Satellite TV

Quote from: wise on June 11, 2019, 06:02:27 AM

Quote from: turtles on June 11, 2019, 05:36:25 AM

It is if the observer is on Earth.

Are we talking about same image?



In this image, we see the following things:
1- Earth is spinning prominently. It almost turn half of a way.
2- Moon rotating around earth, it almost runs half of earth.
3- Moon has to show same face to the earth, but our point of onservation is stationary out of the earth.
4- So we have to definitely see the moon's a "part of other side" because it has to save its position related to the earth's rotation. But we are seing constantly same face of the moon.

Debunked. This image is a fraud.

No, the image is not debunked!

• Earth is spinning prominently. It almost turn half of a way:
  So let's say that the time is about 10 hours (a bit under half a day - when I get time I might calculate it more accurately)
  
  
• Moon rotating around earth, it almost runs half of earth:
  No, because the moon takes about 29 days to orbit the earth so in 10 hours it has only travelled (10 x 360)/(24 x 29) = 5.17 degrees around its orbit.
  
  
• Moon has to show same face to the earth, but our point of observation is stationary out of the earth: Yes, that is correct.
  
  
• So we have to definitely see the moon's a "part of other side":
  But since the moon only rotates about 5ｰ around its orbit we see so little of the "other side" that it quite unnoticeable.
  

So no, you observations do not prove that image is a fraud.

So there is another problem of this visual. Because as far as we see earth's hours seem about 10 hours or a bit less. But moon is traveling really a good distance clearly seem more than 1/58 of the orbit.

You are confusing moon phases and moon orbit. Are you as ignorant as boydster? Moon orbit is 27 days, but not 29. You're wellcome.

Quote from: turtles on June 11, 2019, 05:36:25 AM

Quote from: wise on June 11, 2019, 02:44:27 AM

Quote from: turtles on June 11, 2019, 02:40:28 AM

Quote from: wise on June 11, 2019, 02:30:04 AM

Quote from: MouseWalker on June 10, 2019, 07:04:50 PM

Understand that the dark side of the Moon, is a misnomer, it really should say the far side of the Moon, the side that never faces earth.
the Satellite is outside The orbit of the Moon and orbits the sun at the same rate of earth. So that you see the sunlit side of Earth, all the time.
If you cannot see this, you will remain, in your cave of Plato, seeing what you want to see and denying reality.

Did you aware that moon is not spinning at all and shows the so called camera constantly same face, although the observation angle changes. It is clearly, fake!

It does spin once every 28 days. It also orbits the Earth once every 28 days, so the same side always faces us.

It's called tidal locking.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking

If you pay attention the video then you see that its angel changes relatively the observe point. It either has to same face to the earth or to the observer. Both can not be possible together.

It is if the observer is on Earth.

Are we talking about same image?

Ah, no I think not. I was referring to the diagrams in the Wikipedia article.

In this image, we see the following things:

1- Earth is spinning prominently. It almost turn half of a way. It has started with America in left side and ended with Australia in the left side.

2- Moon rotating around earth, it almost runs half of earth.

3- Moon has to show same face to the earth, but our point of onservation is stationary out of the earth.

4- So we have to definitely see the moon's a "part of other side" because it has to save its position related to the earth's rotation. As how as we are seing the earth's seing face is changing, we have to see mon's rotating and show us a part of its other face. But we are seing constantly same face of the moon.

Debunked. This image is a fraud. So satellites are absent. If they would exist so they had to publish a reliable visual other than this one.

I think rabinoz answered those well, so no, not even close to debunked.

So why does your globularist moderator lover isn't warning you who are talking clearly off the topic and warning me who is talking in the topic?

Probably because we were responding directly to what you were saying which was off topic, and telling you to get back on topic.

Can you prove your GPS works inner oceans?

You were the one who brought up GPS working/not working in Oceans, so the burden of proof is on you to prove your claims.

And again, that is still off topic.
GPS is another thread entirely.
This thread is for discussing satellite TV.

1- Earth is spinning prominently. It almost turn half of a way. It has started with America in left side and ended with Australia in the left side.

2- Moon rotating around earth, it almost runs half of earth.

