Are satellites real?

  • 287 Replies
  • 9090 Views
?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #60 on: February 18, 2018, 01:39:13 AM »
This is a free body diagram of a satellite.

The circle represents the satellite and the arrow represents the force of gravity.

Tell everyone why it will not crash into the Earth...

Because the force on the satellite is always perpendicular to its direction of travel, resulting in a circular trajectory that doesn't intersect the earth.

(For a satellite in a circular orbit; In the case of an elliptical orbit it's slightly more complicated but a similar analysis applies.)
You are in dispute with the free body diagram.

Please edit the diagram and present it as you think it should look.

I agree with the free body diagram. Where have I indicated any dispute with it?

You forgot the bit where gravity accelerates it.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #61 on: February 18, 2018, 02:22:29 AM »
This is a free body diagram of a satellite.

The circle represents the satellite and the arrow represents the force of gravity.

Tell everyone why it will not crash into the Earth...

Because the force on the satellite is always perpendicular to its direction of travel, resulting in a circular trajectory that doesn't intersect the earth.

(For a satellite in a circular orbit; In the case of an elliptical orbit it's slightly more complicated but a similar analysis applies.)
You are in dispute with the free body diagram.

Please edit the diagram and present it as you think it should look.

I agree with the free body diagram. Where have I indicated any dispute with it?

You forgot the bit where gravity accelerates it.

That wouldn't be shown on a free body diagram.

Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #62 on: February 18, 2018, 02:28:01 AM »
This is a free body diagram of a satellite.

The circle represents the satellite and the arrow represents the force of gravity.

Tell everyone why it will not crash into the Earth...

Because the force on the satellite is always perpendicular to its direction of travel, resulting in a circular trajectory that doesn't intersect the earth.

(For a satellite in a circular orbit; In the case of an elliptical orbit it's slightly more complicated but a similar analysis applies.)
You are in dispute with the free body diagram.

Please edit the diagram and present it as you think it should look.

I agree with the free body diagram. Where have I indicated any dispute with it?

You forgot the bit where gravity accelerates it.

That wouldn't be shown on a free body diagram.
You claim the force (gravity) is perpendicular to direction of travel.

That means you are in dispute with the diagram.

Please draw the force causing travel.
Because the real deal is worthless...
Now run away and bother someone who cares!

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #63 on: February 18, 2018, 02:48:59 AM »
This is a free body diagram of a satellite.

The circle represents the satellite and the arrow represents the force of gravity.

Tell everyone why it will not crash into the Earth...

Because the force on the satellite is always perpendicular to its direction of travel, resulting in a circular trajectory that doesn't intersect the earth.

(For a satellite in a circular orbit; In the case of an elliptical orbit it's slightly more complicated but a similar analysis applies.)
You are in dispute with the free body diagram.

Please edit the diagram and present it as you think it should look.

I agree with the free body diagram. Where have I indicated any dispute with it?

You forgot the bit where gravity accelerates it.

That wouldn't be shown on a free body diagram.

You claimed gravity would cause a circular trajectory.

But, as gravity is a constant downwards acceleration, any trajectory would be an inwards spiral, which would most definitely intersect the Earth.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

rvlvr

  • 891
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #64 on: February 18, 2018, 02:49:37 AM »
Their descriptions are all false. They should say "To keep flat Earth a secret."

*

Macarios

  • 1190
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #65 on: February 18, 2018, 02:58:14 AM »
This is a free body diagram of a satellite.

The circle represents the satellite and the arrow represents the force of gravity.

Tell everyone why it will not crash into the Earth...

Because the force on the satellite is always perpendicular to its direction of travel, resulting in a circular trajectory that doesn't intersect the earth.

(For a satellite in a circular orbit; In the case of an elliptical orbit it's slightly more complicated but a similar analysis applies.)
You are in dispute with the free body diagram.

Please edit the diagram and present it as you think it should look.

I agree with the free body diagram. Where have I indicated any dispute with it?

You forgot the bit where gravity accelerates it.

That wouldn't be shown on a free body diagram.
You claim the force (gravity) is perpendicular to direction of travel.

That means you are in dispute with the diagram.

Please draw the force causing travel.

Inertia is causing travel.
Forces cause acceleration.
Your diagram is incomplete.

