Are satellites real?

  • 287 Replies
  • 53647 Views
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #210 on: February 20, 2018, 04:51:56 AM »
If you really think none of this is relevant they you do not understand how these transmission/reception systems work.  It actually explains a lot.

Mike
I said it was irrelevant to whether or not the signal is transmitted via satellite.

It is, as that signal could be coming from another source.
Sure, "that signal could be coming from another source" stationary over that equator at the same altitude and longitude as is claimed for the satellite.

I guess that now you'll be claiming that there are balloons up there approximately 35,786 km above mean sea level

If you really think none of this is relevant then you do not understand how these transmission/reception systems work.  It actually explains a lot.

Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #211 on: February 20, 2018, 05:00:06 AM »
A picture of a dish antenna and bunch of blowhard words demanding "proof..." (still caught up with terms relating to alcohol, it appears)...
Pete, if you had one thousand of those dishes in your post, all of them pointed in the same general direction, each and every one of them would receive the same signal as the one in the picture...
  • I'm not Pete, why don't you go and ask him.

  • If those "one thousand . . . dishes" were spread all over USA...
Pete, like I wrote earlier...WTF is the matter with you?

Are you impersonating George Reeves and donning the Superman costume?

Magnificent leap from what I wrote in my reply to: "...spread all over the USA."
and  all of them pointed in the same general direction, each and every one of them would" definitely NOT "receive the same signal as the one in the picture".
If I need to tell you that, either
     you didn't read my post but just looked at the pictures or
     you don't have the understanding to know what "Troposcatter System Maintains 50-Mb/s Connection Over 100 Miles" means.
Yeah they would Pete.

All they need is to be within the same range and tuned to the appropriate frequency.

I know what a 50 Mb/s connection is, Pete.

Either way you are totally too incompetent in these matters to intelligently debate it - but that won't stop you!
[/li][/list]

Quote from: totallackey

WTF is the matter with you?
Nothing at all is the matter with me, you must have been looking in a mirror when you wrote that !

What is wrong with you is that you are a totally ignorant deceiver who simply cannot face the fact that troposcatter cannot explain DBS satellite reception.

Now would you care to make a rational response?

Have a nice day wallowing in ignorance.
Sorry pete.

Troposcatter is a possible alternative to satellite transmission.

Here...

Maybe that will help.

Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #212 on: February 20, 2018, 05:02:08 AM »
If you really think none of this is relevant they you do not understand how these transmission/reception systems work.  It actually explains a lot.

Mike
I said it was irrelevant to whether or not the signal is transmitted via satellite.

It is, as that signal could be coming from another source.
Sure, "that signal could be coming from another source" stationary over that equator at the same altitude and longitude as is claimed for the satellite.

I guess that now you'll be claiming that there are balloons up there approximately 35,786 km above mean sea level

If you really think none of this is relevant then you do not understand how these transmission/reception systems work.  It actually explains a lot.
Actually, a balloon would not need to be at the same altitude Pete.

Put on your thinking cap...

If the balloon was closer, it could be much lower in altitude...
« Last Edit: February 21, 2018, 02:10:58 AM by totallackey »

Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #213 on: February 20, 2018, 05:05:17 AM »
If you really think none of this is relevant they you do not understand how these transmission/reception systems work.  It actually explains a lot.

Mike
I said it was irrelevant to whether or not the signal is transmitted via satellite.

It is, as that signal could be coming from another source.
Again, you're missing the point.  That data is relevant in that troposcatter and high-altitude balloons can't maintain the signal strength and alignment necessary eliminating them as probable sources.

Mike
Since it costs 1.82¢ to produce a penny, putting in your 2¢ if really worth 3.64¢.

*

Macarios

  • 2093
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #214 on: February 20, 2018, 05:17:37 AM »
If you really think none of this is relevant they you do not understand how these transmission/reception systems work.  It actually explains a lot.

Mike
I said it was irrelevant to whether or not the signal is transmitted via satellite.

It is, as that signal could be coming from another source.

Knowing that receiving angle of dish is very narrow and direction setting is very sensitive,
we have proof of the precise direction of the signal source.
To receive the signal from other source we should aim the dish in the direction of that other sourse.

