Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16

Yes, you absolutely know more than I do on this subject, but if people want to argue against FE with this then a mere appeal to authority is going to be the opposite of persuasive.

This I don't really get this. All evidence is an appeal to authority on some level or another. Claiming that there is a massive space/satellite conspiracy is appealing to a conjured-up phantom authority that put and keeps the big lie in motion.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on January 24, 2023, 05:51:08 PM

EchoStar 16 is leased by Dish Network to provide Direct To Home service.

Is it a lie that Dish Network is leasing EchoStar 16 from EchoStar where Echostar 16 is a geostationary satellite 22,000 miles above the equator located at 61.5° west longitude which was built to, and is broadcasting 24/7 programming to the continental USA?

No. That's true.
I hope the next question is going to be why I think that. The justification kinda matters here.

We already know the justification and the why, it's been stated.
-  Justification: Space, space travel, objects in space are faked by NASA for money, to hide the true nature of the shape of the earth for reasons, and to further perpetuate and entrench the indoctrination of sheeple and support the will of the NWO, the Illuminati, Masons, and Davos elites.
- Why I think that: Because if any of the Globers' Space, space travel, objects in space nonsense is true that would render my belief in FE and my conspiracies du jour as false. And that is an impossibility because I know the earth is flat, not a globe and you'll have to pry the Gleason map from my cold, dead hands before I succumb to your fakery, lies, and oppression. You glober monsters!

their own argument should not be a controversial thing to do.

But that is the problem.

One.  Either EchoStar 16 is billed and performs as designed and advertised.  And exists in orbit broadcasting.

Two.  Or EchoStar doesn’t exist and it’s a lie and perpetrating a fraud where the satellite was never built, never placed in orbit, not an actual satellite to rent by Dish network. With satellite dish installers, web sites dedicated to providing data concerning aiming and positioning of satellite dishes, and NORAD tracking are all part of the lie.

I know you want to keep this wishy washy, “well it could be true in both models and nobody really knows”, crap going.

As pointed out, it’s petty clear because of how microwave/line of sight broadcasting works there is a satellite 22,000 miles above the equator at longitude of 61.5° West broadcasting. 


It’s not from lack of “evidence” and physical proof that certain individuals can’t accept the demonstrably real existence of  EchoStar sixteen 22,000 miles above the earth.  And it probably is stupid to debate with them.  But they choose to participate.  To these individuals, they can’t accept the evidence because it destroys their talking points concerning flat earth in relation to the sun, space, dome, firmament, space travel. 

It’s like saying a blind person can’t get skin cancer because they can’t visually verify for themselves there is a sun.  Your belief in the sun has nothing to do with the reality UV from the sun can cause cancer.

One can try to be “controversial” as little as possible.  But if the “flat earth” rebuttal in the face of actual science and demonstrable reality is your “sheep” and “it’s a lie” to the point it’s more slanderous than fact. What do you think is going to happen.  Especially when instead of being “sheep” one actually questions both models.  And it can be shown why spherical earth is better at predicting the reality around us.

Spherical earth has made way for life changing technology like satellites.

What life changing technology has flat earth produced in the last 100 years? 

Quote from: Slime on January 25, 2023, 03:31:54 AM

Yes, you absolutely know more than I do on this subject, but if people want to argue against FE with this then a mere appeal to authority is going to be the opposite of persuasive.

This I don't really get this. All evidence is an appeal to authority on some level or another. Claiming that there is a massive space/satellite conspiracy is appealing to a conjured-up phantom authority that put and keeps the big lie in motion.

I think we're using the term 'appeal to authority' differently. For me, appeal to authority is claiming that a statement is true strictly on the weight of it being said by someone - no justification beyond that, no scientific weight, no evidence. Appealing to a conspiracy isn't saying that it's true because an authority says it, it's more relying on an unfalsifiable explanation.

I know you want to keep this wishy washy, “well it could be true in both models and nobody really knows”, crap going.

Dude. Get over yourself. This isn't wishy-washy, it's the basics of what you need to do if you want to make an argument. It's not 'true in both models,' it's 'You have failed miserably to provide a shred of evidence for why anyone should listen to you.' The RE explanation is true. However, it is not true just because you say it is, it's true because of the wealth of evidence that stands behind the RE model.
If your objections only make sense if the world is round, then they are not good objections to a flat earth. That's, like, just true. You cannot escape that by repeating insistence again and again. All you achieve is making REers come off as brainwashed. Is that seriously your intent here?
The only actual contradictions were provided by other users. All you did was repeat an empty claim and balk at the idea of justifying your point.

It's all very well to say "The FE responses fly in the face of actual science," but the point of science is that it is supported by evidence. If all you will ever do is repeat the claim and not the evidence, then leave. We are better off without you. Something is not wrong because it goes against a scientific conclusion, it is wrong if it goes against the evidence. Evidence matters. Angry assertion is not the same thing as evidence. I don't believe you think it is, but that is the impression you are giving. is that your intention?
You chose to come here. You chose to debate FEers. If your only responses are anchored in assuming RET and not giving the evidence that makes it a good position, try another tactic.

This Echostar satellite is apparently 36,000 km in space and geosynchronous with a spinning globe Earth as we are led to believe.

A few questions are in order.

1. What rocket launched this satellite to drop it off at 36,000 km and then also set it in motion to circle a supposed globe Earth to keep exact synchronicity with it?

2.
The supposed ISS has to periodically fire thrusters in order to stop being dragged to Earth by supposed gravity.
What does this Echostar use to keep it perfectly geosynchronous?


Does anyone have any ideas?

This Echostar satellite is apparently 36,000 km in space and geosynchronous with a spinning globe Earth as we are led to believe.

A few questions are in order.

1. What rocket launched this satellite to drop it off at 36,000 km and then also set it in motion to circle a supposed globe Earth to keep exact synchronicity with it?

2.
The supposed ISS has to periodically fire thrusters in order to stop being dragged to Earth by supposed gravity.
What does this Echostar use to keep it perfectly geosynchronous?


Does anyone have any ideas?

The ISS is considerably closer to earth at only 420 km and is not in a geostationary orbit at 36,000 km.

This isn't wishy-washy, it's the basics of what you need to do if you want to make an argument. It's not 'true in both models,' it's 'You have failed miserably to provide a shred of evidence for why anyone should listen to you.' The RE explanation is true.

Then you should openly and honestly be able to answer a simple question..

Is it a lie EchoStar 16 is located 22,000 miles above the earth’s equator in a stationary position relative to the ground.  An active broadcasting satellite being leased by Dish Network providing programming for direct to home subscribers.

 EchoStar 16 is at an altitude that puts it beyond the altitude of the sun to earth’s surface in the majority of the flat earth models. 

The sun is never between the earth and the Satellite.

