Satellites on the sky

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.

And how about a plane?
Perhaps one where the white light was much brighter than the port and starboard navigation lights with them not noticeable from this distance?

Why would they be irrirated or put off by someone elses 'expertise' as you put it

Because with that dismissal way of putting it you make it seem like everyone else is an idiot for not understanding and that they should just accept whatever you say.
It is also an appeal to authority where you act like because you have this "expertise" you cannot be wrong.
It is quite a toxic attitude.

Especially when you appeal to that "expertise" rather than providing actual justification.

In my opinion, if you need to appeal to your expertise to prove your point, you have already lost.

And how about a plane?
Perhaps one where the white light was much brighter than the port and starboard navigation lights with them not noticeable from this distance?

Nope.. a quick glance through a decent pair of bins or a telescope will always show the nav lights no matter how bright the other lights are or how high the plane is.

Quote

And how about a plane?
Perhaps one where the white light was much brighter than the port and starboard navigation lights with them not noticeable from this distance?

Nope.. a quick glance through a decent pair of bins or a telescope will always show the nav lights no matter how bright the other lights are or how high the plane is.

Stepdad: "Too bad we don't have a pair of binoculars or a telescope handy. In the mean time, without which, we just have our eyes and your expertise. That dot of light going across the sky could just be a plane, not a satellite...Will you check that burger, I think it's done..."

Me to Stepdad: Well I strongly recommend you go and get yourself a pair of binoculars.  They are not exactly expensive, $50 will get you a pair which will literally open up a whole new universe.   Then you can joint the ranks of the astronomer living in the 21st century and not have to rely on just your eyes alone any more.  Or you could walk over to your PC or laptop and look up a couple of websites which will quickly allow you to identify whether that moving 'star' in the sky was a plane or a satellite.   Use all the information that's available to you now.  Unless of course you don't want to and prefer to carry on living in denial and pretend you are one of your ancestors living in the dark ages still...

Me to Stepdad: Well I strongly recommend you go and get yourself a pair of binoculars.  They are not exactly expensive, $50 will get you a pair which will literally open up a whole new universe.   Then you can joint the ranks of the astronomer living in the 21st century and not have to rely on just your eyes alone any more.  Or you could walk over to your PC or laptop and look up a couple of websites which will quickly allow you to identify whether that moving 'star' in the sky was a plane or a satellite.   Use all the information that's available to you now.  Unless of course you don't want to and prefer to carry on living in denial and pretend you are one of your ancestors living in the dark ages still...

Fair enough. Though I think Stepdad would be a little miffed by being told, "Unless of course you don't want to and prefer to carry on living in denial and pretend you are one of your ancestors living in the dark ages still..."

You probably wouldn't get a burger after that smackdown.

Quote from: Solarwind on August 18, 2020, 12:24:23 AM

Me to Stepdad: Well I strongly recommend you go and get yourself a pair of binoculars.  They are not exactly expensive, $50 will get you a pair which will literally open up a whole new universe.   Then you can joint the ranks of the astronomer living in the 21st century and not have to rely on just your eyes alone any more.  Or you could walk over to your PC or laptop and look up a couple of websites which will quickly allow you to identify whether that moving 'star' in the sky was a plane or a satellite.   Use all the information that's available to you now.  Unless of course you don't want to and prefer to carry on living in denial and pretend you are one of your ancestors living in the dark ages still...

Fair enough. Though I think Stepdad would be a little miffed by being told, "Unless of course you don't want to and prefer to carry on living in denial and pretend you are one of your ancestors living in the dark ages still..."

You probably wouldn't get a burger after that smackdown.

It's totally something I would say to him after he's irritated me enough though!

Quote from: Stash on August 18, 2020, 12:38:36 AM

Quote from: Solarwind on August 18, 2020, 12:24:23 AM

Me to Stepdad: Well I strongly recommend you go and get yourself a pair of binoculars.  They are not exactly expensive, $50 will get you a pair which will literally open up a whole new universe.   Then you can joint the ranks of the astronomer living in the 21st century and not have to rely on just your eyes alone any more.  Or you could walk over to your PC or laptop and look up a couple of websites which will quickly allow you to identify whether that moving 'star' in the sky was a plane or a satellite.   Use all the information that's available to you now.  Unless of course you don't want to and prefer to carry on living in denial and pretend you are one of your ancestors living in the dark ages still...