3- Moon has to show same face to the earth, but our point of onservation is stationary out of the earth.

4- So we have to definitely see the moon's a "part of other side" because it has to save its position related to the earth's rotation. As how as we are seing the earth's seing face is changing, we have to see mon's rotating and show us a part of its other face. But we are seing constantly same face of the moon.

Again, entirely off topic, and also massively wrong.
Yes, Earth rotates a lot as it is 5 hours of imagery. But not half way. No where near half way. Look at North America. It starts off roughly centred (i.e. the longitude of it is in line with the centre of the image) and ends up on the edge. This means it turns roughly 1/4 of the way around. Quite consistent with roughly 5 hours.

The moon does not rotate almost half of Earth, instead it merely passes in front of the camera.
It rotates roughly 2 degrees.

This rotation (while not measured to that accuracy) is observed if you actually compare the first and last image.
Again, here it is (epileptics beware): https://i.imgur.com/btURe7m.gif .
This ~2 degree rotation is far too small to notice by a mental comparison (i.e. watching it and seeing if it rotates by mentally comparing the 2).

So no, your analysis is wrong. You have failed to show that this image is a fraud. It is entirely consistent with what is expected of a round rotating Earth with the moon orbiting it as known by science.

But again, THIS IS ALL OFF TOPIC!
The topic is satellites used for TV, specifically the geostationary satellites.

You claimed satellites need to move relative to Earth or they would fall down.
I showed the math which clearly indicates that as long as Earth rotates there is an orbit where the satellite moves with Earth and thus appears to remain stationary relative to Earth, and showed that this requires Earth to be rotating.
That means not only are these satellites possible with a rotating round Earth, they require a rotating Earth, and thus these dishes and satellites prove Earth rotates.

Now, care to address the topic?

Quote from: wise on June 11, 2019, 06:05:10 AM

2- Moon rotating around earth, it almost runs half of earth.
3- Moon has to show same face to the earth, but our point of onservation is stationary out of the earth.
4- So we have to definitely see the moon's a "part of other side" because it has to save its position related to the earth's rotation. As how as we are seing the earth's seing face is changing, we have to see mon's rotating and show us a part of its other face. But we are seing constantly same face of the moon.

Debunked. This image is a fraud. So satellites are absent. If they would exist so they had to publish a reliable visual other than this one.

I think rabinoz answered those well, so no, not even close to debunked.

Expect that I probably overestimate the angle. See JackBlack's post.

Ah, no I think not. I was referring to the diagrams in the Wikipedia article.

Your using wikipedia diagrams do not make your argument stronger or weaker. wikipedia is an open source everybody including you or sokarul can add there a content, it means nothing.

I think rabinoz answered those well, so no, not even close to debunked.

Your thinking rabinoz'es answered well without an argument does not makes rabinoz' does it well, and does not mean its whether debunked or not debunked. and as a last, name of rabinoz isn't an argument. If it would be an argument it woulc be a negative argument represents ignorancy.

Quote from: turtles on June 11, 2019, 10:47:19 AM

Quote from: wise on June 11, 2019, 06:05:10 AM

2- Moon rotating around earth, it almost runs half of earth.
3- Moon has to show same face to the earth, but our point of onservation is stationary out of the earth.
4- So we have to definitely see the moon's a "part of other side" because it has to save its position related to the earth's rotation. As how as we are seing the earth's seing face is changing, we have to see mon's rotating and show us a part of its other face. But we are seing constantly same face of the moon.

Debunked. This image is a fraud. So satellites are absent. If they would exist so they had to publish a reliable visual other than this one.

I think rabinoz answered those well, so no, not even close to debunked.

Expect that  I probably overestimate the angle. See JackBlack's post.

We caal this as "rabinoz made mistake but denied made mistake", not like "rabinoz overestimated". You must learn to accept it when you make a mistake first. this will help you grow up earlier.

We caal this as "rabinoz made mistake but denied made mistake"

So you lie?
He made a mistake. He admitted it by saying he probably overestimated.
An overestimation can be a mistake.

isn't an argument.

Do you know what else isn't an argument?
You repeatedly ignoring everything.