Considering that no tower can be that tall, and no ballon can stay still in the sky, especially not for years,
we have proof that signal comes from geostationary satellites.

That is the only remaining possibility.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2018, 05:20:05 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 #215 on: February 20, 2018, 05:32:51 AM »
If you really think none of this is relevant they you do not understand how these transmission/reception systems work.  It actually explains a lot.

Mike
I said it was irrelevant to whether or not the signal is transmitted via satellite.

It is, as that signal could be coming from another source.
Again, you're missing the point.  That data is relevant in that troposcatter and high-altitude balloons can't maintain the signal strength and alignment necessary eliminating them as probable sources.

Mike
Mike, you have made this claim before. Signal strength is simply a matter of the capabilities of the transmitter. Utilize/Attach a powerful enough transmitter and the issue you write about is moot.

Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #216 on: February 20, 2018, 05:35:39 AM »
If you really think none of this is relevant they you do not understand how these transmission/reception systems work.  It actually explains a lot.

Mike
I said it was irrelevant to whether or not the signal is transmitted via satellite.

It is, as that signal could be coming from another source.

Knowing that receiving angle of dish is very narrow and direction setting is very sensitive,
we have proof of the precise direction of the signal source.
To receive the signal from other source we should aim the dish in the direction of that other sourse.

Considering that no tower can be that tall, and no ballon can stay still in the sky, especially not for years,
we have proof evidence that signal comes from geostationary satellites.

That is the one of the possibilities.

FTFY.

No need to thank me.

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #217 on: February 20, 2018, 06:14:00 AM »
If you really think none of this is relevant they you do not understand how these transmission/reception systems work.  It actually explains a lot.

Mike
I said it was irrelevant to whether or not the signal is transmitted via satellite.

It is, as that signal could be coming from another source.
Sure, "that signal could be coming from another source" stationary over that equator at the same altitude and longitude as is claimed for the satellite.

I guess that now you'll be claiming that there are balloons up there approximately 35,786 km above mean sea level

If you really think none of this is relevant then you do not understand how these transmission/reception systems work.  It actually explains a lot.
Actually, a balloon would not to be at the same altitude Pete.

Put on your thinking cap...

If the balloon was closer, it could be much lower in altitude...

The sound you just heard was Lackey firing yet another round aimed  at his foot.

Let's examine this balloon bullshit.

We'll ignore for now the HUGE problem of the balloons maintaining the exact position needed for line of sight.


Not only would the balloons have to carry the microwave equipment necessary it also needs a power source. That means a generator and fuel.

So how big would a balloon have to be to carry all of this equipment to altitude?

Well that's easy since there are balloons that carry microwave equipment and generators aloft.



Millions see them almost every day.



They are part of the Tethered Aerostat Radar System

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tethered_Aerostat_Radar_System





These blimps operate at 15,000' and my DTV dish's elevation is around 50°.  This means a blimp would be tethered at a distance of <3 miles away.
But let's pretend they are at 100,000' and no airliner has hit the tether.   This puts the launch/recovery compound 16 miles away.
This also means that another dish just 23 miles away using the same blimp would be aligned 90° off from mine.
In reality the second dish points in almost the exact same direction as mine, which means it would require thousands of blimps that nobody has ever seen and launch compounds littering the landscape.

It is impossible to fake dtv.   Period.


*

Macarios

  • 2093
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #218 on: February 20, 2018, 06:45:08 AM »
If you really think none of this is relevant they you do not understand how these transmission/reception systems work.  It actually explains a lot.

Mike
I said it was irrelevant to whether or not the signal is transmitted via satellite.

It is, as that signal could be coming from another source.

Knowing that receiving angle of dish is very narrow and direction setting is very sensitive,
we have proof of the precise direction of the signal source.
To receive the signal from other source we should aim the dish in the direction of that other sourse.

Considering that no tower can be that tall, and no ballon can stay still in the sky, especially not for years,
we have proof evidence that signal comes from geostationary satellites.

That is the one of the possibilities.

FTFY.

No need to thank me.

