Cool Mission?

  • 577 Replies
  • 34590 Views
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #30 on: December 15, 2022, 09:10:24 AM »
You know propulsion and ignition doesn't work in a vacuum.

1/4A3-3T Rocket Motor VS 5 Hp Shopvac - blue - right - short


1/4A3-3T Rocket Motor Vs 5 Hp Shopvac - black - left side


Shrugs….


I know it was rather odd. 

But it was a response to this video a number of years ago.

Quote



Rockets Cannot Propel In Space vacuum. NASA hoax




The thread…

Quote
Rockets do not work in the vacuum of space. You will believe anything "expert" scientists say.

posted on May, 5 2019 @ 05:12 PM

https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1237706/pg1

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #31 on: December 15, 2022, 09:50:27 AM »
I guess in bulmabrief's world, wishing makes it not so.

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #32 on: December 15, 2022, 11:24:51 AM »
You know propulsion and ignition doesn't work in a vacuum.

1/4A3-3T Rocket Motor VS 5 Hp Shopvac - blue - right - short


1/4A3-3T Rocket Motor Vs 5 Hp Shopvac - black - left side


Shrugs….

You do realize that the second rocket had the entire fuse outside where it was exposed to air, right? And the first one, I honestly couldn't see where it was lighted from. Or were the videos in reverse order?

You do realize also that when I discussed a vacuum, I showed a very specific example, and not in fact a vacuum cleaner?




Just so you know, a ShopVac generally isn't the same thing as a completely anaerobic room.

It generally sucks in some dust, but not all of the air in the room.  If it could, I would pass out whenever I was cleaning a room. Vacuum cleaners use vacuum principles, but they are generally not strong vacuums. Even industry strength vacuums are not designed this way (standards of safety), short of those suited for completely airless zones such as computer manufacturing where it is important that no dust or air ignite the chips and other parts.



Not only is there air inside the vacuum (sucked from outside), but this air is released outside by its exhaust.  Vacuum cleaner =/= vacuum.

Because of this, this crude experiment doesn't actually prove what it sets out to.

When I mean vacuum, I mean "airless space". How do you put out a fire? Well, you can use water, but some fires like grease or electrical fires will continue. On the other hand, smothering it (removing air from the equation) works.


So these vacuums are nice and all, but not what I am talking about.



Though this video lined it up wrong, putting starvation where the oxygen was (instead of fuel).

The point being that any fire safety expert can tell you in no uncertain terms that a fire will not be very successful if there isn't enough air.

https://www.quora.com/Can-you-put-out-a-fire-using-a-vacuum-cleaner?share=1

Quote
Today a neighbour used a ‘Henry’ vacuum cleaner to suck up the remnants of a fire, some ashes.

The hot ashes, combined with the dry, dusty contents of the vacuum and the air suction created a furnace inside the vacuum cleaner and it set their house on fire.

Inside the vacuum cleaner it is not a true vacuum. Really it lets air out of a vent as it sucks up more. This basically means the cleaner fuels the fire with fresh oxygen as well as providing combustable material. If you have ever tried blowing on hot embers to revive a fire, you can imagine the effect of a constant jet of air provided by the suction cleaner.

The smoke from this burning, plastic vacuum cleaner was enough to choke a person in a confined space (a house) and the fact the cleaner also expels air meant it was probably spitting hot ashes as soon as the filter burned through.

Vacuum cleaners are not vacuums.

« Last Edit: December 15, 2022, 11:29:10 AM by bulmabriefs144 »



Quote from: Themightykabool
crazy people don't know they're crazy.

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #33 on: December 15, 2022, 11:52:31 AM »

Just so you know, a ShopVac generally isn't the same thing as a completely anaerobic room.



Then the logic and the “proof” of this video, Rockets Cannot Propel In Space vacuum, is wrong?

Again…


The videos were a response to this video a number of years ago.

Quote



Rockets Cannot Propel In Space vacuum. NASA hoax




The thread…

Quote
Rockets do not work in the vacuum of space. You will believe anything "expert" scientists say.

posted on May, 5 2019 @ 05:12 PM

https://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1237706/pg1
« Last Edit: December 15, 2022, 12:25:51 PM by DataOverFlow2022 »

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #34 on: December 15, 2022, 12:22:34 PM »

The point being that any fire safety expert can tell you in no uncertain terms that a fire will not be very successful if there isn't enough air.




External source…

Quote
Oxidizers in Monopropellants and Hypergolic combinations
Monopropellants are fuels that do not require an oxidizer for combustion because the oxidizer is bound to the molecule of the fuel itself. For instance, consider a system of hydrogen and oxygen in which the hydrogen acts as the fuel and the oxygen functions as an oxidizer. Such a system would be called a bipropellant system, as the reaction would require a separate chemical species as an oxidizing agent, as opposed to a monopropellant system, which does not require any external oxygen (or any oxidizer, for that matter) for combustion. Hydrazine is the most commonly used monopropellant.

Hypergolics are combinations of two materials that ignite spontaneously without the need for an ignition source, and therefore do not require any oxygen. As they do not depend upon external ignition sources, they can be readily controlled, which makes them ideal rocket propellants.

Aerozine 50 + Nitrogen tetroxide (NTO) have been used in many American rockets, including The Titan II and Apollo Lunar Module.

https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/can-fire-occur-non-oxygenated-reaction.html


Quote
Underwater Torch Made of Sparklers
Author: ChemistryViews.org
https://www.chemistryviews.org/details/video/10353041/Underwater_Torch_Made_of_Sparklers/


Underwater Torch Made of Sparklers



Sparklers are hand-held fireworks that burn slowly while emitting sparks. If a single sparkler is immersed in water, it is extinguished immediately, because water dissipates the heat quickly. However, it is possible to build a sparkler torch which burns under water: To do so, the ignition temperature of approx. 460 ° C has to be kept under water by increasing the number of sparklers (increased thermal energy) and by separating the ignition front and the water from each other (water does not dissipate the heat so quickly).

In the video, ten sparklers are wrapped with Tesa film so that only the tips are free. As soon as all sparklers of this torch are ignited, the torch is dropped head first into a glass filled with cold water.
In the pot of water, water vapor and gaseous pyrolysis products of the Tesa film rise. Various metals react with water vapor to form metal oxides and hydrogen. Example: 4 H2O + 3 Fe → Fe3O4 + 4 H2


Note added…

Quote
Burning Model Rocket Engine Underwater in 4K Slow Motion - Rockets (S1 • E4)




« Last Edit: December 15, 2022, 12:59:20 PM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

JackBlack

  • 21903
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #35 on: December 15, 2022, 12:38:29 PM »
I'm sorry that you misunderstood what I mean by at hand.
So you are saying all the evidence we have from space counts as "on hand"?
e.g. the photos from the Mars rovers.

Yes, I known people to get some sort of bypass surgery.
Do you? Or are the in on the conspiracy?
Did you watch as the surgery was conducted?

You are applying a dishonest double standard to try and reject space etc, because it doesn't fit with your fantasy.
If you applied that standard to everything you would reject so much it isn't funny.

Real science has real results.
You mean like GPS? The result of rockets going to space and deploying a constellation of satellites?

You know propulsion and ignition doesn't work in a vacuum.
No, we don't.
We know that there is nothing to prohibit it.

