Satellites on the sky

So you picked option 3 like I thought you would.

OK let me just re-iterate this one more time.
1.  I look up the predicted passes

And let me reiterate one more time.

YOU ARE USING MORE THAN A FAINT DOT FLYING THROUGH THE SKY!

Do you understand that?

Again, do you think that a faint dot moving through the sky is proof of satellites, or do you admit that it alone is not proof of satellites and that you need more?

If the former, that means you should be able to justify it without appealing to anything more.
No appealing to sites where you can look up when you should be able to see the ISS or any other satellite.
No appealing to using binoculars to actually make out resolvable detail of the ISS.

Do you understand that a well resolved ISS such that you can make out lots of details is nothing like an unresolved faint dot?

What more proof do I need that I am looking at an orbitting satellite?

I am not asking you for MORE PROOF.
I am asking you to justify your claim that the faint dot alone is proof.
That means no extra proof, just the faint dot.
Justify, without any extra evidence of satellites that the faint dot is in fact a satellite, or admit that it isn't proof of satellites.

Understand this time?

OK let me just re-iterate this one more time.

1.  I look up the predicted passes for the ISS through one or more websites.  All agree on the dates and timings.
2.  I go outside on said date and said time and look to the west where I know the ISS will appear from and I see a bright moving light in the sky getting higher and higher in altitude.

3.  I aim my binoculars at said light and I can SEE the shape of the ISS in my binoculars complete with solar panels etc etc.  So I have visual evidence that it is the ISS that I am looking at.

I have done this many, many times over the years and have even imaged it through a telescope.  I can post you the image if you want. What more proof do I need that I am looking at an orbitting satellite?

You didn't mention the visual evidence as in binoculars earlier. That would indeed be proof that at least the ISS exists.

I have also seen it with binoculars, looks cool although I think it is way cooler to be on board than to see it

Again, do you think that a faint dot moving through the sky is proof of satellites

As I said and I will keep on saying.  If I can look up satellite passes on a website and then watch them as they pass over on the date and at the time predicted then that is evidence that what I am seeing is the satellite. First stage prediction, second stage observation. 

The fact that the satellite visually looks just like a moving star is irrelevant to confirming it is a satellite. For you perhaps not but it is to most people (outside of the flat Earth community at least). Something that is as large as a domestic fridge or small car viewed from a couple of hundred of km away and reflecting sunlight towards me is not going to present itself as anything more than a point of light in the sky is it. Surely even you realise that.  I know what you're getting at.  And yes when we see a plane pass over we can visibly see it is a plane.  Planes though are bigger than satellites and much nearer the ground.  We know from experience how big the plane actually is and when it appears smaller than our little finger in the sky that gives us a direct indication of distance.  A plane flying low looks bigger than a plane flying at high altitude.

I am sure that many people who are less experienced in astronomy and do not realise that you can see satellites passing over with the naked eye have seen them without realising what they are.  I often attend public observing evenings held by my local astronomy group and whenever I point out a satellite passing over their reaction is one of amazement and excitement.  Not once have I had anyone respond with 'OK then... prove to me that's a satellite.!' Mind you none of them thinks the Earth is flat either but that's another matter. They respect my knowledge and accept what I tell them as the truth.  Especially when we show them the prediction of an ISS pass in advance and then we see it right on cue. 

Obviously you are different to all those people. 

Quote

Again, do you think that a faint dot moving through the sky is proof of satellites

As I said and I will keep on saying.  If I can look up satellite passes on a website

As I said, and I will keep on saying:
A FAINT DOT IS NOT ENOUGH!

You seem to subconsciously accept this, but outright refuse to admit it.
The fact that you keep bringing up extra evidence with every post you make shows you know that the faint dot is not enough.
If you truly thought the faint dot was enough you wouldn't bring up anything extra.

You claimed that a faint dot moving through the sky is proof that it is a satellite.
In order for this to be the case, you can't use extra evidence of satellites.

A prediction of where a satellite should be based upon looking it up in a database and confirming that prediction is not simple a faint dot moving through the sky.
Do you understand that?

Appealing to this prediction means you are not accepting that the faint dot is proof of satellites.

So will you finally admit what you already know to be true?
Are you finally going to admit that a faint dot moving across the sky is not proof that that dot is a satellite nor proof that satellites are real?