LOL
You are right. There in deed is no need to thank you. :-)
This is why:

New Orleans is 30 degrees north.
If people want to receive signal from 91W GALAXY 17, they have to point their dishes 55 degrees up.
They know it because there is online calculator that shows them where they can see it from their location.
One of those calculators is "dishpointer.com".

For signal source to have elevation of 55 degrees from one mile south it has to be 1.43 miles high.
For another home at one mile to the west you would need another source at 1.43 miles up.
Another source, because previous one wouldn't be seen at the same azimuth from new location.

Why we don't see tons of such sources all over the USA?

Now try to tell us that online calculators are "lies", and people "don't use them" to point their dishes.

Bear in mind that this forum is public and everyone, including those people, can read what would your answer be.

(You can use any calculator yourself, including DishPointer, to get the picture.
Play with locations and see where pointing directions intersect.
You can also see if their intersecting points can be consistent if the Earth was flat.
For example choose several cities at 90 degrees west at different latitudes.)

« Last Edit: February 20, 2018, 07:07:31 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 #219 on: February 20, 2018, 06:54:47 AM »
If you really think none of this is relevant they you do not understand how these transmission/reception systems work.  It actually explains a lot.

Mike
I said it was irrelevant to whether or not the signal is transmitted via satellite.

It is, as that signal could be coming from another source.
Sure, "that signal could be coming from another source" stationary over that equator at the same altitude and longitude as is claimed for the satellite.

I guess that now you'll be claiming that there are balloons up there approximately 35,786 km above mean sea level

If you really think none of this is relevant then you do not understand how these transmission/reception systems work.  It actually explains a lot.
Actually, a balloon would not to be at the same altitude Pete.

Put on your thinking cap...

If the balloon was closer, it could be much lower in altitude...

The sound you just heard was Lackey firing yet another round aimed  at his foot.

Let's examine this balloon bullshit.

We'll ignore for now the HUGE problem of the balloons maintaining the exact position needed for line of sight.


Not only would the balloons have to carry the microwave equipment necessary it also needs a power source. That means a generator and fuel.

So how big would a balloon have to be to carry all of this equipment to altitude?

Well that's easy since there are balloons that carry microwave equipment and generators aloft.



Millions see them almost every day.



They are part of the Tethered Aerostat Radar System

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tethered_Aerostat_Radar_System





These blimps operate at 15,000' and my DTV dish's elevation is around 50°.  This means a blimp would be tethered at a distance of <3 miles away.
But let's pretend they are at 100,000' and no airliner has hit the tether.   This puts the launch/recovery compound 16 miles away.
This also means that another dish just 23 miles away using the same blimp would be aligned 90° off from mine.
In reality the second dish points in almost the exact same direction as mine, which means it would require thousands of blimps that nobody has ever seen and launch compounds littering the landscape.

It is impossible to fake dtv.   Period.
Who claimed "dtv" is fake?

WTF is the matter with you?

You do know blimps do not require tethers, correct?

Idiot...

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #220 on: February 20, 2018, 06:57:09 AM »
You do know blimps do not require tethers, correct?
They do if you don't want to waste a whole lot of energy for station keeping.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #221 on: February 20, 2018, 07:15:16 AM »
If you really think none of this is relevant they you do not understand how these transmission/reception systems work.  It actually explains a lot.

Mike
I said it was irrelevant to whether or not the signal is transmitted via satellite.

It is, as that signal could be coming from another source.
Sure, "that signal could be coming from another source" stationary over that equator at the same altitude and longitude as is claimed for the satellite.

I guess that now you'll be claiming that there are balloons up there approximately 35,786 km above mean sea level

If you really think none of this is relevant then you do not understand how these transmission/reception systems work.  It actually explains a lot.
Actually, a balloon would not to be at the same altitude Pete.

Put on your thinking cap...

If the balloon was closer, it could be much lower in altitude...

The sound you just heard was Lackey firing yet another round aimed  at his foot.

Let's examine this balloon bullshit.

We'll ignore for now the HUGE problem of the balloons maintaining the exact position needed for line of sight.