For example, how about you adress the fact that all 4 of the points you raised were false.
Earth didn't rotate half way around. You can verify that by the timing of the photos or by looking at Earth in the photos.
The moon didn't orbit half way around. You can verify that by again noting how much time passed, or just understanding that it just passed through the FOV.
Technically our POV isn't stationary, it is just not rotating with Earth or directly orbiting it. Instead it is orbiting the sun such that the Sun, it and Earth remain roughly in a line.
We do see the moon rotate in the images, it is just a fairly small amount which requires a direct comparison between the first and last images to see, rather than trying to notice over the course of the footage.

Or you could try to address the actual topic of discussion, satellites used for TV.
DSCOVR is not used for TV.
Instead geostationary satellites are.
As shown before, these satellites exist in an orbit at the right distance so their orbital period matches Earth and thus the remain stationary relative to Earth.
This is only possible due to Earth rotating.

So satellite TV is proof of Earth rotating.

If you wish to assert that satellites need to move relative to Earth or they fall down, you will need to back up your claim, especially as it has already been refuted.

Quote from: rabinoz on June 11, 2019, 03:04:49 PM

Quote from: turtles on June 11, 2019, 10:47:19 AM

Quote from: wise on June 11, 2019, 06:05:10 AM

2- Moon rotating around earth, it almost runs half of earth.
3- Moon has to show same face to the earth, but our point of onservation is stationary out of the earth.
4- So we have to definitely see the moon's a "part of other side" because it has to save its position related to the earth's rotation. As how as we are seing the earth's seing face is changing, we have to see mon's rotating and show us a part of its other face. But we are seing constantly same face of the moon.

Debunked. This image is a fraud. So satellites are absent. If they would exist so they had to publish a reliable visual other than this one.

I think rabinoz answered those well, so no, not even close to debunked.

Expect that  I probably overestimate the angle[/b][/size]. See JackBlack's post.

We caal this as "rabinoz made mistake but denied made mistake", not like "rabinoz overestimated". You must learn to accept it when you make a mistake first. this will help you grow up earlier.

Try again, Mr Wise, I said that I only estimated the distance the moon travelled so my result may not have been accurate.
The reason I did not take the trouble to measure the distance more accurately, and given time I could easily do it, was simply that I could not spend more time on it.
JackBlack did put more effort in and arrived at a more accurate value.  But who cares whether JackBlack or I gave the better result, not I!

We both showed that your claims in,

2- Moon rotating around earth, it almost runs half of earth.
3- Moon has to show same face to the earth, but our point of onservation is stationary out of the earth.
4- So we have to definitely see the moon's a "part of other side" because it has to save its position related to the earth's rotation.
Debunked. This image is a fraud. So satellites are absent. If they would exist so they had to publish a reliable visual other than this one.

were debunked and completely wrong.

If you disagree please show how you worked out that the "Moon . . . . . almost runs half of earth." You just guessed and got it wrong!

Quote from: wise on June 14, 2019, 12:42:43 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on June 11, 2019, 03:04:49 PM

Quote from: turtles on June 11, 2019, 10:47:19 AM

Quote from: wise on June 11, 2019, 06:05:10 AM

2- Moon rotating around earth, it almost runs half of earth.
3- Moon has to show same face to the earth, but our point of onservation is stationary out of the earth.
4- So we have to definitely see the moon's a "part of other side" because it has to save its position related to the earth's rotation. As how as we are seing the earth's seing face is changing, we have to see mon's rotating and show us a part of its other face. But we are seing constantly same face of the moon.

Debunked. This image is a fraud. So satellites are absent. If they would exist so they had to publish a reliable visual other than this one.

I think rabinoz answered those well, so no, not even close to debunked.

Expect that  I probably overestimate the angle[/b][/size]. See JackBlack's post.

We caal this as "rabinoz made mistake but denied made mistake", not like "rabinoz overestimated". You must learn to accept it when you make a mistake first. this will help you grow up earlier.

Try again, Mr Wise, I said that I only estimated the distance the moon travelled so my result may not have been accurate.

So you have used an estimation as an argument, right? You have agreed you are using estimations as arguments. These arguments may be theory, evidence, claim or proof and actually they may be your estimates, because you have agreed you are using estimations as argument. Your turn mister rabinoz. 

