Satellites

  • 111 Replies
  • 6704 Views
*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 21275
  • All of us are versus me myself, balanced.
Re: Satellites
« Reply #90 on: September 26, 2016, 01:32:35 AM »
Whatellites? :) Which ellites? Are our antennas fixed one point but catching them continuesly things on orbit?  ;D
« Last Edit: September 26, 2016, 01:44:07 AM by İntikam »
People Funded By Gates Criminal Foundation





t= 4:28

*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: Satellites
« Reply #91 on: September 26, 2016, 01:49:32 AM »
Whatellites? :) Which ellites? Are our antennas fixed one point but catching them continuesly things on orbit?  ;D

Google 'geostationary'.
Facts won't do what I want them to.

We went from a round Earth to a round Moon: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html

*

rabinoz

  • 25707
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Satellites
« Reply #92 on: September 26, 2016, 03:05:40 AM »
Whatellites? :) Which ellites? Are our antennas fixed one point but catching them continuesly things on orbit?  ;D

Google 'geostationary'.
Won't help: İntikam thinks that Google in Turkey is infiltrated by NASA.

*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: Satellites
« Reply #93 on: September 26, 2016, 03:20:56 AM »
Whatellites? :) Which ellites? Are our antennas fixed one point but catching them continuesly things on orbit?  ;D

Google 'geostationary'.
Won't help: İntikam thinks that Google in Turkey is infiltrated by NASA.

Damn those fiends!!

Maybe Arthur C Clarke's 1945 paper will convince him...

http://lakdiva.org/clarke/1945ww/

Facts won't do what I want them to.

We went from a round Earth to a round Moon: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 21275
  • All of us are versus me myself, balanced.
Re: Satellites
« Reply #94 on: September 26, 2016, 03:25:46 AM »
Whatellites? :) Which ellites? Are our antennas fixed one point but catching them continuesly things on orbit?  ;D

Google 'geostationary'.

Sorry i forgot that time when google sent a sattelite rocket to the orbit. Would you want remind it me?
People Funded By Gates Criminal Foundation





t= 4:28

*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: Satellites
« Reply #95 on: September 26, 2016, 03:28:20 AM »
Whatellites? :) Which ellites? Are our antennas fixed one point but catching them continuesly things on orbit?  ;D

Google 'geostationary'.

Sorry i forgot that time when google sent a sattelite rocket to the orbit. Would you want to remind me?

OK, why try "using a web search engine of your choice, do some basic research into what a geostationary satellite is".

And just for fun, here's a British Pathe News article about a UK company building the receiving equipment for polar orbital weather satellites:

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/weather-satellite-station/query/weather+satellite

Facts won't do what I want them to.

We went from a round Earth to a round Moon: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html

*

wise

  • Professor
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 21275
  • All of us are versus me myself, balanced.
Re: Satellites
« Reply #96 on: September 26, 2016, 03:57:09 AM »
Whatellites? :) Which ellites? Are our antennas fixed one point but catching them continuesly things on orbit?  ;D

Google 'geostationary'.

Sorry i forgot that time when google sent a sattelite rocket to the orbit. Would you want to remind me?

OK, why try "using a web search engine of your choice, do some basic research into what a geostationary satellite is".

And just for fun, here's a British Pathe News article about a UK company building the receiving equipment for polar orbital weather satellites:

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/weather-satellite-station/query/weather+satellite

All about sattelites are lie. All lie. Some sources shows sattelites about 200-600 kilometres and more. Some sites showing less. But some sites showint their altitude about 35 000 kilometres. But we see the rocket goes about 2 minutes so it should be about 200-300 kilometres or low. But if we calculate it by angles and distances, finding tens on tousends kilometres, like this site show:



Turksat sattelite about on upper position to Tanzania and about 35.000 kilometres high. But take care, sattelites launches with rocket about 2 minutes and then reviewers saying the sattelite gone to the orbit! Where are they stays on? About 200-600 kilometres or 35.000-45.000 kilometres? There is no similarity between appears, calculated and said.
People Funded By Gates Criminal Foundation





t= 4:28

*

onebigmonkey

  • 1623
  • You. Yes you. Stand still laddie.
Re: Satellites
« Reply #97 on: September 26, 2016, 04:48:28 AM »
Whatellites? :) Which ellites? Are our antennas fixed one point but catching them continuesly things on orbit?  ;D

Google 'geostationary'.

