Satellites on the sky

Flat earthers believe that satellites supposedly don't exist. But tonight when I was outside, I saw an artificial satellite fly by. It was a faint dot moving quickly through the night sky. Way too fast for being an airplane. But if this was not a satellite orbiting the earth, then what was it? How would flat earthers explain these things?

What was the altitude of this dot?

How would you know?  Satellites pass over all the time and are instantly recognisable for what they are.  They vary in orbital distance (or height if you prefer) so unless you know which one you are looking at its impossible to tell how high it is just by visual appearance.  Who cares anyway?  You see it, it passes and then its gone again until the next one passes over.

Some are not even operational satellites as such but just space 'junk' 

Regardless you don't need to know how high it is to recognise a satellite when you see one. 

Satellites do exist: on a FE they orbit at a much lower altitude.

How do the RE explain UFOs?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2176071#msg2176071

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2272305#msg2272305

Satellites do exist: on a FE they orbit at a much lower altitude.

What sort of 'low altitude' would you be talking about?  I have never heard of a collision between an airliner and a satellite!

If you click on the link below

https://heavens-above.com/AllSats.aspx

And then click on the name of each satellite it provides you with a chart of the path across the sky and gives details of the satellite orbit parameters including height.

Here is another very comprehensive source of information on satellites

www.calsky.com

And then click on the name of each satellite it provides you with a chart of the path across the sky and gives details of the satellite orbit parameters including height.

Right.

Can you explain to your readers the gravitational law used by these satellites to orbit at those altitudes?

Is it by any chance Newton's law of universal gravity?

Then, you got a huge problem, because this law of worth shit in outer space.

Or would you like me to bring here the Allais effect to prove my assertion?

Can you explain to your readers the gravitational law used by these satellites to orbit at those altitudes?

Is it by any chance Newton's law of universal gravity?

Then, you got a huge problem, because this law of worth shit in outer space.

Or would you like me to bring here the Allais effect to prove my assertion?

Who cares?  The websites predict satellite passes.  It is not there to provide a lesson on the physics of satellite orbits.  All I know is that the predictions are entirely correct..  You can try and prove whatever you like but it won't change my position.

I'm going to hold back from this particular discussion since the OP was asking for the FE position on satellites.

Satellites do exist: on a FE they orbit at a much lower altitude.

How do the RE explain UFOs?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2176071#msg2176071

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg2272305#msg2272305

The satellite was travelling at an incredible speed. How would it turn without crashing into the dome?

To 'crash' into the dome there would have to be a physical dome there.  What makes you think there is such a dome?

There isn't satellites. No satellite, no problem.

There isn't satellites. No satellite, no problem.

You can literally see them with your own eyes...

There isn't satellites. No satellite,

Really...  what makes you so sure?   Maybe your house faces the wrong way so you can't see them.   A bit like the comet.  Everyone else sees them.

Quote

There isn't satellites. No satellite,

Really...  what makes you so sure?   Maybe your house faces the wrong way so you can't see them.   A bit like the comet.  Everyone else sees them.

I've seen them.  Taken pictures of them.  I've even communicated with them.  It's laughable to say they don't exist with no reasoning or evidence.

Satellites do exist: on a FE they orbit at a much lower altitude.

that's fascinating. how much lower is the altitude and what exactly are they orbiting on a FE?

There isn't satellites. No satellite, no problem.

I accidentally saw the ISS fly over yesterday at about 4:30 local time. I went out to make photos of the night sky. Too bad I had just parked my car and had my camera not yet ready.

I've seen it about two dozen times now, sometimes I didn't look up the times and noticed it just looking up, other times I looked up when the next flyover would be and it would match the given times to the second.

Not that you would believe pictures anyway.

Quote from: wise on August 11, 2020, 06:52:37 AM

There isn't satellites. No satellite, no problem.

I accidentally saw the ISS fly over yesterday at about 4:30 local time. I went out to make photos of the night sky. Too bad I had just parked my car and had my camera not yet ready.

I've seen it about two dozen times now, sometimes I didn't look up the times and noticed it just looking up, other times I looked up when the next flyover would be and it would match the given times to the second.

Not that you would believe pictures anyway.

I've got pictures of the ISS passing in front of the sun. With enough details to make out the solar panels.

How NASA could possibly fake the ISS using a plane is beyond me.  I mean, they can't have a hundred planes flying all over a flat Earth matching an orbital path perfectly. And the shape of that thing, it's not like any plane. And it goes so damn fast. It's ground speed would be 2600 MPH!  That's faster than a Blackbird by a lot, and much bigger.

Not to mention you can triangulate it's altitude with multiple observers, which is easy because it's very predictable where it is.  Get two people to measure angles at the same time and there you go. How do you disprove that?

How would you know?  Satellites pass over all the time and are instantly recognisable for what they are.  They vary in orbital distance (or height if you prefer) so unless you know which one you are looking at its impossible to tell how high it is just by visual appearance.  Who cares anyway?  You see it, it passes and then its gone again until the next one passes over.

Some are not even operational satellites as such but just space 'junk' 

Regardless you don't need to know how high it is to recognise a satellite when you see one.

Sure it's not Santa Claus out on a recon mission?

You saw a dot, therefor . . . 

Quote from: Solarwind on August 11, 2020, 12:25:24 AM

How would you know?  Satellites pass over all the time and are instantly recognisable for what they are.  They vary in orbital distance (or height if you prefer) so unless you know which one you are looking at its impossible to tell how high it is just by visual appearance.  Who cares anyway?  You see it, it passes and then its gone again until the next one passes over.