Not only would the balloons have to carry the microwave equipment necessary it also needs a power source. That means a generator and fuel.

So how big would a balloon have to be to carry all of this equipment to altitude?

Well that's easy since there are balloons that carry microwave equipment and generators aloft.



Millions see them almost every day.



They are part of the Tethered Aerostat Radar System

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tethered_Aerostat_Radar_System





These blimps operate at 15,000' and my DTV dish's elevation is around 50°.  This means a blimp would be tethered at a distance of <3 miles away.
But let's pretend they are at 100,000' and no airliner has hit the tether.   This puts the launch/recovery compound 16 miles away.
This also means that another dish just 23 miles away using the same blimp would be aligned 90° off from mine.
In reality the second dish points in almost the exact same direction as mine, which means it would require thousands of blimps that nobody has ever seen and launch compounds littering the landscape.

It is impossible to fake dtv.   Period.
Who claimed "dtv" is fake?

WTF is the matter with you?

You do know blimps do not require tethers, correct?

Idiot...

Semantics and an irrelevant point.

YOU claim that companies are faking satellite transmission with balloons, I proved that is impossible.

And yes I do know that blimps do not have to be tethered, do you know that you just shot yourself in the foot again?

An untethered blimp would have even more problems maintaining position and would require more fuel to maintain position if it could at all.

Please tell us the altitude at which your magic invisible balloons operate.

Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #222 on: February 20, 2018, 07:37:14 AM »
Semantics and an irrelevant point.
LMMFAO!
YOU claim that companies are faking satellite transmission with balloons, I proved that is impossible.
You will find no such post made by me on this thread and I expect you to retract this statement immediately and forthwith, you lying asshat.
And yes I do know that blimps do not have to be tethered, do you know that you just shot yourself in the foot again?

An untethered blimp would have even more problems maintaining position and would require more fuel to maintain position if it could at all.
You have ZERO corroborating evidence of this being the case...

Just a claim made by a hot air bag...
Please tell us the altitude at which your magic invisible balloons operate.
Balloons of all sorts occupy different heights each and every day.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #223 on: February 20, 2018, 08:55:49 AM »
So, we left this thread with the rabbibot lying about gravity yet again, by confusing centripetal force with free fall:

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.

Plus, the sending of digital information at frequencies below 40 mhz is perfectly possible...

Fast decoding of that information is the tricky bit, but luckily computers have been capable of the feat since the late 1970s...

See where I'm going with this?
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #224 on: February 20, 2018, 08:56:26 AM »
Semantics and an irrelevant point.
LMMFAO!
YOU claim that companies are faking satellite transmission with balloons, I proved that is impossible.
You will find no such post made by me on this thread and I expect you to retract this statement immediately and forthwith, you lying asshat.
And yes I do know that blimps do not have to be tethered, do you know that you just shot yourself in the foot again?

An untethered blimp would have even more problems maintaining position and would require more fuel to maintain position if it could at all.
You have ZERO corroborating evidence of this being the case...

Just a claim made by a hot air bag...
Please tell us the altitude at which your magic invisible balloons operate.
Balloons of all sorts occupy different heights each and every day.
Can we just establish if you are saying 'satellites do not exist' or 'satellites exist, but the are alternatives'.

The question was 'what height are balloons used for direct to home broadcasting?'

50M with troposcatter is not enough bandwidth for multichannel HD/UHD broadcasting.  If you believe tropscatter is used how do you explain reception in valleys etc.

Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #225 on: February 20, 2018, 09:01:49 AM »
So, we left this thread with the rabbibot lying about gravity yet again, by confusing centripetal force with free fall:

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.

Plus, the sending of digital information at frequencies below 40 mhz is perfectly possible...

Fast decoding of that information is the tricky bit, but luckily computers have been capable of the feat since the late 1970s...

See where I'm going with this?
Not for multichannel HD/UHD TV as we receive on our satellite receivers.  At ~11.5GHz

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #226 on: February 20, 2018, 09:32:08 AM »
So, we left this thread with the rabbibot lying about gravity yet again, by confusing centripetal force with free fall:

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.

