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

  • 321 Replies
  • 18171 Views

Again, the 'trivial' was pointing out the incompleteness of the initial argument presented - it is still necessary to show that two people are receiving a signal from the same source in order to make that argument. Like, it just is, the logic does not follow without doing that. This goes a little way to objecting to one of the more common alternatives, but that's not the same statement.
But yes. Takes a lot of effort to fake something. I mean, not trivial to discover such a network and actually know that was what you'd discovered, but sure, no new information there.

And again, the information provided is the listed position of the geostationary satellite and the direction customers need to point their dishes in.  Tens of thousands of people use these numbers to set up their TVs.  Without evidence of those people complaining that the satellite isnít where itís supposed to be, I think we can reasonably assume that the angles are correct.

Of course anyone is free to try it themselves for confirmation.

So it falls on anyone refuting the position of these satellites to either show the signals arenít coming from where everyone else seems to find them, or explain how itís possible by other technology.

You appeared to be having a go at another explanation.  Have you given up?

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
And again, the information provided is the listed position of the geostationary satellite and the direction customers need to point their dishes in.  Tens of thousands of people use these numbers to set up their TVs.  Without evidence of those people complaining that the satellite isnít where itís supposed to be, I think we can reasonably assume that the angles are correct.

Of course anyone is free to try it themselves for confirmation.
When you provide an observation that matches multiple worldviews, you can't use it as evidence for one and not the other.
You can't just say that faking it wouldn't work. You can argue it'd be a heck of an investment or very complicated - you can even propose individual oddities, but there's a difference between "The satellite isn't where it's supposed to be," (which was never even your response, really kinda silly to bring that in) and "There's another satellite where it's not supposed to be." If you get the latter, you're more likely to conclude that you messed up measuring the angle - and honestly, even granting this, one could concede it and say it could happen. You're proposing something that is functionally untestable because you'd never be able to identify the specific places, and claiming it doesn't happen just because you don't believe it does.

Not every argument with a correct conclusion has accurate premises.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
I don't have to debunk the existence of EchoSat 16. Only that it is where they say it is.


When you provide an observation that matches multiple worldviews,

EchoStar 16 makes sense and has evidence of existing in geosynchronous orbit in space above a spherical earth where it is actively broadcasting and detected with directional antennaís call satellite dishes literally pointing to the spot and the existence of EchoStar 16 using tuners built for specific directional line of sight J band (IEEE Ku band) broadcasting.  With a complete spectrum of infrastructure to design, build, launch, monitor, use EchoStar 16. Itís existence not being dependent on NASA, thus bypassing the whole NASA lie thing.  Where satellites are tracked by radar and visibly.  In a reality where you can watch the international space station and starlink satellites travel overhead, and changing the night sky.

Quote


An astronomical image marred by trails caused by satellites of SpaceX's Starlink megaconstellation. (Image credit: Victoria Girgis/Lowell Observatory)


In comparison.  That EchoStar 16 is part of a NASA lie.  And EchoStar 16 is supposedly broadcasting because of a network of floating platforms that has no visual evidence of existing, no evidence of multiple platforms broadcasting over a large area to replicate the broadcasting footprint with receivers that would have to tune into the directional line of sight frequencies covered by J band (IEEE Ku band) broadcasting.  Active constant broadcasting that should make each platform easy to triangulate its position and altitude. With no evidence that a vast industry of turning out, launching, maintaining, fueling, recovered crashed platforms to replicate every broadcast of weather satellites, satellite phone satellite, GPS satellites, internet satellites, earth surveillance satellites.  All in what would have to be a small part of the larger effort to hide the fact the delusion belief the earth is flat. That people willfully lie and hide the earth isnít spherical. With no explanation for the visibility of the international space station, starlink satellites, and satellites causing light pollution and changing the night sky. All in a model where flat earth ďscientistsĒ cannot come up with a consensus on the size of the earth, a map of flat earth accurate for the reality of navigating the earth, why there is night and day, seasons, the size of the sun and distance to the sun.

*

Alexei

  • レクシー
  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 3128
  • Over it.
According to my grandfather (who is a retired scientist), a satelite "floats" in the same place over time due to moving as fast as Earth's rotation so it stays in the same place.
I'll ask him what he thinks if you'd like.


When you provide an observation that matches multiple worldviews, you can't use it as evidence for one and not the other.

The observations fit perfectly with one ďworldviewĒ.  The other is literally just ďNASA lies and balloons, maybe?Ē

Personally I think anyone curious about flat earther claims deserve a proper explanation for such things, but you seem to be defending the idea that conspiracy theories and half arsed excuses are good enough.

Quote
You can't just say that faking it wouldn't work. You can argue it'd be a heck of an investment or very complicated - you can even propose individual odditiesÖ

Thatís right, itís up to those making the claim that satellites donít exist to show how it could  work.  I can point out problems I see with any such explanation though.  eg your narrow beam idea.