The fact you avoided an incredible simple question demonstrates that you have nothing to support your claim.

Once more, say you have 2 weights in a vacuum. Between these weights is a spring and a string.
The string is tight and holding the 2 weights together compressing the spring.
The string breaks. What happens?
Does magic hold the weights together keeping the spring compressed?
Or does the spring expand, pushing the weights apart?

And I've shown you before how zero gravity is a trick using specialized planes and patterned flight.
No, you haven't.
You have failed to explain how such long shots of 0g could be made.

Yes, there is a distinct difference between science that is real and practical, and science that is a tax scheme.
And you are yet to demonstrate that the science you hat isn't real and practical.

You do realize also that when I discussed a vacuum, I showed a very specific example
And no rocket engine in it.
I wonder why?
Is it because you want to pretend it can't work by dishonestly appealing to situations where some key parts are missing (like the oxidiser)?
And where you use a fan to pretend their can't be propulsion, even though it uses a fundamentally different principle.

Because of this, this crude experiment doesn't actually prove what it sets out to.

The point being that any fire safety expert can tell you in no uncertain terms that a fire will not be very successful if there isn't enough air.
No, an actual fire safety expert will recognise that an oxidiser is important, not simply air.
For example, in the source that your dishonest crap has cherry picked, thermite burns in a vacuum. Not as well as in air, but it does still burn.
This is because it contains the oxidiser as a solid with it.

So the real experts recognise that some fires can be smothered to put them out, but other fires can't.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #36 on: December 15, 2022, 02:10:27 PM »
Vacuum cleaners are not vacuums.

Seems that you missed the other "on hand" observations/experiments of rockets working in a vacuum...

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #37 on: December 15, 2022, 04:48:36 PM »
Bulmabriefs?

Water?

No air?

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #38 on: December 15, 2022, 05:42:30 PM »
You know propulsion and ignition doesn't work in a vacuum.


Ok?  You know it’s verified fact the USSR placed a satellite in orbit around earth in 1957.  Nation after nation verified it by its broadcasts and visually .  The evidence was there for any amateur to scientist  to verify.  Before CGI.  Actively broadcasting. Even a stage of the rocket orbiting the earth could be seen.


https://www.space.com/17852-sputnik-space-race-first-satellite-photos/2.html


https://www.space.com/17852-sputnik-space-race-first-satellite-photos/2.html

Quote
Sputnik launched 65 years ago
https://earthsky.org/space/this-date-in-science-launch-of-sputnik-october-4-1957/

Also it had four external radio antennae to broadcast radio pulses. And broadcast they did. Indeed, people around the globe heard Sputnik’s unassuming beep beep on the radio for 21 days in 1957.


Quote
Sputnik 1! 7 Fun Facts About Humanity's First Satellite

https://www.space.com/38331-sputnik-satellite-fun-facts.html

Though Sputnik 1 was small, it was quite reflective and therefore visible from Earth through a pair of binoculars (and perhaps even with the naked eye, if you had good vision and knew exactly where to look).

Many people reported seeing the satellite overhead in late 1957, but experts think most of these sightings actually involved the R-7. The rocket's 85-foot-long (26 m) core stage also reached orbit, and it was covered with reflective panels to make tracking it easier. This rocket body fell back to Earth on Dec. 2, 1957, according to Zak.

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #39 on: December 16, 2022, 05:15:07 AM »

Just so you know, a ShopVac generally isn't the same thing as a completely anaerobic room.



Then the logic and the “proof” of this video, Rockets Cannot Propel In Space vacuum, is wrong?

Again…

Not. Not again. Listen to when ppl talk to you.



The logic of the assertion is right, but you guys confuse an airless room & vacuum of space for "vacuum cleaner". One of this things is not like the other.



There is air inside a vacuum cleaner. There is also dust. If you were to decide that a vacuum is a handy way to put out fire, you would be dead wrong. Emphasis on dead. Air is sucked in, circulated through the entire vacuum. The whole device sucks air into it, then releases it out the exhaust. So if you're expecting a vacuum cleaner to have no air inside, it has plenty.
So why is it called a vacuum? Because it temporarily removes a small amount of air from the room.

What is the vacuum of space? It would be like if air were permanently pulled out of an area. There are certain things that just don't happen without air to push them. One of them is that you can't have the winds they mention on Mars without thicker atmosphere. Another is it screws with both friction and air resistance. The third is that this rocket  might have been going 25,000 never leaves the Earth, going left (and down) as it actually combusts the air used for propulsion (nice job guys, you made a negative propulsion reaction, where the force of upward propulsion is overcome by the incredibly wasteful heat reaction).

Meanwhile. Again.

The rocket is less buoyant than the upper layers of atmosphere, so without greater propulsion and less heat, it will not leave Earth's atmosphere. And if it managed, by shedding the boosters rather quick (quick enough that it moves a full 100 km, well beyond any known propulsion or momentum), it would then slow down to a snail's pace as there is not air to sustain burn propulsion. But as you can clearly see, the rocket goes to the left (and down). No matter how much you want to believe curvature, they are telling you down is up.

And you believe them.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2022, 05:31:14 AM by bulmabriefs144 »



Quote from: Themightykabool
crazy people don't know they're crazy.

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #40 on: December 16, 2022, 05:52:10 AM »
You know propulsion and ignition doesn't work in a vacuum.


Ok?  You know it’s verified fact the USSR placed a satellite in orbit around earth in 1957.  Nation after nation verified it by its broadcasts and visually .  The evidence was there for any amateur to scientist  to verify.  Before CGI.  Actively broadcasting. Even a stage of the rocket orbiting the earth could be seen.


https://www.space.com/17852-sputnik-space-race-first-satellite-photos/2.html


https://www.space.com/17852-sputnik-space-race-first-satellite-photos/2.html

Quote
Sputnik launched 65 years ago
https://earthsky.org/space/this-date-in-science-launch-of-sputnik-october-4-1957/

Also it had four external radio antennae to broadcast radio pulses. And broadcast they did. Indeed, people around the globe heard Sputnik’s unassuming beep beep on the radio for 21 days in 1957.


Quote
Sputnik 1! 7 Fun Facts About Humanity's First Satellite

https://www.space.com/38331-sputnik-satellite-fun-facts.html

Though Sputnik 1 was small, it was quite reflective and therefore visible from Earth through a pair of binoculars (and perhaps even with the naked eye, if you had good vision and knew exactly where to look).

Many people reported seeing the satellite overhead in late 1957, but experts think most of these sightings actually involved the R-7. The rocket's 85-foot-long (26 m) core stage also reached orbit, and it was covered with reflective panels to make tracking it easier. This rocket body fell back to Earth on Dec. 2, 1957, according to Zak.

This nice and all, but as I've told you before, you not only do not need to go to space to plant a satellite, but it is incredibly poor planning to do so.

https://aplanetruth.info/2015/11/24/satellites-dont-exist/

What we use instead of satellites are land-based broadcast towers, underwater high speed cables, flying signal platforms (Lighter-Than-Air-Vehicles (LAV), High Altitude Airships (HAA) and High Altitude Platforms (HAP)). All of the flying signal devices are within Earth's atmosphere.