Satellite has initial speed, longitudinal to trajectory.
Inertia causes it to remain constant.
If there was longitudinal force, speed would change.

Gravity causes the force you draw.
That force is transversal in any point and is curvig the trajectory.
The force is always acting towards the center of the Earth.
Relative to external frame of reference that force changes direction as satellite moves, remaining transversal.

Inertia resists the curving and creates reaction to your force.
That is the force you omitted.
That force is counteracting your force of gravity.
Resultant is zero and transversal speed remains balanced keeping the satellite at constant distance of the center of the Earth.
If satellite orbit is elliptical, it doesn't remain constant but oscillates around some average value.

Are you now little closer to understanding?
« Last Edit: February 18, 2018, 03:01:08 AM by Macarios »
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #66 on: February 18, 2018, 03:06:09 AM »
This is a free body diagram of a satellite.

The circle represents the satellite and the arrow represents the force of gravity.

Tell everyone why it will not crash into the Earth...

Because the force on the satellite is always perpendicular to its direction of travel, resulting in a circular trajectory that doesn't intersect the earth.

(For a satellite in a circular orbit; In the case of an elliptical orbit it's slightly more complicated but a similar analysis applies.)
You are in dispute with the free body diagram.

Please edit the diagram and present it as you think it should look.

I agree with the free body diagram. Where have I indicated any dispute with it?

You forgot the bit where gravity accelerates it.

That wouldn't be shown on a free body diagram.
You claim the force (gravity) is perpendicular to direction of travel.

That means you are in dispute with the diagram.

Please draw the force causing travel.
Inertia resists the curving and creates reaction to your force.
That is the force you omitted.
That force is counteracting your force of gravity

Inertia is not a force.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #67 on: February 18, 2018, 03:13:47 AM »
I agree with the free body diagram. Where have I indicated any dispute with it?

You forgot the bit where gravity accelerates it.

That wouldn't be shown on a free body diagram.

You claimed gravity would cause a circular trajectory.

But, as gravity is a constant downwards acceleration, any trajectory would be an inwards spiral, which would most definitely intersect the Earth.

A car can turn constantly left, say, and describe a circle. It doesn't necessarily spiral inwards.

Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #68 on: February 18, 2018, 03:15:52 AM »
I agree with the free body diagram. Where have I indicated any dispute with it?

You forgot the bit where gravity accelerates it.

That wouldn't be shown on a free body diagram.
You claim the force (gravity) is perpendicular to direction of travel.

That means you are in dispute with the diagram.

Please draw the force causing travel.

There's no force associated with the forward travel. The satellite is already moving in that direction. The diagram is correct.

Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #69 on: February 18, 2018, 03:17:40 AM »
Inertia is causing travel.
Forces cause acceleration.
Your diagram is incomplete.
"A Satellite is a Projectile
The fundamental principle to be understood concerning satellites is that a satellite is a projectile. That is to say, a satellite is an object upon which the only force is gravity."
My diagram is not incomplete.
Satellite has initial speed, longitudinal to trajectory.
Inertia causes it to remain constant.
If there was longitudinal force, speed would change.
Inertia cannot "cause," anything as it is not a force.
Gravity causes the force you draw.
That force is transversal in any point and is curvig the trajectory.
The force is always acting towards the center of the Earth.
Relative to external frame of reference that force changes direction as satellite moves, remaining transversal.
"That is to say, a satellite is an object upon which the only force is gravity."
Inertia resists the curving and creates reaction to your force.
That is the force you omitted.
That force is counteracting your force of gravity.
Resultant is zero and transversal speed remains balanced keeping the satellite at constant distance of the center of the Earth.
If satellite orbit is elliptical, it doesn't remain constant but oscillates around some average value.

Are you now little closer to understanding?
"That is to say, a satellite is an object upon which the only force is gravity."

Yeah.

I now understand completely all of you RE-tards are completely full of crap!
« Last Edit: February 18, 2018, 04:06:27 AM by totallackey »
Because the real deal is worthless...
Now run away and bother someone who cares!

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #70 on: February 18, 2018, 03:19:13 AM »
I agree with the free body diagram. Where have I indicated any dispute with it?