Sorry i forgot that time when google sent a sattelite rocket to the orbit. Would you want to remind me?

OK, why try "using a web search engine of your choice, do some basic research into what a geostationary satellite is".

And just for fun, here's a British Pathe News article about a UK company building the receiving equipment for polar orbital weather satellites:

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/weather-satellite-station/query/weather+satellite

All about sattelites are lie. All lie. Some sources shows sattelites about 200-600 kilometres and more. Some sites showing less. But some sites showint their altitude about 35 000 kilometres. But we see the rocket goes about 2 minutes so it should be about 200-300 kilometres or low. But if we calculate it by angles and distances, finding tens on tousends kilometres, like this site show:



Turksat sattelite about on upper position to Tanzania and about 35.000 kilometres high. But take care, sattelites launches with rocket about 2 minutes and then reviewers saying the sattelite gone to the orbit! Where are they stays on? About 200-600 kilometres or 35.000-45.000 kilometres? There is no similarity between appears, calculated and said.

Which part of "use the internet to research geostationary satellites" is causing you a problem?

There are different types of orbits. Try looking for "polar orbital satellites" as well.
Facts won't do what I want them to.

We went from a round Earth to a round Moon: http://onebigmonkey.com/apollo/apollo.html

*

rabinoz

  • 25707
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Satellites
« Reply #98 on: September 26, 2016, 06:12:44 AM »
Whatellites? :) Which ellites? Are our antennas fixed one point but catching them continuesly things on orbit?  ;D

Google 'geostationary'.

Sorry i forgot that time when google sent a sattelite rocket to the orbit. Would you want to remind me?

OK, why try "using a web search engine of your choice, do some basic research into what a geostationary satellite is".

And just for fun, here's a British Pathe News article about a UK company building the receiving equipment for polar orbital weather satellites:

http://www.britishpathe.com/video/weather-satellite-station/query/weather+satellite

All about sattelites are lie. All lie. Some sources shows sattelites about 200-600 kilometres and more. Some sites showing less. But some sites showint their altitude about 35 000 kilometres. But we see the rocket goes about 2 minutes so it should be about 200-300 kilometres or low. But if we calculate it by angles and distances, finding tens on tousends kilometres, like this site show:



Turksat sattelite about on upper position to Tanzania and about 35.000 kilometres high. But take care, sattelites launches with rocket about 2 minutes and then reviewers saying the sattelite gone to the orbit! Where are they stays on? About 200-600 kilometres or 35.000-45.000 kilometres? There is no similarity between appears, calculated and said.

When you hear "But take care, sattelites launches with rocket about 2 minutes and then reviewers saying the sattelite gone to the orbit!" this is probably for satellites going (at least initially) into a Low Earth Orbit of 200 to 400 km. I don't know the details of insertion into Medium or High Earth Orbit.

You claim "There is no similarity between appears, calculated and said." That is not right at all, there is very good agreement - see my explanations below.

Satellites can orbit at any altitude from about 200 km above sea-level, biy those this low lose altitude from atmospheric drag.

The ISS orbits in what is called Low Earth Orbit (or LEO). Being so low it avoids long-term crew exposure to the radiation of the first Van Allen Belt.
Quote from: Wikipedia
International Space Station
The ISS maintains an orbit with an altitude of between 330 and 435 km (205 and 270 mi) by means of reboost manoeuvres using the engines of the Zvezda module or visiting spacecraft. It completes 15.54 orbits per day.

