How do satellites fly over flat land?

Quote from: John Davis on July 16, 2018, 08:35:58 PM

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.

Presuming the axioms of euclidean geometry are true this would be correct. They are not.

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

I am not.

Interestingly. I have not seen in the pictures of the radar of the sky the satellites GPS - which would fly along the meridians. Believing in a ball - explain this.

Presuming the axioms of euclidean geometry are true this would be correct. They are not.

Quote

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

I am not.

Straight lines are part of Euclidean geometry.

So if you are rejecting the axioms of Euclidean geometry you are not referring to straight lines.

Interestingly. I have not seen in the pictures of the radar of the sky the satellites GPS - which would fly along the meridians. Believing in a ball - explain this.

Radar looks at low altitude, not space. The frequencies used typically get reflected by the ionosphere.

Quote from: Heavenly Breeze on September 07, 2018, 10:25:27 AM

Interestingly. I have not seen in the pictures of the radar of the sky the satellites GPS - which would fly along the meridians. Believing in a ball - explain this.

Radar looks at low altitude, not space. The frequencies used typically get reflected by the ionosphere.

Depends on the RADAR.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAVE_PAWS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Surveillance_Network

Depends on the RADAR.

Yes, there are ones designed to look at space, but most are not. I am assuming the ones he has seen are ones looking for planes.

Quote from: John Davis on September 07, 2018, 06:32:08 AM

Presuming the axioms of euclidean geometry are true this would be correct. They are not.

Quote

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

I am not.

Straight lines are part of Euclidean geometry.

So if you are rejecting the axioms of Euclidean geometry you are not referring to straight lines.

Really? Because it sounds like I'm not referring to Euclidean straight lines.

Really? Because it sounds like I'm not referring to Euclidean straight lines.

Straight lines are part of Euclidean geometry.
So you aren't referring to straight lines.

Perhaps you should try defining your terms rather than using terms which are already defined but rejecting that definition.

Surely, one could define straight line in other geometries.

It needs not be shown. You are being pedantic and wrong.

Surely, one could define straight line in other geometries.

Then do so.
Explain exactly what you mean by "straight line".

It needs not be shown. You are being pedantic and wrong.

No. You are completely rejecting the definition of straight line as used by basically everyone.
It isn't being pedantic when you are using a word while completely ignoring the definition.
That would be like calling chicken beef, and when people object say they are being pedantic and wrong.

Make clear what you mean.

Surely a straight line would lie level upon itself.

Yes not, waved his hoof *
* Yes, there are ones designed to look at space, but most are not. I am assuming the same.
This is not the same.
Radio amateurs shoot for themselves the radar of the sky. The photographs show geostationary satellites. One can even see how some of them move in space. Moreover, they move so that they break the established ideas about the geostationary orbit! But here GPS satellites are not visible. As if they also hang in place, like geostationary satellites. But in the course of 24 hours we will see them moving through the sky and seeing from slowly moving dots in all directions. They have to move at a speed greater as small as the moving sun - which we see. If they actually flew, we would see them in terms of brightness and size - about the same as the satellite that was moving. But do not be deceived is not a GPS satellite - the one that moves. Since it does not have a linear velocity and stops at the end of the movement. Very much all this is strange - after all GPS have not canceled! Satellites are real - but it's very strange that we do not see them flying in the sky, and we see only weighing satellites in one place. Perhaps, it's not at all how they tell us. Or we do not really understand what is happening. Or as I said our world is completely different.
Pictures are taken with a certain period, for several days. The frequencies of GPS and TV satellites are almost identical and overlap with the range of the locator. The technical part - the locator should see them. Do not twist your tail.
Well, now what do you say?

Here is a link to my video disc.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1iC2cRduh75XtIy6rokSmmNSMDhrRx6I5?usp=sharing

Surely a straight line would lie level upon itself.

Before wasting time quibbling over:

• what are the properties of a straight line in a non-Euclidean space and
• the difference between a straight line (the shortest distance between two points) and a geodesic (a line with zero geodesic curvature).

What about explaining the relevance of all of this to "How do satellites fly over flat land?"

Especially as the motion of satellites can be (almost) perfectly periodic in space - they can orbit in almost perfectly circular orbits.

This fits in perfectly with General Relativity's curved spacetime.
This allows for an orbit to be (almost) periodic in the spacelike component of spacetime but progressiing forward at (almost exactly) one second/second in the timelike component of spacetime.

Of course, in General Relativity, the curvature of the spacelike component of spacetime near earth is small enough to be negligible and certainly nothing that could make a flat surface look like a sphere of vice versa.

Maybe you could describe your theory and provide some justification for it.

« Reply #98 on: Today at 04:20:40 PM »
Surely, one could define straight line in other geometries.

Reply #101 on: Today at 10:42:03 PM »
Surely a straight line would lie level upon itself.

Да уж... Никто в Эквестрии даже не слышал о таком. Хоть тот мир действительно плоский.

Surely a straight line would lie level upon itself.

No. That would only be the case if the level was itself straight.
Lying upon itself is also a questionable concept.
So what exactly do you mean by a "straight" line?
For example, is this line "straight"?

It lies upon itself. It goes through the same point, so does that make it level?

Radio amateurs shoot for themselves the radar of the sky. The photographs show geostationary satellites.

