How do satellites fly over flat land?

Quote from: THEREALDILL23 on June 27, 2018, 08:55:13 AM

Satellite T.V, Satellite phones, and many other services such as GPS. Can work by using space wave technology. We can bounce waves off atmosphere above us

Except space waves are those which do not get bounced by the atmosphere and thus allow transmission to space, so the exact opposite of what you need.

Even if this was viable, it would only provide for services where the satellites are meant to be keeping a fixed position.
For GPS, they are not, and satellites come into and out of view. GPS cannot be faked by your magic non-space waves.
And the angles still don't add up.

Quote from: THEREALDILL23 on June 27, 2018, 08:55:13 AM

The service is quite laggy and patchy. So Lets debate this some more.

Yes, the service typically will be quite laggy. This is due to how the packets have to travel.
As for being patchy, one downfall of satellite technology is that they need to penetrate the atmosphere and any obstructions. This makes it difficult to use inside, and the signal is typically much weaker (due to the greater distance), which is why good ones have large transceivers.
Do you think them being laggy and patchy is an issue for a RE?

My argument for you would be, why wouldn't it be better on a round earth? Satellites are supposedly affixed in our gravitational orbit, (meaning they move roughly 1000 a miles an hour)?

Quote from: rabinoz on June 29, 2018, 04:22:57 AM

The early Church (yes, it was the "Roman" church - there was little else then)

WROOOONG!

Sorry for going after you again, but I can't stand it when somebody is wrong on the Flat Earth Forum.

BHS will be along soon to give us his detailed history of early Christianity that he got from a half remembered blurb on a Dan Brown book cover.

My argument for you would be, why wouldn't it be better on a round earth?

On our round Earth it will vary depending upon which satellite system you use.
Are you using one in a geostationary orbit, meaning the signal needs to travel up at least 35000 km and then back down, but typically even further, or are you using a LEO one which means the satellites are moving relative to Earth?

Regardless of which one you do, is the day perfectly clear, or are there clouds, or trees or roofs above you?

What makes you think it is a problem for a RE?

Quote from: rabinoz on June 29, 2018, 04:22:57 AM

The early Church (yes, it was the "Roman" church - there was little else then)

WROOOONG!

Sorry for going after you again, but I can't stand it when somebody is wrong on the Flat Earth Forum.

Sorry about that, but to have gone into great detail of the first few centuries would have made things too long and I don't that they were too bothered about the shape of the earth very much during that period.

I guess I should have mentioned the Eastern Orthodox (in what is now Greece and Turkey) and Coptic groups (largely in Egypt) at least and in the first few centuries AD even calling it the "Roman Church" is a bit of a misnomer.

Do you have a concise history of that period anywhere.

Bye

Quote from: FalseProphet on July 08, 2018, 09:34:35 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on June 29, 2018, 04:22:57 AM

The early Church (yes, it was the "Roman" church - there was little else then)

WROOOONG!

Sorry for going after you again, but I can't stand it when somebody is wrong on the Flat Earth Forum.

Sorry about that, but to have gone into great detail of the first few centuries would have made things too long and I don't that they were too bothered about the shape of the earth very much during that period.

I guess I should have mentioned the Eastern Orthodox (in what is now Greece and Turkey) and Coptic groups (largely in Egypt) at least and in the first few centuries AD even calling it the "Roman Church" is a bit of a misnomer.

Do you have a concise history of that period anywhere.

Bye

At the time of your old friend Beda Venerabilis the Roman and the Greek church were still one church and the patriarchs of Rome and Constantinople were equal in authority. But the two non-Chalzedonian churches were both already separated from them and very widespread, the Monophysites in Egypt, Nubia, Ethiopia, Syria, Armenia and India, the Nestorians in Mesopotamia, Persia, Central Asia and even China.

Actually you could call it "Roman church", but not in the modern sense, because the inhabitants of the Eastern empire called themselves "Romans" (Romaioi), too, not "Greeks" (Hellenoi). Hellenoi in those times would have been a word for pagans. Only after the Turkish conquest they started to call themselves Hellenoi again, at least the literate ones.

