Are satellites real?

  • 287 Replies
  • 53103 Views
?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #240 on: February 20, 2018, 02:12:57 PM »
Quote
And, if you do the math for them they will ignore, change the subject, or flee the thread.

Or talk about murdering children:

They'd slit the throats of their children to avoid it.

You're a psycho.
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #241 on: February 20, 2018, 02:14:13 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...
So you accept that dish angles show a round earth,  unless you have actual proof of something else.  Polite reply please.

Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #242 on: February 20, 2018, 02:35:52 PM »
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.
That is incorrect.  A powerful enough transmitter is useless if alignment to the reflector can’t be maintained.  This is especially true for ka-band.  Balloons are for sure out. 

Troposcatter propagation distances are variable.  They are subject to changes in atmospheric conditions.  Conditions that not only effect propagation distances but angles and directions.   

If you look at this objectively, high-altitude balloons and troposcatter aren’t viable for DBS.   

Additionally, nobody has ever seen a mythical fleet of troposcatter transmitters or high-altitude providing signal to a  hundred million dishes worldwide. 

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

?

Papa Legba

  • Ranters
  • 9566
  • Welcome to the CIA Troll/Shill Society.
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #243 on: February 20, 2018, 02:45:13 PM »
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.
That is incorrect.  A powerful enough transmitter is useless if alignment to the reflector can’t be maintained.  This is especially true for ka-band.  Balloons are for sure out. 

Troposcatter propagation distances are variable.  They are subject to changes in atmospheric conditions.  Conditions that not only effect propagation distances but angles and directions.   

If you look at this objectively, high-altitude balloons and troposcatter aren’t viable for DBS.   

Additionally, nobody has ever seen a mythical fleet of troposcatter transmitters or high-altitude providing signal to a  hundred million dishes worldwide. 

Mike

What is wrong with you?

One of the members is talking about murdering kids and you carry on like nothing happened...

Are you human?

What the fuck?
I got Trolled & Shilled at the CIA Troll/Shill Society and now I feel EPIC!!!

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #244 on: February 20, 2018, 03:13:26 PM »
What is wrong with you?

One of the members is talking about murdering kids and you carry on like nothing happened...

Are you human?

What the fuck?
Haven't you already been warned for spamming stuff like this?
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.

?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #245 on: February 20, 2018, 04:18:12 PM »
What is wrong with you?

One of the members is talking about murdering kids and you carry on like nothing happened...

Are you human?

What the fuck?
Haven't you already been warned for spamming stuff like this?

One (among many others) of the things I have noticed on this website are that there are some absolutely idiotic posts from supposedly flat earthers who supposedly know nothing about the subjects.

I wonder if these were made by some over-zealous so-called "round earthers" to make this website look worse than it already is ?
One of my early posts was about how some amateur radio operators "Moon Bounce" transmitted radio signals to the moon, where they  "bounced" off the moon and were received back on earth . Using the time and multiplying it by speed of radio waves they could estimate the distance from the earth to the moon. After all, that's all that radar is.
Some of the choice replies were.:
"A ham radio operator in his shack talking to truckers can't do this." Unlicensed "CB" operators do this. Licensed amateur radio operators don't.They have to pass exams for their license. (Issued by the FCC in the USA). All you need for a "CB" is about $50 US. However, the majority of "CB'ers" do operate in a sane and legal manner for its intended purpose.

"It would take an antenna the size of a footbal field to do this." Amateur radio operators do "Moon Bounce" on UHF and above.
For example : The size of an element for an antenna on the 144 MHZ ham  band is about 2 Meters in length (About 6 Feet). Not quite as large as a football field. LOL

Anyway, that's typical for flat earthers, so just realize what's up against you on this FES website !

Hey, fellow round earthers !
You don't need to do this !
Just leave it to the flat earthers !
« Last Edit: February 20, 2018, 04:59:06 PM by Googleotomy »
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #246 on: February 20, 2018, 04:55:48 PM »
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.
That is incorrect.  A powerful enough transmitter is useless if alignment to the reflector can’t be maintained.  This is especially true for ka-band.  Balloons are for sure out. 

