are real, and at no point said gave any indication any of the things you're asking I provide were true, I'm not sure why I should.
I just think it's a bit silly to go about demanding FEers supply absurdly technical details when there's no way you'd manage anything analogous, especially when it's overkill. Don't you ever get bored repeating the same tired old argument?
Have some fun. Actually engage with an FEer rather than basically copy-pasting the exact same point into every thread.

An answer to an objection must: a) be possible, b) theoretically be able to be applied in such a way, c) be able to be mathematically described. Generally proofs go through those three points in that order. People are still taking issue with a, why are you jumping ahead to c?
Sure, their model doesn't meet the standard of scientific inquiry. Who cares? They think the Earth is flat, does that seriously surprise you? You know they won't be able to answer. They know they won't be able to answer (by reason of resources). If you're asking a question no one thinks can be answered, you are not engaging in a discussion.

If I wanted to instantly disprove FET I'd be bringing back my thread where I went over how meteorology (literally predicting the future) relies on RET, and went over the FE measurements. That worked. So? It's a conversation-ender, and a forum is useless without back-and-forth.

How about you wait until there's an FE model which could, even in theory, work before you start demanding detailed descriptions? Seems like common sense to me.

It's more like being born before they can crawl.

I typically point out that (1) you can't have people living on just one side of a FE because of rotational issues (Earth/sky). (2) Then per amateur astronomy, the sky/heavens are all wrong on FE models (S. Celestial Pole, sunrises/sunsets, etc.). (3) Then any type of FE map causes major distortions that are hidden by oceans and the ignoring of peoples' complaints who are south of the equator (as demonstrated by the S.Pole being in the middle rather than the N.Pole). Therefore, the FE concept is truly a fantasy only in the minds of individuals (who probably have their own versions of a FE). So, discussing how various things would work *IF* a FE existed is silly to me - at best a mind game/exercise.

It is like a car. The triangular wheels don't work (geometry). The body of the car doesn't exist (sky). The engine and powertrain doesn't exist (Earth/map). So hey, let's discuss how seat belts would work on it (Dish TV, gravity, etc. usually with some off-the-wall ad hock explanations not supported by what actually happens in the real world). Sorry if this all gets nonsensical and tiring.

Sure, it's just a mind exercise, so what? At least that achieves something. Pasting an argument you know isn't going to get refuted to someone you know won't be convinced doesn't even manage that. Seems far sillier.
Plus asking someone to singlehandedly map out satellites like that is a ridiculous thing to do no matter the shape of the world. Given they won't have the means to just google, I'd love to see you manage the same with that restriction in place.

Seriously, why do you come to this forum? You may as well not even read what they post if you're not going to engage with it. Given achievement's not an option on a forum like this, you may as well at least try to derive some enjoyment. I can't imagine anyone enjoys talking to a brick wall (both on your part and theirs). You can refute FET, big woop, instant-death arguments are overkill if a model can't even answer the small ones.
Refute it on their grounds. Have a little fun. Leave behind evidence, how they justify their belief, let them get as ad hoc as they want. Wait until they can actually even theoretically answer questions like "What are satellite dishes pointed at?" Most FEers have different models so at least that'd actually be fresh. It's only tiring if you're left repeating yourself.
Then ask questions relating to evidence and the like. By that point they'll actually be meaningful. Pointing out there's no evidence for something that doesn't even work in the first place is silly.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 08, 2016, 08:36:58 PM

Been vacationing in Norfolk and I saw something interesting. Across the hotel I've been staying in there's a tv or radio station that is about four stories tall. The hotel I was staying in was nine stories but I was on the fourth floor. Anyway I noticed the satellite dishes on the roof of the station (WGNT) were pointed at a 45 degree angle and were pointed south. According to the flat earth theory satellites don't exist and the dishes are getting there signals from towers. Please explain to me were are these dishes are getting there signal when there are no mountains near by.

I would think in Norfolk Va. satellite tv dishes should be pointing more towards SW at around 38 degree elevation to pick up the High-Altitude Long Endurance platforms they use to beam tv signals at us.