I don't that they were too bothered about the shape of the earth very much during that period.

The Syrian theologians were remarkably hostile against the globe theory, though in Beda's time they may have excepted it.

EDIT: The Greeks started to use the word "hellenoi" again as early as the 11th century, not after the Turkish invasion as I thought.

The Syrian theologians were remarkably hostile against the globe theory, though in Beda's time they may have excepted it.

I imagine the Syrian theologians had a Jewish background and might have "inherited" the Hebrew cosmology.
Those in Rome and Greece would have been influenced by the Greek (Ptolemaic) cosmology though, of course there was much Jewish influence there too.
And Paul was Saul of Tarsus. I haven't the slightest idea of his ideas on the issue, but Tarsus is in present day Turkey, so he probably had a background in Greek ideas.
During the first few centuries there was much debate on the flat/Globe issue.

It must have been very difficult back there because there is not that much evidence available to people that had seen little of the world.
Though those old astronomers from Ptolemy back would had been certain of the shape of the earth.

Quote from: FalseProphet on July 09, 2018, 08:58:04 PM

The Syrian theologians were remarkably hostile against the globe theory, though in Beda's time they may have excepted it.

I imagine the Syrian theologians had a Jewish background and might have "inherited" the Hebrew cosmology.
Those in Rome and Greece would have been influenced by the Greek (Ptolemaic) cosmology though, of course there was much Jewish influence there too.
And during the first few centuries there was much debate on the flat/Globe issue.

Actually it was a fraction of Syrian theologians, the ones associated with the "Antiochian school" and their successors, the Nestorians. They did not like Greek philosophy and had a more literal approach to the bible.

Also, I already hinted at that on another place, in pre-islamic times, outside of the Greek/Roman sphere, the globe theory was not very popular, at least among everybody who was not an astronomer. Syria was quite on the border of that sphere.

Here I have listened to you, and I think, and whether I should continue.
I have raised sharply wings**
I though became slightly closer to understanding of the world, and you only a beztolka argue having rested foreheads each other. As you won't understand - hostility between you artificially created. Already all laugh at you. All those to whom all the same what our world as they are consumers of this world. Whether space is him all the kossmos, him the main thing to watch soccer on satellite TV.
You wanted the facts. Well now don't complain. And not my fault if you don't apprehend them.
I am a pony, and I can think not standardly, and you are people - no. You study it. Otherwise and you will get stuck at the beginning of a way and you won't reach the purpose. And if you begin to understand what I speak about. And you will have after that a clear mind … I congratulate you halfway of a way to the truth. I spoke to you more than once about some things, but you didn't listen to me and generally just trollin, even without trying to understand sense of my words. I even carried out the test for trolling, and alas - you successfully have handed over him.
Now I will adduce the arguments and the facts explaining our world. Also postpone your cunning and silly mathematics in the safe.

I have stretched a hoof  forward**
Not without reason Jesus said about what by means of figures you will never understand as everything is arranged. The science will confuse you and will deceive. If all of you carried out what He told, then you would have flying cars without fuel, clear water and air, the world between you and a wonderful life. Look around. What do you see? All not so …

Folded its wings. I have stepped aside a little and a little more quietly **
I will begin with the fact that I will incontestably prove that our earth – a sphere. That you understood that figures it is just figures. And have no relation to understanding as everything is arranged. And to show what I understand with what I business.

Sorry, I will do everything in parts – one part a day, it is heavy to me to inform of a thought in English.

you only a beztolka argue having rested foreheads each other. As you won't understand

You are just insulting us and making a bunch of baseless claims.
What is there to understand?

If you want us to attempt to understand, explain how the satellites fly above a flat Earth with minimal power.
So far all you have done is assert it is possible and all easily explained, while failing to provide any explanation.
You have asserted that a round Earth can't possibly produce a magnetic field, while using a complete strawman of how that field is generated and practically laughing at how the field is actually produced.

You are the one creating hostility not us.
You seem to want us to just accept whatever you say without question.
This is a not a forum for preaching. It is a forum for debate.