So you have used an estimation as an argument, right?

That is common.
Rather than dealing with exact numbers and exact math which can be time consuming, people will make estimates.
Good people do so in their opponents favour, as he did.
Also notice that he used the numbers you provided.

Now again, how about you quit the childish BS and admit your claims were pure fiction, including your claim which actually deals with the topic, the claim about geostationary satellites.

So you have used an estimation as an argument, right? You have agreed you are using estimations as arguments.
Your turn mister rabinoz. 

Yes, of course I agreed with that because I said it first. Do you have a problem with that?
Now I estimated my angle but how did you calculate your "Moon rotating around earth, it almost runs half of earth." in:

2- Moon rotating around earth, it almost runs half of earth.

According to you an estimate is inadequate so please show all your accurate calculations!

PS The time lapse images are quite genuine!

Quote from: rabinoz on June 14, 2019, 01:59:17 AM

Quote from: wise on June 14, 2019, 12:42:43 AM

Quote from: rabinoz on June 11, 2019, 03:04:49 PM

Quote from: turtles on June 11, 2019, 10:47:19 AM

Quote from: wise on June 11, 2019, 06:05:10 AM

2- Moon rotating around earth, it almost runs half of earth.
3- Moon has to show same face to the earth, but our point of onservation is stationary out of the earth.
4- So we have to definitely see the moon's a "part of other side" because it has to save its position related to the earth's rotation. As how as we are seing the earth's seing face is changing, we have to see mon's rotating and show us a part of its other face. But we are seing constantly same face of the moon.

Debunked. This image is a fraud. So satellites are absent. If they would exist so they had to publish a reliable visual other than this one.

I think rabinoz answered those well, so no, not even close to debunked.

Expect that  I probably overestimate the angle[/b][/size]. See JackBlack's post.

We caal this as "rabinoz made mistake but denied made mistake", not like "rabinoz overestimated". You must learn to accept it when you make a mistake first. this will help you grow up earlier.

Try again, Mr Wise, I said that I only estimated the distance the moon travelled so my result may not have been accurate.

So you have used an estimation as an argument, right? You have agreed you are using estimations as arguments. These arguments may be theory, evidence, claim or proof and actually they may be your estimates, because you have agreed you are using estimations as argument. Your turn mister rabinoz. 

Do you discuss this with anyone outside of this forum?  If not it would appear you are just playing a game to argue.

Clearly satellites are used for communication and navigation by millions.

Quote from: wise on June 14, 2019, 01:34:43 PM

So you have used an estimation as an argument, right?

That is common.
Rather than dealing with exact numbers and exact math which can be time consuming, people will make estimates.
Good people do so in their opponents favour, as he did.
Also notice that he used the numbers you provided.

Now again, how about you quit the childish BS and admit your claims were pure fiction, including your claim which actually deals with the topic, the claim about geostationary satellites.

You are still insisting use same offensive words like childish bullshit (you are shortened it to be so called legal). This is literally an insult and you are shortening it. Stop to use word salat. There is mountains of your insults in this forum talked by you as "bullshit, f*ck off,..." etc. I wonder when you will start to debate like a human? Look what did you mention from me? "So you have used an estimation as an argument, right? Where is a provocation here cause you started direct insult to me? Are you rounders can not continue a debate without using an insult?

As a result I used estimation but its being fewer does not change the result.

Quote from: JackBlack on June 14, 2019, 02:51:58 PM

Now again, how about you quit the childish BS and admit your claims were pure fiction, including your claim which actually deals with the topic, the claim about geostationary satellites.

You are still insisting use same offensive words like childish bullshit (you are shortened it to be so called legal).

So why do YOU use exactly the same "offensive words" to ME?

I've already told it. Stop to BS claims.

Now stop talking rubbish and prove your claims about the moon's angular movement in that motion gif.

Quote from: wise on June 16, 2019, 12:33:03 PM

Quote from: JackBlack on June 14, 2019, 02:51:58 PM

Now again, how about you quit the childish BS and admit your claims were pure fiction, including your claim which actually deals with the topic, the claim about geostationary satellites.