Why not outside Earth? Well...
Quote
1. Satellites aren’t used because they can’t carry terabytes of data for less than a billion dollars per communication line.
2. The bandwidth available using a single fiber optic cable and a laser beam is much much greater than you can get from a single satellite radio channel. This is due to the higher frequency and shorter wavelength of light compared to microwaves. The higher the frequency, the greater the bandwidth.
3. An undersea cable is a bundle many fiber optic cables. Consider each fiber cable as a channel. You can have more channels, each with a higher capacity, than you can build radio channels into a satellite.
4. The uplinks and downlinks cost  and putting the satellite in space is a huge huge ask and far more risky.
5.  The delay for satellite communications would be around 255ms both uplink and downlink. For continuous traffic this not to a bad price to pay. But for burst traffic (like voice) you pay for the delay at each pause. The Rule of Thumb is 10MS per 1000 miles so Rule of Thumb to Europe on say TAT-8 would be about 75MS vs 510MS for satellite.
6. Finally, you can fix a broken cable. Once you launch the satellite you don’t get a chance to fix it if it gets broke.
Mostly number 6, though. You can assemble a LTA, HAA, or HAP in midair. You can repair it. You can go back to a flight. But you can't get to space in the first place, and if you could, each time a satellite needs to be added or repaired requires billions. Maybe being able to afford EVs has put you out of touch w reality, but that's a big ask.

So, when they saw Sputnik there probably was an aerial object that people saw in the sky at night. They also got a signal from it. But can you prove it actually was in space? No, I bet you can't.

But my cellphone service runs on GPS! How without satellites? Uhhh yeah, what about these?



These towers plus aerial platforms provides everything you need. And some of these aerial platforms are camouflaged as blimps/planes. Or weather balloons.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2022, 06:14:34 AM by bulmabriefs144 »



Quote from: Themightykabool
crazy people don't know they're crazy.

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #41 on: December 16, 2022, 06:09:26 AM »


What we use instead of satellites are land-based broadcast towers,

We are discussing 1957. Russia launched a rocket that placed a satellite and one of the stages of the rocket in orbit around the earth, visibly changing the night sky.

The satellite was in orbit around the earth.  It was tracked by its transmission.   Verified to be moving by the way it was broadcasting and the Doppler effect from orbiting the earth.


Quote
Doppler also needs to be compensated in satellite communication. Fast moving satellites can have a Doppler shift of dozens of kilohertz relative to a ground station. The speed, thus magnitude of Doppler effect, changes due to earth curvature.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect#Satellite_communication

Irrefutable evidence, science that Russia put the first satellite and some junk along with the satellite in orbit around the earth. Visibility changing the night sky as verified by amateurs to scientists from many nations that a satellite was placed in orbit around the earth.

Sorry to burst your delusion.

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #42 on: December 16, 2022, 06:17:55 AM »

So, when they saw Sputnik there probably was an aerial object that people saw in the sky at night. They also got a signal from it. But can you prove it actually was in space?

Yeah.  It was proven to be in space in an orbit.


Quote
Tracking Sputnik I’s Orbit

https://distributedmuseum.illinois.edu/exhibit/tracking_sputnik_is_orbit/

The interferometer made crude position measurements of Sputnik along with Doppler tracking data. Students also made visual observations using other instruments, such as theodolites, astronomical clocks, and WWV time signal receivers available at the Observatory.

Astronomers were among the few who knew celestial mechanics, so department chair George McVitte and astronomers Stanley Wyatt and Ivan King used the data to derive Sputnik’s orbital elements, with help from mathematician Donald Gillies and physicist James Snyder, who programed the ILLIAC I computer. The result was an ephemeris, or astronomical data set describing the orbit and position of the satellite in the sky, within two days of its launch and published in Nature by November of 1957.



One of the most documented and personally witnessed events in history is just making you look delusional…..
« Last Edit: December 16, 2022, 06:24:18 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #43 on: December 16, 2022, 06:43:49 AM »

So, when they saw Sputnik there probably was an aerial object that people saw in the sky at night. They also got a signal from it. But can you prove it actually was in space?

Yeah.  It was proven to be from space in an orbit.


Quote
Tracking Sputnik I’s Orbit

https://distributedmuseum.illinois.edu/exhibit/tracking_sputnik_is_orbit/

The interferometer made crude position measurements of Sputnik along with Doppler tracking data. Students also made visual observations using other instruments, such as theodolites, astronomical clocks, and WWV time signal receivers available at the Observatory.

Astronomers were among the few who knew celestial mechanics, so department chair George McVitte and astronomers Stanley Wyatt and Ivan King used the data to derive Sputnik’s orbital elements, with help from mathematician Donald Gillies and physicist James Snyder, who programed the ILLIAC I computer. The result was an ephemeris, or astronomical data set describing the orbit and position of the satellite in the sky, within two days of its launch and published in Nature by November of 1957.


One of the most documented and personally witnessed events in history is just making you look delusional…..

Not at all.

It just makes you gullible.

Oh hey, we're astronomers who probably have ties to NASA. We'll test the distance of this satellite which will provide an opportunity for funding if we say it's in space, because US politicians are invested in this dick-measuring campaign against Russia. Clearly there is no vested interest here.
Also, we clearly haven't been told by the space program how to report results of this interferometer.

Hey so, I've got a Nigerian princess, and she's gonna collect all of her inheritance, and she'll share a few million with you (because you're totally not gullible) but first she needs you to send your routing number so she can smuggle that money out of the country. She has alot of ppl preventing her from using her own money, after all.

This scam is still more believable than "Send more taxes to NASA while we show you magic tricks."



If we can convince several people who have never left the ground that they are in space, I'm pretty darn certain you can stage an expensive launch only to fly somewhere off camera while the news feed cuts and they switch to fake NASA feed.



Quote from: Themightykabool
crazy people don't know they're crazy.

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #44 on: December 16, 2022, 07:02:51 AM »

Not at all.



This article again.  Gives names, dates, and means. By people that had no reason to engage in supporting the accomplishment of the USSR.  And motives to embarrass the USSR.

Quote
Tracking Sputnik I’s Orbit

https://distributedmuseum.illinois.edu/exhibit/tracking_sputnik_is_orbit/

The interferometer made crude position measurements of Sputnik along with Doppler tracking data. Students also made visual observations using other instruments, such as theodolites, astronomical clocks, and WWV time signal receivers available at the Observatory.

Astronomers were among the few who knew celestial mechanics, so department chair George McVitte and astronomers Stanley Wyatt and Ivan King used the data to derive Sputnik’s orbital elements, with help from mathematician Donald Gillies and physicist James Snyder, who programed the ILLIAC I computer. The result was an ephemeris, or astronomical data set describing the orbit and position of the satellite in the sky, within two days of its launch and published in Nature by November of 1957.

Stop changing the subject.  Makes you look weak.

Quote what you think is false from the article with your actual evidence to try to prove its false. 

Not your delusional rambling BS and shielding yourself with your nonsensical subject changes. 

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #45 on: December 16, 2022, 07:05:22 AM »

Oh hey, we're astronomers who probably have ties to NASA.

We are not discussing “NASA”.  We are discussing an accomplishment by the USSR in 1957.  A time when “western nations” would have very much liked to embarrass the USSR. 

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #46 on: December 16, 2022, 01:39:00 PM »
These towers plus aerial platforms provides everything you need. And some of these aerial platforms are camouflaged as blimps/planes. Or weather balloons.

