The ISS is real... And so is a round Earth...

also i have a question : if the earth is rotating around the sun , and the ISS or satellites on its way once a day, wouldn't they come into contact and crash ?

What is going to crash in what? The ISS at 250 miles high into the sun at 93000000 miles high? I think they might just miss each time!

also i have a question : if the earth is rotating around the sun , and the ISS or satellites on its way once a day, wouldn't they come into contact and crash ?

Why don't you formulate your question a little better. The earth does not rotate around the sun, it revolves. What exactly do you mean by "the ISS or satellites on its way once a day, wouldn't they come into contact and crash?"

Multi-generation urban dwellers are so naive - why don't the clouds move below the ISS?  I grant that occassionally we see some small movement, but it is nothing like the real swirling mass you see in real life.   And why does NASA use photos purportedly from the moon showing a small earth - it should be four times larger than the moon as viewed from earth. And you buy the thermo shield argument?  You'd never make a lawyer, that takes a well developed sense of discrimination, a judge would never believe a witness that has lied (Moon landings as they now admit they can't penetrate the van allen belt) compounded the lie by saying they went past Jupiter and been to Mars (van allen again) and now say we are in low space orbit.  You'd chuck out the argument, fine the defendant and save the tax payer billions and billions.  A real win win..

Multi-generation urban dwellers are so naive - why don't the clouds move below the ISS?  I grant that occassionally we see some small movement, but it is nothing like the real swirling mass you see in real life.

difference in scale.  The clouds you see from your house are small parts of large systems.  the small parts move more than the system as a whole.  the clouds seen from the ISS are the large system and overall movement is visible but far less.

  And why does NASA use photos purportedly from the moon showing a small earth - it should be four times larger than the moon as viewed from earth.

How are you gauging the four times larger?  The apparent size will vary based on the lens used.  Use a wide angle lens and the apparent size is smaller.  Use a telephoto and the apparent size is larger.  Every time I've seen someone do the math on individual pics the Earth as seen from the Moon ended up taking up about 2 degrees of the field of view just as it should.
Don't believe the lens affects the apparent size of an object relative to others? Check out the following gif
The truck and barn don't move, only the lens changes

And you buy the thermo shield argument?

Which argument is that?

You'd never make a lawyer, that takes a well developed sense of discrimination, a judge would never believe a witness that has lied (Moon landings as they now admit they can't penetrate the van allen belt)

Apollo went around the belts on an inclined trajectory.  That path is not always available due to the angle of the Moon's orbit and the angle of the magnetic field.  If they want to go more often and at will then they need the option to go through the center of the belts.  That option is also not available for interstellar trajectories.

compounded the lie by saying they went past Jupiter and been to Mars (van allen again) and now say we are in low space orbit.  You'd chuck out the argument, fine the defendant and save the tax payer billions and billions.  A real win win..

Only unmanned have been past Jupiter and to Mars.  Since there are satellites that spend their entire working lives in the belts, a short trip through them shouldn't be an issue.

The van allen belts act like a huge EMP charge - all electronics fried!!

The van allen belts act like a huge EMP charge - all electronics fried!!

Not from what I've heard.  It is an area with higher particle radiation (alpha and beta) due to the shape of the magnetic field.  Again, many satellites spend their entire lives in the belts.  It is not impossible to shield from.

Quote from: JackBlack on November 21, 2016, 11:10:13 PM

Quote from: İntikam on November 21, 2016, 10:55:35 PM

As how Japans raised a bug in the space while they said the did an experiment on the outside of ISS. What a relevance with space?

Why nobody unable to interrogate why the name of ISS have a word as space. What a relevance with space except 9.600 kms. So my office is a ISS too. Because i'm near to space compared to ISS about %96 same distance. (9.600/10.000)

Yeah it is possible ISS is real but second S (SPACE) is a big LIE !

As I said before, the ISS is in space.

I did not read the others that not requered.

i.e. you ignore anything you disagree with.
This shows you are just a lying dishonest troll with no concern for the truth.

If you actually cared about the truth you would read through and respond.
You are merely setting up a pathetic strawman to try and pretend the ISS is a lie.
Grow up.

Opposite control idiotive brainless weak attack. Disrespecting to everybody. What a troll.

Yes, that is exactly what you are.

also i have a question : if the earth is rotating around the sun , and the ISS or satellites on its way once a day, wouldn't they come into contact and crash ?

No, at least not often.

Earth is orbiting the sun at a very great distance 150 000 000 km if I recall correctly.
Satellites orbit within a few tens of thousands of km. So no, they won't crash into the sun.

They also wont crash into Earth because they are pretty much the same distance from the sun as Earth and thus will orbit the sun just like Earth would.

However, they do sometimes crash into each others, but they try and avoid that, even making corrections to their orbit to avoid it.

The van allen belts act like a huge EMP charge - all electronics fried!!

No. Not EMP, charged particles. Particles which can be shielded against.
Also, belt, not ball. And you get to move in 3D, meaning you can go around the belt (or through a very weak section of it).