Plus, the sending of digital information at frequencies below 40 mhz is perfectly possible...

Fast decoding of that information is the tricky bit, but luckily computers have been capable of the feat since the late 1970s...

See where I'm going with this?
Not for multichannel HD/UHD TV as we receive on our satellite receivers.  At ~11.5GHz

Which you know how?

I mean, centripetal acceleration and free fall are the same in your book,  so why wouldn't you be lying about everything else?

Legally, I'm allowed to assume you are btw:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsus_in_uno,_falsus_in_omnibus

So...

Where does that leave us?
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #227 on: February 20, 2018, 09:58:43 AM »
Semantics and an irrelevant point.
LMMFAO!
YOU claim that companies are faking satellite transmission with balloons, I proved that is impossible.
You will find no such post made by me on this thread and I expect you to retract this statement immediately and forthwith, you lying asshat.


So my DTV is not receiving it's signal from a balloon?
Aim carefully.

Quote
And yes I do know that blimps do not have to be tethered, do you know that you just shot yourself in the foot again?

An untethered blimp would have even more problems maintaining position and would require more fuel to maintain position if it could at all.
You have ZERO corroborating evidence of this being the case...

Just a claim made by a hot air bag...


Perhaps you should ask Mommy to take you to a park and fly a kite.
Delusional moron.

Quote
Please tell us the altitude at which your magic invisible balloons operate.
Balloons of all sorts occupy different heights each and every day.

And what is the altitude of your magic balloons?
Why are you avoiding the question?
Foot hurting too much?

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #228 on: February 20, 2018, 10:23:29 AM »
Semantics and an irrelevant point.
LMMFAO!
YOU claim that companies are faking satellite transmission with balloons, I proved that is impossible.
You will find no such post made by me on this thread and I expect you to retract this statement immediately and forthwith, you lying asshat.


So my DTV is not receiving it's signal from a balloon?
Aim carefully.

Quote
And yes I do know that blimps do not have to be tethered, do you know that you just shot yourself in the foot again?

An untethered blimp would have even more problems maintaining position and would require more fuel to maintain position if it could at all.
You have ZERO corroborating evidence of this being the case...

Just a claim made by a hot air bag...


Perhaps you should ask Mommy to take you to a park and fly a kite.
Delusional moron.

Quote
Please tell us the altitude at which your magic invisible balloons operate.
Balloons of all sorts occupy different heights each and every day.

And what is the altitude of your magic balloons?
Why are you avoiding the question?
Foot hurting too much?

Digital information can easily be transmitted at frequencies below 40 mhz...

Care to discuss the implications?

As well as the implications of rabbibots lies about free fall being the same as centripetal acceleration?

Or will you use another sockpuppet to shitpost further?
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

Fild

  • 40
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #229 on: February 20, 2018, 10:48:38 AM »
Balloons definitively exists !




They used some kind of deep learning to simulate high altitudes winds to more or less steer the balloon ...


https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/project-loon-engineer-sees-a-tool-for-future-disaster-response-in-puerto-rico/


Be careful Google might have been taken over by FE'rs to divide us.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #230 on: February 20, 2018, 10:55:56 AM »
Many legal scholars have criticized the continued use of the doctrine of falsus in uno to discredit a witness' entire testimony.[15] For example, Judge Richard Posner once remarked that falsus in uno was a "discredited doctrine" based on "primitive psychology."[16] Judge Posner argued that because witnesses "are prone to fudge, to fumble, to misspeak, to misstate, to exaggerate," few trials would reach a judgment if "any such pratfall warranted disbelieving a witness's entire testimony."

So...

Where does that leave us?
Indeed.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #231 on: February 20, 2018, 11:01:12 AM »
Balloons definitively exists !




They used some kind of deep learning to simulate high altitudes winds to more or less steer the balloon ...


https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/project-loon-engineer-sees-a-tool-for-future-disaster-response-in-puerto-rico/


Be careful Google might have been taken over by FE'rs to divide us.

Embarrassingly obvious AI generated shitpost, created via scraping current forum trends.

Not much doubt at this point.