Fair enough. Though I think Stepdad would be a little miffed by being told, "Unless of course you don't want to and prefer to carry on living in denial and pretend you are one of your ancestors living in the dark ages still..."

You probably wouldn't get a burger after that smackdown.

It's totally something I would say to him after he's irritated me enough though!

I agree. At a certain point, you have to take a stand against contrarian/frustrating/pedantic Stepdad!

Nope.. a quick glance through a decent pair of bins or a telescope

Sorry, none are available at the moment.
Maybe you should have went to the trouble to bring your own.

Also, notice how you first rely upon your own expertise, and then you invent evidence rather than actually providing it?
You don't say to get a pair of binoculars and we can check if it is a plane or satellite, instead you still assume it is a satellite and assume that any extra evidence shows it will be.

So how about this hypothetical instead:
Okay, I'll get my binoculars. Hey I can see the red and green lights now.
Now what?

Me to Stepdad: Well I strongly recommend you go and get yourself a pair of binoculars.  They are not exactly expensive, $50 will get you a pair which will literally open up a whole new universe.   Then you can joint the ranks of the astronomer living in the 21st century and not have to rely on just your eyes alone any more.  Or you could walk over to your PC or laptop and look up a couple of websites which will quickly allow you to identify whether that moving 'star' in the sky was a plane or a satellite.   Use all the information that's available to you now.  Unless of course you don't want to and prefer to carry on living in denial and pretend you are one of your ancestors living in the dark ages still...

And how do you think he would take that? Seems rather insulting.

Quote from: Solarwind on August 17, 2020, 03:52:16 PM

Nope.. a quick glance through a decent pair of bins or a telescope

Sorry, none are available at the moment.
Maybe you should have went to the trouble to bring your own.

Also, notice how you first rely upon your own expertise, and then you invent evidence rather than actually providing it?
You don't say to get a pair of binoculars and we can check if it is a plane or satellite, instead you still assume it is a satellite and assume that any extra evidence shows it will be.

So how about this hypothetical instead:
Okay, I'll get my binoculars. Hey I can see the red and green lights now.
Now what?

Then it’s a plane, obviously. 

That question makes no sense.  Solarwind is saying that he (she) can identify whether it’s plane or a satellite with binoculars. 

Are you asking how Solarwind is supposed to prove that a plane is a satellite?  Maybe you’ve spent too long around here?

Also, reading back through all this, Solarwind has mainly been saying that satellites are visible from the ground and amateur astronomers can generally identify them.  That’s all really.  It’s everyone else talking about proving they are satellites. But why is that necessary?

According to real science, satellites should be there and if you can see something that looks like a satellite, there’s a very good chance it’s a satellite.

Solarwind already said earlier that you can get better confirmation by checking the trajectory with tracking software.  What’s wrong with that answer?

Just to remind you, the OP was asking what flat earthers think these lights are, and how they fit with flat earth models.  As usual though, it’s turned into complaining about a “round earther” not proving something that’s totally normal and expected.

That question makes no sense.  Solarwind is saying that he (she) can identify whether it’s plane or a satellite with binoculars.

No, he is saying he can identify it by eyesight alone, as his expertise allows him to tell the difference, just by using his eyes.
Again, he didn't say to get a pair of binoculars to check, instead he dismissed the possibility of it being a plane and said you could use binoculars to confirm. So I gave an example where that wasn't the case, were he was wrong and that it was in fact a plane that just looked "like a satellite" due to the low resolution.

Also, reading back through all this, Solarwind has mainly been saying that satellites are visible from the ground and amateur astronomers can generally identify them.  That’s all really.  It’s everyone else talking about proving they are satellites. But why is that necessary?