I always tell people that if you cannot duplicate it with the observations you have at hand, it's fake science.

"With the observations you have at hand..."

Doesn't your notion of towers plus aerial platforms fall into your category of fake science? I mean how have you duplicated these observations at your own hands?

Seems you are hypocritically going against your own mantra by just relying on some blog or video. They are certainly not of your own hand. So what you reference is fake science, lies.

*

JackBlack

  • 21903
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #47 on: December 16, 2022, 02:50:32 PM »
Not. Not again. Listen to when ppl talk to you.
Why assume we aren't listening?
Perhaps you should stop treating people like morons that should just accept whatever delusional BS you say and instead try to honestly respond?

What they provided was far better than the cherry picked garbage you provided, as they at least used a rocket motor, instead of just fuel.

The logic of the assertion is right, but you guys confuse an airless room & vacuum of space for "vacuum cleaner". One of this things is not like the other.
And likewise, you confuse a rocket engine, and some fuel sitting out on a piece of wood.
You confuse how a rocket engine works, with how a fan works.

And it isn't just that it is confused, it is also intentional misrepresentation by cherry picking data.
The original footage that was used in you dishonest BS clearly demonstrates thermite burning in a vacuum. Not as well as in the atmosphere, but it does still burn. Yet that is mysteriously absent. I wonder why?
They don't even link the original source. I wonder why?
Because linking the original source would allow people to go watch, to see the section discussing confining pressure, which a rocket engine provides, and they would see the thermite burning and realise that your source is cherry picking data to pretend their lies are justified.

There are certain things that just don't happen without air to push them. One of them is that you can't have the winds they mention on Mars without thicker atmosphere.
Why?
Mars has an atmosphere, That means it can have wind.
It not being as thick as Earth doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Another is it screws with both friction and air resistance.
Which removes the limitation of maximum speed (well more replaces it with the speed of light), or requirements for a craft to be aerodynamic.

The third is that this rocket  might have been going 25,000 never leaves the Earth, going left (and down) as it actually combusts the air used for propulsion (nice job guys, you made a negative propulsion reaction, where the force of upward propulsion is overcome by the incredibly wasteful heat reaction).
Just what are you trying to say here?
The rocket burns its fuel with its oxidiser, to produce exhaust gases travelling at very high speeds. This requires the exhaust nozzle to have gas at a very high speed, which pushes the rocket away.
This provides propulsion.
The heat doesn't magically negate it.

The rocket is less buoyant than the upper layers of atmosphere, so without greater propulsion and less heat, it will not leave Earth's atmosphere.
Why is the propulsion it already has not enough?

it would then slow down to a snail's pace as there is not air to sustain burn propulsion.
It has the oxidiser required onboard.


But as you can clearly see, the rocket goes to the left (and down).
No, we don't see it go down relative to the point below it on Earth.
We see it appear to go down due to the curvature of Earth, just like objects appear to sink into the horizon.

And don't you just love the incredibly dishonest double standard FEers use when it comes to that?
They see a rocket appearing at a lower angle of elevation, and assert, with no evidence at all, that this means it is actually going down. As that is what they need for their fantasy to be true.

But then when they observe the sun to behave the same way, they assert that it isn't going down, instead it magically remains a the same height and it is just perspective making it appear to go lower, and then typically appeal to some magic BS to explain why it appears much lower than it should simply given perspective, with that same magical BS appealed to to try and explain why ships appear to sink into the horizon.

Why the dishonest BS?
Why can't you apply the same standard consistently?
Why should we accept the rocket is going down, but not then use that to think the sun is physically going into Earth (or below it), with boats literally sinking at the horizon?

*

JackBlack

  • 21903
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #48 on: December 16, 2022, 03:11:30 PM »
This nice and all, but as I've told you before, you not only do not need to go to space to plant a satellite, but it is incredibly poor planning to do so.
The problem is that you just "told" us, with no rational justification, and had it exposed as pure BS, with you just ignoring all the problems with it.

Why not outside Earth? Well...
Because that would require admitting space exists, and that we have launched things into space, which destroys your delusional fantasy. You need it to all be fake, even if it costs vastly more to fake it.

Quote
1. Satellites aren’t used because they can’t carry terabytes of data for less than a billion dollars per communication line.
2. The bandwidth available using a single fiber optic cable and a laser beam is much much greater than you can get from a single satellite radio channel. This is due to the higher frequency and shorter wavelength of light compared to microwaves. The higher the frequency, the greater the bandwidth.
3. An undersea cable is a bundle many fiber optic cables. Consider each fiber cable as a channel. You can have more channels, each with a higher capacity, than you can build radio channels into a satellite.
4. The uplinks and downlinks cost  and putting the satellite in space is a huge huge ask and far more risky.
5.  The delay for satellite communications would be around 255ms both uplink and downlink. For continuous traffic this not to a bad price to pay. But for burst traffic (like voice) you pay for the delay at each pause. The Rule of Thumb is 10MS per 1000 miles so Rule of Thumb to Europe on say TAT-8 would be about 75MS vs 510MS for satellite.
6. Finally, you can fix a broken cable. Once you launch the satellite you don’t get a chance to fix it if it gets broke.
Mostly number 6, though.
1 - Satellites are not used for everything, but there is plenty that they are used for, including satellite TV, satellite internet and GPS. Importantly, faking this with ground based systems (especially on a FE) would require so many transmitters (or transceivers) it isn't funny.
This is because satellite TV typically uses geostationary satellites, with receivers aligned to them based upon a RE with geostationary satellites, and with slight misalignment causing a very poor signal.
If you wanted to replicate that with ground based transmitters, you need loads of them for them to be in the correct location for the receivers to be pointing at, and to provide the required coverage.
With GPS, with it covering the globe, using satellites which rely upon the time required for the transmission to go from the satellite to the receiver, you would need to pretty much blanket the entire Earth in transmitters, and that would still likely cause problems for accurate location determination.

1,2 and 3 all focus on specific types of communication, which does not apply for everything.
More importantly they focus on the benefits of using a wired connection, which means it only actually works when you have wires coming in.
You can't try using them to claim what is provided by satellites is not.

4 - This would rely upon Earth actually being flat, and presented as such. Otherwise, a satellite can be a far cheaper option, with the cost of a single transmitter/transciever vs so many it isn't funny.

5 - Again, this depends on what you are doing. For example, GPS uses that delay to calculate location.
For one way transmission, like satellite TV, the delay doesn't matter.

6 - And fixing that broken cable can take an incredibly long time. Satellite constellations typically have significant redundancy built in.

But you can't get to space in the first place
Repeating the same delusional BS wont help you.

each time a satellite needs to be added or repaired requires billions.
And faking it with ground based systems would likely cost more.

So, when they saw Sputnik there probably was an aerial object that people saw in the sky at night. They also got a signal from it. But can you prove it actually was in space? No, I bet you can't.
You mean it would be countless aerial objects, such that it could be observed from so many locations, in a position consistent with it being in space. But then people should have seen multiple such objects, but they didn't.

And wasting so much more fuel to keep it moving at such high velocities.

All the available evidence indicates it was in space. There is nothing except delusional paranoia that indicates it was not in space.

But my cellphone service runs on GPS!
No, it doesn't.
Your cellphone services runs on towers. The GPS used to provide your location runs on GPS satellites.