The van allen belts act like a huge EMP charge - all electronics fried!!

Evidence, please? Your saying something does not make it true!

But, have you ever given a thought to just how the data about the Van Allen belts were gathered?

Yes, NASA gathered that data from Space probes penetrating that region of space.

Now here is a wonderful headline for you to proclaim NASA's Van Allen Probes Spot an Impenetrable Barrier in Space.

An Impenetrable Barrier in Space! Just what Flat Earthers have been proclaiming all along - or is it?

Read a bit further and find just what the Van Allen Belts are an "Impenetrable Barrier" to.
No, this is NOT referring to an Impenetrable Barrier to spacecraft at all.

Two donuts of seething radiation that surround Earth, called the Van Allen radiation belts, have been found to contain a nearly impenetrable barrier that prevents the fastest, most energetic electrons from reaching Earth.

could you stop please, stop acting like two childs and please answer my (noob?) question why the sattelites don't crash

Satellites are so small compared to the area they have to orbit. Not only surface-area wise, but altitude wise. However, on occasion, they do!
In 2009, Satellites Iridium 33 and Kosmos-2251 collided. And you can tell that they did because Iridium 33 flares no longer occur. Luckily they get replaced every once and a while.
Here's an actual photo of the debris taken by a telescope:

I don't deal with offspring.

i'm saying that a lot of satellites are in orbit around earth, but earth rotates aroudn the sun, so some of these satellites will be on the path of the earth's rotation, no?

how can they magically stay at the same distance from the earth when the earth is spinning around the sun ?

they should crash on the rotating earth! Plus gravity pulls the objects, not push them !

Jeff

i'm saying that a lot of satellites are in orbit around earth, but earth rotates aroudn the sun, so some of these satellites will be on the path of the earth's rotation, no?

how can they magically stay at the same distance from the earth when the earth is spinning around the sun ?

they should crash on the rotating earth! Plus gravity pulls the objects, not push them !

Jeff

When they were put in orbit around Earth they also have orbital motion around the Sun.  They don't just magically lose that.

i'm saying that a lot of satellites are in orbit around earth, but earth rotates aroudn the sun, so some of these satellites will be on the path of the earth's rotation, no?

how can they magically stay at the same distance from the earth when the earth is spinning around the sun ?

they should crash on the rotating earth! Plus gravity pulls the objects, not push them !

Jeff

The same reasons why the earth and moon never crash into the sun. Think about that for a bit...

i'm saying that a lot of satellites are in orbit around earth, but earth rotates aroudn the sun, so some of these satellites will be on the path of the earth's rotation, no?

how can they magically stay at the same distance from the earth when the earth is spinning around the sun ?

they should crash on the rotating earth! Plus gravity pulls the objects, not push them !

Jeff

Here's a good way to visualize it: (skip to 4:30)

Quote from: 1on0ne on November 23, 2016, 07:19:11 AM

i'm saying that a lot of satellites are in orbit around earth, but earth rotates aroudn the sun, so some of these satellites will be on the path of the earth's rotation, no?

how can they magically stay at the same distance from the earth when the earth is spinning around the sun ?

they should crash on the rotating earth! Plus gravity pulls the objects, not push them !

Jeff

Here's a good way to visualize it: (skip to 4:30)

am i blind or are the peebles colliding one into another in this video? this proves nothing IMHO

am i blind or are the peebles colliding one into another in this video? this proves nothing IMHO

Initially they collide a lot, just like how the dust and gas would when the solar system was forming, but then at the end, they were mostly fine. But due to friction including with the air, they slow down. That wouldn't be happening in space.

Exactly what is the issue?
Do you think the satellites should crash into Earth, the sun, each other or what?

Quote from: Kent on November 23, 2016, 07:36:12 PM

Quote from: 1on0ne on November 23, 2016, 07:19:11 AM

i'm saying that a lot of satellites are in orbit around earth, but earth rotates aroudn the sun, so some of these satellites will be on the path of the earth's rotation, no?

how can they magically stay at the same distance from the earth when the earth is spinning around the sun ?

they should crash on the rotating earth! Plus gravity pulls the objects, not push them !

Jeff

Here's a good way to visualize it: (skip to 4:30)

am i blind or are the peebles colliding one into another in this video? this proves nothing IMHO

Obviously, that's a rough example, but it shows how everything in the solar system orbits the sun, yet it's possible to orbit around something else. But to question orbital mechanics seems silly. It's math that was developed in 1687. With enough momentum, and no friction, things can orbit forever. If you shoot a gun on the surface of the moon, and wait a few minutes, and it'll hit you in the back of the head with the same velocity.

But note, there is a small amount of friction as satellites scrape along the top of the atmosphere. With an expanding and contracting atmosphere based on activity of the Sun, satellites fall to earth all the time when it's velocity is no longer fit into the equation of it's altitude. In fact, the Hubble telescope is going to fall to Earth pretty soon. As well as the ISS. They've been periodically pushing it back up for years now.
Here's an altitude graph of the ISS:

i'm saying that a lot of satellites are in orbit around earth, but earth rotates aroudn the sun, so some of these satellites will be on the path of the earth's rotation, no?

how can they magically stay at the same distance from the earth when the earth is spinning around the sun ?

they should crash on the rotating earth! Plus gravity pulls the objects, not push them !