The published data concerning EchoStar 16 allows technicians and individuals to aim their directional antennas called a dish to the one and only spot EchoStar 16 transmits from in the sky.


Maintains altitude with no form of balloon or by generating uninterrupted lift. 

It only fires its only means of propulsion on the rare occasion to maintain its position above earth. To maintain its orbit.


Is the existence of EchoStar 16 a lie?

Quote from: Unconvinced on January 24, 2023, 09:48:27 AM

That’s a lot of words saying basically nothing.

The question remains, how can satellite TV be explained on a flat earth given the directions that customers need to point their dishes.

Do you have an feasible explanation or not?

Explanation - yes, been over.
Feasible - subjective, that was what my whole post was saying.

Been over? You mean the couple of sentences you’ve spent on your “explanation” amidst lots of complaining about other people not showing what you consider evidence.

You’ve not provided enough to even start looking at the feasibility of it. 

You repeatedly said that it’s a “trivial”and “easy” point, but I’ve not seen anything like an augment to back up that claim.

Here’s some things to consider-
- how high and what spacing do these “satellite equivalents” need to be to ensure everyone is looking at one in the direction of the alleged geostationary position?
- how can they be so well focused to provide seamless coverage, and yet have no noticeable overlap, where people could find the same signal from two sources?
- how many of them would be needed to cover an area thousands of miles across, including complete coverage in sparsely inhabited areas like deserts, mountain ranges and even at sea?
- what would be the estimated  cost for faking even one satellite, let alone all of them?
- if they use balloons or something why not just transmit in all directions?  As you argue yourself, no-one bases their RE or FE belief on this, so why not just say they use balloons not satellites?  They would vastly reduce costs and eliminate the risk of being rumbled?  Who would care if they did?

As usual, the whole “explanation” completely falls apart if you start thinking about it.  Even before we start talking about evidence for it.

Quote

It’s fine if you don’t, but I remind you again that I only got into this because you apparently couldn’t see how the original post was “helpful” in focusing on a specific satellite.

So second question, do you see the point of this topic or not?

In theory or in practice? I would remind you that the only strength you gave to focusing on a specific satellite was the idea of triangulation, which you then failed to justify because the idea that two receivers point to the same satellite is inherently untestable under a FE framework.
Like, you can't just ignore my post like it isn't a reply. Your definition of 'feasible explanation' entirely depends on the framework someone approaches the discussion with - what is far from feasible under RET, is the most feasible explanation under FET. This is why this argument misses the point. I didn't "Say nothing," I directly addressed this, you just didn't want to hear it.
Again, "People do not become flat earthers just because they are skeptical of space travel, it is possible to distrust space travel and think the world is round. It is not possible to think the world is flat and also totally trust space agencies."
Backtracking to pretend we haven't had this discussion, and that this doesn't address the points you ended up raising, is most certainly unhelpful.

We’re not talking about two receivers though are we?  We’re talking about hundreds of thousands or possibly millions of customers.

And no, my definition of feasible is based on technical feasibility.  It would be pretty much the same of anyone claiming satellites don’t exist with a round earth.

I’ll take that as a no then?

This Echostar satellite is apparently 36,000 km in space and geosynchronous with a spinning globe Earth as we are led to believe.

A few questions are in order.

1. What rocket launched this satellite to drop it off at 36,000 km and then also set it in motion to circle a supposed globe Earth to keep exact synchronicity with it?

Echostar XVI
Rocket: Proton-M/Briz-M
Launch Date: 20 November 2012
Location: Baikonur, Kazakhstan





ILS PROTON BREEZE M
SPECIFICATIONS
- Performance Reference: 6.27 metric tons to GTO and 6.47 metric tons to reference SSTO at 1500 m/s delta V
- Typical Mission: Approximately 9 hours utilizing a five-burn Breeze M mission design
- Stages: Three-stage Proton rocket with restartable upper stage
- Structure Type: Monocoque
- Materials: Aluminum and composites
- Propellants: Nitrogen Tetroxide (N2O4); Unsymmetrical DiMethyl Hydrazine (UDMH)
- Gross Liftoff Mass: 705,000 kg (1,554,000 lb)
- Total Length: 58.2 m (191 ft), with standard commercial 4.1 m diameter fairing.

2.
The supposed ISS has to periodically fire thrusters in order to stop being dragged to Earth by supposed gravity.
What does this Echostar use to keep it perfectly geosynchronous?

Does anyone have any ideas?

Speed.

Same as ISS. Speed match to rotation of the earth. Then "Station Keeping" occasionally using orbits.

In astrodynamics, orbital station-keeping is keeping a spacecraft at a fixed distance from another spacecraft or celestial body. It requires a series of orbital maneuvers made with thruster burns to keep the active craft in the same orbit as its target. For many low Earth orbit satellites, the effects of non-Keplerian forces, i.e. the deviations of the gravitational force of the Earth from that of a homogeneous sphere, gravitational forces from Sun/Moon, solar radiation pressure and air drag, must be counteracted.

Synchronous satellites orbit the earth with the same revolution rate as that of the earth. Accordingly the satellite appears above a fixed point on the earth. Hence, synchronous satellites are also referred to as "geostationary" satellites and operate within a "stationary" orbit. Synchronous satellites are useful for many applications including weather and communications applications.

It is generally well known in the art that various forces act on synchronous satellites which act to move the satellite out of stationary orbit. These forces are due to several sources including the gravitational effects of the sun and moon, the elliptical shape of the earth and solar radiation pressure. To counter these forces, synchronous satellites are equipped with propulsion systems that are fired at intervals in order to maintain station at a desired orbit. This requires control of the inclination, eccentricity and drift of the satellite.


Lots and lots of calculations are required:

Quote from: Stash on January 25, 2023, 04:31:18 AM

Quote from: Slime on January 25, 2023, 03:31:54 AM

Yes, you absolutely know more than I do on this subject, but if people want to argue against FE with this then a mere appeal to authority is going to be the opposite of persuasive.

This I don't really get this. All evidence is an appeal to authority on some level or another. Claiming that there is a massive space/satellite conspiracy is appealing to a conjured-up phantom authority that put and keeps the big lie in motion.

I think we're using the term 'appeal to authority' differently. For me, appeal to authority is claiming that a statement is true strictly on the weight of it being said by someone - no justification beyond that, no scientific weight, no evidence. Appealing to a conspiracy isn't saying that it's true because an authority says it, it's more relying on an unfalsifiable explanation.

Agreed, I'm not quite using the standard "appeal to authority" description. Extrapolating it a bit. But in a backward sense, claiming an organization as the string-puller of a conspiracy, that org is an "authority". So by saying NASA is doing all this stuff to perpetuate a lie is placing them into a a position of conspiracy authority. And in doing so without justification beyond that, no scientific weight, no evidence, that is an appeal to an authority.