Nope, they pointing directly south. Plus do you have evidence of this?

The signals are received by being bounced off of a layer of moisture in the sky, that arcs from horizon to horizon (dipping slightly in the center). At and near the equator, the curve of this moisture means they must point straight up to avoid being scattered, while elsewhere there is less of a curve.

If that was the case it would be really unreliable as you are dependant on special weather conditions to provide the exact amount of thickness to provide the angle. If it was the normal answer of satellites in space then all you have to worry about is cloudy weather.

Quote from: Triddles on July 09, 2016, 10:00:35 AM

The signals are received by being bounced off of a layer of moisture in the sky, that arcs from horizon to horizon (dipping slightly in the center). At and near the equator, the curve of this moisture means they must point straight up to avoid being scattered, while elsewhere there is less of a curve.

If that was the case it would be really unreliable as you are dependant on special weather conditions to provide the exact amount of thickness to provide the angle. If it was the normal answer of satellites in space then all you have to worry about is cloudy weather.

Of course we ALL know that...

Quote from: Yendor on July 09, 2016, 09:21:38 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 08, 2016, 08:36:58 PM

Been vacationing in Norfolk and I saw something interesting. Across the hotel I've been staying in there's a tv or radio station that is about four stories tall. The hotel I was staying in was nine stories but I was on the fourth floor. Anyway I noticed the satellite dishes on the roof of the station (WGNT) were pointed at a 45 degree angle and were pointed south. According to the flat earth theory satellites don't exist and the dishes are getting there signals from towers. Please explain to me were are these dishes are getting there signal when there are no mountains near by.

I would think in Norfolk Va. satellite tv dishes should be pointing more towards SW at around 38 degree elevation to pick up the High-Altitude Long Endurance platforms they use to beam tv signals at us.

Nope, they pointing directly south. Plus do you have evidence of this?

I was going by the fact I live about 2 1/2 hours north of Norfolk and I had to point my direcTV dish @ 38^oelevation and 232.2^o azimuth. That to me is SW.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 10, 2016, 10:52:50 AM

Quote from: Yendor on July 09, 2016, 09:21:38 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 08, 2016, 08:36:58 PM

Been vacationing in Norfolk and I saw something interesting. Across the hotel I've been staying in there's a tv or radio station that is about four stories tall. The hotel I was staying in was nine stories but I was on the fourth floor. Anyway I noticed the satellite dishes on the roof of the station (WGNT) were pointed at a 45 degree angle and were pointed south. According to the flat earth theory satellites don't exist and the dishes are getting there signals from towers. Please explain to me were are these dishes are getting there signal when there are no mountains near by.

I would think in Norfolk Va. satellite tv dishes should be pointing more towards SW at around 38 degree elevation to pick up the High-Altitude Long Endurance platforms they use to beam tv signals at us.

Nope, they pointing directly south. Plus do you have evidence of this?

I was going by the fact I live about 2 1/2 hours north of Norfolk and I had to point my direcTV dish @ 38^oelevation and 232.2^o azimuth. That to me is SW.

Ok, but I had a compass on me and they were pointing directly or at least very close to south. I was at the Marriott residence.

Quote from: Yendor on July 10, 2016, 11:24:00 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 10, 2016, 10:52:50 AM

Quote from: Yendor on July 09, 2016, 09:21:38 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 08, 2016, 08:36:58 PM

Been vacationing in Norfolk and I saw something interesting. Across the hotel I've been staying in there's a tv or radio station that is about four stories tall. The hotel I was staying in was nine stories but I was on the fourth floor. Anyway I noticed the satellite dishes on the roof of the station (WGNT) were pointed at a 45 degree angle and were pointed south. According to the flat earth theory satellites don't exist and the dishes are getting there signals from towers. Please explain to me were are these dishes are getting there signal when there are no mountains near by.

I would think in Norfolk Va. satellite tv dishes should be pointing more towards SW at around 38 degree elevation to pick up the High-Altitude Long Endurance platforms they use to beam tv signals at us.

Nope, they pointing directly south. Plus do you have evidence of this?