This is why you can often have cell service indoors while GPS is blocked by the building, and why in remote locations you can have GPS, but not cell coverage.

Trying to fake GPS with ground based systems would be insane.

It just makes you gullible.
No, it demonstrates you are gullible and desperate.
Space would destroy your fantasy, so you need to do whatever you can to pretend it isn't real, so you will accept whatever pathetic BS claims it isn't real.

Oh hey, we're astronomers who probably have ties to NASA. We'll test the distance of this satellite which will provide an opportunity for funding if we say it's in space, because US politicians are invested in this dick-measuring campaign against Russia. Clearly there is no vested interest here.
Quite the opposite.
This would mean the US lost.
What would be better is if they claimed that Russia was just using a fast plane rather than something in space, and use that as an excuse for even more funding to make sure we beat them.

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #49 on: December 16, 2022, 03:46:32 PM »

This article again.  Gives names, dates, and means. By people that had no reason to engage in supporting the accomplishment of the USSR.  And motives to embarrass the USSR.


You speak this way because you don't understand the era.They had every motive for not ignoring this. They were part of the space race. 

Announcing that Russia has just launched satellites into space means the public is incentivized to work in computer engineering and calculation (see Hidden Figures), build space suits, and build rockets, whether they go into space or just do so on a set. Rather than creating embarrassment, it creates motivation.

If you actually observe how much interaction there is nowadays among astronauts, much less astronomers, it's pretty clear they aren't loyal to countries. So what was the Space Race but propaganda for the US's need for national pride?



A tiny satellite. Miles and miles high. With the naked eye.  Either it wasn't as high as reported, or people made up the thing.

How many people does it take to support a great lie?

Give up?

Only a few (who are knowledgeable of the truth). The rest will support it by believing in it, and ostracizing those who don't. This is why it has been,  and will always be far easier to uphold the Round Earth hoax than you seem to think. Ditto for space travel.

I am currently watching film called Unplanned where the woman RAN the abortion clinic, and yet had never before seen an abortion before the day that she decided to quit. The same day she saw a child fleeing a vacuum that ground it up into a pool of little bits and blood.

How can people be fooled into believing space travel/RE if it isn't real? The same way that a woman can naively believe that the abortion clinic is working to "reduce" the number of abortions needed. People will believe any nonsense. Especially on behalf of people who actually work to destroy their own interests (she felt worthless as a result of her own abortion, so she didn't think to question them while they got her to do thousands of abortions)
« Last Edit: December 16, 2022, 03:58:51 PM by bulmabriefs144 »



Quote from: Themightykabool
crazy people don't know they're crazy.

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #50 on: December 16, 2022, 04:09:30 PM »

Give up?



Give up on what?  That there is irrefutable proof that the USSR place Sputnik in orbit around the Earth.  From the Doppler shift of its broadcast.  From ground stations verifying it position.  The launch visibly changing the night sky and added visible objects to the night sky.  That there are numerous eyewitness account from ham radio operators to amateur accounts Sputnik being in orbit.  No NASA required for verification. 

With every reason every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the west would discredit any fake attempt by the USSR to aid the west in the propaganda war against communism.

And in 1957 there was no radio network available like your insist to fake Sputnik actively broadcasting orbiting the earth.  With no means to duplicate the Doppler shift of Sputnik broadcasting in orbit.  With no evidence that the USSR would share such technology and such a network with the USA.  With no evidence the two governments would help push a fraud together.

There was no means in 1957 to fake a man made satellite broadcasting from orbit.  And such a fake would take cooperation between the west and the USSR.

You have provided nothing but BS and lies.  You seriously have something wrong with your comprehension. 

The first man made satellite placed in orbit had no support by NASA, required no accusations of NASA lied, was a real event, was witnessed by thousands that had nothing to do with NASA nor the USSR, and highlights what lengths you will go to to hide from reality.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2022, 04:14:09 PM by DataOverFlow2022 »

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #51 on: December 16, 2022, 04:40:25 PM »

A tiny satellite. Miles and miles high. With the naked eye.  Either it wasn't as high as reported, or people made up the thing.



Do you read anything other than your own pots?


What was actually cited

Quote
Sputnik 1! 7 Fun Facts About Humanity's First Satellite

https://www.space.com/38331-sputnik-satellite-fun-facts.html

Though Sputnik 1 was small, it was quite reflective and therefore visible from Earth through a pair of binoculars (and perhaps even with the naked eye, if you had good vision and knew exactly where to look).

Many people reported seeing the satellite overhead in late 1957, but experts think most of these sightings actually involved the R-7. The rocket's 85-foot-long (26 m) core stage also reached orbit, and it was covered with reflective panels to make tracking it easier. This rocket body fell back to Earth on Dec. 2, 1957, according to Zak.


And size is only one aspect.  The other aspect is what magnitude of brightness the object shines with.


Example

Quote
Astronomers ask UN committee to protect night skies from megaconstellations

https://www.space.com/astronomers-night-sky-protection-starlink-megaconstellations

A United Nations committee will discuss whether pristine night sky should be protected against Starlink trains.
 


Image credit: Victoria Girgis/Lowell Observatory)

Just more irrefutable proof of man made objects orbiting the earth, actively broadcasting, providing a tangible service that you will lie about.

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #52 on: December 16, 2022, 05:28:10 PM »

A tiny satellite. Miles and miles high. With the naked eye.  Either it wasn't as high as reported, or people made up the thing.



Do you read anything other than your own pots?


Apparently, you don't even closely read your own pots.

Pots.

And for the record, you are a "pot" calling a kettle black, as I constantly look at stuff. News articles, web articles, books, etc.  Whereas you cling to the same thing you learned in school, never questioning where maybe your teacher was just a jobber, not committed to verifying her own curriculum, because she might get fired if she figured out that the official teaching is not right. Bottom, line, I research even opposing writings. You don't.  You don't read anything other than your own "pots".

Quote
Just more irrefutable proof of man made objects orbiting the earth, actively broadcasting, providing a tangible service that you will lie about.

Whenever someone say that, they are bluffing.

Irrefutable means nobody is capable of refuting it.  That's by definition a bluff.



1. It's like this. In the middle of the ocean, with no obstructions to the sky, and however many satellites supposedly circling the Earth... you can get no coverage. In an open plain (not a forest, tunnel, or cave)... you can get no coverage.  On a remote island where no cell towers have been placed... you get no coverage. This would be something that would be true if cell towers were what is behind GPS and other systems, but it makes no sense for satellite signals. In fact, the MORE satellites you claim are in the sky, the LESS true this claim becomes. If it were simply one or two satellites, there might be a gap, but the more there are, the less likely this coverage gap becomes as a result of satellites. Yet such gaps clearly exist in open areas. And it seems to have much more to do with poverty levels than accessibility to sky. Many areas near our town have suck internet.

2. Constant coverage. If satellites are orbiting the Earth, how come coverage works for pretty much all day in cities? After all, a fixed tower that broadcasts works all day, while a satellite flies past and the tower afterwards doesn't have a signal until another satellite comes into orbit. Based on this, you would have to have tons of satellites. See #1 and how there is a reverse correlation to the number of satellites claimed and their likelihood of being the cause of such signals thanks to these dead zones.