1. What rocket launched this satellite to drop it off at 36,000 km and then also set it in motion to circle a supposed globe Earth to keep exact synchronicity with it?

It didn't fly up and drop it off at altitude and then accelerate it into a circular motion.
They 2 occur together.
The craft uses its built in thrusters to make the final orbital insertion manouvers.

But you can easily find this from wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EchoStar_XVI

It used a Proton-M rocket and a Briz-M upper stage.

2. The supposed ISS has to periodically fire thrusters in order to stop being dragged to Earth by supposed gravity.
What does this Echostar use to keep it perfectly geosynchronous?

The ISS isn't being dragged to Earth by gravity. Gravity is what causes it to orbit.
Instead it is air resistance is causing its orbit to decay.

The ISS is in a much lower orbit, and contains a structure with lots of solar panels and heat radiators.
So it will suffer a lot more from atmospheric drag.
Echostar 16 uses thrusters to make small orbital correction manoeuvres.
That is primarily what gives geostationary satellites their lifetime.

Then you should openly and honestly be able to answer a simple question..
...
Is the existence of EchoStar 16 a lie?

Answered the last time. Unlike you, I am not engaged in a game of evading every single point put forward to me.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on January 24, 2023, 05:51:08 PM

EchoStar 16 is leased by Dish Network to provide Direct To Home service.

Is it a lie that Dish Network is leasing EchoStar 16 from EchoStar where Echostar 16 is a geostationary satellite 22,000 miles above the equator located at 61.5° west longitude which was built to, and is broadcasting 24/7 programming to the continental USA?

No. That's true.
I hope the next question is going to be why I think that. The justification kinda matters here.

Or, if you need it spelled out: the existence of EchoStar 16 is not a lie.
You are just crap at justifying why.

Been over? You mean the couple of sentences you’ve spent on your “explanation” amidst lots of complaining about other people not showing what you consider evidence.

You’ve not provided enough to even start looking at the feasibility of it. 

You repeatedly said that it’s a “trivial”and “easy” point, but I’ve not seen anything like an augment to back up that claim.

Okay, so a lot of topics are getting conflated here so give me a sec to break down what's happened from my perspective.

1. An argument was put forward to state EchoStar 16 is a satellite in space, and all that was presented was the idea of two people being able to align a dish with said satellite.
2. I pointed out that there was a trivial response to this - this was all I called trivial - being that nothing had been given to show that those two people would actually have been aligning with the same transmitter. If they were pointing at different stratellites (in-atmosphere satellites, just want to avoid repeating 'satellite' in different contexts. These can be towers, balloons, any number of things, equipped with transmitters) then the argument would not follow.
3. Two primary issues have been presented with this.
3A) There would be areas of overlap under this model where two transmitters could be picked up. This feels practically untestable because someone could coherently just say that you are not in an overlap zone if you wiggle your dish and fail to get a second stratellite.
3B) The level of complexity necessary to create a whole web of stratellites is incredible and expensive, and head-tilting as to why they would voluntarily lie like this.

So, to recap, this is in broad strokes where we are. If I missed anything you consider pertinent, let me know.
3A is the approach relevant to where we started - if workable tests can be made that seem to deconfirm the idea, that'd be something. JackBlack gave a good version of the test, albeit by leaving behind dishes:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91397.msg2392947#msg2392947
Narrow beam transmitters might mitigate this, but they bring us to 3B.
Which, this is where we have to start debating FE as an abstract, and this point alone is why I consider this thread to be a poor approach - if the Earth is flat, then no matter how unfeasible you find the explanation, it must be true. The 'debunk' that the thread title refers to would be the other perceived evidence that FEers appeal to. If that holds, then the satellite cannot exist as conventionally believed. Low feasibility is irrelevant if the alternative - orbit around a RE - is viewed as less feasible still.

Quote from: Mikey T. l
[quote author=DataOverFlow2022 link=topic=91397.msg2392940#msg2392940 date=1674611468

EchoStar 16 is leased by Dish Network to provide Direct To Home service.

Is it a lie that Dish Network is leasing EchoStar 16 from EchoStar where Echostar 16 is a geostationary satellite 22,000 miles above the equator located at 61.5° west longitude which was built to, and is broadcasting 24/7 programming to the continental USA?

No. That's true.
I hope the next question is going to be why I think that. The justification kinda matters here.

Definitely wasn’t going to ask why.

The logical extension is if it’s true EchoStar is a satellite 22,000 miles above the earth broadcasting from geosynchronous orbit, then why would I care what individual’s that can’t handle reality care.  And why would I buy into their lies that EchoStar 16 doesn’t exist.

1. An argument was put forward to state EchoStar 16 is a satellite in space, and all that was presented was the idea of two people being able to align a dish with said satellite.

My original post..

Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific satellite, EchoStar 16.


EchoStar 16 was launched into space Nov 20, 2012, from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.

The satellite was built by Space Systems/Loral.

The launch of EchoStar XVI was conducted by International Launch Services, using a Proton-M carrier rocket with a Briz-M upper stage.

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

Here’s the set up.  Myself, and a cousin both served in the Pacific Ocean.

From the middle of the Pacific Ocean, hundreds of miles from any landmass, we both used satellite based email and sat phones to contact home when allowed.

We both have a subscriptions that allows us to view programming broadcasted From EchoStar 16.

  We understand that EchoStar 16 is broadcasting in frequencies that are line of sight transmission. J band (IEEE Ku band)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EchoStar_XVI

One of us lives on Ocean Isle Beach North Carolina.  The other one lives in Port Fourchon Louisiana.

Here is the data to position the satellite dish at each location to receive the broadcast from the geosynchronous satellite Echostar 16.

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






Provide evidence, not speculation, that EchoStar 16 is not in earth’s orbit.

Provide evidence, not speculation, that individuals aiming their dishes at EchoStar 16 are receiving a broadcast from something other than a geostationary satellite.

The opening post lists..

1) The manufacturer of the satellite

2) Where the rocket that carried the satellite was launched from

3) The launch of EchoStar XVI was conducted by International Launch Services,

4) The type of rocket that carried the satellite in orbit.


Now.  Do you have evidence that the satellite wasn’t built, wasn’t launched with a rocket, and didn’t make it to geosynchronous orbit.

Has any evidence been put forward other than an appeal to slander that the satellite wasn’t built, lunched, placed in orbit? 

Moving forward..

5) This Wikipedia article was linked to.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/EchoStar_XVI
Any evidence the article contains errors or lies?

6) Pointed out,   “We understand that EchoStar 16 is broadcasting in frequencies that are line of sight transmission. J band (IEEE Ku band)”

Any evidence that EchoStar 16 broadcasts Dish Network’s programming in any other frequency than line of sight transmissions?