I was going by the fact I live about 2 1/2 hours north of Norfolk and I had to point my direcTV dish @ 38^oelevation and 232.2^o azimuth. That to me is SW.

Ok, but I had a compass on me and they were pointing directly or at least very close to south. I was at the Marriott residence.

Where you at a golf tournament there? I was stationed in Norfolk for 5 years. If you where using your cell phone as a compass, sometimes they are off. The azimuth for Norfolk is about the same as me, around 228.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 10, 2016, 11:43:44 AM

Quote from: Yendor on July 10, 2016, 11:24:00 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 10, 2016, 10:52:50 AM

Quote from: Yendor on July 09, 2016, 09:21:38 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 08, 2016, 08:36:58 PM

Been vacationing in Norfolk and I saw something interesting. Across the hotel I've been staying in there's a tv or radio station that is about four stories tall. The hotel I was staying in was nine stories but I was on the fourth floor. Anyway I noticed the satellite dishes on the roof of the station (WGNT) were pointed at a 45 degree angle and were pointed south. According to the flat earth theory satellites don't exist and the dishes are getting there signals from towers. Please explain to me were are these dishes are getting there signal when there are no mountains near by.

I would think in Norfolk Va. satellite tv dishes should be pointing more towards SW at around 38 degree elevation to pick up the High-Altitude Long Endurance platforms they use to beam tv signals at us.

Nope, they pointing directly south. Plus do you have evidence of this?

I was going by the fact I live about 2 1/2 hours north of Norfolk and I had to point my direcTV dish @ 38^oelevation and 232.2^o azimuth. That to me is SW.

Ok, but I had a compass on me and they were pointing directly or at least very close to south. I was at the Marriott residence.

Where you at a golf tournament there? I was stationed in Norfolk for 5 years. If you where using your cell phone as a compass, sometimes they are off. The azimuth for Norfolk is about the same as me, around 228.

No, I wasn't at a golf tournament and my compass was your average everyday one.

Quote from: Yendor on July 10, 2016, 12:12:09 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 10, 2016, 11:43:44 AM

Quote from: Yendor on July 10, 2016, 11:24:00 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 10, 2016, 10:52:50 AM

Quote from: Yendor on July 09, 2016, 09:21:38 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 08, 2016, 08:36:58 PM

Been vacationing in Norfolk and I saw something interesting. Across the hotel I've been staying in there's a tv or radio station that is about four stories tall. The hotel I was staying in was nine stories but I was on the fourth floor. Anyway I noticed the satellite dishes on the roof of the station (WGNT) were pointed at a 45 degree angle and were pointed south. According to the flat earth theory satellites don't exist and the dishes are getting there signals from towers. Please explain to me were are these dishes are getting there signal when there are no mountains near by.

I would think in Norfolk Va. satellite tv dishes should be pointing more towards SW at around 38 degree elevation to pick up the High-Altitude Long Endurance platforms they use to beam tv signals at us.

Nope, they pointing directly south. Plus do you have evidence of this?

I was going by the fact I live about 2 1/2 hours north of Norfolk and I had to point my direcTV dish @ 38^oelevation and 232.2^o azimuth. That to me is SW.

Ok, but I had a compass on me and they were pointing directly or at least very close to south. I was at the Marriott residence.

Where you at a golf tournament there? I was stationed in Norfolk for 5 years. If you where using your cell phone as a compass, sometimes they are off. The azimuth for Norfolk is about the same as me, around 228.

No, I wasn't at a golf tournament and my compass was your average everyday one.

Okay...don't get defensive. I wasn't trying to start something.

Well, Dishpointer does seem to indicate SW from Norfolk for some satellites and not others. 

Eg 110W DIRECTV 5 (TEMPO 1) | ECHOSTAR 10 | ECHOSTAR 11 Is 228 azimuth with a 35° elevation, so SW.  Though Rainbow 1 satellite is SE.

Well, Dishpointer does seem to indicate SW from Norfolk for some satellites and not others. 