GPS Satellites are in Medium Earth Orbit
Quote
GPS satellites
GPS satellites fly in medium Earth orbit (MEO) at an altitude of approximately 20,200 km (12,550 miles). Each satellite circles the Earth twice a day.
The satellites in the GPS constellation are arranged into six equally-spaced orbital planes surrounding the Earth. Each plane contains four "slots" occupied by baseline satellites. This 24-slot arrangement ensures users can view at least four satellites from virtually any point on the planet.
From GPS.gov, Space Segment

Geosynchronous and Geostationary satellites have to circle the earth in one sidereal day or approximately 23 hours 56 minutes and 4 seconds and so are in High Earth Orbit or Geosynchronous Earth Orbit.
Quote from: Wikipedia
Geostationary orbit
A geostationary satellite above a marked spot on the Equator. An observer on the marked spot will see the satellite remain directly overhead unlike other celestial objects which sweep across the sky.
A geostationary equatorial orbit (GEO) is a circular geosynchronous orbit in the plane of the Earth's equator with a radius of approximately 42,164 km (26,199 mi) (measured from the center of the Earth). A satellite in such an orbit is at an altitude of approximately 35,786 km (22,236 mi) above mean sea level. It maintains the same position relative to the Earth's surface.

Usually the altitude of the satellite is given above sea-level simply because it's easier for us to picture ths for the lower satellites.

The orbital radius is the distance of the satellite from the centre of the earth, so for satellites in an equatorial orbit it is
(the altitude + the equatorial radius of earth) = altitude + 6,384 km).

You had this information about the TURKSAT 2A
Quote
TURKSAT 2A

Geostationary
TV

NORAD ID: 26666 
Int'l Code: 2001-002A 
Perigee: 35,857.1 km 
Apogee: 35,883.1 km 
Inclination: 0.6  
Period: 1,440.0 minutes 
Semi major axis: 42241 km 
RCS: 3.9 m2 (large) 
Launch date: January 10, 2001
Source: Turkey (TURK)
Launch site: FRENCH GUIANA (FRGUI)

32 Ku-band transponders; direct-to-home voice, video, and data transmissions to countries between central Europe and the Indian subcontinent.

Meaning that the orbit is slightly elliptical with the lowest altitude or perigee = 35,857.1 km and the highes altitude or apogee =  35,883.1 km.

The "Semi major axis: 42,241 km" means that the average radius (from the centre of the earth) is 42,241 km  and
the "Inclination: 0.6" means that the orbit is inclined from the equator by 0.6.

Maybe you won't bother reading this, but I have tried explaining it as well as I can.
And please don't call people liars, when it is you that do not understand what is going on. Just having an IQ of 160 does not help unless you have the knowledge to go with it.


*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Satellites
« Reply #99 on: September 28, 2016, 08:15:05 AM »
Quote
Satellites can be seen from the ground. I have seen a few myself, without need for binoculars. They appear to be simple stars, but if you notice they seem to blink in the heavens.

You're looking at Stratellites, not Satellites.

Satellites don't exist.

Quote
isn't the fact that you can see the earth rotate from a satellite enough proof that the earth isn't flat?

No.

stratellites, again with no evidence, just a new word

the last person I asked claimed the evidence for stratellites is the same as for satellites
..but they're located in totally different places and must travel at drastically different speeds

meaning they're blatantly NOT the same when it comes to evidence

if you're claiming stratellites, present your reasoning

Eight years past was a long, long time ago. 

*

rabinoz

  • 25707
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Satellites
« Reply #100 on: September 29, 2016, 01:09:45 AM »
Quote
Satellites can be seen from the ground. I have seen a few myself, without need for binoculars. They appear to be simple stars, but if you notice they seem to blink in the heavens.

You're looking at Stratellites, not Satellites.

Satellites don't exist.

Quote
isn't the fact that you can see the earth rotate from a satellite enough proof that the earth isn't flat?

No.

stratellites, again with no evidence, just a new word

the last person I asked claimed the evidence for stratellites is the same as for satellites
..but they're located in totally different places and must travel at drastically different speeds

meaning they're blatantly NOT the same when it comes to evidence

if you're claiming stratellites, present your reasoning

Eight years past was a long, long time ago.