Jeff

First, they don't stay at the same distance. Their altitude decays all the time. Second, gravity does pull on them, but when they are going so fast, they fall over the curvature of the Earth.
Think about it like a hammer throw (or any rope with a weight at the end.) The faster it spins around you, the harder you have to pull. But Earth's gravity is generally constant, so the only factor you can change is the speed you're spinning it. Spin it too slow, and you'll be pull it inward. Too fast, and it'll reach "escape velocity" and hit someone in the face. But depending on the length of the rope, there is a specific speed it can go to exactly match the force you're pulling at it.
Centrifugal force is a bad way of describing it, but you get my point.

Technically: We are all in orbit around the Earth. It's just that most of our orbits intersect with the Surface of Earth. If all the mass of earth was instantly compressed into a small point, we would all be in elliptical orbits.

Quote from: Kent on November 23, 2016, 07:36:12 PM

Quote from: 1on0ne on November 23, 2016, 07:19:11 AM

i'm saying that a lot of satellites are in orbit around earth, but earth rotates aroudn the sun, so some of these satellites will be on the path of the earth's rotation, no?

how can they magically stay at the same distance from the earth when the earth is spinning around the sun ?

they should crash on the rotating earth! Plus gravity pulls the objects, not push them !

Jeff

Here's a good way to visualize it: (skip to 4:30)

am i blind or are the peebles colliding one into another in this video? this proves nothing IMHO

They're colliding the same reason the marbles are eventually going to collide with the big mass at the center, but because there's less distance, they were colliding more frequently. In space, given a less-chaotic balance, nothing would touch.

i could understand that the moon could attain a perfect balance between gravity and centrigal force that permits the moon to rotate endlessly around ethe earth, but that both moon and earth are also rotating around the sun makes it completely invalid, i think

i could understand that the moon could attain a perfect balance between gravity and centrigal force that permits the moon to rotate endlessly around ethe earth, but that both moon and earth are also rotating around the sun makes it completely invalid, i think

First, it's not centrifugal force. Second, it doesn't matter what you "think." It's math. And that video did a pretty good job of showing how things can orbit something else while the system as a whole is in orbit. It's how our sun orbits the center of our galaxy, moons orbit Jupiter, and how smaller asteroids can even orbit larger asteroids.






ALSO: The moon doesn't "rotate endlessly" around Earth. It revolves. And it isn't "endless." Almost no orbits are stable in the solar system. Every year, the moon is getting 4-6 cm further away from us. In time, there will never be a total solar eclipse ever again. Because it will be too small to cover the sun.

i could understand that the moon could attain a perfect balance between gravity and centrigal force that permits the moon to rotate endlessly around ethe earth, but that both moon and earth are also rotating around the sun makes it completely invalid, i think

Okay, I think I understand your issue.

If I understand correctly, you are suggesting that Earth orbits the sun with a circular path.
The moon then orbits Earth with a "circular" path.

These 2 paths intersect. Thus the moon should crash into Earth.

(Also note: I am ignoring the ecentricity of these paths for now. In reality, all of these parts are elipses, but that is not significant).

The issue is that everything on and near Earth is also orbiting the sun. So they also have their own circular orbits around the sun.
This is affected by Earth (and Earth is effected by the moon to a lesser extent), which results in this circular orbit deforming into a circle with a sine curve overlapping them.
e.g. consider just a single satellite, (X), orbitting in this particular direction, (going the other way works as well, but is somewhat more complex):

Let start outside Earth, (i.e. so in a line, you have the sun, Earth and X). X experiences the gravity of the sun, as well as the Earth.
This makes it's orbit faster than Earth so it starts to race ahead of Earth.
This now makes Earth start to pull it back slightly, but not directly and its inertia want to keep it moving, so not only does it go ahead of Earth it also starts to curve and go in front of Earth (i.e. along Earth's orbital path).
 At this point, if it stopped magically (or was just orbiting the sun and Earth magically appeared), it would fall to Earth, but its velocity keeps it moving out of Earth's path, and the same pull of Earth now causes it to bend around to the inside of Earth (between Earth and the sun).
Now when it is between Earth and the sun, it's orbital speed will be slower than Earth, due to the gravity from Earth cancelling out some of that from the sun (as they are now pulling in different directions), and thus it slows down and starts to fall behind Earth.
Then similar to above, its path curves and it falls in directly behind Earth and then starts to speed up.

So while their path's intersect, they are at those points at different times and thus don't crash.

Does that make sense?

Also note: This only holds when you are between Earth and it's Lagrangian points with the sun, and aren't within the moons influence.
If you are at L1 or L2, the Earth's gravity combines with the suns so it (the satellite) orbits at the same angular rate as Earth. (L3, L4 and L5 are the same, but in significantly different positions.)