You forgot the bit where gravity accelerates it.

That wouldn't be shown on a free body diagram.

You claimed gravity would cause a circular trajectory.

But, as gravity is a constant downwards acceleration, any trajectory would be an inwards spiral, which would most definitely intersect the Earth.

A car can turn constantly left, say, and describe a circle. It doesn't necessarily spiral inwards.

A car can create friction upon the medium via which it moves, i.e. the ground.

A satellite is in vacuum, ergo no friction is possible, and nothing is preventing gravity accelerating it downwards.

Wanna try again, botty boy?
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #71 on: February 18, 2018, 03:20:23 AM »
I agree with the free body diagram. Where have I indicated any dispute with it?

You forgot the bit where gravity accelerates it.

That wouldn't be shown on a free body diagram.

You claimed gravity would cause a circular trajectory.

But, as gravity is a constant downwards acceleration, any trajectory would be an inwards spiral, which would most definitely intersect the Earth.

A car can turn constantly left, say, and describe a circle. It doesn't necessarily spiral inwards.
Please do not offer a false analogy of a car in comparison to a satellite.

A "circle" is not an orbit.
Because the real deal is worthless...
Now run away and bother someone who cares!

*

rabinoz

  • 19399
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #72 on: February 18, 2018, 03:26:29 AM »
You claimed gravity would cause a circular trajectory.
And a circular trajectory requires a centripetal acceleration to maintain that circular motion.
See: the Physics Classroom, Mathematics of Circular Motion which tells us that
.
Quote from: Papa Legba
But, as gravity is a constant downwards acceleration,
And circular motion needs a "constant downwards acceleration" of v2/R to maintain a circular orbit.
Hence you have shown that satellite orbits fit the physics perfectly.
This gives a bit more detail on that, the Physics Classroom, Circular Motion Principles for Satellites.

Quote from: Papa Legba
any trajectory would be an inwards spiral, which would most definitely intersect the Earth.
So sorry, Poor Papa, it looks like the Physics Classroom, that you so kindly lead us to, proves you wrong again!

*

Macarios

  • 1190
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #73 on: February 18, 2018, 03:36:42 AM »
This is a free body diagram of a satellite.

The circle represents the satellite and the arrow represents the force of gravity.

Tell everyone why it will not crash into the Earth...

Because the force on the satellite is always perpendicular to its direction of travel, resulting in a circular trajectory that doesn't intersect the earth.

(For a satellite in a circular orbit; In the case of an elliptical orbit it's slightly more complicated but a similar analysis applies.)
You are in dispute with the free body diagram.

Please edit the diagram and present it as you think it should look.

I agree with the free body diagram. Where have I indicated any dispute with it?

You forgot the bit where gravity accelerates it.

That wouldn't be shown on a free body diagram.
You claim the force (gravity) is perpendicular to direction of travel.

That means you are in dispute with the diagram.

Please draw the force causing travel.
Inertia resists the curving and creates reaction to your force.
That is the force you omitted.
That force is counteracting your force of gravity

Inertia is not a force.

Ofcourse inertia itself is not a force.
Why would in your mind you create idea that someone would say that?
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

rabinoz

  • 19399
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #74 on: February 18, 2018, 03:46:13 AM »

A satellite is in vacuum, ergo no friction is possible, and nothing is preventing gravity accelerating it downwards.

Incorrect, another acceleration can prevent gravity accelerating it downwards.

Actually saying gravity is an acceleration can be a bit misleading at times.
Newtonian gravitation states that gravitation applies a force = G.m1.m2/d2,
so another and often better way is to describe gravity = force per unit mass, in metric units that would be N/kg.

And that is consistent with what I have said all along that gravity does not force things down, but just applies a downward force.
If there are no other forces acting on the object, that downward force will accelerate the object down with an acceleration, g.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #75 on: February 18, 2018, 03:54:29 AM »
And circular motion needs a "constant downwards acceleration" of v2/R to maintain a circular orbit.

Great.

Shame gravity isn't providing that.

It's providing a constant downwards acceleration of 9.8 m/s2.

Which means that for every second a satellite is in orbit its velocity must increase by another 9.8m/s.

So you've just swapped reality for your necessary science fiction.