The fact that the satellite visually looks just like a moving star is irrelevant to confirming it is a satellite.

It isn't a matter of confirming it is a satellite. It is a matter of PROVING it is one.
That means you don't start with the assumption that it is a satellite.
You start without knowing what it is and then prove that it is a satellite.

Something that is as large as a domestic fridge or small car viewed from a couple of hundred of km away and reflecting sunlight towards me is not going to present itself as anything more than a point of light in the sky is it. Surely even you realise that.

Once more, do you not understand what you have argued yourself into?
That would be an argument to prove that a satellite would appear as a faint dot.
That is not what you need to defend.
What you need to defend is that a faint dot is a satellite.

Again, it is like the FEers claiming that that is what the FE horizon, or what a body of water would look like on a FE, to claim that this somehow proves that Earth is flat.
Perhaps a better example would be those claiming that there are rats on mars or mice in rocket launch videos.
After all, that is what one would look like.
It is also like those who claim big foot must be real because of some out of focus smudge in the background of a photo.

Saying X would look like Y in no way proves that Y must be X.

Again, do you understand that?

I know what you're getting at.  And yes when we see a plane pass over we can visibly see it is a plane.

It really doesn't seem like you do, because you keep failing to address the issue.

Not once have I had anyone respond with 'OK then... prove to me that's a satellite.!'

That in no way establishes it as proof of satellites.
Again, that would be like FEers presenting a photo as proof of Earth being flat, to their fellow FEers and them not asking for proof that it shows Earth is flat.

Regardless, it is a very different situation.
They merely had a satellite pointed out to them. They didn't have you claim that that faint dot alone proves that satellites are real and proves that Earth is round.

It isn't a matter of confirming it is a satellite. It is a matter of PROVING it is one.

So what to you then is the difference between confirming something and proving something.  The Cambridge dictionary for example defines the word confirm as:

to prove that a belief or an opinion that was previously not completely certain is true:

So if I have confirmed that this 'faint dot in the sky' to use your words is a satellite then by definition I have also proved it haven't I.  Not sure what other proof you need.  You can't 'prove' that the Earth is flat can you.  Well you probably think you can.  If you can prove to me beyond any reasonable doubt that the Earth is flat then I will believe you and accept it is flat.   

I have already told you that these 'faint dots in the sky' (not my words I should add) are not aircraft or meteors as you have previous speculated so what else do you think they could be if they are not necessarily (in your opinion) satellites?  Aircraft of course follow specific flight paths which you become very familiar with when you have lived in the same place for a long time.  These moving dots in the sky do not follow those same flight paths.  The ISS always moves from west to east.

One last point - would you be willing to argue your case for proving satellites exist outside of this forum?  Perhaps on a mainstream astronomy forum for example? 

Quote

Or are you finally going to admit that a faint dot moving across the sky is not proof that that dot is a satellite nor proof that satellites are real?

Absolutely not.

Look, a satellite . . .

If that is supposed to be a photo then what equipment was used to take it?  I know it isn't by the way because the background is far, far too smooth and even.   You could easily create your 'satellite' by using MS Paint and drawing a grey rectangle and then clicking the mouse to produce a white dot in it.  Good try though.

Look - another satellite (the ISS no less).  One that I took myself.  Using 10" RC telescope, a ZWO ASI290M high frame rate camera and SharpCap image capture software.

https://postimg.cc/B879CxB1

So what to you then is the difference between confirming something and proving something.

Perhaps I should have been more clear:
There is a difference between:

According to this site there should be a satellite passing overhead which appears there.
Hey look a faint white dot just like a satellite should appear.
I guess that site was right.

i.e. confirming there is a satellite using a faint white dot.
and:

Hey look a faint white dot. That MUST be a satellite. Satellites are real and Earth is round.

i.e. proving the faint white dot is a satellite.

i.e. there is a big difference between trying to use the faint white dot to confirm satellites among lots of other evidence, and going from just the faint white dot to conclude it must be a satellite.

Not sure what other proof you need.

It is quite simple, what I have already asked for repeatedly.
Clearly explain HOW THE FAINT WHITE DOT ALONE IS PROOF, or admit that it isn't proof.

If you need to appeal to any other evidence of satellites or observations of satellites, you fail.

You can't 'prove' that the Earth is flat can you.  Well you probably think you can.  If you can prove to me beyond any reasonable doubt that the Earth is flat then I will believe you and accept it is flat.