7) Linked to this website. 
https://www.satsig.net/maps/lat-long-finder.htm

A site detailing and providing information on how and where to position your satellite dish which is a directional antenna for your location and desired satellite.

Any evidence the site provides any erroneous information/data, or is lying?  Any evidence that you can point a satellite dish to two or more different points in the sky to get the same programming from EchoStar 16 for example?  Or does all the information correlate to EchoStar 16 being 22,000 miles above the earth in geosynchronous orbit.  Broadcasting by line of sight.

8.) Gave two examples of satellite dish positions that shows they point to the same spot in the sky. 

Why is that a big deal?

Triangulation

Triangulation is the process of determining the location of a radio transmitter by taking readings at multiple locations and plotting the angle to the transmitter using signal strength as a guide. At a given location, the signal is strongest in one direction, allowing you to draw an imaginary line in the direction of that signal. You then move to another location and repeat the process. Where the imaginary lines converge is where the transmitter is located.


https://ourpastimes.com/triangulate-radio-12281635.html

Triangulation of radio broadcasts are very accurate.  If you’re a radio operator in a ground unit in combat, and you use the radio inappropriately.  It reveals you position.  It literally pinpoints your location for something like an artillery unit too target and light up. 

For aircraft or vehicles trying to not be detected by the enemy, radio silence is pretty important.

We are literally posting about an object 22,000 miles above the earth that is made to be found and “listened to” by its constant uninterrupted broadcasting. 

Now.  By EchoStar 16 using line of sight transmission.  When you aim your direction antenna called a dish to where the transmission signal is the strongest, you are literally pointing to the point of origin of the broadcast.

It has absolutely nothing to do with an appeal to authority.  It is a very basic scientific principle.  If you, or a flat earther, don’t understand the reality of this. That’s not my problem.  You trying to make basic scientific principles you can’t change into this false argument about appealing to authority is about your short comings.

Again.  Just because a flat earther doesn’t want to believe in reality.  Not my problem.  Not my place to to hold their hand and be nice while they try to propagandize they’re denying a simple truth.  Not my place to enable a person that can’t handle the reality satellites are in orbit above earth.  Especially, as some point out, some flat earther’s might just be trolls.  Probably shouldn’t waste this much time posting.  The one thing I’ve learned, you can’t fix the delusional, can’t fix trolls.

Quote from: Slime on January 25, 2023, 03:31:54 AM

Quote from: Mikey T. l
[quote author=DataOverFlow2022 link=topic=91397.msg2392940#msg2392940 date=1674611468

EchoStar 16 is leased by Dish Network to provide Direct To Home service.

Is it a lie that Dish Network is leasing EchoStar 16 from EchoStar where Echostar 16 is a geostationary satellite 22,000 miles above the equator located at 61.5° west longitude which was built to, and is broadcasting 24/7 programming to the continental USA?

No. That's true.
I hope the next question is going to be why I think that. The justification kinda matters here.

Definitely wasn’t going to ask why.

The logical extension is if it’s true EchoStar is a satellite 22,000 miles above the earth broadcasting from geosynchronous orbit, then why would I care what individual’s that can’t handle reality care.  And why would I buy into their lies that EchoStar 16 doesn’t exist.

I really suggest you start giving a damn about why.
Do you think the fact I believe something makes it reality? Do you think the fact you believe something makes it reality? Do you think the fact someone says it makes it reality?
Are you just a complete hypocrite who will condemn FEers for thinking something unsupported by evidence, but then not give a damn about the evidence behind your own position?
Or does the why perhaps matter?

Now.  Do you have evidence that the satellite wasn’t built, wasn’t launched with a rocket, and didn’t make it to geosynchronous orbit.

Do you have anything that isn't a circular argument and appeal to emotion?
Multiple other users have at least been able to attempt this. You're still stuck on "I say it, so it's true." I am begging you to stop.

It has absolutely nothing to do with an appeal to authority.  It is a very basic scientific principle.  If you, or a flat earther, don’t understand the reality of this. That’s not my problem.  You trying to make basic scientific principles you can’t change into this false argument about appealing to authority is about your short comings.

Again.  Just because a flat earther doesn’t want to believe in reality.  Not my problem.  Not my place to to hold their hand and be nice while they try to propagandize they’re denying a simple truth.  Not my place to enable a person that can’t handle the reality satellites are in orbit above earth.  Especially, as some point out, some flat earther’s might just be trolls.  Probably shouldn’t waste this much time posting.  The one thing I’ve learned, you can’t fix the delusional, can’t fix trolls.

What makes something a scientific principle? Is it just that someone says it, or is it the fact it is supported by evidence?
The problem is that all you have given is an appeal to authority. Not that science itself is, but that this is all you have actually provided. A whole lot of nothing. When you rest your conclusions on this bedrock, you are saying that evidence is irrelevant to science. Is that what you believe?
I should be able to ask you why you believe each of those points, and you should be able to give me more than "Because it's true!" That is not science. That is the opposite of science. You have to be able to see that by acting like this, you are advocating that RET is not based on evidence. Again, I am begging you to stop this, unless you are actively trying to convince FEers that we're morons.

What you have done is the equivalent of drawing a line in the sand, and declaring that nothing beyond that line is up for discussion, despite the fact every FEer will likely object to some of that content, and then demanded they answer you. All your questions have been answered before, they just rely on fields you have arbitrarily decided are not up for debate.
Again, that is not how science works. An actual scientist could scrap that line, and actually give the reasons underpinning each position that we hold - those conclusions are reached, become principles, because of evidence. You apparently think that's all irrelevant and that those scientists should have just started yelling at people and that would have been a sufficient replacement.
You should be capable of seeing the beliefs you hold that underpin your position, and be able to justify them. If you refuse to do that, or are unable to do that, then you need to take a step back from debate and spend some time actually learning science. Otherwise all you do is argue for a position based on even less justification than FEers, and whether you're right or wrong is just dumb luck.

For an illustration:
Triangulation. I accept this argument because I think two dishes on the ground can be aligned with the same satellite - but I think this because I believe the satellite is actually up there, because I don't see a motive for space agencies to propose such a system only to lie about it. If I lacked that underpinning, I would not inherently believe that two objects on the ground were being aligned with the same source and would need that to be shown to me. If you'd asked after why I thought EchoStar 16 was in orbit, we might've been able to have a discussion, and we could compare preconceptions with FEers and find the precise points of disagreement, and analyse those.
Why you believe things matters. Claiming otherwise is cult behaviour.

I really suggest you start giving a damn about why.

Do you think the fact I believe something makes it reality?

Do you have anything that isn't a circular argument and appeal to emotion?

How is citing sources and pointing out that a position of an object continually broadcasting can be accurately located and pinpointed by the principle of triangulating its broadcast.  And referring to the properties of that broadcast a circular argument?