Eg 110W DIRECTV 5 (TEMPO 1) | ECHOSTAR 10 | ECHOSTAR 11 Is 228 azimuth with a 35° elevation, so SW.  Though Rainbow 1 satellite is SE.

Thanks Jimmy, that's all I was saying.

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 10, 2016, 12:29:19 PM

Quote from: Yendor on July 10, 2016, 12:12:09 PM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 10, 2016, 11:43:44 AM

Quote from: Yendor on July 10, 2016, 11:24:00 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 10, 2016, 10:52:50 AM

Quote from: Yendor on July 09, 2016, 09:21:38 AM

Quote from: Luke 22:35-38 on July 08, 2016, 08:36:58 PM

Been vacationing in Norfolk and I saw something interesting. Across the hotel I've been staying in there's a tv or radio station that is about four stories tall. The hotel I was staying in was nine stories but I was on the fourth floor. Anyway I noticed the satellite dishes on the roof of the station (WGNT) were pointed at a 45 degree angle and were pointed south. According to the flat earth theory satellites don't exist and the dishes are getting there signals from towers. Please explain to me were are these dishes are getting there signal when there are no mountains near by.

I would think in Norfolk Va. satellite tv dishes should be pointing more towards SW at around 38 degree elevation to pick up the High-Altitude Long Endurance platforms they use to beam tv signals at us.

Nope, they pointing directly south. Plus do you have evidence of this?

I was going by the fact I live about 2 1/2 hours north of Norfolk and I had to point my direcTV dish @ 38^oelevation and 232.2^o azimuth. That to me is SW.

Ok, but I had a compass on me and they were pointing directly or at least very close to south. I was at the Marriott residence.

Where you at a golf tournament there? I was stationed in Norfolk for 5 years. If you where using your cell phone as a compass, sometimes they are off. The azimuth for Norfolk is about the same as me, around 228.

No, I wasn't at a golf tournament and my compass was your average everyday one.

Okay...don't get defensive. I wasn't trying to start something.

I wasn't being defensive. How DARE you accuse me of being defensive. I NEVER got defensive in my ENTIRE life. 

Quote from: Jadyyn

It's more like being born before they can crawl.

I typically point out that (1) you can't have people living on just one side of a FE because of rotational issues (Earth/sky). (2) Then per amateur astronomy, the sky/heavens are all wrong on FE models (S. Celestial Pole, sunrises/sunsets, etc.). (3) Then any type of FE map causes major distortions that are hidden by oceans and the ignoring of peoples' complaints who are south of the equator (as demonstrated by the S.Pole being in the middle rather than the N.Pole). Therefore, the FE concept is truly a fantasy only in the minds of individuals (who probably have their own versions of a FE). So, discussing how various things would work *IF* a FE existed is silly to me - at best a mind game/exercise.

It is like a car. The triangular wheels don't work (geometry). The body of the car doesn't exist (sky). The engine and powertrain doesn't exist (Earth/map). So hey, let's discuss how seat belts would work on it (Dish TV, gravity, etc. usually with some off-the-wall ad hock explanations not supported by what actually happens in the real world). Sorry if this all gets nonsensical and tiring.

Sure, it's just a mind exercise, so what? At least that achieves something. Pasting an argument you know isn't going to get refuted to someone you know won't be convinced doesn't even manage that. Seems far sillier.
Plus asking someone to singlehandedly map out satellites like that is a ridiculous thing to do no matter the shape of the world. Given they won't have the means to just google, I'd love to see you manage the same with that restriction in place.

Seriously, why do you come to this forum? You may as well not even read what they post if you're not going to engage with it. Given achievement's not an option on a forum like this, you may as well at least try to derive some enjoyment. I can't imagine anyone enjoys talking to a brick wall (both on your part and theirs). You can refute FET, big woop, instant-death arguments are overkill if a model can't even answer the small ones.
Refute it on their grounds. Have a little fun. Leave behind evidence, how they justify their belief, let them get as ad hoc as they want. Wait until they can actually even theoretically answer questions like "What are satellite dishes pointed at?" Most FEers have different models so at least that'd actually be fresh. It's only tiring if you're left repeating yourself.
Then ask questions relating to evidence and the like. By that point they'll actually be meaningful. Pointing out there's no evidence for something that doesn't even work in the first place is silly.