Not hard to see.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #76 on: February 18, 2018, 03:58:18 AM »
If there are no other forces acting on the object, that downward force will accelerate the object down with an acceleration, g.
There are no other forces acting on a satellite.

So, the satellite is accelerating toward the center of the Earth via the force of gravity at 9.8m/s2.

Pretty damn fast for nothing else countering...
Because the real deal is worthless...
Now run away and bother someone who cares!

Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #77 on: February 18, 2018, 04:03:32 AM »
This is a free body diagram of a satellite.

The circle represents the satellite and the arrow represents the force of gravity.

Tell everyone why it will not crash into the Earth...

Because the force on the satellite is always perpendicular to its direction of travel, resulting in a circular trajectory that doesn't intersect the earth.

(For a satellite in a circular orbit; In the case of an elliptical orbit it's slightly more complicated but a similar analysis applies.)
You are in dispute with the free body diagram.

Please edit the diagram and present it as you think it should look.

I agree with the free body diagram. Where have I indicated any dispute with it?

You forgot the bit where gravity accelerates it.

That wouldn't be shown on a free body diagram.
You claim the force (gravity) is perpendicular to direction of travel.

That means you are in dispute with the diagram.

Please draw the force causing travel.
Inertia resists the curving and creates reaction to your force.
That is the force you omitted.

That force is counteracting your force of gravity

Inertia is not a force.

Ofcourse inertia itself is not a force.
Why would in your mind you create idea that someone would say that?
You did not say it.

You wrote it you moran!

I emboldened, underlined, italicized, and changed the font color to red, just sour bot-mind can understand what I am writing about.

Please GTFO the damn thread or stop behaving like an idiot.
Because the real deal is worthless...
Now run away and bother someone who cares!

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #78 on: February 18, 2018, 04:12:34 AM »
Witness the rabbibot arguing with itself whilst confusing normal force and free fall for reasons no one understands:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=73925.msg2024656#msg2024656
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

Macarios

  • 1190
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #79 on: February 18, 2018, 04:24:49 AM »
And circular motion needs a "constant downwards acceleration" of v2/R to maintain a circular orbit.

Great.

Shame gravity isn't providing that.

It's providing a constant downwards acceleration of 9.8 m/s2.

Which means that for every second a satellite is in orbit its velocity must increase by another 9.8m/s.

So you've just swapped reality for your necessary science fiction.

Not hard to see.

LOOOOOL
Your downward acceleration would increase forward speed ? ? ?
Give us some of that stuff you are smoking now, don't be selfish.

BTW, acceleration g decreases with altitude. 9.8 is only at 45 degrees of latitude (norht and south) at sea level.
At 400 km g is 8.681, at 4000 km is 3.711, and at 35786 km is 0.22555.
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #80 on: February 18, 2018, 04:31:12 AM »
And circular motion needs a "constant downwards acceleration" of v2/R to maintain a circular orbit.

Great.

Shame gravity isn't providing that.

It's providing a constant downwards acceleration of 9.8 m/s2.

Which means that for every second a satellite is in orbit its velocity must increase by another 9.8m/s.

So you've just swapped reality for your necessary science fiction.

Not hard to see.
Your downward acceleration would increase forward speed

It would not.

A downwards acceleration would increase downwards velocity.

You appear to have blown a fuse.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

rabinoz

  • 19399
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #81 on: February 18, 2018, 04:33:41 AM »
And circular motion needs a "constant downwards acceleration" of v2/R to maintain a circular orbit.
Great.
Shame gravity isn't providing that.
It's providing a constant downwards acceleration of 9.8 m/s2.
Didn't I say that, "circular motion needs a 'constant downwards acceleration' of v2/R" and
didn't YOU say that, "It's providing a constant downwards acceleration of 9.8 m/s2"?
They seem the same to me!

Quote from: Papa Legba
Which means that for every second a satellite is in orbit its velocity must increase by another 9.8m/s.
Really? But I stated that, "circular motion needs a 'constant downwards acceleration' of v2/R to maintain a circular orbit"
and you agreed that gravity is "providing a constant downwards acceleration of 9.8 m/s2"
It looks as though, according to you, these satellites orbit just fine.