And again you show that you aren't paying attention to what I am saying at all.
How hard is it to penetrate your skull and make you realise that I am not a FEer?
I know Earth is round. I know satellites are real.
But that doesn't magically mean a faint white dot is proof.

I have already told you that these 'faint dots in the sky' (not my words I should add) are not aircraft or meteors as you have previous speculated

And you telling me doesn't magically make it so.
The entire justification for you dismissing aircraft is that they don't have the right colour lights.
So if someone was flying a plane without those lights, either due to a faulty light, or to intentionally deceive, what would it look like?
Is it possible for someone to be a flying a plane and produce the same light pattern as expected for a satellite?

And now you also throw in that they follow regular flight paths. You are aware there are no magical laws of physics preventing them from flying other paths?
The pricks at Qantas decided to draw a stupid kangaroo after flying over the city a few times.
But I guess by your reasoning that couldn't have been a plane because it didn't follow the right flight path.
I wonder what it was?
Not a plane, not a satellite, not a meteor. I guess aliens is the only option left.

One last point - would you be willing to argue your case for proving satellites exist outside of this forum?  Perhaps on a mainstream astronomy forum for example?

I would be willing to argue my case that a faint white dot is not proof of satellites anywhere.
But outside this forum, it would likely have a bigger impact due to people realising just how foolish your argument/claim is when it is of the same form as those of FEers and those who claim rats of mars, mice in rocket engines, and Big foot. It would be far more likely to be seen as completely ridiculous.

Look - another satellite (the ISS no less).
https://postimg.cc/B879CxB1

That isn't a faint white dot, and thus is entirely irrelevant to the discussion.

Bullwinkle's "photo" is far more relevant.

You are quite right. My photo ìs not a faint white dot. It is what the bright white moving dot the naked eye sees when the ISS passes over becomes when it observed or imaged in a telescope. Hence it is directly relevant to proving my point.

What Bullwinkle has posted is just a drawing of a grey rectangle with a white dot in it. At least mine is a real photo that I have taken of an actual satellite.

Telescopes have been used on several occasions to supposedly prove the Earth is flat so by that I will conclude that images taken through telescopes of objects either on land or in the sky are admissible as evidence.

I will agree with you that the moving starlike points of light in the sky are not directly recognisable as satellites. I know they are because knowledge gained from experience tells me they are. But someone who doesn't have the knowledge that I do would not automatically think 'O look there's a satellite'. They might even describe them as a UFO. It is still a satellite though even if it isn't immediately apparent with the naked eye alone.

However FEers seem to use the above as an excuse to deny that satellites exist.

Look, a satellite swarm . . .
(you can even see Saturn)

If you restrict yourself to one, single piece of evidence and ignore everything else then of course you can't be sure of anything.

If all I know about my desk is how much it weighs, can I say it's a desk for sure?

Of course not, but if I want to know if my computer is sitting on a desk or a fire breathing dragon I am going to use all the evidence I can gather. It's shape, how it looks, smells, feels and weight too. Once I have all of these I can know for certain it's not a dragon.

So a single dot in the sky could be anything. But it's kind of a silly argument we are having here. You never, ever rely on just one single thing. At the very least is all the accumulated knowledge and experience you have of the world.

Bullwinkle's art is a good example.  Just from the picture, what can you tell about the image?  Well nothing.  But we have so much more available to us.  It's easy to see it's a silly drawing with some dots on it and not a real picture.  We know this because of his it looks. We know this because it's Bullwinkle posting it. There is no doubt about what it is because we aren't limited to a tiny, narrow slice of reality.

You are quite right. My photo ìs not a faint white dot. It is what the bright white moving dot the naked eye sees when the ISS passes over becomes when it observed or imaged in a telescope. Hence it is directly relevant to proving my point.

If anything, it is additional information which refutes your point.
Again, the fact that you appeal to it shows the faint white dot is not enough.

Unlike your photo, with lots of resolvable detail, what Bullwinkle provided was a faint white dot, directly related to the question. It being a real photo or not is irrelevant.
Unlike your photo, with far too much detail, we can actually ask questions about Bullwinkle's (even if it is fake) directly related to the question.
Is this a photo of a satellite or not? (Again, regardless of if it is fake. People have been making artist renditions). And regardless, how do you know?

admissible as evidence.