Something you, or any “flat earth scientist” could do if you wanted to spend the time and money to invest in some basic equipment.

That seems to be the common theme among flat earther’s, leaving the basement to actually do something in the outside and real world.

Things to do for satellite dish adjustment:

Communication satellites are located in the orbit called the Clarke belt (Geostationary orbit).




In order to reach these satellites, three different numerical values ​​are required technically. Dish orientation is made according to the angle values ​​below.

Horizontal rotation angle (AZIMUTH)
Vertical movement angle (ELEVATION)
LNB rotation angle (LNB POLARISATION)

https://illustratordersleri.com/how-to-align-satellite-dish-antenna-using-a-mobile-phone-and-satellite-finder/

Read the rest of the article for your self.  Then please go into great detail “whining” about the article, it having no scientific principles , and is circular logic.

You really don’t get how triangulation works and what makes it accurate.  Funny you can’t even get the concept an E-1 fresh out of boot camp soldier understands out of survival. 

A tool that the individual understands can accurately locate the enemy, to target the enemy. 

Having the location of a radio operator actively broadcasting can be right down deadly for a whole unit.  Is that circular logic?  Void of scientific principles?

Why you believe things matters. Claiming otherwise is cult behaviour.

Reality is reality if you believe in that reality or not…

Believing bullets aren’t a thing doesn’t make one bullet proof.

Anyway

HOW TO SEE AND PHOTOGRAPH GEOSYNCHRONOUS SATELLITES

https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/how-to-see-and-photograph-geosynchronous-satellites/

Having the location of a radio operator actively broadcasting can be right down deadly for a whole unit.  Is that circular logic?  Void of scientific principles?

Yes. Been over this. Triangulation only works as a means to determine distance if you know both people are on the ground are pointing at the same thing.
Some users have attempted to answer this - am reserving judgement until I find out more - but you haven't even tried.
'Citing sources' is meaningless when a) you are not paying the slightest bit of attention to what underpins the information in those sources, b) the very reliability of those sources is under question.

Reality is reality. But how the heck you know reality is something you really ought to be able to respond to without just saying "Oh, but it's reality!" That is not something a scientific person says.
And, again, reminder, the Earth is round, I am not some, FE scientist or anything, you are not making a logical argument. You are asserting a bevy of stuff and kicking up a fuss when askied to justify, and using the strength of your conclusion to bully people into accepting garbage reasoning. To anyone that does not already agree with yoiu, you are emblematic of everything they object to.
Why are you so averse to the fact that science functions based on evidence?

Yes. Been over this. Triangulation only works as a means to determine distance if you know both people are on the ground are pointing at the same thing.

Like why I posted this…

Something you, or any “flat earth scientist” could do if you wanted to spend the time and money to invest in some basic equipment.

Anyway..

Ok.  And fortunately what we have is a list of facts that can be verified.

The position of EchoStar 16 is known, and reported.

It can even be photographed evidently…



https://skyandtelescope.org/observing/how-to-see-and-photograph-geosynchronous-satellites/


Well.  Look at that.  We have the known position of EchoStar 16. With a little effort, the position of the satellite can be found visually.  Especially with using time lapsed photography and seeing the satellite stays relatively fixed in place to the stars around it.  Like it’s matching the rotation of the earth to be geosynchronous? Huh…


(I bet a really good physicist could probably give you a ball part distance based on the published size of the satellite and the magnitude of brightness the satellite shines at night)

Then it’s a simple matter of using the positioning data supplied by various web sites and confirming the data by catching a signal from EchoStar 16 using a directional antenna and tuning gear.  It’s not that hard in the USA to move around from state to state to confirm various points. 

Now back to this..

“Triangulation only works as a means to determine distance if you know both people are on the ground are pointing at the same thing. ”

Because EchoStar 16 uses line of sight transmission, the dish literally points at the point in the sky where EchoStar 16 broadcasts. 

Did your claim the distance can not be figured out?  Is that false? 


So.  One.  If the power of the broadcast transmitter is known.  Then the measured drop in strength of the signal at the dish should allow for a calculation of distance. Give or take 2000 miles?    If not more accurate.  Is that false?  Seems reasonable to me. 


Two.  We don’t have to rely on calculating the distance by signal drop.  You can literally drive  around, and try to position a satellite dish at various spots across the USA seeing if EchoStar 16 is exactly where it is supposed to be.  Try two or three spots, you have your triangulation data. 

And if the readings  are done on a clear night.  With a little effort, you can visually check from each position if EchoStar 16 is exactly where it’s supposed to be. 

am reserving judgement until I find out more

What do you mean “reserve” judgement?

I have referred to sites that help you find satellites to tune in to them.  Help you set up and tune your satellite dish.  Sites that you haven’t provided in proof they are erroneous are purposefully lying


Here we go again..

How to Install a Satellite Dish

https://www.wikihow.com/Install-a-Satellite-Dish

Fortunately, satellites don't move much, so you can use a positioning database to adjust your dish. Use a site like

https://www.dishpointer.com/.[16]

Type in your address and choose a satellite you wish to connect to. The site will give you the precise positioning needed for your dish to receive the signal.

You won't be able to receive a signal from a distant satellite. Don't expect to reach a Chinese satellite if you're in North America, for instance.

All any aspiring “flat earth scientist” has to do is pick two or three spots across the continental USA for EchoStar 16.  The more distance between the spots, the better.  Drive to them, and carry out the instructions “How to Install a Satellite Dish”. Collect the positioning data, and test if the satellite dish points to the corresponding spot in the sky for EchoStar 16.


This might be a friendlier site for this on the go..

DirecTV Slimline Dish Setup



Funny.  It’s like they literally design the satellite so the position of the satellite and its broadcast can be found?  And as you place a satellite dish from place to place, the satellite dish setup changes to point to the same satellite holding its position?  Strange geostationary satellites work exactly as published.  Hmmm..

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on January 26, 2023, 09:35:16 AM

Having the location of a radio operator actively broadcasting can be right down deadly for a whole unit.  Is that circular logic?  Void of scientific principles?

Yes. Been over this. Triangulation only works as a means to determine distance if you know both people are on the ground are pointing at the same thing.

Uhm, wrong.

Triangulation is the process of determining the location of a point by forming triangles to the point from known points.

I expected more from you Slemon.

Quote from: Slime on January 27, 2023, 03:36:08 AM

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on January 26, 2023, 09:35:16 AM

Having the location of a radio operator actively broadcasting can be right down deadly for a whole unit.  Is that circular logic?  Void of scientific principles?

Yes. Been over this. Triangulation only works as a means to determine distance if you know both people are on the ground are pointing at the same thing.

Uhm, wrong.

Triangulation is the process of determining the location of a point by forming triangles to the point from known points.

I expected more from you Slemon.