You wanted the facts. Well now don't complain. And not my fault if you don't apprehend them.

No, I wanted you to justify your claims. Not just assert them.
It is your fault as you have failed to provide any justification or backing.
So far all you have are baseless claims, strawmen and photos where you can't tell exactly where a dish is pointing.
It is entirely your fault that people aren't accepting what you are saying.

You study it.

I have.
All evidence indicates Earth is round.
The evidence indicates that a spinning ball of molten metal will generate a magnetic field, consistent with RE, and that satellites operate just fine under RE, while there is no explanation for how they magically stay up for a FE.

If you tell us to study it ourselves, don't complain when we discover that you are wrong.

but you didn't listen to me

You are confusing failing to listen with failing to accept your baseless claims.
Again, this is a forum for debate, not preaching.
I'm not just going to accept whatever baseless crap you say.

Not without reason Jesus said

More religious nonsense without anything to back it up.

I will begin with the fact that I will incontestably prove that our earth – a sphere.

So you accept that Earth is a sphere?
Then why claim it is flat?

Excuse me JackBlack if have considered that I whom, or offend.
But be merciful to those who trust in the flat earth. They have no enough experience to compete with science. They even have no uniform theory – as they are separated in the judgments and perfectly understand that they can't explain the most obvious things.
In difference from those who it is rallied the earth – a sphere advances the idea. For them a riddle why. If we live on the earth –  flat earth. If to rise by top of houses in Moscow and Canada.
That it is impossible to communicate on radio through the North Pole. They want – but it is impossible. As well as to watch telecasts from Canada though from Paris it is possible.
Do you think all from them believe that the sun is at the height of 5 000 km over us when by planes we fly above? I haven't found explanations of it at anybody of them, as well as the same satellites which they deny. They have no connected explanation of the theory the earth - the plane with overlapping of the facts, such, as in the assumption that the earth – a sphere. Yes, it is big minus of those who believe that the - flat earth. But also their big plus, They know that they are right. Otherwise there would be no this website, and these discussions.
You are impatient my kind friend JackBlack. And of you it isn't fair to use all power of science perfected in one direction in 500 years. You don't give chance to others to express the opinion. You haven't understood me, as well as always. Perhaps because of the poor translation.
I speak as well as always – I am convinced that I live on flat earth and I see satellites over myself. I want to unite all separate facts and to try to offer a full explanation to it. Besides with cross references. Also as it in the assumption the earth – a sphere.

That those who trusts in flat earth wasn't afraid of satellites, and could will be established in the faith.
 This work not simple. You use JackBlack work of hundreds and thousands of other people who have given years of the life of the theory the earth - a sphere. What was personally made by you to prove that it is the truth?
I can't find so much time to be constantly here - as you. And correct translation occupies a half of time. Or you want that I in Russian have written personally for you JackBlack?

I once again will repeat. I will explain many things which the standard theory – flat earth can't explain. Including as satellites over ours - flat earth can really fly. But it is really heavy to tell it with full proofs. I one - against those who will look for how to disprove me.
I think those who trust in – flat earth. Temporarily will only listen to understand what I mean.

And I will begin with the theory the earth – a sphere then to compare theories among themselves.
And to use the same scientific data for confirmation or a denial of the theory the earth – the plane. That nobody has told that I use only the facts, favorable to me. Therefore I have also told, I will prove for a start that the earth – a sphere, and somebody won't be able to disprove it. Then I so, on the basis of the same facts will prove that the earth – the plane, and let will try to disprove me, those who trust in a sphere. But when both theories are proved same are either both of them are right, or both, aren't right … Paradox. Or we don't know still what. This the third - I will also try to explain.
This third explains how our world works.

Do you think all from them believe that the sun is at the height of 5 000 km over us when by planes we fly above?

Planes fly at ~35 000 ft or 10 km, not over 5000 km.

It is the satellites, where some (not all) go well above that.

But also their big plus, They know that they are right. Otherwise there would be no this website, and these discussions.