Again, this is not about what is and is not admissible as evidence.
The issue is solely on if a faint white dot moving through the sky is proof of satellites.

You continually avoid this issue and divert with whatever else you can.

Stop with the distractions.
Explain the proof, without appealing to any additional evidence of satellites.
Explain how just the faint white dot alone is proof of satellites.
Or are you finally going to admit that a faint dot moving across the sky is not proof that that dot is a satellite nor proof that satellites are real?

If all I know about my desk is how much it weighs, can I say it's a desk for sure?

If all you've done is seen a desk, do you know it is made of wood?

Or are you finally going to admit that a faint dot moving across the sky is not proof that that dot is a satellite nor proof that satellites are real?

I will agree with you that the moving starlike points of light in the sky are not directly recognisable as satellites.

So if someone who didn't have any equipment such as binoculars or a telescope and who decided to put themselves in an information sterile bubble whereby they shut themselves off completely from all the readily available sources of information in the world today such as books, magazines and the Internet then sure they would personally have no means of finding out or proving that what they were looking at was a satellite. That much I will agree is true.  I can't see water molecules directly and so I cannot prove that water consists of molecules with my eyes alone.  But if I add droplets of water onto a coin and see the water pile up on top of the coin and cling to it then I can explain this as the surface tension that exists between the molecules of water.

But none of that changes the true identify of what they are looking at does it.  It is still a satellite. You cannot deny the existence of something just because you personally cannot prove what it is or identify what it is.  You can apply this logic to many things in life but life is simply too short to present proof of everything.

Many people say they have seen UFOs in the sky.  But all that means is that it is unidentifiable to those who see it. It depends on the knowledge and the experience of the observer(s).  I see documentaries on TV about UFOs and in one instance they label what is obviously to me an out of focus view of a star in a telescope as a UFO.  That's because they (the makers of the documentary) want you to think or believe that it is a UFO.   

Many people say they have seen UFOs in the sky.  But all that means is that it is unidentifiable to those who see it. It depends on the knowledge and the experience of the observer(s).

Huh?   You can tell the difference between a white dot satellite and a white dot UFO because you know a white dot from a white dot? 

Quote

Or are you finally going to admit that a faint dot moving across the sky is not proof that that dot is a satellite nor proof that satellites are real?

Quote

I will agree with you that the moving starlike points of light in the sky are not directly recognisable as satellites.

Am I meant to take that as an admission?
Because it seems like more avoidance. Notice that you say "are not directly recognisable as satellites" instead of "are not proof of satellites".

I'm also not requiring you to be in a complete vacuum of information. Instead it is just not using other evidence of satellites.

OK let's say I am standing outside with my neighbour (or anyone for that matter) one evening, looking up at the night sky and they point out to me what looks like a moving star. They say 'Hey look.. that ones moving... what is that?'  I reply 'O yes, that's a satellite..'

At which point what do you think is the most likely reaction.  Are they going to insist that I go to the nth degree to 'prove' to them beyond any element of doubt that it really is a satellite or are they simply going to respect my knowledge and experience of looking at the sky over many years and accept my word that what they have seen really is a satellite and leave it at that.

You really don't want to admit you were wrong do you?

Are they going to insist that I go to the nth degree to 'prove'

Notice how in your example, you aren't claiming it is proof of satellites.
Instead your example has them ask what it is and you just give them the answer.
You have your neighbour as someone who most likely already accepts that satellites exist and that Earth is round.
You are not using it to try and prove satellites are real, nor that Earth is round.
So why would they question you about it when they already accept satellites are real and they asked you what it was?

It is a completely different situation, so far divorced from the OP it isn't funny, which you are appealing to to deflect from the inadequacy of your "proof".

Why don't we try something more in line with the OP.
Your neighbour is a FEer and doesn't believe satellites are real.
When you are standing out there, you say, look see the dot, it is a satellite. That means satellites are real and Earth is round.

What do you think their reaction would be?
Do you think it would be more like:
"Oh yes, you are right, that is a satellite. How could I have been so stupid to think they didn't exist and think Earth is flat?"

Or do you think it would be more like:
"What, that tiny dot? It could be anything, a plane for example. I would have to be a moron to just accept that dot is a satellite. How big a fool do you think I am?"

I think it would be more in line with the latter.