And all my material came from the Physics Classroom, the very same reference that you quoted from earlier.
So please show a little consistency - you have totally lost yourself in your own twisted fabrication!

Quote from: Papa Legba
So you've just swapped reality for your necessary science fiction. Not hard to see.
No, you've just proved yourself wrong again. This is getting a habit Mr Puppet Legba on a String - you need to go to your controller for a refit!

*

Macarios

  • 1190
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #82 on: February 18, 2018, 05:01:09 AM »
And circular motion needs a "constant downwards acceleration" of v2/R to maintain a circular orbit.

Great.

Shame gravity isn't providing that.

It's providing a constant downwards acceleration of 9.8 m/s2.

Which means that for every second a satellite is in orbit its velocity must increase by another 9.8m/s.

So you've just swapped reality for your necessary science fiction.

Not hard to see.
Your downward acceleration would increase forward speed

It would not.

A downwards acceleration would increase downwards velocity.

You appear to have blown a fuse.

It would, but acceleration BY inertia is counteracting it, and what we have is remaining longitudinal (forward) speed.
What other speed we have there?
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #83 on: February 18, 2018, 05:13:13 AM »
It would, but acceleration BY inertia is counteracting it, and what we have is remaining longitudinal (forward) speed.
What other speed we have there?
Again, you label INERTIA as a force...

WTF is the matter with you?
Because the real deal is worthless...
Now run away and bother someone who cares!

*

Macarios

  • 1190
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #84 on: February 18, 2018, 05:13:58 AM »
If there are no other forces acting on the object, that downward force will accelerate the object down with an acceleration, g.
There are no other forces acting on a satellite.

No other forces?
It is just another denial in attempt to keep Flat model somehow still alive.

How 449 geostationary satellites still operate from up there?
Here are some of them:

Name     Common name                Orbit inc 

04016A  DIRECTV 7S                -119.1  0.0
10010A  ECHOSTAR 14               -118.9  0.0
02006A  ECHOSTAR 7                -118.8  0.0
07009A  ANIK F3                   -118.7  0.0
16038B  EUTELSAT 117 WEST B       -117.0  0.0
13012A  EUTELSAT 117 WEST A       -116.8  0.0
13058A  SIRIUS FM-6               -116.1  0.0
06049A  XM-4 (BLUES)              -115.2  0.0
11059A  VIASAT-1                  -115.1  0.0
15010B  EUTELSAT 115 WEST B       -114.9  0.0
12075B  MEXSAT 3                  -114.8  0.0
15056A  MORELOS 3                 -113.1  6.2
06020A  EUTELSAT 113 WEST A       -113.0  0.0
06054A  WILDBLUE-1                -111.2  0.0
04027A  ANIK F2                   -111.1  0.0
09035A  TERRESTAR-1               -111.0  2.7
06003A  ECHOSTAR 10               -110.2  0.0
02023A  DIRECTV 5 (TEMPO 1)       -110.1  0.0
08035A  ECHOSTAR 11               -110.0  0.0
99059A  TELSTAR 12 (ORION 2)      -109.2  1.4
96022A  MSAT M1                   -107.5  8.1
13014A  ANIK G1                   -107.3  0.0
05036A  ANIK F1R                  -107.3  0.0
00076A  ANIK F1                   -107.3  0.0
12035A  ECHOSTAR 17               -107.1  0.0
04041A  AMC-15                    -105.1  0.0
17063A  SES-11 (ECHOSTAR 105)     -105.0  0.1
06054B  AMC-18                    -104.9  0.0
09033A  GOES 14                   -104.3  0.1
95019A  AMSC 1                    -103.3 10.3
11035A  SES-3                     -103.0  0.1
05015A  SPACEWAY 1                -102.9  0.0
07032A  DIRECTV 10                -102.8  0.0
09075A  DIRECTV 12                -102.8  0.0
15026A  DIRECTV 15                -102.8  0.0
10005A  SDO                       -101.9 29.0
10061A  SKYTERRA 1                -101.3  3.0
01052A  DIRECTV 4S                -101.2  0.0
06043A  DIRECTV 9S                -101.1  0.0
10016A  SES-1                     -101.0  0.0
05019A  DIRECTV 8                 -100.9  0.0
14078B  DIRECTV 14                 -99.2  0.0
08013A  DIRECTV 11                 -99.2  0.0
05046B  SPACEWAY 2                 -99.1  0.0
06023A  GALAXY 16 (G-16)           -99.0  0.0
08039A  INMARSAT 4-F3              -98.0  3.0
16079A  ECHOSTAR 19                -97.1  0.0
08045A  GALAXY 19 (G-19)           -97.0  0.0
00038A  ECHOSTAR 6                 -96.2  4.6
14062A  INTELSAT 30 (IS-30)        -95.0  0.0
16035A  INTELSAT 31 (IS-31)        -95.0  0.0
02030A  GALAXY 3C (G-3C)           -95.0  0.0
07036A  SPACEWAY 3                 -94.9  0.0
97026A  GALAXY 25 (G-25)           -93.1  0.0
08016A  ICO G1                     -92.8  3.8
00046A  BRASILSAT B4               -92.0  2.1
12026A  NIMIQ 6                    -91.1  0.0
07016B  GALAXY 17 (G-17)           -91.0  0.0
05022A  GALAXY 28 (G-28)           -89.0  0.0
13075A  TKSAT-1 (TUPAC KATARI)     -87.2  0.0
11049A  SES-2                      -87.0  0.0
99027A  NIMIQ 1                    -86.5  0.0
03033A  ECHOSTAR 12 (RAINBOW 1)    -86.4  0.0
09034A  SIRIUS FM-5                -86.1  0.0
10053A  XM-5                       -85.2  0.0
05008A  XM-3 (RHYTHM)              -85.1  0.0
04048A  AMC-16                     -85.0  0.0
97002A  AMC-2 (GE-2)               -84.9  4.7
16082B  STAR ONE D1                -84.0  0.0
00067A  AMC-6 (GE-6)               -83.0  0.0
08044A  NIMIQ 4                    -81.9  0.0
15054B  ARSAT 2                    -81.0  0.0
15026B  SKY MEXICO-1               -78.8  0.0
08055A  VENESAT-1                  -77.9  0.0
11054A  QUETZSAT 1                 -77.0  0.0
10006A  INTELSAT 16 (IS-16)        -76.2  0.0
16071A  GOES 16                    -75.2  0.0
12062A  STAR ONE C3                -75.0  0.0
17023B  SGDC                       -74.8  0.0
06018A  GOES 13                    -74.6  0.3
14011A  AMAZONAS 4A                -74.0  0.1
94070A  ASTRA 1D                   -73.0  7.9
09050A  NIMIQ 5                    -72.7  0.0
97050A  AMC-3 (GE-3)               -72.0  0.8
14062B  ARSAT 1                    -71.8  0.0
15034B  STAR ONE C4                -70.0  0.0
08018B  STAR ONE C2                -70.0  0.0
95016A  BRASILSAT B2               -68.0  7.5
17017A  SES-10                     -66.9  0.0
16014A  EUTELSAT 65 WEST A         -65.2  0.0
07056A  STAR ONE C1                -65.0  0.0
98006A  BRASILSAT B3               -63.2  4.4
11021A  TELSTAR 14R                -63.0  0.0
88091B  TDRS 3                     -62.5 14.4
10034A  ECHOSTAR 15                -61.7  0.0
12065A  ECHOSTAR 16                -61.5  0.0
16039B  ECHOSTAR 18                -61.3  0.0
09054A  AMAZONAS 2                 -61.0  0.0
17053A  AMAZONAS 5                 -61.0  0.0
13006A  AMAZONAS 3                 -61.0  0.0
12045A  INTELSAT 21 (IS-21)        -58.0  0.0
15039A  INTELSAT 34 (IS-34)        -55.5  0.0
15005A  INMARSAT 5-F2              -55.0  0.0
98006B  INMARSAT 3-F5              -54.0  3.0
12057A  INTELSAT 23 (IS-23)        -53.0  0.0
16004A  INTELSAT 29E (IS-29E)      -50.0  0.0

(from: http://www.satsig.net/sslist.htm)
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

*

Macarios

  • 1190
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #85 on: February 18, 2018, 05:14:59 AM »
It would, but acceleration BY inertia is counteracting it, and what we have is remaining longitudinal (forward) speed.
What other speed we have there?
Again, you label INERTIA as a force...