Okey dokey. As long as everyone knows that the FE concept is just a fantasy and all we are doing is discussing "mind-games" - IF a FE could exist - that is fine. We are just here for the fun of it, nothing serious. I hope they don't call us trolls. Got it...

What about satellites phones for people who goes in places where there is no towers nearby.
So from what i seen signal bounces of the atmosphere?
But to do so you would need to have a directional focus signal to get a precise connection.



I dont see how those would work without a satellite above us.

actually how does the non existence of satellites matters on a FE model?

Okey dokey. As long as everyone knows that the FE concept is just a fantasy and all we are doing is discussing "mind-games" - IF a FE could exist - that is fine. We are just here for the fun of it, nothing serious. I hope they don't call us trolls. Got it...

Half of them would call us trolls anyway: and feels much more like trolling if you're just going to repeat the same handful of arguments over and over and over. Besides, it's a far more substantive discourse if you actually let them begin developing an FE model.
If you're here to convince them, then engage rather than dragging them onto your preferred topic. Wait until they have a model they're calling complete, then point out flaws etc. Pointing out holes before that isn't going to achieve anything, they'd just shrug it off as "Well it's not a complete model." You have to know your steamroller tactics haven't succeeded in convincing a single FEer, so maybe that overly serious method is just pointless.

Because really, steamrollering is what you're doing. Most FEers start with the slightest beginning of a model, a shoot poking out of the ground. Bringing in a steamroller to deal with that is just silly. Don't rely on the same old tedious, dull stock arguments: look at what they're actually saying. You can still refute them on their own grounds, and it's more enjoyable for everyone when you do.

Going in yelling "FET is impossible because of A) B) and C) and it's all a fantasy and everyone who believes in it is a deluded idiot..." best case scenario you get blocked. If you intend to change anyone's mind, you'd fail miserably. if you intend to entertain anyone (even yourself), you'd fail similarly. If you're just trying to insult then, yep, you're a troll.
So, yeah, what exactly is the point of those tactics?

Look at Kevin80: that's a great post. Actually engages with what the FEer put forward, and explains the issue that results. In this situation, the FEer either needs to develop a model, or concede.
Whereas steamrolling in with absurd demands like "Map out something I literally admit I wouldn't have a clue how you could possibly do!" just makes you look like an idiot.

actually how does the non existence of satellites matters on a FE model?

Generally they deny any form of space travel exists (as then they'd need to explain away why the Earth looks round), which in turn means no satellites.

Look at Kevin80: that's a great post. Actually engages with what the FEer put forward, and explains the issue that results. In this situation, the FEer either needs to develop a model, or concede.
Whereas steamrolling in with absurd demands like "Map out something I literally admit I wouldn't have a clue how you could possibly do!" just makes you look like an idiot.

Quote from: Kevin80

actually how does the non existence of satellites matters on a FE model?

Generally they deny any form of space travel exists (as then they'd need to explain away why the Earth looks round), which in turn means no satellites.

Thanks

Well I am not here to insult anyone, and especially people who has less knowledge or different opinions as me, as I would expect the same for someone who knows more than me.
What i see over and over, just because someone doesn't know something or disagree they are treated as stupid. Why can't we be adults, civilize and intelligent being?

For my part I'm still on the fence, and try to disprove both sides. I believe we might find some new truth (or not) to all of this if we worked together instead of against.

Why does satellite TV need a directional antenna but satellite phones don't?  Perhaps you simply never question anything?

Why does satellite TV need a directional antenna but satellite phones don't?  Perhaps you simply never question anything?

That has been explained before.  All about frequencies used, power output, bandwidth, coverage areas.

I don't understand how referring to geostationary satellites is intended as evidence. They only exist if you believe the world is round.

I only noticed this bit when looking for something else.


I believe that the earth is a ROTATING GLOBE! Is that close enough to believing that "the world is round".

Quote from: inquisitive on July 09, 2016, 12:01:18 PM

Satellite signals do not bounce off moisture.