So, are you finally going to admit that a faint dot moving across the sky is not proof that that dot is a satellite nor proof that satellites are real?
If not, stop with the deflection and actually justify it.

Your definition of proof (or perhaps I should say FEers definition of proof as I realise you are not a FEer) is obviously very different to mine.  And I also think somewhere along the line I said that I accept that someone who is less clued up about what they are seeing in the sky than I am could not identify or prove that a moving 'star' in the sky was a satellite simply because to the naked eye is it not directly recognisable as a satellite. 

If it suits FEers to deny that satellites exist until someone, somewhere can provide proof that they are willing to accept as proof then that's fine. But I won't be the person to provide that proof. FEers deny all sorts of things which most people outside of the FE community would deem ridiculous.

I'm sure FEers will continue to believe that the Earth is flat, that the Sun and Moon are just 32 miles across, that there is some sort of dome which surround the Earth and that satellites etc etc don't exist regardless of what evidence is put in front of them.  But that's the nature of conspiracy theories.

I personally know a satellite when I see one and I will continue to observe them. No doubt in increasing numbers thanks to a certain Mr Musk.  It may well be that the days (or nights) when the astrophotographers of the world can take a satellite free image are numbered!

Your definition of proof (or perhaps I should say FEers definition of proof as I realise you are not a FEer) is obviously very different to mine.

I don't think so.
Like I said before, if you honestly accepted that it was proof, you wouldn't be bringing up all this other evidence or making these horribly flawed analogies.

And I also think somewhere along the line I said that I accept that someone who is less clued up about what they are seeing in the sky than I am could not identify or prove that a moving 'star' in the sky was a satellite simply because to the naked eye is it not directly recognisable as a satellite.

You said that it wasn't directly recognisable, not that it wasn't proof. But that is okay. I will take it as an admission now.

And with that, there is little point in continuing the conversation.

If it suits FEers to deny that satellites exist until someone, somewhere can provide proof that they are willing to accept as proof then that's fine. But I won't be the person to provide that proof. FEers deny all sorts of things which most people outside of the FE community would deem ridiculous.

Yes, because they believe in a massive conspiracy to hide the truth.
So they would see the faint dot as a plane to pretend satellites exist.

OK let's say I am standing outside with my neighbour (or anyone for that matter) one evening, looking up at the night sky and they point out to me what looks like a moving star. They say 'Hey look.. that ones moving... what is that?'  I reply 'O yes, that's a satellite..'

At which point what do you think is the most likely reaction.  Are they going to insist that I go to the nth degree to 'prove' to them beyond any element of doubt that it really is a satellite or are they simply going to respect my knowledge and experience of looking at the sky over many years and accept my word that what they have seen really is a satellite and leave it at that.

What if your neighbor says it's God's butt hole and his wife agrees.
That's 2 to 1. Do you concede? 

OK let's say I am standing outside with my neighbour (or anyone for that matter) one evening, looking up at the night sky and they point out to me what looks like a moving star. They say 'Hey look.. that ones moving... what is that?'  I reply 'O yes, that's a satellite..'

At which point what do you think is the most likely reaction.  Are they going to insist that I go to the nth degree to 'prove' to them beyond any element of doubt that it really is a satellite or are they simply going to respect my knowledge and experience of looking at the sky over many years and accept my word that what they have seen really is a satellite and leave it at that.

This is interesting. I could honestly see it play out like this if I were your neighbor:

Me: "Hey look.. that ones moving... what is that?"
You: "O yes, that's a satellite."
Me: (Not being a contrarian or even challenging you, just light conversation) "Or maybe it's a meteor, a comet, a shooting star..."
You: "No, it's definitely a satellite."
Me: (Again, not being a contrarian or even challenging you, actually just interested in how you know, in a "what am I missing" sort of thing) "How do you know?"
You: "Because that's what satellites look like when they pass overhead."
Me: "Wow, satellites look like shooting stars..."
You: "They do, but that is a satellite, not a shooting star."

Your conversation with your neighbor (me) amounted to you stating that it was a satellite simply because you said so. That's a friendly, neighborly conversation. Now apply your logic to a debate as to whether such things as satellites even exist. You just saying they do does not cut it. It doesn't even cut it in the neighborly conversation let alone anywhere else more divisive.