Troposcatter propagation distances are variable.  They are subject to changes in atmospheric conditions.  Conditions that not only effect propagation distances but angles and directions.   

If you look at this objectively, high-altitude balloons and troposcatter aren’t viable for DBS.   

Additionally, nobody has ever seen a mythical fleet of troposcatter transmitters or high-altitude providing signal to a  hundred million dishes worldwide. 

Mike

What is wrong with you?

One of the members is talking about murdering kids and you carry on like nothing happened...

Are you human?

What the fuck?
Report the offending post and stay on topic.
Since it costs 1.82¢ to produce a penny, putting in your 2¢ if really worth 3.64¢.

Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #247 on: February 21, 2018, 02:07:28 AM »
That is incorrect.  A powerful enough transmitter is useless if alignment to the reflector can’t be maintained.  This is especially true for ka-band.  Balloons are for sure out. 

Troposcatter propagation distances are variable.  They are subject to changes in atmospheric conditions.  Conditions that not only effect propagation distances but angles and directions.   

If you look at this objectively, high-altitude balloons and troposcatter aren’t viable for DBS.   

Additionally, nobody has ever seen a mythical fleet of troposcatter transmitters or high-altitude providing signal to a  hundred million dishes worldwide. 

Mike
Your insistence on maintaining this lame argument is so tiring.

Transmission/Reception of signal is not rocket surgery.

There is plenty of documented footage from balloons/blimps demonstrating they can be very stable transmission platforms.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2018, 02:09:08 AM by totallackey »

Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #248 on: February 21, 2018, 02:14:16 AM »
That is incorrect.  A powerful enough transmitter is useless if alignment to the reflector can’t be maintained.  This is especially true for ka-band.  Balloons are for sure out. 

Troposcatter propagation distances are variable.  They are subject to changes in atmospheric conditions.  Conditions that not only effect propagation distances but angles and directions.   

If you look at this objectively, high-altitude balloons and troposcatter aren’t viable for DBS.   

Additionally, nobody has ever seen a mythical fleet of troposcatter transmitters or high-altitude providing signal to a  hundred million dishes worldwide. 

Mike
Your insistence on maintaining this lame argument is so tiring.

Transmission/Reception of signal is not rocket surgery.

There is plenty of documented footage from balloons/blimps demonstrating they can be very stable transmission platforms.
'can be' but are not used, unless you can provide actual details for broadcast tv.  Satellites are proven technology.

*

rvlvr

  • 2148
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #249 on: February 21, 2018, 02:16:53 AM »
There is plenty of documented footage from balloons/blimps demonstrating they can be very stable transmission platforms.
Is there evidence they are used in this capacity instead of the satellites? How many are there, and where are they? How can I spot or track them?

Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #250 on: February 21, 2018, 02:31:20 AM »
So my DTV is not receiving it's signal from a balloon?
Aim carefully.
I do not even know if you have DTV.
Perhaps you should ask Mommy to take you to a park and fly a kite.
Delusional moron.
Why would I use a tethered kite to demonstrate the stability of an untethered blimp?

You have never seen a blimp in operation before, have you asshat...

Moran...
And what is the altitude of your magic balloons?
Why are you avoiding the question?
Foot hurting too much?
There is no magic involved in in balloons.

I know, you are confusing this:

with this:

but all they have in common is childrens' parties...

Again, balloons of all types can be found at various altitudes at a various times throughout the day and night.

And my foot is hurting from kicking your

in this debate.

Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #251 on: February 21, 2018, 02:39:06 AM »
There is plenty of documented footage from balloons/blimps demonstrating they can be very stable transmission platforms.
Is there evidence they are used in this capacity instead of the satellites? How many are there, and where are they? How can I spot or track them?
The issue is possible alternatives to satellite transmission.

Possible alternatives were put forth.

Transmission of signals via troposcatter and balloons is axiomatic.

Specific frequency has not been debated and as I have stated before, I have not claimed they have been used for this.