No, that is a big minus.
They believe they are right with no basis for that belief.
This causes them to completely ignore all that which shows they are wrong.
If they were right, this website would not exist.
Instead you would have small sites with people proclaiming Earth is round, or everyone simply accepting Earth is flat.

You are impatient my kind friend JackBlack.

Only of some things, such as people repeatedly making basless claims and never providing any backing.

And of you it isn't fair to use all power of science perfected in one direction in 500 years.

Why not?

You don't give chance to others to express the opinion.

Yes I do, I just want them to back it up rather than just repeatedly assert nonsense.

Also as it in the assumption the earth – a sphere.

Note: Taking "sphere" to just mean roughly spherical rather than perfectly spherical.
No, that isn't an assumption. It is a conclusion based upon the available evidence, which has remained without any challenge which can withstand scrutiny.
The only issue is if people think it is a perfect sphere, or a perfect sphere ignoring mountains and the like.

You use JackBlack work of hundreds and thousands of other people who have given years of the life of the theory the earth - a sphere. What was personally made by you to prove that it is the truth?

I don't need there work.
The mere existence of the horizon indicates Earth is round.
The nature of objects near the horizon indicates Earth is round (including how they appear to sink as they go past the horizon, disappearing from the bottom up).
My own personal observations of the sun and stars, and time zones around the world is enough.
The Earth's shadow on the moon during a lunar eclipse, again indicates Earth is round (and it doesn't take a genius to track the sun and figure out it is opposite the moon during an eclipse with Earth getting in the way. You can do this with a relatively cheap telescope with an equatorial mount tracking the sun, noting it has a fairly constant angular velocity in the equatorial plane, slightly off from the moon and slightly off from the other stars).
None of it makes sense for a FE. But makes perfect sense for a RE.

As well as that there is evidence from plenty of other people that takes very little time (at least on their part) such as taking a timelapse photo of the night sky.

People can easily find out for themselves that Earth is round.
Meanwhile, what are the reasons for people thinking Earth is flat?
"[Insert religion or holy book here] says Earth is flat."
"It looks flat" (which to me is pure bullshit. Earth in no way looks flat).
"THE GOVERNMENT IS LYING TO EVERYONE!!!"
"This picture which was clearly presented as a mosaic is a composite photo so all photos from space must be fake and Earth must be flat."
The reasons are pure nonsense, favouring religion over reality, ignoring reality or being paranoid.

I can't find so much time to be constantly here - as you. And correct translation occupies a half of time.

Then stop trying to focus on so many things. Pick a single issue and stick to that, providing a justification for your claims.

I once again will repeat. I will explain

Repeating this claim doesn't help you.
Actually start explaining.
Until you do, you have nothing.

If you need to have people that will just accept what you say, you can't explain it; it means you can only offer excuses.

I will prove for a start that the earth – a sphere, and somebody won't be able to disprove it. Then I so, on the basis of the same facts will prove that the earth – the plane

Go ahead and try.

But when both theories are proved same are either both of them are right, or both, aren't right … Paradox.

It means you proof was unsound for either one or both of them.

Now are you going to try providing an explanation or proof, or just more empty words?

Ам … I can disappoint you planes up to 75 000 km (kilometers) over us. It is a record of flights.
Concerning the translation. If I begin to speak about one, then I won't be able to explain anything. Very extensive. And translation very not exact. You not against if I also repeat everything in Russian in brackets that you could check the accuracy of my words?
Excuse - it is very extensive work including comparisons of theories as during Columbus, and modern time.
Based on a research.
Sun, moon, earth.
General Theory of Relativity. Electromagnetism and radio hamming.

I will begin with ancient times.
I will be glad if you help me with it and to find inaccuracies.

Ам … I can disappoint you planes up to 75 000 km (kilometers) over us. It is a record of flights.

Nope.
It would be either 75000 m, or 75 000 feet.

According to wiki, the current record is for an air launched rocket plane (and thus arguably, not a plane and not flying) which reached an altitude of ~112 km.
Excluding air-launched rocket planes, the record is 37 650 m.

If you wish to claim such an outrageous number (which would only be achieved by space vehicles rather than planes and they don't fly), feel free to provide a reference.