Irrefutable? Nah, I just refuted it. Whether or not you believe me.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2022, 05:41:36 PM by bulmabriefs144 »



Quote from: Themightykabool
crazy people don't know they're crazy.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #53 on: December 16, 2022, 06:00:41 PM »
Whenever someone say that, they are bluffing.

How would you know one way or the other...

I always tell people that if you cannot duplicate it with the observations you have at hand, it's fake science.

You have no observations at hand one way or another, so according to you, a video attempting to refute something is fake science.

*

JackBlack

  • 21903
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #54 on: December 16, 2022, 06:39:41 PM »
You speak this way because you don't understand the era.They had every motive for not ignoring this. They were part of the space race.
Quite the opposite.
Saying Russia faked it with a high altitude plane would be good for humiliating Russia, and provide justification for wanting more money to ensure they beat Russia.

Saying Russia made it first is admitting they lost.

A tiny satellite. Miles and miles high. With the naked eye.  Either it wasn't as high as reported, or people made up the thing.
So you don't understand how seeing bright objects work?

Only a few (who are knowledgeable of the truth). The rest will support it by believing in it, and ostracizing those who don't. This is why it has been,  and will always be far easier to uphold the Round Earth hoax than you seem to think. Ditto for space travel.
That doesn't work if you have those people involved making things for space and relying upon them, at least not if you want to make money from it.
Not to mention the simple everyday observations which confirm Earth is round.

FE is the hoax, not RE.

People will believe any nonsense.
Especially when they are desperate to pretend Earth is flat.

I constantly look at stuff. News articles, web articles, books, etc.
And reject anything that doesn't fit your fantasy.


I research even opposing writings.
And then lie about them or try and think of some delusional BS to dismiss them.
Just like you did with the sidereal days.
You knew you were wrong, yet you went ahead, lying to everyone to pretend there was a problem with the RE model.

Irrefutable means nobody is capable of refuting it.
And dismissing it doesn't mean it is refuted.
Spouting nonsense like it was just some aircraft, which entirely ignores how that wouldn't work, is not refuting it.

1. It's like this. In the middle of the ocean, with no obstructions to the sky, and however many satellites supposedly circling the Earth... you can get no coverage.
Do you mean from a phone, or for GPS?
Because there is GPS coverage in open ocean.
You can't get cell coverage because that uses land based towers (unless you are on a ship with a satellite uplink which has its own coverage provided).
Planes and ships use GPS for navigation, including when well away from land.

2. Constant coverage. If satellites are orbiting the Earth, how come coverage works for pretty much all day in cities?
Coverage provided by geostationary satellites will be constant.
Coverage provided by satellite constellations will be provided by the entire constellation, not just a single satellite.
The number of satellites required will depend upon their distance from Earth.

Irrefutable? Nah, I just refuted it. Whether or not you believe me.
No, you didn't come close.
You spouted pure garbage backed up by nothing.
That is rejecting or dismissing it, not refuting it.

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #55 on: December 16, 2022, 06:51:35 PM »


Apparently, you don't even closely read your own pots.

Pots.


I cite sources and build a case on facts and science.

While you spew BS, delusion, and try to change the subject.

Quote
And for the record, you are a "pot" calling a kettle black, as I constantly look at stuff.

But you don’t comprehend. 

Like the fact that satellites actively broadcast from orbits, and change the night sky.

External source…
Quote
Meet the amateur astronomers who track secretive spy satellites for fun
https://www.popsci.com/zuma-spy-satellite-amateur-astronomer/?amp



Quote
News articles, web articles, books, etc. 

Vs YouTube?

Quote
Whereas you cling to the same thing you learned in school, never questioning

I question all time.  Especially your BS that does nothing to address the irrefutable proof there are satellites In orbit.

Self.  What is that bright light in the sky.  Well, with my binoculars I see it’s not the moon, not a star or a planet.  Well it sure looks like the international space station.  Look at that it, was predicted to pass overhead this night.  There it is changing the night sky, and viewed by me


Quote
where maybe your teacher was just a jobber,

Which has what to do with my ability to actually look up at the night sky and analyze what I see with binoculars or a telescope.  Or see a new bright object added to the sky like star-link satellites?

Quote
not committed to verifying her own curriculum, because she might get fired if she figured out that the official teaching is not right.

Funny. Through school and the military I was always taught to question.  What did I observe.  Why is this system doing this.  Is this a lawful order.  Will this command violate safe operating parameters.  Why are there so many map projections.


Quote
Bottom, line,

That I built an argument for man made satellites that you can’t debunk because they change the night sky, actively broadcast, and provide services.

Quote
I research even opposing writings. You don't. 

You mean you read fairytales like my kid and wonder why they can’t turn into a real tiger. 

Quote
You don't read anything other than your own "pots".

You mean your lies and BS?

Quote
Whenever someone say that, they are bluffing.

No.  You cannot provide any other credible explanation on what radio signals were received, where they came from, what was recorded, and what people witnessed that change the night sky in 1957.  And was actively broadcasting while moving to create a Doppler shift. 

Quote
Irrefutable means nobody is capable of refuting it. 

Which you haven’t provided anything to refute Sputnik as a satellite and star-link satellite.  You provide delusional fairytales.  And try to change the subject.

Quote
That's by definition a bluff.

No.  It’s reality the USSR placed a satellite in orbit.  Like it’s reality star-link satellites are being placed in orbit, changing the night sky, and providing tangible services.


Quote
1. It's like this. In the middle of the ocean, with no obstructions to the sky, and however many satellites supposedly circling the Earth... you can get no coverage.

Sat phone…
Quote
IRIDIUM
Iridium is the world's only truly global mobile satellite communications company, with voice and data solutions covering every inch of the earth's surface. Reaching over oceans, through airways and across the Polar Regions, Iridium solutions are ideally suited for industries such as maritime, aviation, government/military, emergency/humanitarian services, mining, forestry, oil and gas, heavy equipment, transportation and utilities.

https://www.satphonestore.com/tech-browsing/old/iridium-nav.html


I was in the military, stationed in the pacific.  We got email by satellite service. 

Quote
In an open plain (not a forest, tunnel, or cave)... you can get no coverage.

The old microwave tower relay system for city to city calls. Before the internet and cellphones

Quote
The towers are spaced so that there is a clear line of sight from an antennae on this tower to an antennae on the next tower. Because of the curvature of the earth, a tower needs to be built about every 25 miles
http://industrialscenery.blogspot.com/2014/08/long-distance-phone-microwave-towers.html?m=1



Quote
  On a remote island where no cell towers have been placed...

See above about sat phones…

Quote
you get no coverage.

Why the need and why we used satellite communications in the Pacific Ocean.

Quote
This would be something that would be true if cell towers were what is behind GPS

GPS is also provided by in orbit satellites as proven by my time in the pacific.

Quote
and other systems, but it makes no sense for satellite signals. In fact, the MORE satellites you claim are in the sky, the LESS true this claim becomes.

No.  They, satellites, provide a number of vital services.  Especially for service members in the middle of the pacific emailing home.  Or calling on sat phones when allowed.  Or communications with squadron.


Quote
If it were simply one or two satellites, there might be a gap, but the more there are,

See the above.