The OP presented a faint dot of light moving through the sky as proof of satellites and that Earth is round.
Solarwind then chimed in saying that other things don't matter and you can still recognise this faint, unresolved dot as a satellite.
He then tried to justify it being a satellite, not by showing that it couldn't be anything else, but by saying that is what a satellite would look like.
And then after saying they look like moving stars, he "justified" knowing that they are satellites because he knows what they are and he knows what he is talking about.
And when confronted, he just doubled down, and even outright refused to accept that a faint dot moving across the sky was not proof of satellites, and repeatedly tried to shift the burden of proof onto showing satellites don't exist.
And rather than admit that the OP's argument was quite poor, he instead started attacking strawmen and pretending those he was arguing against were morons.

So it turned into a REer trying to defend a horribly flawed argument with lots of strawmen because they don't seem to want to admit that an argument in favour of a RE could be bad/wrong, and wanted to pretend anyone attacking it must be a FEer that denies the existence of satellites.

The OP has been answered, a faint dot could be lots of things. You need far more than just that faint dot to show it is a satellite.

According to real science

You mean the same science that shows Earth is round which FEers reject?

Quote from: Unconvinced on August 18, 2020, 05:39:32 AM

That question makes no sense.  Solarwind is saying that he (she) can identify whether it’s plane or a satellite with binoculars.

No, he is saying he can identify it by eyesight alone, as his expertise allows him to tell the difference, just by using his eyes.

And do you actually know that’s not the case?  I think you’ll find lots of amateur astronomers would say the say thing.  Not mention people who make a hobby of spotting satellites.

Again, he didn't say to get a pair of binoculars to check, instead he dismissed the possibility of it being a plane and said you could use binoculars to confirm. So I gave an example where that wasn't the case, were he was wrong and that it was in fact a plane that just looked "like a satellite" due to the low resolution.

Aren’t checking and confirming pretty much the same thing?

Using binoculars should give you a better chance of correctly identifying if it’s a plane or satellite, particularly to the untrained eye.  Seems perfectly reasonable that if you spend a lot of time looking at them, you’d find you’d need the binoculars a lot less, or maybe even not at all?

Either way, your hypothetical example is a fairly meaningless question.  Basically just “well, what if you’re wrong?”  You might as ask a bird watcher “what if the eagle you say you saw was really a pigeon?”

Quote from: Unconvinced on August 18, 2020, 05:39:32 AM

Also, reading back through all this, Solarwind has mainly been saying that satellites are visible from the ground and amateur astronomers can generally identify them.  That’s all really.  It’s everyone else talking about proving they are satellites. But why is that necessary?

The OP presented a faint dot of light moving through the sky as proof of satellites and that Earth is round.

Nope.  Read it again.  The OP claimed to have seen a satellite and asked what the flat earther explanation is.

Nothing was presented as proof of either satellites or a round earth.  Big difference between asking for an explanation and presenting proof.

Solarwind then chimed in saying that other things don't matter and you can still recognise this faint, unresolved dot as a satellite.
He then tried to justify it being a satellite, not by showing that it couldn't be anything else, but by saying that is what a satellite would look like.
And then after saying they look like moving stars, he "justified" knowing that they are satellites because he knows what they are and he knows what he is talking about.
And when confronted, he just doubled down, and even outright refused to accept that a faint dot moving across the sky was not proof of satellites, and repeatedly tried to shift the burden of proof onto showing satellites don't exist.
And rather than admit that the OP's argument was quite poor, he instead started attacking strawmen and pretending those he was arguing against were morons.

So it turned into a REer trying to defend a horribly flawed argument with lots of strawmen because they don't seem to want to admit that an argument in favour of a RE could be bad/wrong, and wanted to pretend anyone attacking it must be a FEer that denies the existence of satellites.

Yeah, yeah.  The endless merry go round of “bad arguments”.  Pretty much all we do here now.

But do you actually know that Solarwind’s claim is wrong?  Or are you just assuming that he/she can’t tell the difference?  I’m not talking about proving anything, just correctly identifying the object. 

I have very little experience, but I’m fairly sure I’ve spotted satellite “flare“ a couple of times, which I’ve been told is a bit of a giveaway.

The OP has been answered, a faint dot could be lots of things. You need far more than just that faint dot to show it is a satellite.

Things like confirming the trajectory, observing more closely with binoculars, etc.  to confirm that a particular dot (or indeed a resolved image showing things solar panels) is actually a satellite?