Slime is still trying to peddle the, "You could be looking at different things" bullshit.  Don't pay him any mind.  He is just trolling, trying to derail discussions.  Done it many times, same M.O. 

Triangulation is the process of determining the location of a point by forming triangles to the point from known points.

I expected more from you Slemon.

Yes, requires you to determine the angle to the same point. Otherwise you end up with a trapezium. Ie: you need both people on the ground to know they're pointing at the same thing. If they aren't, how do you triangulate?

Slime is still trying to peddle the, "You could be looking at different things" bullshit.  Don't pay him any mind.  He is just trolling, trying to derail discussions.  Done it many times, same M.O. 

"She's criticising my argument so she's trolling," is a bad take pretty much every time. This is something that needs to be justified else it is an easy avenue for FEers to reject. Do I think it's likely? Eh, not really, but you still need to acknowledge the option if you want to be seen as anything other than a joke by FEers. The concept of 'Justify your points' should not be controversial.

Well.  Look at that.  We have the known position of EchoStar 16. With a little effort, the position of the satellite can be found visually.  Especially with using time lapsed photography and seeing the satellite stays relatively fixed in place to the stars around it.  Like it’s matching the rotation of the earth to be geosynchronous? Huh…

...Being condescending because it took you this long to try to give something fundamentally necessary to your first post is not a good look.
Better argument, but you'll still get the objection that it could be geostationary while lower down, though observing it from different locations could mitigate that - though, again, trickier to justify.
When your best evidence is "Use data from these websites," you do realise how bad an approach that is to a FEer right? They do not believe the published factsare accurate. Period. Appealing to those facts as evidence is utterly circular.

“Triangulation only works as a means to determine distance if you know both people are on the ground are pointing at the same thing. ”

Because EchoStar 16 uses line of sight transmission, the dish literally points at the point in the sky where EchoStar 16 broadcasts. 

Did your claim the distance can not be figured out?  Is that false? 

Again, it can only be figured out if the two people on the ground are pointing at the same object. That's when you get triangulation. If there are lower-down stratellites and they point to different transmitters, you don't even get a triangle.
You need to understand this. Triangulation is not something that was invented to calculate the distance to satellites or prove they were in space, that's not something anyone beyond this site cares about. It's a cool application to satellites of something that was historically used on the ground. It is not intended to show satellites are in space. You are trying to take a non-proof, because it relies on so many assumptions inherent to RET, and apply it as a proof. You are going to need a heck of a lot more legwork to do that, and kicking up a fuss at the most modest of requests is not a good look.

So.  One.  If the power of the broadcast transmitter is known.  Then the measured drop in strength of the signal at the dish should allow for a calculation of distance. Give or take 2000 miles?    If not more accurate.  Is that false?  Seems reasonable to me. 

Reasonable. Again, 'If the power of the broadcast transmitter is known.' You cannot base an argument against a conspiracy on 'The organisation peddling the conspiracy is giving is accurate information.'

Two.  We don’t have to rely on calculating the distance by signal drop.  You can literally drive  around, and try to position a satellite dish at various spots across the USA seeing if EchoStar 16 is exactly where it is supposed to be.  Try two or three spots, you have your triangulation data. 

And if the readings  are done on a clear night.  With a little effort, you can visually check from each position if EchoStar 16 is exactly where it’s supposed to be. 

Slightly better, but again, if they are pointing at a stratellite, they will a) see something in the sky, b) not have triangulation data because they are not pointing at the same satellite.
Completely ignoring this every single time does not make your argument better.

Slime is still trying to peddle the, "You could be looking at different things" bullshit.  Don't pay him any mind.  He is just trolling, trying to derail discussions.  Done it many times, same M.O.

Agreed, we will see if the individual understands the implications of their own logic.

And this is why ignoring Curiouser's post is not a particularly good response, because you ended up replying to yourself.

A person that can’t even figure out how to follow the numerous online tutorials for setting up, aiming, and tuning a satellite dish even a rural hick can follow deserves to. In their own words, “because you ended up replying to yourself.” 

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on January 27, 2023, 07:23:45 AM

Triangulation is the process of determining the location of a point by forming triangles to the point from known points.

I expected more from you Slemon.

Yes, requires you to determine the angle to the same point. Otherwise you end up with a trapezium. Ie: you need both people on the ground to know they're pointing at the same thing. If they aren't, how do you triangulate?

Stop being purposely obtuse.

Take several (2 is the minimum, 3 or more is preferred) known but different locations and determine the azimuth that the signal is coming from at each location.  Using a map, plot each location and then draw a line from the location that follows that azimuth.  Extend each azimuth line.   If the signal is coming the same source, the lines should all intersect at roughly the same spot.  You can then take any two known points and the intersection of those two lines should form a triangle, which you can than use triangulation to show distance and the specific location. 

This can be done with EchoStar 16. 

Quote from: Slime on January 28, 2023, 02:54:25 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on January 27, 2023, 07:23:45 AM

Triangulation is the process of determining the location of a point by forming triangles to the point from known points.

I expected more from you Slemon.

Yes, requires you to determine the angle to the same point. Otherwise you end up with a trapezium. Ie: you need both people on the ground to know they're pointing at the same thing. If they aren't, how do you triangulate?

Stop being purposely obtuse.

Take several (2 is the minimum, 3 or more is preferred) known but different locations and determine the azimuth that the signal is coming from at each location.  Using a map, plot each location and then draw a line from the location that follows that azimuth.  Extend each azimuth line.   If the signal is coming the same source, the lines should all intersect at roughly the same spot.  You can then take any two known points and the intersection of those two lines should form a triangle, which you can than use triangulation to show distance and the specific location. 

This can be done with EchoStar 16.

Yes. It can. "If the signal is coming the same source." Your words.
Give me evidence that a FEer would actually accept - ie, not appealing to space agencies - to justify that the signals would indeed be coming from the same source.
I am not being obtuse, I understand the argument, but like you say this is a necessary assumption. It makes sense if it is a satellite, but at that point it's not a proof of the satellite, it's the assumption of one. I'm asking why we ought to make the assumption if we are not just assuming the reliability of information concerning satellites, given that is precisely the thing FEers question.

Is the argument more "The lines intersect at all," as opposed to "The lines intercept at a specific point?" That has not been made explicit - I agree in that instance it's a somewhat stronger argument, but you don't run into impossibility, you just hit the feasibility question. It still in no way demonstrates the signals are coming from the same source, just that you'd need a good few stratellites, and you go down the rabbit hole I was talking about before - and, in turn, you could make this argument way stronger by focusing on the fact intersections occur, which clearly has not been what other users were doing.

A person that can’t even figure out how to follow the numerous online tutorials for setting up, aiming, and tuning a satellite dish even a rural hick can follow deserves to. In their own words, “because you ended up replying to yourself.” 