You are still insisting use same offensive words like childish bullshit (you are shortened it to be so called legal).

So why do YOU use exactly the same "offensive words" to ME?

Quote from: wise on June 16, 2019, 12:40:43 PM

I've already told it. Stop to BS claims.

Now stop talking rubbish and prove your claims about the moon's angular movement in that motion gif.

So you have agreed BS claims being an "offensive word", right? So why don't you warn jackblack to not do it? Because you think him is in your side? This mister, this simply proves you are unjustice.

In one hand you call me using offensive word because I used same work what jackblack use, on the other hand you are using different offensive word "talking rubbish". What kind of hypocrisy are you?

I do not have to prove moon's angular movement in that motion gif. I have just claimed it seems more than 1/29 of all orbit. It really seems so. Do I have to believe what I see or what you childishly claim? Exactly, I see it so it does not need to be proven. As we said countlessly , something you see and accepted with your own eyes live, does not need an extra evidence. So that I don't have to deal to prove it, if you want you can do so you can try to debunk it.

I have just claimed it seems more than 1/29 of all orbit. It really seems so. Do I have to believe what I see or what you childishly claim? Exactly, I see it so it does not need to be proven.

And both JackBlack and I did not simply "claimed it seems more" than so and so but we estimated the distance the moon moved based on the diameter of the earth being 12,742 km.

So just get over the fact that our estimates are far better than your "claimed it seems more"?

No it does not change the moon's visible face enough to notice.
There is no way that a few degrees would matter because we see up to 59% of the moon anyway.

Even so, over time, it's possible to see as much as 59% of the moon's surface, due to lunar libration. Lunar libration lets us see more than 50% of the moon.

Quote from: wise on June 17, 2019, 04:37:35 AM

No it does not change the moon's visible face enough to notice.
There is no way that a few degrees would matter because we see up to 59% of the moon anyway.

Quote

Even so, over time, it's possible to see as much as 59% of the moon's surface, due to lunar libration. Lunar libration lets us see more than 50% of the moon.

No, it changes.
What percentage of the moon orbit you say changes?

Still we receive tv from satellites.

I like my satellite radio.

I like people calls my land based wireless phone as GSM. 

I like people calls my land based wireless phone as GSM. 

So you have never used a Satellite Phone?
Well, I have used one in regions far removed from any GSM or CDMA phone towers but calls cost $2.00 per minute.
We did have a GSM and CDMA phone and would have preferred to use those because the call charges were a lot less.

Quote from: wise on June 24, 2019, 05:10:51 AM

I like people calls my land based wireless phone as GSM. 

So you have never used a Satellite Phone?

I've many times explained what satellites phones are, but silly ignorants can not get it. If you have more stations, the phone that uses the network you set up is called satellite phone. more money, more network connectivity, more powerful satellite phone. get it now? 

Why is it on the trip from Denver to aspen you will lose cell service 50 times but only lose satellite radio when you are in tunnels?

Why does satellite tv go out when it痴 heavy clouds.

I've many times explained what satellites phones are, but silly ignorants can not get it. If you have more stations, the phone that uses the network you set up is called satellite phone. more money, more network connectivity, more powerful satellite phone. get it now? 

You mean you have ignored it many times.

The phone being called a sat phone is dependent upon what it uses.
If it uses satellites, it is a sat phone.
If it just uses cell towers, it is a cell phone (or one of the other names for them).
Having more towers doesn't magically convert a cell phone into a sat phone.

But this thread is about satellite TV.
They use geostationary satellites, with no ground station anywhere near where they are pointing.

Quote from: rabinoz on June 24, 2019, 05:16:19 AM

Quote from: wise on June 24, 2019, 05:10:51 AM

I like people calls my land based wireless phone as GSM. 

So you have never used a Satellite Phone?
Well, I have used one in regions far removed from any GSM or CDMA phone towers but calls cost $2.00 per minute.
We did have a GSM and CDMA phone and would have preferred to use those because the call charges were a lot less.

I've many times explained what satellites phones are, but silly ignorants can not get it. If you have more stations, the phone that uses the network you set up is called satellite phone. more money, more network connectivity, more powerful satellite phone. get it now? 