Balloons are all over the place. I am sure troposcatter is used all over the globe, especially in difficult areas to access.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2018, 03:30:46 PM by totallackey »

*

rvlvr

  • 2148
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #252 on: February 21, 2018, 02:56:56 AM »
Balloons are all over the place. I am sure troposcatter is used all over the globe, especially in difficult to access.
It is this part here which interests me the most.

I had not heard of troposcatter before I read of it here. Goes to show there is valuable (at least for me) information here in addition to fun and games.

The following (apologies, if repost) says it is being revisited by the military as an alternative to satellite communications, and it has been used in some capacity since the 1960s. How this translated into volume of use I cannot say. Nor can I say how viable an alternative it is nowadays.

http://www.militaryaerospace.com/articles/2013/07/army-troposcatter-communications.html

So, what I am trying to get to is, yes, troposcatter does appear to work, but can that really be said to disprove the use of communications satellites is questionable.

*

Macarios

  • 2093
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #253 on: February 21, 2018, 03:03:41 AM »
There is plenty of documented footage from balloons/blimps demonstrating they can be very stable transmission platforms.
Is there evidence they are used in this capacity instead of the satellites? How many are there, and where are they? How can I spot or track them?
The issue is possible alternatives to satellite transmission.

Possible alternatives were put forth.

Transmission of signals via troposcatter and balloons is axiomatic.

Specific frequency has not been debated and as I have stated before, I have not claimed they have been used for this.

Balloons are all over the place. I am sure troposcatter is used all over the globe, especially in difficult to access.

Any possible alternative source designed to mimic geostationary satellites has to be "geostationary" for years.
Not to move in relation to the grond for more than half of a degree.
This eliminates any kind of objects flying in the air.
The only two ways to achieve this are fixed towers or very well anchored balloons.

The alternative also has to be high enough to appear at the same elevation and azimuth for large areas on the ground.
You can calculate height yourself from data published on several web sites, and used from there for orienting dishes all over the world.
Knowing that the highest high altitude balloon flight in history was 32.9 miles high, and it was not anchored (fixed in the sky),
this eliminates ballons, because the alternative source has to be many times higher.
Additionally, we don't see anchors every couple of miles required to keep in place that many balloons.

Towers are already eliminated, as the tallest man made structure is Burj Khalifa, 828 meters. 830 with antenna on top of it.
Every structure like that can be seen from 64 miles away, and in real life we don't see such towers every mile or two all around.

EDIT: By using alternative source you can fool small number of people concentrated in small area, like same household or very small village.
But in attempt to scale up the same thing to vast population the system quickly grows beyond concealability.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2018, 03:16:12 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.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #254 on: February 21, 2018, 03:14:30 AM »
So my DTV is not receiving it's signal from a balloon?
Aim carefully.
I do not even know if you have DTV.
Perhaps you should ask Mommy to take you to a park and fly a kite.
Delusional moron.
Why would I use a tethered kite to demonstrate the stability of an untethered blimp?

You have never seen a blimp in operation before, have you asshat...

Moran...
And what is the altitude of your magic balloons?
Why are you avoiding the question?
Foot hurting too much?
There is no magic involved in in balloons.

I know, you are confusing this:

with this:

but all they have in common is childrens' parties...

Again, balloons of all types can be found at various altitudes at a various times throughout the day and night.

And my foot is hurting from kicking your

in this debate.
All a loser can do is resort to ridicule, which you do in spades.

I really that think you've lost all sense of reason and gone ballistic!

DBS Satellite TV has been in operation since 1984, yet all you can provide guesses that can cover local areas and are not yet in wide service.

And a point that you refuse to face is that the receiver dishes for a specific satellite service all point to one point approximately 35,786 km above the globe. Those dishes simply will not point to one location at any height above your flat earth.
If you disagree, you show how the meet at your hypothetical balloon locations!