Quote from: Solarwind on August 16, 2020, 04:32:23 AM

OK let's say I am standing outside with my neighbour (or anyone for that matter) one evening, looking up at the night sky and they point out to me what looks like a moving star. They say 'Hey look.. that ones moving... what is that?'  I reply 'O yes, that's a satellite..'

At which point what do you think is the most likely reaction.  Are they going to insist that I go to the nth degree to 'prove' to them beyond any element of doubt that it really is a satellite or are they simply going to respect my knowledge and experience of looking at the sky over many years and accept my word that what they have seen really is a satellite and leave it at that.

This is interesting. I could honestly see it play out like this if I were your neighbor:

Me: "Hey look.. that ones moving... what is that?"
You: "O yes, that's a satellite."
Me: (Not being a contrarian or even challenging you, just light conversation) "Or maybe it's a meteor, a comet, a shooting star..."
You: "No, it's definitely a satellite."
Me: (Again, not being a contrarian or even challenging you, actually just interested in how you know, in a "what am I missing" sort of thing) "How do you know?"
You: "Because that's what satellites look like when they pass overhead."
Me: "Wow, satellites look like shooting stars..."
You: "They do, but that is a satellite, not a shooting star."

Your conversation with your neighbor (me) amounted to you stating that it was a satellite simply because you said so. That's a friendly, neighborly conversation. Now apply your logic to a debate as to whether such things as satellites even exist. You just saying they do does not cut it. It doesn't even cut it in the neighborly conversation let alone anywhere else more divisive.

My stepdad, most annoying guy I can think of, actually applies this logic when I am stargazing in my mom's back yard:

Me: "Look, that is *name of star*."
Him: "Well it could also be a satellite."
Me: "It's not moving..."
Him: "There are geostationary satellites, they don't move relative to Earth."
Me: "Look at this app (showing the screen on my phone), it confirms it is a star and geostationary satellites are too small and too far away to be seen."
Him: "Your app could be wrong."

At those moments I want to tear out my own fingernails. This has happened repeatedly. The reason I go to their back yard sometimes to watch is because my sister still lives with them and she loves it when I teach her what you can see in the sky.

Quote from: Stash on August 16, 2020, 05:47:51 PM

Quote from: Solarwind on August 16, 2020, 04:32:23 AM

OK let's say I am standing outside with my neighbour (or anyone for that matter) one evening, looking up at the night sky and they point out to me what looks like a moving star. They say 'Hey look.. that ones moving... what is that?'  I reply 'O yes, that's a satellite..'

At which point what do you think is the most likely reaction.  Are they going to insist that I go to the nth degree to 'prove' to them beyond any element of doubt that it really is a satellite or are they simply going to respect my knowledge and experience of looking at the sky over many years and accept my word that what they have seen really is a satellite and leave it at that.

This is interesting. I could honestly see it play out like this if I were your neighbor:

Me: "Hey look.. that ones moving... what is that?"
You: "O yes, that's a satellite."
Me: (Not being a contrarian or even challenging you, just light conversation) "Or maybe it's a meteor, a comet, a shooting star..."
You: "No, it's definitely a satellite."
Me: (Again, not being a contrarian or even challenging you, actually just interested in how you know, in a "what am I missing" sort of thing) "How do you know?"
You: "Because that's what satellites look like when they pass overhead."
Me: "Wow, satellites look like shooting stars..."
You: "They do, but that is a satellite, not a shooting star."

Your conversation with your neighbor (me) amounted to you stating that it was a satellite simply because you said so. That's a friendly, neighborly conversation. Now apply your logic to a debate as to whether such things as satellites even exist. You just saying they do does not cut it. It doesn't even cut it in the neighborly conversation let alone anywhere else more divisive.

My stepdad, most annoying guy I can think of, actually applies this logic when I am stargazing in my mom's back yard:

Me: "Look, that is *name of star*."
Him: "Well it could also be a satellite."
Me: "It's not moving..."
Him: "There are geostationary satellites, they don't move relative to Earth."
Me: "Look at this app (showing the screen on my phone), it confirms it is a star and geostationary satellites are too small and too far away to be seen."
Him: "Your app could be wrong."

At those moments I want to tear out my own fingernails. This has happened repeatedly. The reason I go to their back yard sometimes to watch is because my sister still lives with them and she loves it when I teach her what you can see in the sky.

However annoying, this exemplifies just why based on the observation of a moving dot in the night sky alone one can't claim definitively that it is a satellite.