« Last Edit: December 16, 2022, 06:57:20 PM by DataOverFlow2022 »

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #56 on: December 16, 2022, 11:28:11 PM »


Apparently, you don't even closely read your own pots.

Pots.


I cite sources and build a case on facts and science.
"Science". Rehashing things that other ppl taught you is not science. Science is the study of knowledge concerning the natural world. I cannot be science if you carry on like a windup doll.


While you spew BS, delusion, and try to change the subject.

Actually I go along with topics to their natural conclusion. When you hit a snag, you resort to ad hom, or outright try to distract the topic.

Quote
And for the record, you are a "pot" calling a kettle black, as I constantly look at stuff.

But you don’t comprehend. 

I understand. But I don't accept. And I don't have to. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Thinking things should be the same, or ppl should think the same. Unload some of that inerrancy dogma, and you'll find the world DOESN'T have to think like you do.

Like the fact that satellites actively broadcast from orbits, and change the night sky.

There are two words that are very important in the English language when used together. "Prove it."

External source…
Quote
Meet the amateur astronomers who track secretive spy satellites for fun
https://www.popsci.com/zuma-spy-satellite-amateur-astronomer/?amp

But since you've ignored my attempts to show you things in the past, I'll just say your proof isn't real proof.

Quote
News articles, web articles, books, etc. 

Vs YouTube?

I use Youtube. You think onlt certain sources count as information. This is why you will always be intellectually limited. I learned about the female anatomy today from a fingering tutorial on Pornhub. We have fixed devices based on Youtube info. That you think there is some distinction is a stumbling block.

Quote
Whereas you cling to the same thing you learned in school, never questioning

I question all time.  Especially your BS that does nothing to address the irrefutable proof there are satellites In orbit.

That's what passes for questioning. But it's not. It's a preprogrammed response. Like a good doggie, you know that if you cooperate like a good little tool of the state, you will get din-din when They ring the bell. You haven't really questioned anything.


Self.  What is that bright light in the sky.  Well, with my binoculars I see it’s not the moon, not a star or a planet.  Well it sure looks like the international space station.  Look at that it, was predicted to pass overhead this night.  There it is changing the night sky, and viewed by me

Sorry but it's not an International Space Station. Objects in "space" are much closer than they appear.
Here's a hint: You're seeing this with binoculars. Not a telescope. Binoculars can zoom in on objects. They are not used to see distant objects so much as enlarge distant objects. So contrary to an article says you can see 600 miles away at 20x, the actual distance is unchanged.

Which is more likely, that your binoculars are that good that you can see into the sky all the way into outer space? Or that the ISS is not in outer space?

Quote
where maybe your teacher was just a jobber,

Which has what to do with my ability to actually look up at the night sky and analyze what I see with binoculars or a telescope.  Or see a new bright object added to the sky like star-link satellites?

It has everything to do with that. Your hero worship of your fifth grade science teacher led you to accept faulty conclusions from then onward. I too had a telescope. Eventually we gave it away. I found stargazing with my real eyes more satisfying because of the damned mirrored image causing me to turn the glass the wrong way from reflex.

Quote
not committed to verifying her own curriculum, because she might get fired if she figured out that the official teaching is not right.

Funny. Through school and the military I was always taught to question.  What did I observe.  Why is this system doing this.  Is this a lawful order.  Will this command violate safe operating parameters.  Why are there so many map projections.

Actually, you were taught to obey.
"Is this a lawful order." You questioned only in terms of by the book standards.
That's nice and all that you don't "only following orders", but you're still behaving laws without questioning whether thet are any better than the illegal thing the captain proposed. The only people that I obey are God, my dearest, myself, and my family usually in that order.

Example: on The Rookie, we saw a man hold a hospital hostage to get an organ transplant for his wife, and a family (who were actually kidnappers themselves) tried to prevent the hospital from using the police to take their child because they refused procedure. Thing is, not only did the latter example sound like a straw man (parent do have to right to morally object to hospital procedure, but they made them demonized) but later the cops wanted to haul the kid to his birth parents who he didn't know and didn't raise him. I don't accept the idea that anyone not blood is a kidnapper. Family is who raises you. Nor do I object to a man doing anything and everything for loved ones. These morals would alien to you, because you are totally a rule follower. You don't question anything except what opposes the approved manuals.


Quote
Bottom, line,

That I built an argument for man made satellites that you can’t debunk because they change the night sky, actively broadcast, and provide services.

Satellites don't change the night sky. They're high flying objects that your brain can't actually locate in the night sky. It puts it in space when it in fact is nearer the stratosphere.
Quote
Surprisingly there are a large portion of manmade satellites that can be seen with the naked eye
Quote
Some cube satellites are as small as 10 cm. Some communication satellites are about 7 m long and have solar panels that extend another 50 m

Hold up. Outer space is 100km away. You can see with the naked eye an object like that when it's only 10 cm. Even 50m is a stretch. Our stars are visible presumably because they're big. But I'm not convinced you have any concept of where space and the sky separate at pitch black at night.
[/color]

No.  It’s reality the USSR placed a satellite in orbit.  Like it’s reality star-link satellites are being placed in orbit, changing the night sky, and providing tangible services.

No, it's reality a tiny object (about 24 in, smaller than a person) where ppl could see with the naked eye at night. Because it wasn't in space!

Quote
  On a remote island where no cell towers have been placed...

See above about sat phones…

Quote
you get no coverage.

Why the need and why we used satellite communications in the Pacific Ocean.

So busy talking and explaining you forgot to listen. There shouldn't be a dead zone with these swarming around. But as to the question, your ship upends on a large rock in the middle of the ocean. You are now unable to get help even though your "iridium" satphone should work. No signal, it says.

Quote
This would be something that would be true if cell towers were what is behind GPS

GPS is also provided by in orbit satellites as proven by my time in the pacific.

No. They are provided through radio triangulation. Three of more towers feed a signal and that plus internet connection gives you nice wifi maps with your location. You are told it's satellite, even though satellite wouldn't give you reliable GPS because it is flying by Earth. A fixed object proves better GPS than a series of moving objects.

« Last Edit: December 16, 2022, 11:32:32 PM by bulmabriefs144 »



Quote from: Themightykabool
crazy people don't know they're crazy.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #57 on: December 16, 2022, 11:31:47 PM »
No. They are provided through radio triangulation. Three of more towers feed a signal and that plud internet connection gives you nice wifi maps with your location. You are told it's satellite, even though satellite wouldn't give you reliable GPS because it is flying by Earth. A fixed object proves better GPS than a series of moving objects..

How would you know this? You have no on hand observation?

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #58 on: December 17, 2022, 02:32:56 AM »

I understand. But I don't accept. And I don't have to. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Thinking things should be the same, or ppl should think the same. Unload some of that inerrancy dogma, and you'll find the world DOESN'T have to think like you do.


I can’t make you comprehend, but you sure can make yourself look stupid.



Quote
There are two words that are very important in the English language when used together. "Prove it."

It gets proven every time someone looks to the night sky and sees a satellite overhead.  Or every time someone uses a sat phone in the middle of the Pacific Ocean.  It was proven when I could email at sea in the Pacific provided by satellite services.



Quote
Sorry but it's not an International Space Station.

Yeah. It was the international space station.  Solar panels and all.  Sorry you can’t handle the truth.

Again. I can’t make you comprehend what I witnessed.  You you sure can make yourself look delusional.