So if we do all that and can identify a satellite, that still leaves the original question very inadequately answered, IMO.

Quote from: Unconvinced on August 18, 2020, 05:39:32 AM

According to real science

You mean the same science that shows Earth is round which FEers reject?

Of course.

but I’m fairly sure I’ve spotted satellite “flare“ a couple of times,

Sounds like a perfect description of an iridium flare to me. They no long happen now but they would appear to come out of nowhere, brighten up to magnitude -8 at maximum and then fade back to nothing again after a few seconds.

Quote

but I’m fairly sure I’ve spotted satellite “flare“ a couple of times,

Sounds like a perfect description of an iridium flare to me. They no long happen now but they would appear to come out of nowhere, brighten up to magnitude -8 at maximum and then fade back to nothing again after a few seconds.

Don’t know.  Both times were many years ago.  As I remember, they were faint dots moving against stars that got way brighter for a few seconds then faded again. 

Mainly remember because first time I was camping in wilderness (slightly drunk and whatnot) with quite a keen stargazer who pointed it out.  Or rather laughed at me for  suggesting alien invasion.

I think before then I’d assumed anything like that was a plane.

BTW.  It might help this conversation to put in words why you think they aren’t planes.  Is it lack flashing?

Quote from: Solarwind on August 18, 2020, 09:20:01 AM

Quote

but I’m fairly sure I’ve spotted satellite “flare“ a couple of times,

Sounds like a perfect description of an iridium flare to me. They no long happen now but they would appear to come out of nowhere, brighten up to magnitude -8 at maximum and then fade back to nothing again after a few seconds.

Don’t know.  Both times were many years ago.  As I remember, they were faint dots moving against stars that got way brighter for a few seconds then faded again. 

Mainly remember because first time I was camping in wilderness (slightly drunk and whatnot) with quite a keen stargazer who pointed it out.  Or rather laughed at me for  suggesting alien invasion.

I think before then I’d assumed anything like that was a plane.

BTW.  It might help this conversation to put in words why you think they aren’t planes.  Is it lack flashing?

That is exactly what an Iridium flare looks like, I'd bet that is what you saw. They could get AMAZINGLY bright. Enough to light up the clouds.

Sad that they are gone now.

As I remember, they were faint dots moving against stars that got way brighter for a few seconds then faded again.

Yes from your description as it is I can tell that you observed iridium flares. A good one was bright enough to be seen in daytime. And again there were websites which provided predictions of timing and direction for your observing locations.  I can well imagine anyone who didn't know what they were concluding that they had seen a UFO.

And do you actually know that’s not the case?

Yes. As it is not resolved enough to get any detail, you cannot tell from eyesight alone what it is.
You can make an educated guess that it is a satellite, and would be right most of the time, but that doesn't mean you know just by looking.

Aren’t checking and confirming pretty much the same thing?

You are ignoring the key distinction.
In his hypothetical scenario he didn't say "Oh you might be right, it might be a plane, lets check".
Instead he dismissed the idea of it being a plane and described evidence that you could use to see that it isn't.

It is no better than a FEer claiming Earth is flat based upon some observation which can't tell the difference, and then appealing to an experiment which could tell the difference and assuming the results would support them.

Either way, your hypothetical example is a fairly meaningless question.  Basically just “well, what if you’re wrong?”

Again, the point is HE COULD BE WRONG yet he dismisses that possibility, as he "knows" without any rational justification, that it must be a satellite.
So I provided an example, where the experiment is done, and doesn't give him the result he needs.

I would say that is far from meaningless.

You might as ask a bird watcher “what if the eagle you say you saw was really a pigeon?”

No, that is going down his insane path of saying that it must be a satellite.
I'm not asking if the satellite he saw was a plane. I am asking if the faint dot in the sky is a plane. Big difference.

A more honest example would be asking a bird watcher if the blur they saw, which they couldn't resolve and actually see it properly, was actually a pigeon rather than the eagle they claim it was.

The point is that in both cases you don't have enough information to determine what it is.

Nope.  Read it again.  The OP claimed to have seen a satellite and asked what the flat earther explanation is.
Nothing was presented as proof of either satellites or a round earth.  Big difference between asking for an explanation and presenting proof.