WTF is the matter with you?

Now you are deliberately hiding behind twisting.
Parroting same failed strategy from Papa Legba.

According to the Law of Action and Reaction, what is the reaction to gravitational force?
Have any idea?
« Last Edit: February 18, 2018, 05:17:18 AM by Macarios »
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #86 on: February 18, 2018, 05:30:08 AM »
No other forces?
No other forces?

I am not denying anything, hayseed...

"A Satellite is a Projectile
The fundamental principle to be understood concerning satellites is that a satellite is a projectile. That is to say, a satellite is an object upon which the only force is gravity."
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Circular-Motion-Principles-for-Satellites

There are no other forces acting upon a satellite.

It would, but acceleration BY inertia is counteracting it, and what we have is remaining longitudinal (forward) speed.
What other speed we have there?
Again, you label INERTIA as a force...

WTF is the matter with you?

Now you are deliberately hiding behind twisting.
Parroting same failed strategy from Papa Legba.

According to the Law of Action and Reaction, what is the reaction to gravitational force?
Have any idea?

I did not twist anything.

You clearly wrote that inertia is causing acceleration.
Because the real deal is worthless...
Now run away and bother someone who cares!

*

Macarios

  • 1190
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #87 on: February 18, 2018, 05:57:34 AM »
No other forces?
No other forces?

I am not denying anything, hayseed...

"A Satellite is a Projectile
The fundamental principle to be understood concerning satellites is that a satellite is a projectile. That is to say, a satellite is an object upon which the only force is gravity."
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Circular-Motion-Principles-for-Satellites

There are no other forces acting upon a satellite.

It would, but acceleration BY inertia is counteracting it, and what we have is remaining longitudinal (forward) speed.
What other speed we have there?
Again, you label INERTIA as a force...

WTF is the matter with you?

Now you are deliberately hiding behind twisting.
Parroting same failed strategy from Papa Legba.

According to the Law of Action and Reaction, what is the reaction to gravitational force?
Have any idea?

I did not twist anything.

You clearly wrote that inertia is causing acceleration.

Then satellite will not fall to the ground after all?
And on circular orbit tangential speed will not change?
« Last Edit: February 18, 2018, 06:00:24 AM by Macarios »
I don't have to fight about anything.
These things are not about me.
When one points facts out, they speak for themselves.
The main goal in all that is simplicity.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #88 on: February 18, 2018, 06:02:15 AM »
And circular motion needs a "constant downwards acceleration" of v2/R to maintain a circular orbit.
Great.
Shame gravity isn't providing that.
It's providing a constant downwards acceleration of 9.8 m/s2.
They seem the same to me!

They don't to me.

One is a squared velocity divided by a radius.

The other is not.

You are attempting to confuse centripetal acceleration with free fall.

https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/matthew_van_eerde/2010/01/24/deriving-the-centripetal-acceleration-formula/

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html

Please stop howling mad Pseudoscience at me.

It is unpleasant and dishonest.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #89 on: February 18, 2018, 06:06:18 AM »
No other forces?
No other forces?

I am not denying anything, hayseed...

"A Satellite is a Projectile
The fundamental principle to be understood concerning satellites is that a satellite is a projectile. That is to say, a satellite is an object upon which the only force is gravity."
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Circular-Motion-Principles-for-Satellites

There are no other forces acting upon a satellite.

It would, but acceleration BY inertia is counteracting it, and what we have is remaining longitudinal (forward) speed.
What other speed we have there?
Again, you label INERTIA as a force...

WTF is the matter with you?

Now you are deliberately hiding behind twisting.
Parroting same failed strategy from Papa Legba.

According to the Law of Action and Reaction, what is the reaction to gravitational force?
Have any idea?

I did not twist anything.

You clearly wrote that inertia is causing acceleration.

Then satellite will not fall to the ground after all?
And on circular orbit tangential speed will not change?
No.

Inertia cannot cause acceleration.

Inertia not a force.

What goes up, must come down.

And faster than what utter bull cookies your "imaginary forces," dictate.
« Last Edit: February 18, 2018, 06:28:56 AM by totallackey »
Because the real deal is worthless...
Now run away and bother someone who cares!