If your argument is "We know satellites are in space because companies are completely honest and transparent about the properties of their satellites," you really need to take a look in a mirror and think about how that comes across to FEers.
You consistently make the absolute worst iterations of the arguments in this thread, and instead bulldoze in to get in the way of the intelligent and competent users. Unless you are legitimately trying to encourage people to become FEers, take a breath, take a look at other posts, try to actually understand the points other people are making, and stop giving the impression that RET is one big appeal to fallacy and authority, as opposed to a scientifically justified viewpoint that can actually answer questions rather than avoid them.
And yes, you ended up replying to yourself. Read the read of the post. You wanted this thread to avoid the conspiracy while talking to about the FE view of space travel. What the heck did you expect?

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on January 28, 2023, 06:17:41 AM

Quote from: Slime on January 28, 2023, 02:54:25 AM

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on January 27, 2023, 07:23:45 AM

Triangulation is the process of determining the location of a point by forming triangles to the point from known points.

I expected more from you Slemon.

Yes, requires you to determine the angle to the same point. Otherwise you end up with a trapezium. Ie: you need both people on the ground to know they're pointing at the same thing. If they aren't, how do you triangulate?

Stop being purposely obtuse.

Take several (2 is the minimum, 3 or more is preferred) known but different locations and determine the azimuth that the signal is coming from at each location.  Using a map, plot each location and then draw a line from the location that follows that azimuth.  Extend each azimuth line.   If the signal is coming the same source, the lines should all intersect at roughly the same spot.  You can then take any two known points and the intersection of those two lines should form a triangle, which you can than use triangulation to show distance and the specific location. 

This can be done with EchoStar 16.

Yes. It can. "If the signal is coming the same source." Your words.
Give me evidence that a FEer would actually accept - ie, not appealing to space agencies - to justify that the signals would indeed be coming from the same source.
I am not being obtuse, I understand the argument, but like you say this is a necessary assumption. It makes sense if it is a satellite, but at that point it's not a proof of the satellite, it's the assumption of one. I'm asking why we ought to make the assumption if we are not just assuming the reliability of information concerning satellites, given that is precisely the thing FEers question.

Is the argument more "The lines intersect at all," as opposed to "The lines intercept at a specific point?" That has not been made explicit - I agree in that instance it's a somewhat stronger argument, but you don't run into impossibility, you just hit the feasibility question. It still in no way demonstrates the signals are coming from the same source, just that you'd need a good few stratellites, and you go down the rabbit hole I was talking about before - and, in turn, you could make this argument way stronger by focusing on the fact intersections occur, which clearly has not been what other users were doing.

Quote from: DataOverFlow2022 on January 28, 2023, 03:04:03 AM

A person that can’t even figure out how to follow the numerous online tutorials for setting up, aiming, and tuning a satellite dish even a rural hick can follow deserves to. In their own words, “because you ended up replying to yourself.” 

If your argument is "We know satellites are in space because companies are completely honest and transparent about the properties of their satellites," you really need to take a look in a mirror and think about how that comes across to FEers.
You consistently make the absolute worst iterations of the arguments in this thread, and instead bulldoze in to get in the way of the intelligent and competent users. Unless you are legitimately trying to encourage people to become FEers, take a breath, take a look at other posts, try to actually understand the points other people are making, and stop giving the impression that RET is one big appeal to fallacy and authority, as opposed to a scientifically justified viewpoint that can actually answer questions rather than avoid them.
And yes, you ended up replying to yourself. Read the read of the post. You wanted this thread to avoid the conspiracy while talking to about the FE view of space travel. What the heck did you expect?

I explained how triangulation works.

Stop twisting words.

Using triangulation you can determine where the source of a signal is coming from.  You continue to use the argument it could be multiple sources.    Show how numerous points that all point to the same location as the source is not a single source, but multiple since that is the claim you keep inferring as the possibility. 

Quote from: Unconvinced on January 25, 2023, 11:35:26 AM

Been over? You mean the couple of sentences you’ve spent on your “explanation” amidst lots of complaining about other people not showing what you consider evidence.

You’ve not provided enough to even start looking at the feasibility of it. 

You repeatedly said that it’s a “trivial”and “easy” point, but I’ve not seen anything like an augment to back up that claim.

Okay, so a lot of topics are getting conflated here so give me a sec to break down what's happened from my perspective.

1. An argument was put forward to state EchoStar 16 is a satellite in space, and all that was presented was the idea of two people being able to align a dish with said satellite.

Nope, not all.  Also presented was a link to a popular satellite finding website, that can be and is used to find the signals from commercial satellites around the world.

There’s nothing special about the two example locations, or the satellite chosen.  Just where Data and Data’s mate happen to live and the signal they receive.  I’d think of it more as two basically random checks that it works.

2. I pointed out that there was a trivial response to this - this was all I called trivial - being that nothing had been given to show that those two people would actually have been aligning with the same transmitter. If they were pointing at different stratellites (in-atmosphere satellites, just want to avoid repeating 'satellite' in different contexts. These can be towers, balloons, any number of things, equipped with transmitters) then the argument would not follow.

It would be a massive coincidence for dishes at these two locations to be pointing at the local transmitters in line with alleged geostationary position.  And that still ignores where all the other users find their signals.  At least without an astronomically absurd amount of fakery going on.

3. Two primary issues have been presented with this.
3A) There would be areas of overlap under this model where two transmitters could be picked up. This feels practically untestable because someone could coherently just say that you are not in an overlap zone if you wiggle your dish and fail to get a second stratellite.
3B) The level of complexity necessary to create a whole web of stratellites is incredible and expensive, and head-tilting as to why they would voluntarily lie like this.

So, to recap, this is in broad strokes where we are. If I missed anything you consider pertinent, let me know.

Yes, you omitted the critical point. That everyone over an area thousands of miles across has to find the signal (and only one signal for each satellite)  to within a degree or so from the listed position.

3A is the approach relevant to where we started - if workable tests can be made that seem to deconfirm the idea, that'd be something. JackBlack gave a good version of the test, albeit by leaving behind dishes:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=91397.msg2392947#msg2392947

Jack’s suggestion is basically the same principle as what I’m saying. Only difference is he proposes a test we all know no one will do.  I’m saying we can reasonably go by the fact that huge numbers of customers who use this service to find the correct signal source would kick up a stink if it didn’t basically work.

Narrow beam transmitters might mitigate this, but they bring us to 3B.
Which, this is where we have to start debating FE as an abstract, and this point alone is why I consider this thread to be a poor approach - if the Earth is flat, then no matter how unfeasible you find the explanation, it must be true. The 'debunk' that the thread title refers to would be the other perceived evidence that FEers appeal to. If that holds, then the satellite cannot exist as conventionally believed. Low feasibility is irrelevant if the alternative - orbit around a RE - is viewed as less feasible still.