It was presented in the manner of an attack on FE by showing satellites consistent with a RE.
If he was asking for what it was, rather than trying to show FE is wrong, there would have been no need to say "I saw an artificial satellite."
Instead it would have just been a faint dot.

But do you actually know that Solarwind’s claim is wrong?

Which claim?
If you mean that he knows it is a satellite, just because he knows, then yes. I am sure.
If you mean his claim that it was a satellite, then no, the issue is that it is unsupported.

All the OP presented was a faint dot moving across the sky, with the claim that it was too fast for an airplane.
But that claim is entirely based upon the assumption of it being a satellite (and thus being very high). For example, the ~28000 km/hr of a satellite in LEO would produce the same angular velocity as a plane at 10 km (roughly 33 000 ft) travelling at 700 km/hr, below the cruising speed of most jets, for example the 747 with cruising speeds between 900 and 940 km/hr.

The OP didn't even present the colour of the dot, just that it was a dot.

There is simply far too little information to determine that what the OP saw was a satellite.

But Solarwind dismissed all that and acted like it must have been a satellite and stated that he would absolutely not admit that such a claim is not proof of satellites.
So according to Solarwind, an observation that is completely incapable of determining if the object in question is a satellite, is proof that satellites exist, all because he "knows" it is a satellite.

I’m fairly sure I’ve spotted satellite “flare“ a couple of times
Things like confirming the trajectory, observing more closely with binoculars, etc.  to confirm that a particular dot (or indeed a resolved image showing things solar panels) is actually a satellite?

None of which was presented by the OP.

So if we do all that and can identify a satellite, that still leaves the original question very inadequately answered, IMO.

No, it doesn't. Like I said, none of that was presented by the OP. He asked what the faint dot moving across the sky is if it isn't a satellite.
A plane fits that just fine.
So does a shooting star.

As much as it is hard for me to do nowadays I will try and put myself into the shoes of someone who (a) doesn't know that you can see artificial satellites with the naked eye and (b) doesn't believe (as some FE people don't apparently) that artificial satellites even exist. 

So I am casually looking up into the night sky and admiring all the stars that I can see.  Just random points of light, some noticeably brighter than others and some even showing subtly different shades of colour.  Then my eye is drawn to one particular 'star' which is clearly moving among all the rest.  Naturally I ask myself what this moving 'star' could be.

I can also see a couple of planes elsewhere in the sky.  They are recognisable because I can see the accompanying red and green navigation lights. But this other moving light I saw first just seems to be a solitary white light source. I am with a couple of friends, one of which has a pair of binoculars with them and they confirm that even through the binoculars they can only see a single point of white light. So if this is a plane then it must be very high indeed since the binoculars have a much better resolution than the human eye.  I decline their kind offer to have a look through the binoculars myself.  Preferring instead to form my own conclusions purely on what I can see with my naked eye.

As I am watching the point of light I notice that it starts to fade rapidly. After a few seconds it disappears completely.  Now I am completely at a loss. Why was it visible in the first place and why is it now completely invisible.  Is was over 50 degrees in altitude over the horizon when it disappeared so it is not as if it has disappeared behind a tree or building. It is also a perfectly clear night with clean air and no clouds now after the heavy showers that passed through earlier in the day. It just apparently vanished into thin air.

This single moving point source of light was not a comet because you can't see them moving in real-time. My friends already told me there are no naked eye comets visible at the moment anyway. Such comets now apparently are very rare! It wasn't a meteor because those are only visible for a couple or few seconds and I watched this particular light for a few minutes. They also mentioned how during a meteor shower (when all meteors appear to come from a particular point on the sky) you can sometimes see 'point' meteors where a star like point of light appears and disappears quickly and suddenly without appearing to move.  It is a meteor which is travelling directly along the observers line of sight. So clearly what I saw wasn't one of those either.