How do you explain broadband data and TV services to aircraft flying far from any land?
You might read, QANTAS SWITCHES ON FAST, FREE INFLIGHT WIFI

Current ADS-B systems use ground based link, so can only track area within about 200 km of a land or ship based transmitter.
The soon to be implemented satellite ADS-B system extends that coverage over the whole earth,
see Aireon, SPACE-BASED ADS-B MAKING GLOBAL AIR TRAFFIC SURVEILLANCE A POWERFUL REALITY.
Quote
Global Air Traffic Surveillance
In 2018, Aireon will provide the first truly global air traffic surveillance system using a space-based ADS-B network that makes it possible to extend visibility across the entire planet. Aireon will enable real-time transmission of ADS-B reports from equipped aircraft to Air Traffic Management automation platforms and Air Traffic Controllers in every Flight Information Region throughout the world.

But, all the wonderful Total Lackey can do is is to guess and ridicule!

Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #255 on: February 21, 2018, 04:58:35 AM »
All a loser can do is resort to ridicule, which you do in spades.

I really that think you've lost all sense of reason and gone ballistic!

DBS Satellite TV has been in operation since 1984, yet all you can provide guesses that can cover local areas and are not yet in wide service.

How do you explain broadband data and TV services to aircraft flying far from any land?
You might read, QANTAS SWITCHES ON FAST, FREE INFLIGHT WIFI

Current ADS-B systems use ground based link, so can only track area within about 200 km of a land or ship based transmitter.
The soon to be implemented satellite ADS-B system extends that coverage over the whole earth,
see Aireon, SPACE-BASED ADS-B MAKING GLOBAL AIR TRAFFIC SURVEILLANCE A POWERFUL REALITY.
Quote
Global Air Traffic Surveillance
In 2018, Aireon will provide the first truly global air traffic surveillance system using a space-based ADS-B network that makes it possible to extend visibility across the entire planet. Aireon will enable real-time transmission of ADS-B reports from equipped aircraft to Air Traffic Management automation platforms and Air Traffic Controllers in every Flight Information Region throughout the world.

But, all the wonderful Total Lackey can do is is to guess and ridicule!
Pete, how you doin' today!

Did you sleep it off well enough to offer anything worthwhile?

I don't know Pete...

Still looking a little rough there...

You sure you up for today's game?

Let's see!

Here's the first pitch...

1) DBS Satellite TV has been in operation since 1984, yet all you can provide guesses that can cover local areas and are not yet in wide service.
AT&T offers DirecTV and you do not even need a dish or receiver.

Wide area covered.

Ah Pete...that's strike one...

2)And a point that you refuse to face is that the receiver dishes for a specific satellite service all point to one point approximately 35,786 km above the globe. Those dishes simply will not point to one location at any height above your flat earth.
If you disagree, you show how the meet at your hypothetical balloon locations!

Nice cut Pete!

But a swing and a miss nonetheless!

Any transmitter occupying or intercepting the line of sight of the dish can be at any altitude along that line of sight.

Strike two!

3) How do you explain broadband data and TV services to aircraft flying far from any land? You might read, QANTAS SWITCHES ON FAST, FREE INFLIGHT WIFI

Ah PETE!!!

Strike 3 and your out!

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/21/facebook-solar-powered-internet-plane-test-flight-aquila
« Last Edit: February 21, 2018, 05:05:00 AM by totallackey »

Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #256 on: February 21, 2018, 05:16:11 AM »
The existance of a does not prove the non existance of b.

Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #257 on: February 21, 2018, 05:54:02 AM »

2)And a point that you refuse to face is that the receiver dishes for a specific satellite service all point to one point approximately 35,786 km above the globe. Those dishes simply will not point to one location at any height above your flat earth.
If you disagree, you show how the meet at your hypothetical balloon locations!

Nice cut Pete!

But a swing and a miss nonetheless!

Any transmitter occupying or intercepting the line of sight of the dish can be at any altitude along that line of sight.

Strike two!
This has been explained to you in great detail several times, but I'll try to make it simpler for you.  Yes, and transmitter can be at any altitude along the line of sight for ANY SINGLE DISH.  But when you have multiple dishes, simple trigonometry will follow their separate lines of sight to a single point at a single altitude.  If there were only one dish on the planet you would have a great point.  Because there are many, the point you're trying to make is at best superfluous and irrelevant, and at worst deliberately dishonest and misleading.

Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #258 on: February 21, 2018, 06:35:11 AM »
This has been explained to you in great detail several times, but I'll try to make it simpler for you.  Yes, and transmitter can be at any altitude along the line of sight for ANY SINGLE DISH.  But when you have multiple dishes, simple trigonometry will follow their separate lines of sight to a single point at a single altitude.  If there were only one dish on the planet you would have a great point.  Because there are many, the point you're trying to make is at best superfluous and irrelevant, and at worst deliberately dishonest and misleading.
You are so full of crap it is amazing you were able to type this bull shit.

You are going to claim because a transmitter occupies only a very specific altitude it is able to reach multitudes of dishes?

That is just bull shit.

Wireless internet, available by dish reception, is also transmitted at ground level. and any dish that can be aimed at the transmission tower can receive the signal.

Go peddle your papers elsewhere.

You are the one being disingenuous, dishonest, and misleading.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #259 on: February 21, 2018, 06:46:27 AM »
There is plenty of documented footage from balloons/blimps demonstrating they can be very stable transmission platforms.
Is there evidence they are used in this capacity instead of the satellites? How many are there, and where are they? How can I spot or track them?
The issue is possible alternatives to satellite transmission.

Possible alternatives were put forth.

Transmission of signals via troposcatter and balloons is axiomatic.

Specific frequency has not been debated and as I have stated before, I have not claimed they have been used for this.

Balloons are all over the place. I am sure troposcatter is used all over the globe, especially in difficult to access.
You keep advocating the possibility of using balloons and troposcatter without acknowledging their practical limitations.

I wonder why that is.

You keep bringing up new technologies without explaining how the same commercial satellite services could have been provided 30 years ago.

You do understand that various satellite based services are a growing commercial industry, don't you?  Do you honestly think that these providers can fool  all of their customers all of the time?
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.

Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #260 on: February 21, 2018, 07:10:29 AM »
The issue is possible alternatives to satellite transmission.

Possible alternatives were put forth.

Transmission of signals via troposcatter and balloons is axiomatic.

Specific frequency has not been debated and as I have stated before, I have not claimed they have been used for this.

Balloons are all over the place. I am sure troposcatter is used all over the globe, especially in difficult to access.
You keep advocating the possibility of using balloons and troposcatter without acknowledging their practical limitations.

I wonder why that is.

You keep bringing up new technologies without explaining how the same commercial satellite services could have been provided 30 years ago.

You do understand that various satellite based services are a growing commercial industry, don't you?  Do you honestly think that these providers can fool  all of their customers all of the time?
[/quote]
What are you whining about Opus?

Does it bother you supposed "satellite services" are totally available without the use of a "satellite?"

Are you gonna cry?

Do you want me to call your mommy?

*

Macarios

  • 2093
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #261 on: February 21, 2018, 07:22:47 AM »
Does it bother you supposed "satellite services" are totally available partially possible without the use of a "satellite?"

FTFY :-)

The signals are possible, but not the locations of sources.

Think about plausibility of alternative locations.
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 #262 on: February 21, 2018, 08:52:24 AM »
This has been explained to you in great detail several times, but I'll try to make it simpler for you.  Yes, and transmitter can be at any altitude along the line of sight for ANY SINGLE DISH.  But when you have multiple dishes, simple trigonometry will follow their separate lines of sight to a single point at a single altitude.  If there were only one dish on the planet you would have a great point.  Because there are many, the point you're trying to make is at best superfluous and irrelevant, and at worst deliberately dishonest and misleading.
You are so full of crap it is amazing you were able to type this bull shit.

You are going to claim because a transmitter occupies only a very specific altitude it is able to reach multitudes of dishes?

That is just bull shit.

Wireless internet, available by dish reception, is also transmitted at ground level. and any dish that can be aimed at the transmission tower can receive the signal.

Go peddle your papers elsewhere.

You are the one being disingenuous, dishonest, and misleading.
I'll try this again slower.

Fact: Dishes are pointed to a place in the sky.  We agree on this, right?

Fact: These dishes can receive a signal from any transmitter in their direct line.  Again, we agree, right?