Photographs aren't radar.
Some satellites are visible in photos of the night sky due to reflecting sunlight, Some rotate in such a way as to reflect light and then capture it with a sensor (i.e. like a camera). Other's don't rely upon sunlight at all.
Also, Geostationary satellites are in good positions for time lapse photos with fixed cameras as they remain in the same apparent location and thus the light can build up. Other satellites would be faint streaks.

As if they also hang in place, like geostationary satellites.

They don't. They go in several orbits, with a period of roughly half a day.

If they actually flew, we would see them in terms of brightness and size - about the same as the satellite that was moving.

On what basis do you claim this?
What satellite is shown in the video? How does that satellite compare to the GPS satellites?

From what I can tell, the only objects seen moving in that frame are the sun and moon.
These objects are very large, and quite bright. That makes them very easy to see. They have an angular size of roughly 0.5 degrees.
On the other hand GPS satellites are quite small. From my brief research, it appears they are 2.5 m wide. Do you really expect to see something that is 2.5 m wide at a distance of 20 000 km?

It is the radiolocation of the sky made by radio fans. Geosynchronous satellites are visible an arc. Under them there are the sun and the moon. There one more satellite tries to be inscribed in a geosynchronous orbit, but … that as it moves it probably on absolutely another.
I sighed. To me it became very sad. Really only I one understand what I see?

On it I will take the leave. Once again I ask applications from all whom I could offend.
And for inquisitive and attentive people, I will tell – pay attention to my signature.
Always your Breeze.

I bowed, having raised one hoof *

Quote from: John Davis on September 07, 2018, 10:42:03 PM

Surely a straight line would lie level upon itself.

No. That would only be the case if the level was itself straight.
Lying upon itself is also a questionable concept.
So what exactly do you mean by a "straight" line?
For example, is this line "straight"?

It lies upon itself. It goes through the same point, so does that make it level?

You haven't given me enough to answer to that question. To restate it in different terms, a straight line is a line which lies evenly with the points on itself.

You haven't given me enough to answer to that question. To restate it in different terms, a straight line is a line which lies evenly with the points on itself.

What information are you missing? The line is the circumference of the circle.
This is why I wanted a nice clear explanation of what you mean by "straight line".
Can you provide a definition which can then be used to evaluate lines to determine if they are "straight"?

And I thought you weren't trying to use Euclid?

Quote from: John Davis on September 09, 2018, 03:04:29 PM

You haven't given me enough to answer to that question. To restate it in different terms, a straight line is a line which lies evenly with the points on itself.

What information are you missing? The line is the circumference of the circle.
This is why I wanted a nice clear explanation of what you mean by "straight line".
Can you provide a definition which can then be used to evaluate lines to determine if they are "straight"?

And I thought you weren't trying to use Euclid?

The information I'm missing is too great to list. Saying its a circle is a good start. What do you mean by circle? What space is it in? Can I assume this is to scale? What coordinate system is in use in the diagram? How would I replicate this 'circle'? What axioms of geometry are at play in this system? and so on.

I have no issue using Euclid when he is correct. As said, you can evaluate whether or not a line is straight by determining if its points lie evenly. You can determine straightness of a line AB relative to another point D by following this methodology:

Axiom:
A segment AB can be drawn joining any two points A and B.

Postulate:
Given segment AB and segment BC: A straight line AB can be drawn by extending line segment AB indefinitely such that each point D on line AB is on a line segment CD that is congruent and normal to CB and CA. The line AB will intersect each of its points at length of its period

Evidence this is manifest in nature follows from the satellite thought experiment, coherence with Newton's Laws, observed phenomenon, and the equivalence principle.

As said, you can evaluate whether or not a line is straight by determining if its points lie evenly.

Considering how vague that statement is, I would say you can't.
What does it mean for its points to lie evenly? That all the points are the same distance apart? That each segment of the line is similar? That each segment is similar to the entire line?

You can determine straightness of a line AB relative to another point D by following this methodology:
Axiom:
A segment AB can be drawn joining any two points A and B.
Postulate:
Given segment AB and segment BC: A straight line AB can be drawn by extending line segment AB indefinitely such that each point D on line AB is on a line segment CD that is congruent and normal to CB and CA. The line AB will intersect each of its points at length of its period
Evidence this is manifest in nature follows from the satellite thought experiment, coherence with Newton's Laws, observed phenomenon, and the equivalence principle.

No, that isn't evidence at all.
Satellites are evidence of periodic orbits, not that the orbits themselves are straight lines.
Newton's laws and the equivalence principle are likewise unconnected.

Evidence against it is that it doesn't even match the most common idea of a straight line, one in Euclidean space.
Normal requires it to be at 90 degrees.
You can also see that D can also be at point A or B.
So you are saying a line needs to be at 90 degrees to itself which makes no sense.

So it is quite clear, you are not talking about straight lines. You are talking about something completely different and pretending they are straight lines.

Jack. You are helping John muddy the waters again. This debate will not go well for the flat earth movement and John needs to derail it as quickly as he can. Don't encourage him, please.

Heavenly Breeze, you have spent all of four pages saying nothing. Give a simple explanation as to how satellites work on a flat earth. A summary. we'll ask questions as needed. and going slowly like that will help overcome things getting lost in translation.