This is getting embarrassing now because my friends are laughing at me and making fun of me because they say they know exactly what I just saw. They are telling me I saw an artificial satellite passing over and then disappearing into the Earths shadow. They go on to explain that the satellite is only visible from sunlight reflected off the satellite. Mostly the solar panels. Planes have their own lights so they don't disappear even if they pass through the region of sky where the Earths shadow lies. They even look up the satellite based on the time, date and our location on their mobile phones using an app and tell me what the satellite was. But I don't accept any of that since I don't believe that artificial satellites exist. Nor do I accept their explanation about the Earths shadow because as far as I'm concerned the Earth doesn't have a shadow.  How could it if my flat Earth beliefs are true?

In the end we all agree to draw our own conclusions.  They maintain it was a satellite, I meanwhile have to say I saw a UFO. I just hope my friends don't label me as insane now and decide against inviting me out again for some of their future night sky watching outings. Because up to the time when I saw this moving point of light I was actually enjoying myself out there.

I can also see a couple of planes elsewhere in the sky....
seems to be a solitary white light source...
they confirm that even through the binoculars ...
As I am watching the point of light I notice that it starts to fade rapidly...
I watched this particular light for a few minutes...

None of that was in the OP.

From the description provided in the OP, there is not enough information to conclude it was a satellite.
Yet again, you are appealing to invented evidence which does not exist the OP's scenario.

I could likewise invent a bunch of evidence to show it is a plane.

Other than wise and sandokhan, no one here is arguing against the existence of satellites. They are just arguing against the observation in the OP needing to be satellites.

OK lets remind ourselves of what the OP said:

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?

So the OP is clearly quite satisfied that artificial satellites exist and has even gone as far as saying 'I saw an artificial satellite fly by'.  On the night in question the OP was observing the night sky and saw a faint dot moving quickly over.  They don't specify a brightness or a colour but since they saw it against a black (or nearly black) background I think we can safely assume this 'dot' was in fact a source of emitted or reflected light.  Many people use the words dot and point interchangeably when referring to a point source of light in the sky which is what a star is.

The OP is then asking well if FEers don't believe satellites exist, what could this moving point of light have been from the non-believing FEers point of view.  I have given a scenario which describes how such a non-believing FEer might react to this situation.  You will note that in my scenario I chose not to use any other sources of information beyond what my own eyes could tell me even though such sources were available to me.

If FEers choose not to use any equipment or modern sources of information available in the world today to help them become more informed about what they see, perhaps because they are obsessed with the idea that the rest of the world is purposely lying to them about what is real or not real in the world around us then that is up to them.  But whatever choices they make and whatever influences those choices,  that doesn't stop that dot of light in the sky being what it really is.  A satellite.

What was the altitude of this dot?

It's impossible to tell the altitude if you don't know the exact size of the object. But we can pretend that it was an airplane. The diameter of a small airplane is something like 20 meters. The angular diameter of that small dot was probably something like 30'' (I'm making an estimation of slightly bigger that Saturn). So if we do a quick calculation, that airplane would have been flying at an altitude of 137 kilometers. That's higher than the world record of airplane flight altitude (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record). And not only that, but the dot was moving at a speed of roughly one degree per second. That would be crazy speed for an airplane on such altitude.



As a side note, saying that the angular diameter of the dot would not correspond to the diameter of the airplane is wrong because an airplane always has multiple lights. Whenever I see an actual airplane at night, it always appears as multiple lights separated by roughly the plane's diameter or wingspan. The only reason why it would appear only as a faint dot on a clear sky would be if it was making a world record of flight altitude.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on August 10, 2020, 06:06:44 PM

What was the altitude of this dot?

It's impossible to tell the altitude if you don't know the exact size of the object.

It's entirely possible using two observers at known distances and a little parallax math.

Perhaps it was some sort of super high altitude secret surveillance plane that the governments of the world don't want us to know about !?!

OK lets remind ourselves of what the OP said:

Quote

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?

Yes, none of the extra information you provided in your hypothetical situation.
Again, you add a bunch of extra information which was not there to establish it was a satellite.
FEers could likewise add in a bunch of extra information to establish it is a plane.

Again, it isn't about if the dot is a satellite or not.
It is about if the simple visual observation provided in the OP is enough to actually establish that it is a satellite rather than an alternative option.