Regardless, these are for either one off things or satellites, which would be dismissed as fake by the FEers. What it should be compared to is everyday occurances almost everyone can have, e.g. a commercial flight.

You not against if I also repeat everything in Russian in brackets that you could check the accuracy of my words?

You can repeat it in Russian, however I don't speak Russian so I'm not sure how useful it would be.

Excuse - it is very extensive work including comparisons of theories as during Columbus, and modern time.
Based on a research.
Sun, moon, earth.
General Theory of Relativity. Electromagnetism and radio hamming.

None of this supports a FE.

I will begin with ancient times.
I will be glad if you help me with it and to find inaccuracies.

I can help with that.


Sorry if this post is long.

I have absolutely got confused with figures so far translated. There are only seventy five kilometers. Excuse for a mistake. Likely I will write with letters further. Not to be confused.
https://studfiles.net/preview/6153026/page:2/
And I took figures from this – from the picture, but not from Wicky. Therefore also difference. Plus a mistake with meters and kilometers, all this has confused. It is really Х-15. And here with an accuracy of figures well it is already interpretation. At us everything is in a different way perceived. We can tell even so - and everything we understand about what the speech.
** There comes a foreigner to the Russian lonely village. Sees - the granny chases geese and shouts: "Ah you are dogs such damned, well get out!". And the man doesn't understand why it she dogs calls geese.
I have decided to ask the granny. Says:
- Grannies, it is geese???
- Well geese, you чо blind person?
- And why you their dogs called?
- But because these pigs to me have trampled all kitchen garden! **
I have understood with abstractions, I will try to bring closer everything to scientific figures as much as possible. Well I will try to duplicate in Russian, your translator can will cope better than mine.
I will be grateful if you point to mistakes.

How does the model of flat ground explain that we are watching satellite TV, and the most important is that we use the Internet through satellites?

Satellites are traveling in straight lines.

Are you sure that they fly like this?

Quote from: Heavenly Breeze on June 24, 2018, 08:52:51 AM

How does the model of flat ground explain that we are watching satellite TV, and the most important is that we use the Internet through satellites?

Satellites are traveling in straight lines.

To be a little more precise. Satellites are traveling along geodesics in curved spacetime.
This means that they can travel in almost circular or elliptical orbits in space, almost exactly as predicted by Newtonian Physics.

The geodesics, that you loosely call straight lines are in spacetime and that is quite different to geodesics or straight lines in space.

And for orbits around the earth the difference between Einstein's GR and Newtonian Physics is hardly measurable.

Quote from: Heavenly Breeze on June 24, 2018, 08:52:51 AM

How does the model of flat ground explain that we are watching satellite TV, and the most important is that we use the Internet through satellites?

Satellites are traveling in straight lines.

No, they travel in circles or ellipses or other complicated paths. If they were traveling in a straight line, they wouldn't repeatedly go over the same point.

If you are referring to geodesics in spacetime, they are not straight lines, but analogues of them.

Quote from: Heavenly Breeze on June 24, 2018, 08:52:51 AM

How does the model of flat ground explain that we are watching satellite TV, and the most important is that we use the Internet through satellites?

Do you suppose it is beyond us to produce a dual system of astronomy?

Yes.

Quote from: Heavenly Breeze on June 24, 2018, 08:52:51 AM

How does the model of flat ground explain that we are watching satellite TV, and the most important is that we use the Internet through satellites?

Satellites are traveling in straight lines.

Because that fits in with the laws of physics, doesn't it.
Just discard force vectors when they get in the way, why don't you.

Quote from: Heavenly Breeze on June 24, 2018, 08:52:51 AM

How does the model of flat ground explain that we are watching satellite TV, and the most important is that we use the Internet through satellites?

Satellites are traveling in straight lines.

Please explain with a typical path.  How ahout broadcast ones that are in the same place?