By any chance is your stepdad Tom Bishop? 

Quote from: SomeDutchGuy on August 16, 2020, 10:49:13 PM

Quote from: Stash on August 16, 2020, 05:47:51 PM

Quote from: Solarwind on August 16, 2020, 04:32:23 AM

OK let's say I am standing outside with my neighbour (or anyone for that matter) one evening, looking up at the night sky and they point out to me what looks like a moving star. They say 'Hey look.. that ones moving... what is that?'  I reply 'O yes, that's a satellite..'

At which point what do you think is the most likely reaction.  Are they going to insist that I go to the nth degree to 'prove' to them beyond any element of doubt that it really is a satellite or are they simply going to respect my knowledge and experience of looking at the sky over many years and accept my word that what they have seen really is a satellite and leave it at that.

This is interesting. I could honestly see it play out like this if I were your neighbor:

Me: "Hey look.. that ones moving... what is that?"
You: "O yes, that's a satellite."
Me: (Not being a contrarian or even challenging you, just light conversation) "Or maybe it's a meteor, a comet, a shooting star..."
You: "No, it's definitely a satellite."
Me: (Again, not being a contrarian or even challenging you, actually just interested in how you know, in a "what am I missing" sort of thing) "How do you know?"
You: "Because that's what satellites look like when they pass overhead."
Me: "Wow, satellites look like shooting stars..."
You: "They do, but that is a satellite, not a shooting star."

Your conversation with your neighbor (me) amounted to you stating that it was a satellite simply because you said so. That's a friendly, neighborly conversation. Now apply your logic to a debate as to whether such things as satellites even exist. You just saying they do does not cut it. It doesn't even cut it in the neighborly conversation let alone anywhere else more divisive.

My stepdad, most annoying guy I can think of, actually applies this logic when I am stargazing in my mom's back yard:

Me: "Look, that is *name of star*."
Him: "Well it could also be a satellite."
Me: "It's not moving..."
Him: "There are geostationary satellites, they don't move relative to Earth."
Me: "Look at this app (showing the screen on my phone), it confirms it is a star and geostationary satellites are too small and too far away to be seen."
Him: "Your app could be wrong."

At those moments I want to tear out my own fingernails. This has happened repeatedly. The reason I go to their back yard sometimes to watch is because my sister still lives with them and she loves it when I teach her what you can see in the sky.

However annoying, this exemplifies just why based on the observation of a moving dot in the night sky alone one can't claim definitively that it is a satellite.

By any chance is your stepdad Tom Bishop? 

No I am glad he is not!

Feel free to carry on arguing between yourselves about what the differences are between meteors, comets and satellites.  The differences are obvious to anyone who knows what they are looking at and if you think a meteor, comet or a satellite can be confused with each other then you are admitting (unknowingly or not) that you don' spend much time watching the night sky.

I'm through with this one now so there will be no more replies in this discussion from me.  It's up to you how you interpret that.

Feel free to carry on arguing between yourselves about what the differences are between meteors, comets and satellites.  The differences are obvious to anyone who knows what they are looking at and if you think a meteor, comet or a satellite can be confused with each other then you are admitting (unknowingly or not) that you don' spend much time watching the night sky.

I'm through with this one now so there will be no more replies in this discussion from me.  It's up to you how you interpret that.

I more than admit I don't spend enough time looking at the night sky - Too much light pollution where I live unfortunately. But you're also presuming that I would know that you do spend a lot of time looking at the night sky and that somehow affords you an ability to immediately discern that a moving point of light in the night sky is exactly what you say it is without any further information. You claiming expertise and your ability based upon one bit of observational information is not enough to convince even the laziest FEr of what you say something is. That's the point. That's all.

But you're also presuming that I would know that you do spend a lot of time looking at the night sky and that somehow affords you an ability to immediately discern that a moving point of light in the night sky is exactly what you say it is without any further information.

Ok... 40 plus years as an amateur astronomer.  8 telescopes (well 8 or 9 off the top of my head ranging from a 72mm refractor to 20" dobsonian).
Various cameras from DSLR through various high frame rate planetary/solar/lunar cameras plus a QSI 6120 DSO imaging CCD camera.
Specialist in imaging solar (esp at narrowband Ha and CaK wavelengths) and deep sky objects.
Degree in astronomy plus member of various local and national astronomy societies

I probably spend more time looking into the sky both day and night than I do anywhere else. So I know a satellite when I see one, I know a comet when I see one and I know a meteor when I see one.