Sounds like an extreme case of motivated reasoning to me.

The use of commercial satellite services by the general public is strong evidence that they exist.  Regardless of whether flat earthers like it or not.

I explained how triangulation works.

Stop twisting words.

Using triangulation you can determine where the source of a signal is coming from.  You continue to use the argument it could be multiple sources.    Show how numerous points that all point to the same location as the source is not a single source, but multiple since that is the claim you keep inferring as the possibility.

I am not twisting words. With that context, I think I misread your "if the signals are coming from the same source," as conditional - as if, 'If this was the case then we could do this, but it might not be the case,' as opposed to offering a testable claim - 'If this was the case, then we would expect to see...'
Don't assume malice over misinterpretation, it never makes discussion go well. The issue is most people have made the former claim, hence me tending to see it. (Like, on land, triangulation will be able to show intersection of lines if they're both extended indefinitely so long as both angles are acute, it is typically done with the pre-existing knowledge of the destination being the same, when most people apply triangulation that's what they talk about)
But okay, this then falls into the second case. Multiple points all pointing at the same location only means there's a conspiracy, which isn't news - they could be pointing at a transmitter anywhere along that line. Ergo, lower down transmitter, narrow beam signals, what have you. You run into the same feasibility issue as before. I'd argue it's a thoroughly impractical approach, as would you, and would require a heck of a lot stratellites. But that's when you get to the OP, and the fact the debunk of the RE explanation will be "It's maybe a complex explanation, but it's still more feasible than making a RE work," and you're heading down that rabbithole instead.

Quote

Narrow beam transmitters might mitigate this, but they bring us to 3B.
Which, this is where we have to start debating FE as an abstract, and this point alone is why I consider this thread to be a poor approach - if the Earth is flat, then no matter how unfeasible you find the explanation, it must be true. The 'debunk' that the thread title refers to would be the other perceived evidence that FEers appeal to. If that holds, then the satellite cannot exist as conventionally believed. Low feasibility is irrelevant if the alternative - orbit around a RE - is viewed as less feasible still.

Sounds like an extreme case of motivated reasoning to me.

The use of commercial satellite services by the general public is strong evidence that they exist.  Regardless of whether flat earthers like it or not.

Focusing here as most of your responses argue things with minimal impact on what I'm saying.
See above. The use of commercial satellite services is certainly evidence they exist, but evidence is never going to be conclusive. It could also be construed as evidence for stratellites, you'd just require a heck of a lot more in the way of assumptions. If someone genuinely has knock-dowm evidence that space travel is impossible, which is what FEers often claim, then typical satellites could not be the explanation. It's not motivated reasoning, it's a necessary consequence of the worldview - hence why arguing impossibility is so rarely a good tack. Better to try and compare feasibility claims. Is it more likely that this vast and complex system of stratellites would exist with no hiccups/that the hiccups would be suppressed and not reach mainstream attention/etc, or that space travel indeed is possible and one's objections to it are flawed?

My point has been verified, just a troll.  Intentionally twisting how the signal works to justify a claim of multiple sources when zero evidence has ever been found of that.  Ignoring the people who have had extensive experience in that field trying to explain how your proposals are stupid.  Just another worthless troll.

But okay, this then falls into the second case. Multiple points all pointing at the same location only means there's a conspiracy, which isn't news - they could be pointing at a transmitter anywhere along that line. Ergo, lower down transmitter, narrow beam signals, what have you. You run into the same feasibility issue as before. I'd argue it's a thoroughly impractical approach, as would you, and would require a heck of a lot stratellites. But that's when you get to the OP, and the fact the debunk of the RE explanation will be "It's maybe a complex explanation, but it's still more feasible than making a RE work," and you're heading down that rabbithole instead.

I think one would simply need evidence of a multitude of hovering stationary stratolites to explain how Egyptians in Cairo can watch their favorite sit-coms...

Quote from: Unconvinced on January 28, 2023, 10:58:39 AM

Quote

Narrow beam transmitters might mitigate this, but they bring us to 3B.
Which, this is where we have to start debating FE as an abstract, and this point alone is why I consider this thread to be a poor approach - if the Earth is flat, then no matter how unfeasible you find the explanation, it must be true. The 'debunk' that the thread title refers to would be the other perceived evidence that FEers appeal to. If that holds, then the satellite cannot exist as conventionally believed. Low feasibility is irrelevant if the alternative - orbit around a RE - is viewed as less feasible still.

Sounds like an extreme case of motivated reasoning to me.

The use of commercial satellite services by the general public is strong evidence that they exist.  Regardless of whether flat earthers like it or not.

Focusing here as most of your responses argue things with minimal impact on what I'm saying.

You were just saying I was conflating different things.  Now the distinction only makes a minimal impact?   Make up your mind.

So now we’re back to my point right at the beginning that calling an alternative explanation trivial is absurd.

See above. The use of commercial satellite services is certainly evidence they exist, but evidence is never going to be conclusive. It could also be construed as evidence for stratellites, you'd just require a heck of a lot more in the way of assumptions. If someone genuinely has knock-dowm evidence that space travel is impossible, which is what FEers often claim, then typical satellites could not be the explanation. It's not motivated reasoning, it's a necessary consequence of the worldview - hence why arguing impossibility is so rarely a good tack.

Better to try and compare feasibility claims. Is it more likely that this vast and complex system of stratellites would exist with no hiccups/that the hiccups would be suppressed and not reach mainstream attention/etc, or that space travel indeed is possible and one's objections to it are flawed?

Wow you’re really all over the place.

1.  Drawing conclusions specifically to fit your worldview is the very definition of motivated reasoning.

2.  The argument that for FEers the reason can’t be satellites because they don’t think space travel is real can be applied to just about everything- objects over the horizon, sunsets, time zones, seasons, tides, movement of the stars, eclipses, phases of the moon, gravity, etc, etc. 

There must be other explanations for all these things, because they think the world is flat, right?  And therefore no evidence should be considered other than whatever they think they have that the earth is flat.


3.  While I have not argued impossibility, you literally just did by saying space travel is impossible from a flat earther’s perspective.  Is that a “good tack” in your view?

4.  The feasibility of an alternative system somehow giving the same results has been my point all along.  What did you say about that again?

Which, this is where we have to start debating FE as an abstract, and this point alone is why I consider this thread to be a poor approach - if the Earth is flat, then no matter how unfeasible you find the explanation, it must be true. The 'debunk' that the thread title refers to would be the other perceived evidence that FEers appeal to. If that holds, then the satellite cannot exist as conventionally believed. Low feasibility is irrelevant if the alternative - orbit around a RE - is viewed as less feasible still.

LOL

Can the satellite be seen with a telescope?