Of course the bot wishes to distract from the fact that digital info can be transmitted at frequencies below 40 mhz, and all this implies...

But meh.

Obvious shill forum is obvious.

Oh and markbot, lawyers pissing, moaning and quibbling is nothing new...

You should know.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

Fild

  • 40
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #232 on: February 20, 2018, 11:08:39 AM »
Balloons definitively exists !




They used some kind of deep learning to simulate high altitudes winds to more or less steer the balloon ...


https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/project-loon-engineer-sees-a-tool-for-future-disaster-response-in-puerto-rico/


Be careful Google might have been taken over by FE'rs to divide us.

Embarrassingly obvious AI generated shitpost, created via scraping current forum trends.

Not much doubt at this point.

Of course the bot wishes to distract from the fact that digital info can be transmitted at frequencies below 40 mhz, and all this implies...

But meh.

Obvious shill forum is obvious.

Oh and markbot, lawyers pissing, moaning and quibbling is nothing new...

You should know.


I actually showed you that balloons exists and can actually be used to connect people to the internet without a fake satellite and you'r not happy ?

Some glitch in your script ?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #233 on: February 20, 2018, 11:15:34 AM »
Of course the bot wishes to distract from the fact that digital info can be transmitted at frequencies below 40 mhz, and all this implies...
What kind of data rates do you suppose that frequencies below 40 mhz imply?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

Macarios

  • 2093
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #234 on: February 20, 2018, 11:17:20 AM »
Where does that leave us?

It leave us at false claims that:
- satellites "can't" stay in orbit
- satellites "don't" exist
- rockets "don't" work in vacuum
- Space "doesn't" exist
- you "can't" see object of magnitude 15.5 using telescope
- atoms in physical body are in "physical contact"
- inertia "doesn't" make body resist trajectory curving
- transversal acceleration "increase" longitudinal speed
- inertial forces are "not" forces, they "are" inertia itself (and inertia is not a force, which is correct)
- at all orbital altitudes, far away from Earth's surface, gravitational acceleration g "is still 9.8 m/s2"
etc.
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.

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #235 on: February 20, 2018, 12:59:46 PM »
.

(You can use any calculator yourself, including DishPointer, to get the picture.
Play with locations and see where pointing directions intersect.
You can also see if their intersecting points can be consistent if the Earth was flat.
For example choose several cities at 90 degrees west at different latitudes.)



You will never, I repeat NEVER get a flatter to do this.  They'd slit the throats of their children to avoid it.
And, if you do the math for them they will ignore, change the subject, or flee the thread.

Watch.

The elevation for a dish in NOLA is 55°.
The elevation for a dish in
Memphis is 49°.
The distance between them is 350 miles.
We have 2 angles and one side of a triangle.
This means that the point in the sky on a flat earth that the dishes point to is 2527 miles from NOLA and 2742 miles from Memphis and it's altitude is 2069 MILES.

These numbers will of course change if you use different cities on a flat earth, but on a globe all cities will point to the same spot above the equator.

So I'll ask our expert marksman once again...

What is the altitude of your magic balloons?



?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #236 on: February 20, 2018, 01:14:38 PM »
They'd slit the throats of their children to avoid it.

Okay, botty boy, listen up - real people do not talk like this.

Only mad AI algorithms do.

You need to stop it.

Trying to help you here!
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #237 on: February 20, 2018, 01:48:36 PM »
They'd slit the throats of their children to avoid it.

Okay, botty boy, listen up - real people do not talk like this.

Only mad AI algorithms do.

You need to stop it.

Trying to help you here!

Thus talks the biggest botty bott around.

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #238 on: February 20, 2018, 02:04:16 PM »
They'd slit the throats of their children to avoid it.

Okay, botty boy, listen up - real people do not talk like this.

Only mad AI algorithms do.

You need to stop it.

Trying to help you here!

Thus talks the biggest botty bott around.

Getting the mad AI algorithm big guns out now...

Chatting shit about killing kids like it's normal.

Complete insanity imminent...
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #239 on: February 20, 2018, 02:07:33 PM »
Quote
And, if you do the math for them they will ignore, change the subject, or flee the thread. 

^