I'm not sure what the purpose of your post is intended do be. Are you stating that they cannot bounce off moisture, in which case I must refute that: all such signals will be reflected off anything tangible, such as sufficient concentrations of moisture. If you are simply claiming they do not, then it seems a purposefulness post until you explain how you ascertain that.

Satellite signals do not bounce off moisture. The simple fact you receive satellite on a clear day, and just as well on an overcast raining day proves that.

There are some transmitters over all around the big cities. And the transmitters usually on high points on. For example in Istanbul almost all of the transmitters are on the same mountain that has the 267 metres altitude. If you in 267 metres circle around it, your antenna must be 45 degrees to see it.

I was thinking maybe the sattelites exist but after holliday i changed my idea and now i'm thinking that the sattelites are not exist. Because when i'm travelling in a big city, all of the tv channels seems as perfect and when i was at a secluded place the tv channels don't seems good, insomuch that near of some villages tv channels don't seem. This situation shows there is no sattelites but strong transmitters all over the all big cities.

And GPS sattelites never working on secluded places on Turkey. But when i arrive a city, then GPS starts to working again.

I think its means nothing the angle of antenna, the most important thing if the radio waves arrives the antenna or not. The angle is not so important.

There are some transmitters over all around the big cities. And the transmitters usually on high points on. For example in Istanbul almost all of the transmitters are on the same mountain that has the 267 metres altitude. If you in 267 metres circle around it, your antenna must be 45 degrees to see it.

I was thinking maybe the sattelites exist but after holliday i changed my idea and now i'm thinking that the sattelites are not exist. Because when i'm travelling in a big city, all of the tv channels seems as perfect and when i was at a secluded place the tv channels don't seems good, insomuch that near of some villages tv channels don't seem. This situation shows there is no sattelites but strong transmitters all over the all big cities.

And GPS sattelites never working on secluded places on Turkey. But when i arrive a city, then GPS starts to working again.

I think its means nothing the angle of antenna, the most important thing if the radio waves arrives the antenna or not. The angle is not so important.

You claim "And GPS sattelites never working on secluded places on Turkey. But when i arrive a city, then GPS starts to working again."

I am sure you must be using a mobile phone as your GPS device. That needs internet coverage to receive the maps, but NOT the GPS location data.

I have a couple of GPS devices with pre-loaded maps and they work anywhere I have been in Australia, New Zealand, Norfolk Island, Switzerland, England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland and whenever I have been on a ship at sea.

I have used GPS devices numerous time hundreds of miles from any "phone towers"!

Then you say "The angle is not so important." That is completely wrong for microwave dish antennas. These need to be pointed with an accuracy of a degree or even better in the case of large dishes.

Please learn a bit about the topic before make statements like this. It only makes you look foolish when you make claims like this.

Quote from: İntikam on July 12, 2016, 12:02:32 AM

There are some transmitters over all around the big cities. And the transmitters usually on high points on. For example in Istanbul almost all of the transmitters are on the same mountain that has the 267 metres altitude. If you in 267 metres circle around it, your antenna must be 45 degrees to see it.

I was thinking maybe the sattelites exist but after holliday i changed my idea and now i'm thinking that the sattelites are not exist. Because when i'm travelling in a big city, all of the tv channels seems as perfect and when i was at a secluded place the tv channels don't seems good, insomuch that near of some villages tv channels don't seem. This situation shows there is no sattelites but strong transmitters all over the all big cities.

And GPS sattelites never working on secluded places on Turkey. But when i arrive a city, then GPS starts to working again.

I think its means nothing the angle of antenna, the most important thing if the radio waves arrives the antenna or not. The angle is not so important.

You claim "And GPS sattelites never working on secluded places on Turkey. But when i arrive a city, then GPS starts to working again."

I am sure you must be using a mobile phone as your GPS device. That needs internet coverage to receive the maps, but NOT the GPS location data.

I have a couple of GPS devices with pre-loaded maps and they work anywhere I have been in Australia, New Zealand, Norfolk Island, Switzerland, England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland and whenever I have been on a ship at sea.