Some are not even operational satellites as such but just space 'junk' 

Regardless you don't need to know how high it is to recognise a satellite when you see one.

Sure it's not Santa Claus out on a recon mission?

You saw a dot, therefor . . .

I've photographed the ISS, and it's far more than just a dot.

I'm pretty sure Santa's sleigh doesn't use massive solar panels. He does his work at night after all so it wouldn't make any sense.

You saw a dot, therefor . . .

if you were looking at something the same size as a bus directly above you from a distance of a couple of hundred miles up with mirrors reflecting the Sunlight down at you, what do you think you would see?

I take it you don't look up into the night sky very often then.  Obviously not if you have never seen a satellite pass overhead. They move like aircraft do except they don't have any red/green navigation lights.  Very, very common. 

They look exactly like moving stars.   How do I know they are not moving stars then I expect you will ask..  very simply because I know what I'm talking about. Unlike your good self it seems.

They look exactly like moving stars.   How do I know they are not moving stars then I expect you will ask..  very simply because I know what I'm talking about. Unlike your good self it seems.

So you are saying the lights in the sky are not evidence that satellites exist, and that there are other explanations for them which you reject because you know they are satellites?

That is the point that was being made.

For those in Europe that want to watch the ISS fly over, I am in the red area in the Netherlands (albeit so that I live very close to the sea which is yellow/green) and can see it fly over without trouble.

So you are saying the lights in the sky are not evidence that satellites exist, and that there are other explanations for them which you reject because you know they are satellites?

OK if want to look at it that way then fair enough.  I don't have a piece of string long enough to lasso one of those 'lights in the sky', pull it down to ground level and visually check whether its a satellite or not. When you've been studying the sky as long as I have you get to know what is what up there and that includes a lot of the less obvious stuff which I accept the 'layperson' might not recognise. I don't need to 'reject' any other explanation because I know what it is.

Do you get what I am saying now?  And that applies equally to anyone else out there who wishes to deny satellites exist until they can drag one down from the sky.

OK if want to look at it that way then fair enough.  I don't have a piece of string long enough to lasso one of those 'lights in the sky', pull it down to ground level and visually check whether its a satellite or not. When you've been studying the sky as long as I have you get to know what is what up there and that includes a lot of the less obvious stuff which I accept the 'layperson' might not recognise. I don't need to 'reject' any other explanation because I know what it is.

Do you get what I am saying now?  And that applies equally to anyone else out there who wishes to deny satellites exist until they can drag one down from the sky.

You seem to not get what I am saying, and why Bullwinkle likely started that line of reasoning in the first place.
The OP went from "a faint dot moving quickly through the night sky" to it being a satellite and thus refuting FE.

The point is that a faint dot moving through the sky is not enough to conclude it is a satellite, nor to conclude Earth is round, you need a lot more.
I'm not saying they don't exist. I'm not saying you need to drag one down to see if it is real.
All I am saying is that a faint dot moving through the sky is not proof of satellites.

Do you get what I am saying now?

The point is that a faint dot moving through the sky is not enough to conclude it is a satellite

What else do you think something satellite sized would look like in the night sky then?  The light you see comes from reflected sunlight from the solar panels and something that small from a couple of hundred km away is going to look like a tiny spec (dot) of light in the sky. 

There are various websites which predict satellite passes.  And not surprisingly all of them are accurate. What other evidence do you need?

Here's a bit more info on the subject for anyone interested.

http://www.satobs.org/

Note the first couple of lines.

Quote from: wise on August 11, 2020, 06:52:37 AM

There isn't satellites. No satellite, no problem.

You can literally see them with your own eyes...

No. You are literally lying. They are not exist, so it is impossible to see.

Quote from: wise on August 11, 2020, 06:52:37 AM

There isn't satellites. No satellite, no problem.

I accidentally saw the ISS fly over yesterday at about 4:30 local time. I went out to make photos of the night sky. Too bad I had just parked my car and had my camera not yet ready.

Ahahaha! You globulards always can find such excuses. How funny. So you have learned its place, you can take it to the camera tonight. We trust you, You can do that! 

No. You are literally lying. They are not exist,

No, I am literally not lying.  They do exist.  I am not in the habit of lying.  It might be the case that you have never seen one but that doesn't mean they don't exist.  Denial on your part won't change that.

In many ways I will they didn't exist because for astrophotographers like myself they wreak havoc with my images :-(  Poxy satellite trails spoiling sub after sub.

Quote

The point is that a faint dot moving through the sky is not enough to conclude it is a satellite

What else do you think something satellite sized would look like in the night sky then?

You don't seem to understand proof do you.
Asking what else a satellite would look like doesn't prove it is a satellite.
You need to ask what else would look like it.

Once more, I'm not saying it isn't a satellite.
I'm saying it isn't proof that it is a satellite.

No. You are literally lying. They are not exist, so it is impossible to see.

Except all the available evidence, including satellite TVs which require pointing fairly precisely at geostationary satellites; the photos and other information you can get from satellites, including GPS which relies upon satellites with quite well known positions, and actual photos of the ISS with enough of it resolved to clearly see it is the ISS quite clearly demonstrates that satellites DO exist.
You are the one lying here, like you do in almost every post you make.

You have no justification at all for your lie that satellites do not exist.

I'm saying it isn't proof that it is a satellite.

Ok so tell me what in your view would represent proof then.