Fact: If you follow the line from any number of dishes that allegedly use the same satellite transmitter, each of the lines will intersect at a point where the alleged satellite is supposedly located.  This is trigonometry.

Fact: If you claim that satellite service is being provided by some means other than satellites, you need to have a separate transmitter for each of these dishes, because there is only one point where their lines of sight intersect, and it's at the satellite's orbital position.  That means DirecTV and Dish Network would have an individual balloon for every single customer.

Fact: A balloon could provide service to multiple dishes, but the dishes would need to be aimed differently than what we observe.

Do you get it yet?




*

Fild

  • 40
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #263 on: February 21, 2018, 09:01:20 AM »
Already mentioned them on the previous page .....

Balloons exists and are currently used in Puerto Rico to provide internet after the hurricane destroyed the ground infrastructure .
They hover around 20 km up and are steered by going up and down in high altitude winds .
Google made them, not some obscur start up looking for financing .
They can't probably replace the signals from a satellite to dishes but you may be able to broadcast TV channels trough the 4G network they provide.





https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/02/project-loon-engineer-sees-a-tool-for-future-disaster-response-in-puerto-rico/
« Last Edit: February 21, 2018, 11:07:52 AM by Fild »

Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #264 on: February 21, 2018, 09:22:40 AM »
The conclusion to this discussion is that satellites are real.  All agree?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42529
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #265 on: February 21, 2018, 10:02:49 AM »
Quote
The issue is possible alternatives to satellite transmission.

Possible alternatives were put forth.

Transmission of signals via troposcatter and balloons is axiomatic.

Specific frequency has not been debated and as I have stated before, I have not claimed they have been used for this.

Balloons are all over the place. I am sure troposcatter is used all over the globe, especially in difficult to access.
You keep advocating the possibility of using balloons and troposcatter without acknowledging their practical limitations.

I wonder why that is.

You keep bringing up new technologies without explaining how the same commercial satellite services could have been provided 30 years ago.

You do understand that various satellite based services are a growing commercial industry, don't you?  Do you honestly think that these providers can fool  all of their customers all of the time?
What are you whining about Opus?

Does it bother you supposed "satellite services" are totally available without the use of a "satellite?"
Not at all. 

It bothers me that you think that no one can tell the difference between satellite services and those alternatives that you propose, even if they were viable on a wide scale.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2018, 10:14:40 AM by markjo »
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.

*

rvlvr

  • 2148
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #266 on: February 21, 2018, 10:12:25 AM »
The conclusion to this discussion is that satellites are real.  All agree?
Hear, hear!

Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #267 on: February 21, 2018, 10:49:46 AM »
That is incorrect.  A powerful enough transmitter is useless if alignment to the reflector can’t be maintained.  This is especially true for ka-band.  Balloons are for sure out. 

Troposcatter propagation distances are variable.  They are subject to changes in atmospheric conditions.  Conditions that not only effect propagation distances but angles and directions.   

If you look at this objectively, high-altitude balloons and troposcatter aren’t viable for DBS.   

Additionally, nobody has ever seen a mythical fleet of troposcatter transmitters or high-altitude providing signal to a  hundred million dishes worldwide. 

Mike
Your insistence on maintaining this lame argument is so tiring.

Transmission/Reception of signal is not rocket surgery.

There is plenty of documented footage from balloons/blimps demonstrating they can be very stable transmission platforms.
The fact is you're incorrect.  Either you don't understand why you're wrong of you just won't admit it.  Either way you have failed to refute anything I've posted.

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

*

Crutchwater

  • 2151
  • Stop Indoctrinating me!
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #268 on: February 21, 2018, 11:00:41 AM »
The conclusion to this discussion is that satellites are real.  All agree?

Agree

Though it was never really in doubt.
I will always be Here To Laugh At You.

*

NAZA

  • 594
Re: Are satellites real?
« Reply #269 on: February 21, 2018, 11:04:15 AM »
The conclusion to this discussion is that satellites are real.  All agree?

Agreed, but don't hold your breath waiting for Lackey.   He'd sooner throw his mother off a cliff than admit the truth.