I have used GPS devices numerous time hundreds of miles from any "phone towers"!

Then you say "The angle is not so important." That is completely wrong for microwave dish antennas. These need to be pointed with an accuracy of a degree or even better in the case of large dishes.

Please learn a bit about the topic before make statements like this. It only makes you look foolish when you make claims like this.

You know my principles and incomprehensibly acting as disrespective. Why do you do that?

I was preparing to an answer but i saw you are a bit aggressive. After i ignored you, you blame me escape from reality. No. I'm just waiting for an urban discussion environment. Is it really hard to discuss without rubbish? Or you want be ignored. Anyway.

I want to I will respond it and after that you have been ignored.

Yes i'm using my telephone as GPS but it hasen't internet because i closed my telephone to internet for to get rid of nonsence advertisements. So your theory is wrong. My telephone hasen't internet and using it's own GPS property. When i'm on a city, i'm using my telephone as a GPS navigator and going everywhere with it that showing me my point 100% true second by second. But when i'm on out of the city GPS isin't working.

This proves GPS  waves produced by transmitters on the cities. There is no GPS sattelites.

Now you have been ignored that you deserved it. It was not caused by your ideas. It stemmed from disrespect that actually you don't need to do that. So i don't want to see your malevolent ideas again. Bye bye.

Quote from: rabinoz on July 12, 2016, 12:17:54 AM

Quote from: İntikam on July 12, 2016, 12:02:32 AM

There are some transmitters over all around the big cities. And the transmitters usually on high points on. For example in Istanbul almost all of the transmitters are on the same mountain that has the 267 metres altitude. If you in 267 metres circle around it, your antenna must be 45 degrees to see it.

I was thinking maybe the sattelites exist but after holliday i changed my idea and now i'm thinking that the sattelites are not exist. Because when i'm travelling in a big city, all of the tv channels seems as perfect and when i was at a secluded place the tv channels don't seems good, insomuch that near of some villages tv channels don't seem. This situation shows there is no sattelites but strong transmitters all over the all big cities.

And GPS sattelites never working on secluded places on Turkey. But when i arrive a city, then GPS starts to working again.

I think its means nothing the angle of antenna, the most important thing if the radio waves arrives the antenna or not. The angle is not so important.

You claim "And GPS sattelites never working on secluded places on Turkey. But when i arrive a city, then GPS starts to working again."

I am sure you must be using a mobile phone as your GPS device. That needs internet coverage to receive the maps, but NOT the GPS location data.

I have a couple of GPS devices with pre-loaded maps and they work anywhere I have been in Australia, New Zealand, Norfolk Island, Switzerland, England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland and whenever I have been on a ship at sea.

I have used GPS devices numerous time hundreds of miles from any "phone towers"!

Then you say "The angle is not so important." That is completely wrong for microwave dish antennas. These need to be pointed with an accuracy of a degree or even better in the case of large dishes.

Please learn a bit about the topic before make statements like this. It only makes you look foolish when you make claims like this.

You know my principles and incomprehensibly acting as disrespective. Why do you do that?

I was preparing to an answer but i saw you are a bit aggressive. After i ignored you, you blame me escape from reality. No. I'm just waiting for an urban discussion environment. Is it really hard to discuss without rubbish? Or you want be ignored. Anyway.

I want to I will respond it and after that you have been ignored.

Yes i'm using my telephone as GPS but it hasen't internet because i closed my telephone to internet for to get rid of nonsence advertisements. So your theory is wrong. My telephone hasen't internet and using it's own GPS property. When i'm on a city, i'm using my telephone as a GPS navigator and going everywhere with it that showing me my point 100% true second by second. But when i'm on out of the city GPS isin't working.

This proves GPS  waves produced by transmitters on the cities. There is no GPS sattelites.

Now you have been ignored that you deserved it. It was not caused by your ideas. It stemmed from disrespect that actually you don't need to do that. So i don't want to see your malevolent ideas again. Bye bye.

Your experience does not prove how GPS works, talk to others who understand the science and engineering.