It's impossible to tell the altitude if you don't know the exact size of the object. But we can pretend that it was an airplane. The diameter of a small airplane is something like 20 meters. The angular diameter of that small dot was probably something like 30'' (I'm making an estimation of slightly bigger that Saturn). So if we do a quick calculation, that airplane would have been flying at an altitude of 137 kilometers. That's higher than the world record of airplane flight altitude (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_altitude_record). And not only that, but the dot was moving at a speed of roughly one degree per second. That would be crazy speed for an airplane on such altitude.

So an angular size below the standard limit of human resolution?
I find that hard to believe. How about we stick to the more reasonable size of 1 arc minute? (and even that is being generous for you unless you actually measured it).
The diameter being "something like 20 m" is also quite a broad range, with plenty under it.
What if we try something more generous like 10 m? That gives us an altitude of roughly 35 km.

And even that is still uncertain.
Aircraft do not necessarily have lights on the nose and tailplane, with the main length for it coming from the wing. But if you are looking at it side on, you are not going to see the full wingspan. Having multiple lights doesn't mean that the lights will be separated by the entire length of the aircraft.
And military jets are not necessarily going to have all their lights on (if any).

At that altitude, to match the ~28000 km/hr of a satellite in LEO it would need to go at roughly 2450 km/hr. Comparable to the F22's maximum speed.
If you want to try using your claimed angular speed of 1 degree/second to make it faster, you will run into issues for satellites, as they need to have a fairly constant speed, and the highest angular speed you could get is roughly 1.5 degrees per second from a satellite directly overhead at 300 km.

If instead we limit it to the reported 20 km ceiling of the aircraft, that would require either the dot to be larger (1.7 arc minutes, which is still tiny) or the visible size of the aircraft (which is not necessarily its actual size) to be smaller (5.8 m)

If you want to appeal to even better jets, there is the blackbird with a maximum speed of 3540 km/hr

If instead you want to base it on 1 degree per second, then at 35 km distance, i.e. assuming it is directly above you (so best case scenario), that would correspond to a speed of roughly 2200 km/hr.

So I would say based upon all that, it could still have been a military jet, i.e. a plane.

Then it comes down to if you want to follow the path of conspiracy or not.
Was this a normal plane acting as a plane, or was it part of a conspiracy to fake satellites? If the latter, do you think they would have all the lights of the plane on?

That is exactly what an Iridium flare looks like, I'd bet that is what you saw. They could get AMAZINGLY bright. Enough to light up the clouds.

Sad that they are gone now.

Even so, the ISS flare is second only to the moon in brightness.  Also, SpaceX Starlink satellite trains are visible for a while after launch as they spread out and move onto their operational orbits.

Was this a normal plane acting as a plane, or was it part of a conspiracy to fake satellites? If the latter, do you think they would have all the lights of the plane on?

Well, the problem is not just the fact that it was a dot of light, but also the apparent magnitude of that dot. Even if an airplane had just one light on, it would still be extremely visible especially if it was directly overhead. Whereas satellites always look like faint stars except that they move really quickly. The only solution I can think of is that there would be an airplane flying on fairly low altitude, and having a faint spotlight on just to make it look like a satellite. And in that case, you would have the entire sky filled with these airplanes masqueraded as satellites and you would have to wonder where all those secret planes go and where they land, etc.

Well, the problem is not just the fact that it was a dot of light, but also the apparent magnitude of that dot. Even if an airplane had just one light on, it would still be extremely visible especially if it was directly overhead.

So now you are appealing to a magnitude, not reported before, and claiming to know exactly how it would look?
On what basis are you making that claim?

I still see no problem with the possibility of it being a military jet.

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.

WooHooo, you win.

Can you explain to your readers the gravitational law used by these satellites to orbit at those altitudes? cartoonhd 9apps
 

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

They are the same gravitational laws we use to walk around down here on Earth.  That's the beauty of having theories that work, they work everywhere.

A few months ago I watched a Starlink launch online. 20 minutes later, dead on time, the second stage flew over the top of me.

Wasn't an aeroplane as we were locked down and most aircraft were grounded. There weren't any aircraft flying nearby, as confirmed by https://globe.adsbexchange.com/

Those Falcon 9 first stages are amazing, they can be watched by telescope all the way up, while transmitting video of the curvature of the Earth from over 100km high and then they come back and land.