I don't care how many times you think you have explained it.

You have not yet explained how Satellite Phones can work far from any base stations including it remote regions of Australia and in oceans far from any land.
And I KNOW first hand that they do work in remote areas from personal experience.

So I KNOW that your explanation is incorrect. Try again!

I don't care how many times you think you have explained it.

But there may be people cares. Ordinary man care others. I already know you have a problem of care others.

You have not yet explained how Satellite Phones can work far from any base stations including it remote regions of Australia and in oceans far from any land.

Lie! I've already explained it many times. When you stay far to base stations then your GSM or satellite phones do not work. Need more explanation?

And I KNOW first hand that they do work in remote areas from personal experience.

You know only money first hand. They can not work and your claims are null because you are not a reliable person even does not care others! A man does not care others does not care saying true or lie. This is you.

So I KNOW that your explanation is incorrect.

So you've agreed I made an explanation. Look.

1-

You have not yet explained

2-

your explanation is incorrect

In one hand, you are claiming I did not explanaid how GPS does not work in deserted places. On the other hand, you are claiming my explanation is incorrect because you have experiences opposite of it.

You are a liar contradicing yourself. Oh, a man does not care others, can be it a surprise says contradicted serial lies without care others? Shame on you mister!

Try again!

I guess I don't take suggestions from a liar contradict himself and does not care me.

You mean you have ignored it many times.

Nope. I've explanaied and you've agreed it, here:

your explanation is incorrect

So, stop saying lie. Contradicting yourself isn't an argument mister Rabblack!

The phone being called a sat phone is dependent upon what it uses.

Nope. A name means nothing. If you sincere of this decide so you have to accept me being wise. But you are sometimes calling me unwise and not scientist although management gave me scientist rank and I've assigned the name wise to this membership. But these names mean nothing to you. So names mean nothing. Stop to contradict yourself.

If it just uses cell towers, it is a cell phone (or one of the other names for them).

You mean GSM phone?

Having more towers doesn't magically convert a cell phone into a sat phone.

No need to magic. We are calling it as "changing its name". Magicians are working to your side.

But this thread is about satellite TV.

Oh, at last you've get it. So you have accepted you are talked out off topic. Do not repeat it. Shame on you.

They use geostationary satellites, with no ground station anywhere near where they are pointing.

Your baseless claims do not magically satellites exist. Either prove their existance or stop this baseless claim. Base stations do not magically your claims have some bases.

Quote from: rabinoz on June 24, 2019, 02:31:08 PM

You mean you have ignored it many times.

Nope. I've explanaied and you've agreed it, here:

Quote from: jackblack on June 24, 2019, 06:34:47 PM

your explanation is incorrect

So, stop saying lie. Contradicting yourself isn't an argument mister Rabblack!

Quote from: rabinoz on June 24, 2019, 02:31:08 PM

The phone being called a sat phone is dependent upon what it uses.

Nope. A name means nothing. If you sincere of this decide so you have to accept me being wise. But you are sometimes calling me unwise and not scientist although management gave me scientist rank and I've assigned the name wise to this membership. But these names mean nothing to you. So names mean nothing. Stop to contradict yourself.

Quote from: rabinoz on June 24, 2019, 02:31:08 PM

If it just uses cell towers, it is a cell phone (or one of the other names for them).

You mean GSM phone?

Quote from: rabinoz on June 24, 2019, 02:31:08 PM

Having more towers doesn't magically convert a cell phone into a sat phone.

No need to magic. We are calling it as "changing its name". Magicians are working to your side.

Quote from: rabinoz on June 24, 2019, 02:31:08 PM

But this thread is about satellite TV.

Oh, at last you've get it. So you have accepted you are talked out off topic. Do not repeat it. Shame on you.

Quote from: rabinoz on June 24, 2019, 02:31:08 PM

They use geostationary satellites, with no ground station anywhere near where they are pointing.

Your baseless claims do not magically satellites exist. Either prove their existance or stop this baseless claim. Base stations do not magically your claims have some bases.

Please provide details of what satellite dishes point at, some transmitter locations.  If you cannot we can be sure you cannot be correct.