Quote

But you're also presuming that I would know that you do spend a lot of time looking at the night sky and that somehow affords you an ability to immediately discern that a moving point of light in the night sky is exactly what you say it is without any further information.

Ok... 40 plus years as an amateur astronomer.  8 telescopes (well 8 or 9 off the top of my head ranging from a 72mm refractor to 20" dobsonian).
Various cameras from DSLR through various high frame rate planetary/solar/lunar cameras plus a QSI 6120 DSO imaging CCD camera.
Specialist in imaging solar (esp at narrowband Ha and CaK wavelengths) and deep sky objects.
Degree in astronomy plus member of various local and national astronomy societies

I probably spend more time looking into the sky both day and night than I do anywhere else. So I know a satellite when I see one, I know a comet when I see one and I know a meteor when I see one.

I don't doubt your credentials and knowledge. But if you were over at SDG's Mom's house for an evening BBQ hanging with his Stepdad looking up at the night sky, the conversation may go like this:

Stepdad: "Hey look.. that ones moving... what is that?"
You: "O yes, that's a satellite."
Stepdad: (Not being a contrarian or even challenging you, just light conversation) "Or maybe it's a meteor, a comet, a shooting star..."
You: "No, it's definitely a satellite."
Stepdad: (Again, not being a contrarian or even challenging you, actually just interested in how you know, in a "what am I missing" sort of thing) "How do you know?"
You: "Because that's what satellites look like when they pass overhead. And I have 40 plus years as an amateur astronomer.  8 telescopes (well 8 or 9 off the top of my head ranging from a 72mm refractor to 20" dobsonian).
Various cameras from DSLR through various high frame rate planetary/solar/lunar cameras plus a QSI 6120 DSO imaging CCD camera.
Specialist in imaging solar (esp at narrowband Ha and CaK wavelengths) and deep sky objects.
Degree in astronomy plus member of various local and national astronomy societies
Stepdad: (Now a little put off and irritated by your "expertise" and expression of such) "Well, Astronomy is kind of like a pseudoscience, there's nothing empirical about it. Observation only and we all know looks can be deceiving. So even with your background, I still don't see how you can say that was a satellite when it looked like a shooting star to me. And I've seen a lot of shooting stars in my life."

A satellite is typically visible for several minutes.  A meteor is visible typically for a second or two.  A comet can be visible for several weeks. Most don't brighten enough to see without telescopes.  You really can't confuse them if you know what you are looking at. You'll have to trust me on that I'm afraid. 

Ultimately of course it is up to the individual to choose or decide what they want to believe or accept as true. I can only 'prove' something is what it is if others are willing to accept that proof.  If not I obviously can't. It follows then that perhaps what can or cannot be proved depends on what you believe it. It also depends on what you are or are not willing to accept as evidence. For instance we can bounce radiowaves off the cloud tops of the planet Venus and from that determine its distance.  From that information we can use angles and simple geometry to calculate the distance of the Sun in literally seconds.  All perfectly fine except that because the figure we get for the distance of the Sun from that method indicates it is far more distant that FEers believe they go into denial mode and dismiss it as faked, fabricated or whatever. Of course from a FEers point of view there is absolutely no chance that the FE figure could be wrong is there. Their figure is based on an assertion which itself cannot be proved, i.e that the Earth is flat.  So if you can't prove that then you can't prove their figure for the distance of the Sun either.

I can appreciate that flat Earthers have their own views about what is real and and what is not and those ideas are clearly not compatible with what mainstream science says.
At the end of the day how do you prove something is what it is to the satisfaction of everyone?  To Rowbotham counting flags in canal over a distance of a few miles was aaparently proof enough to him that the Earth is flat.  Others I'm sure might have a different view.

(Now a little put off and irritated by your "expertise" and expression of such) "Well, Astronomy is kind of like a pseudoscience

Why would they be irrirated or put off by someone elses 'expertise' as you put it if they were confident that their version or opinion was right?  Also I think you would be very hard pushed to find anyone who falls into the category of mainstream science agreeing that astronomy is some sort of pseudoscience.  Astrology yes but certainly not astronomy.  Most of what we know about the Universe today comes from the light we receive from it and there is a lot more information contained in light than immediately meets the eye.