Sure is, and you would think that Tom Bishop might have updated his ideas, though from what he posts on TFES.org, I fear not! His ideas on satellites seem much the same - stratellites.

For Tom, it seems that if something is not in Robotham or the "Monstrous Hypothetical Motions" it doesn't exist!

Though i admit that he now supports the "Bipolar Flat Earth Map" and not the "Ice-Wall Map". It does have Antarctica as a continent, but in most other respects it is more ridiculous than the "Ice-Wall Map" - neither of which are in the hacked "Wiki" of "theflatearthsociety.org"

Re: Satellites
« Reply #101 on: September 29, 2016, 01:18:42 AM »
Quote
Satellites can be seen from the ground. I have seen a few myself, without need for binoculars. They appear to be simple stars, but if you notice they seem to blink in the heavens.

You're looking at Stratellites, not Satellites.

Satellites don't exist.

Quote
isn't the fact that you can see the earth rotate from a satellite enough proof that the earth isn't flat?

No.

stratellites, again with no evidence, just a new word

the last person I asked claimed the evidence for stratellites is the same as for satellites
..but they're located in totally different places and must travel at drastically different speeds

meaning they're blatantly NOT the same when it comes to evidence

if you're claiming stratellites, present your reasoning

Eight years past was a long, long time ago.

that means nothing here..
there's still FE's claiming the same, JRoweSkeptic and Jane's backing him up

the last person I asked claimed the evidence for stratellites is the same as for satellites

..is the reason for my post


I'd say 'nice try', but it wasn't

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Satellites
« Reply #102 on: September 29, 2016, 04:27:24 AM »
That was Jane who said that, and she was right!

Re: Satellites
« Reply #103 on: September 29, 2016, 04:48:48 AM »
That was Jane who said that, and she was right!

do you not read what you quote?

Quote
Satellites can be seen from the ground. I have seen a few myself, without need for binoculars. They appear to be simple stars, but if you notice they seem to blink in the heavens.

You're looking at Stratellites, not Satellites.

Satellites don't exist.

Quote
isn't the fact that you can see the earth rotate from a satellite enough proof that the earth isn't flat?

No.

stratellites, again with no evidence, just a new word

the last person I asked claimed the evidence for stratellites is the same as for satellites
..but they're located in totally different places and must travel at drastically different speeds

meaning they're blatantly NOT the same when it comes to evidence


if you're claiming stratellites, present your reasoning

Eight years past was a long, long time ago. 

I was trying to explain something to intikam (don't ask why)
speaking of intikam, if I was you I'd be trembling in my boots because I think what you've just done may be chargeable under the 'interrupting on conversation apples' offence (or whatever it's called) :/

either way, the evidence is not the same, so the question is still unanswered

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Satellites
« Reply #104 on: September 29, 2016, 08:33:02 AM »
John is really angry today.  We can only hope he jiggles the stick. 

Re: Satellites
« Reply #105 on: September 29, 2016, 10:02:10 AM »
angry? so making jokes means I'm angry?

you piped up with some nonsense again, so i just cleared it up for you.. again

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Satellites
« Reply #106 on: September 29, 2016, 10:16:47 AM »
It would seem that your idea of a joke and everyone else's idea of a joke are mutually exclusive. 

Re: Satellites
« Reply #107 on: September 29, 2016, 10:19:58 AM »
yeah, like your idea of a debate, or a conversation, or evidence

bore off

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37820
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Satellites
« Reply #108 on: September 29, 2016, 10:28:02 AM »
So angry.  Can I help you jiggle the stick?

Re: Satellites
« Reply #109 on: September 29, 2016, 01:02:30 PM »
why are you not offering kleenex again?

..used them all? ;)

*

rabinoz

  • 25707
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Satellites
« Reply #110 on: September 29, 2016, 02:35:26 PM »
So angry.  Can I help you jiggle the stick?

The usual jroa "low content posting on the upper fora"!

Re: Satellites
« Reply #111 on: September 30, 2016, 12:17:08 AM »
when in Rome