Excuse for a long absence I can not always be here.
Here saw new subjects and just I am surprised to all these disputes on FE and RE. I was pleasant to offer only scientists to prove one the FE model.
Concerning satellites. I did not forget about intention to prove that both models are incorrect.
I have pictures of directly focal antennas which stand nearby and watch with a corner in the directions more than 50 degrees, besides they are lifted very highly. For the RE model - if for the antenna in the southern direction almost everything is clear, then standing nearby does not explain in any way why she looks into the sky almost also. But it is rejected on the East more than by 50 degrees (I live in Ukraine). You can prove as much as long, something, but the RE model does not explain it. At us it is possible to see, as well as ordinary antennas put under such inconceivable corner besides the size their identical. It means that reception of a signal goes sure.
I not without reason sent the picture of a radar-location where it is visible arrangements of satellites in a geostationary orbit. I have pictures of a radiolokaziya of the sky where it is visible as the arch of satellites decreases changing the radius and aspires in the meeting point if to go to a pole. But to rejoice early for the FE model – as * Gyro-compass * completely disproves the earth as FE! Which of you believing in FE will be able to explain how Gyro-compass works? Or you will claim again what such does not exist? Even if there is a roundabout of the earth, then on the FE model – it will not work as moving away from the equator it begins to increase equally a precession both for the movement to the north from the equator, and to the South. Whereas on FE – it in principle cannot be! Though that you tell those who trusts in FE. Our world has rotation besides a miscellaneous in different latitudes! And it proves Gyro-compass. But also who believes you that our world of RE – early to rejoice. Our world has no axis and does not rotate – and to it there are same proofs, and explaining behavior of Gyro-compass. But about it later. I want to hear believers in FE – as they can explain behavior of Gyro-compass or they will deny the principle of its work … Here the reference to the working Gyro-compass model.
https://maritime.org/doc/gyromk14/index.htm#pg7a
Work of Gyro-compass is connected in together with that as satellites over our earth fly.

Excuse for my English if it is not clear - tell. I will send the original of the message, your translator can will better.

Excuse for a long absence

No worries, the longer the better.

Respected - JimmyTheCrab. What does not suit you? The fact that really there are gyrocompasses and believers in FE will hardly be able ever to obyasnit as it looks for the North Pole and proves for all 100% that the earth a sphere. As all see as he behaves at different latitudes. It not satellites of which is not visible to you in the sky, you can go to the port and poshchupit it hands and look as he calculates where the North besides поворачиваяст in different latitudes and poles on a miscellaneous. What for 100% dokazyvt that the earth a sphere and it rotates!
That it is possible to dismiss this community now or you will deny that as the gyrocompass works, well according to your comments I did not understand what you trust in so терерь you have a chance to believe. That the earth - a sphere.

How does the model of flat ground explain that we are watching satellite TV, and the most important is that we use the Internet through satellites?

They are flying in a straight line over flat ground on a path that overtakes itself. This causes them not to crash.

Other explanations include that they are not real, and are actually pseudolites or are using atmoplanar bouncing.

They are flying in a straight line over flat ground on a path that overtakes itself.

What do you mean by that?
A straight line that overtakes itself?
How would a straight line overtake itself?
Do you mean a circle?

Quote from: Heavenly Breeze on June 24, 2018, 08:52:51 AM

How does the model of flat ground explain that we are watching satellite TV, and the most important is that we use the Internet through satellites?

They are flying in a straight line over flat ground on a path that overtakes itself. This causes them not to crash.

Please explain how something flying in a straight line can overtake itself in flat space. 
If you want to drag non-Euclidean space into it then non-Euclidean space is not flat space.

Geodesics
The "shortness" and "straightness" of a line, interpreted as the property that the distance along the line between any two of its points is minimized (see triangle inequality), can be generalized and leads to the concept of geodesics in metric spaces.

Then you have to explain what mechanism can cause space to curve to that extent. Einstein's GR certainly does not.

John Davis. I cannot present it. It is difficult even for me. Satellites are a reality which nobody will be able to deny, all watch TV.
Well so nevertheless who will dare to describe as the gyrocompass works at the flat earth? And satellites give a key to understanding of it.

Johndavis - the same guy whos afraid of moon light...