Quote
Or that the ISS is not in outer space?

It’s in space.  It’s at a distance somewhere between the moon and earth.  Why the fuck wouldn’t I be able to see the third brightest object in the night sky?

External source..
Quote
The Third Brightest Object in the Sky – International Space Station

https://mahenphy20online.wordpress.com/2020/06/17/the-thirst-brightest-object-in-the-sky-international-space-station/

The now third brightest object in the night sky, the international space station wasn’t there a hundred years ago.

Quote
That I built an argument for man made satellites that you can’t debunk because they change the night sky, actively broadcast, and provide services.

You can verify satellites in the night sky.  But you’re too fucking lazy and biased to do it.

External source..
Quote
BRIGHTEST SATELLITES

Satellites are visible when the sky is dark and the satellite is able to reflect sunlight back to the observer. These conditions generally occur up to about 45 minutes before sunrise (before the sky becomes too light) and 45 minutes after sunset. These satellites (or objects) are normally brighter than magnitude 4. If your latitude is close to or below the inclination of a given sat, it will be potentially visible at your location.
The table is sortable. Please click on the header for ascending/descending sorting.

https://www.n2yo.com/satellites/?c=1







Anyway.


Satellites are tracked by radar.
Systems like this help create the means where sites can give you the data to find and locate satellites for yourself

Quote
United States Space Surveillance Network

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Surveillance_Network


The Space Surveillance Network includes dedicated, collateral, and contributing electro-optical, passive radio frequency (RF) and radar sensors. It provides space object cataloging and identification, satellite attack warning, timely notification to U.S. forces of satellite fly-over, space treaty monitoring, and scientific and technical intelligence gathering. The continued increase in satellite and orbital debris populations, as well as the increasing diversity in launch trajectories, non-standard orbits, and geosynchronous altitudes, necessitates continued modernization of the SSN to meet existing and future requirements and ensure their cost-effective supportability.


More personal experience that killed your delusion


In the 80’s we had a satellite dish to get satellite TV because there was no cable TV available where we lived.  The satellites work by light of sight because of their frequency.  The satellite dish had to be aimed at specific spots in the sky to the corresponding satellite.  There was no tower involved.  The line of sight of the satellite dish was not with a tower, but the satellite in orbit.  While receiving a satellite signal, a go strong rain downpour would temporarily disrupt the signal.


Anyway..

Quote
Satellite dish pointing calculator: USA

https://www.satsig.net/maps/satellite-tv-dish-pointing-usa.htm


If you truly had a questioning heart, not a follower of YouTube propaganda, I gave you a few ways to verify satellites.

But since I seen the international space with my own eyes.  Used satellite communication in the pacific.  Used satellite TV in the 80’s, I have personally witnessed the existence of satellites.

Re: Cool Mission?
« Reply #59 on: December 17, 2022, 02:38:25 AM »
No. They are provided through radio triangulation. Three of more towers feed a signal and that plud internet connection gives you nice wifi maps with your location. You are told it's satellite, even though satellite wouldn't give you reliable GPS because it is flying by Earth. A fixed object proves better GPS than a series of moving objects..

How would you know this? You have no on hand observation?

Ohhh I see.

First you say you don't really need to trust observation when I talk about how you can't  prove ignition works in space.

Now you want proof of observations.

Very interesting...

In any case, cellphone companies, when they aren't lying about receiving their cellphone signals from on high (get it? That's exactly what cults say, "This signal came from Gawd" ohhh did it now? It wasn't totally from the leaders of the cult?) will admit that a GPS signal can be done completely by cellphone tower overlap.

https://tracki.com/pages/how-gps-tracker-works-and-cell-phone-tower-triangulation-accuracy
Quote
What is Cell Tower Triangulation?
In an ideal scenario, the GPS tracker’s signal may be picked up by 3 or more cell towers, enabling the triangulation to work. From a mathematical standpoint, if you have the distance to a location from each of three distinct points, you can compute the approximate location of that location in relation to the three reference points. At Tracki since we access to mapping of all cellular towers location worldwide, we know the locations of the cell towers which receive our GSM signal, and we can estimate the distance of the GPS tracker from each of those antenna towers, based upon the lag time between when the tower sends a ping to Tracki GPS tracker and receives the answering ping back.



In some cases, there actually may be more than three cell towers receiving a GPS tracker's signal, allowing for even better accuracy. In major metropolitan urban areas, the accuracy of GPS tracker pinpointing is relatively high because there are usually more cell towers with their signal coverage areas overlapping. In cases where the GPS tracker is not exposed to the open sky being inside buildings or underground, in case there are no Wi-Fi routers around, cell tower triangulation may be the only location finding way since GPS signal is not available.

However, there are many places where there are fewer cell towers available, such as in the outskirts of the cities and out in the country. If you have fewer than three cell towers available, pinpointing a GPS tracking device can become a lot less accurate. In cities where there are a lot more vertical structures which can be barriers to GPS tracker broadcasting and receiving, there have to be many more cell towers distributed in order to have good service. In the countryside, there are relatively fewer cell towers and a GPS tracker's signal may be picked up only by only one tower at much greater distance.

Then they talk about overlap in the sky, but always seems to show at least one tower in the model. In other words, these aren't powerful beams of frequency channeling from space (think about how microwave energy was made by someone standing near a satellite with a chocolate bar). This are simple airborne platforms that just broadcast radio.  They need a tower as a repeater and translator, because these are rather lame radio signals from subspace. On an island, if you have a radio, these subspace "satellites" will give you a ham signal. If all you brought was a cellphone, with a cellphone/ wifi tower, this is a dead zone.

How do I know that you ask? Because I've been to open space dead zones before. And they always always have the same thing in common.
No forests? No mountains? No bridges? Still dead?

It's a poor area with no nearby celltowers.

And btw, we've been to GPS malfunction zones, not dead, but locating you in the wrong area, resulting in a change of directions suddenly. The problem is nearly always one strong celltower but little to no triangulation.



When there are no trees mountains or other obstructions, no reason orbital satellites should not pass by, it's obvious. Orbital satellites don't exist.

When orbital satellites should not be affected by rain or snow, yet satellite is down during such times, it's obvious. Orbital satellites don't exist.

When orbital satellites without overlap every few seconds should experience daily gaps in coverage and instead coverage is steady, it's obvious.  Orbital satellites do not exist.

Subspace orbiting satellites may exist, but they are backup singers to the main process, celltower triangulation.

Subspace satellites and celltowers get taken down by fierce weather. Orbital satellites do not.
Subspace/celltower: 1
Satellite: 0

Subspace and celltower has regular internet (though signal is better with subspace satellites overhead), orbital not so much.
Subspace: 2
Satellite:0

Orbital satellites should be able to broadcast over a wide area meaning open spaces get hit (not what happens), eliminating the need for cell towers. But these towers keep getting built. And islands not near towers are deadzoned.
Subspace: 3
Satellite: 0

Sorry, but there is no case for orbital satellites, and three good reasons why I am certain that the main method of wifi and cell service is the tower itself. Not this convoluted nonsense.



Orbital satellites are impossible and outside price range. Subspace satellites (and some drones) are coupled with celltowers, but they are secondary to the celltower.



Quote from: Themightykabool
crazy people don't know they're crazy.