Quote
but there's a difference between "The satellite isn't where it's supposed to be," (which was never even your response, really kinda silly to bring that in) and "There's another satellite where it's not supposed to be." If you get the latter, you're more likely to conclude that you messed up measuring the angle - and honestly, even granting this, one could concede it and say it could happen.

I donít get your point.  Itís silly of me to bring in something that I didnít say earlier?  What does this mean?

Quote
You're proposing something that is functionally untestable because you'd never be able to identify the specific places, and claiming it doesn't happen just because you don't believe it does.

I propose nothing, except that flat earthers think about how their wild ideas can explain everyday things.  Satellite TV has been around for decades, it works.

If itís not satellites, then how does it work?  In detail.

Quote
Not every argument with a correct conclusion has accurate premises.

You seem keen on telling people how they should be making their case, as per your initial reply.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Personally I think anyone curious about flat earther claims deserve a proper explanation for such things, but you seem to be defending the idea that conspiracy theories and half arsed excuses are good enough.
Which gets to:
Quote
You seem keen on telling people how they should be making their case, as per your initial reply.
Logic isn't optional, poor logic gets pointed out. There are specific claims at play here. The idea that satellites are impossible under FET is refuted by possibility - this is a different topic to 'Why should I accept the FE explanation?' and dancing between the two is not helping anyone, because there is no way that the answer to one will answer the other. The FE explanations offer possibility - unlikely possibility, sure, there's a lot of weird stuff to work with, and some assumptions you have to make, but your objections have been untestable or non sequiturs.
This is not a strong statement. The number of things that can actually, categorically be disproven practically speaking is not really all that great, you can always take a step back and tweak and find some at least possible approach. Maybe not in as much detail, sure, a conspiracy is involved. Arguing against FET by asking for the blueprints of a conspiracy is not a good approach.

Where this thread started, and the point you keep backing up to, is the more interesting question - why accept the FE answer?
And the answer is, well, nothing to do with satellites. No one goes "Hm, the satellites must be balloons or stratellites, therefore the world is flat." They go from the Earth's shape, or moon landing doubts, or whatever, and the dubiousness of satellites does not follow from the properties of a satellite, it comes from general distrust of the space industry as a whole. You have to engage with it on that front. Anything else is actively missing the point, and to a FEer is going to come off as straw manning because it is doing the utmost to put their actual response off the table for no reason except personal distaste.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!


 There are specific claims at play here. The idea that satellites are impossible under FET

Quote and cite where anyone posted ďsatellitesĒ are impossible in the flat earth model? 

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Where this thread started, and the point you keep backing up to, is the more interesting question - why accept the FE answer?
And the answer is, well, nothing to do with satellites. No one goes "Hm, the satellites must be balloons or stratellites, therefore the world is flat." They go from the Earth's shape, or moon landing doubts, or whatever, and the dubiousness of satellites does not follow from the properties of a satellite, it comes from general distrust of the space industry as a whole. You have to engage with it on that front. Anything else is actively missing the point, and to a FEer is going to come off as straw manning because it is doing the utmost to put their actual response off the table for no reason except personal distaste.

Yeah, I would agree that a lot comes from the distrust of the space agencies of the world, predominantly NASA. However, it also works the other way around.

Some FErs go from flat earth to space is impossible, or doesn't exist, etc., you know, domers/firmament folks, so by proxy, a distrust in space agencies and their endeavors. Furthering the by proxy distrust is that, especially for the pre-Apollo FEr's, orbiting Sputnik, et al, and any images from space that would show the earth a globe, must be faked. Otherwise, FE would be wrong. Therefore, all space endeavors must be fake. They literally have to be.

And, of course, you have FEr's prior to the space age with no agencies to have distrust in yet.

So no, it doesn't all come from a general distrust of the space industry as a whole. FE = Zero Space Endeavors are real, period.

And then you get their ultimate default, going back to the domers, space just doesn't exist.

...because you first have to prove that 'space' exists, and nobody has ever done THAT yet.

Nobody CAN, or ever WILL, because it is entrirely made up, to start with...It's nonsense to argue about what IS or ISN'T in 'space', when 'space' doesn't exist, or have any PROOF of existing at all! 

So, in light of that hammer being slammed down, the only thing left is to start to pick out spacey things individually and show how they exist, work, etc., ex., satellites. Because there's no real argument against space not existing as a whole other than the things we put up there.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Quote and cite where anyone posted ďsatellitesĒ are impossible in the flat earth model?
Satellites, defined within the context of this thread as objects in space - if they were lower down, they'd fill the role of the replacements you object to - require space travel. That's very consistently something FEers object to - whether it's the "Movement in vacuum is impossible," "Dome gets in the way," "Forces will tear an object apart," etc. Stash had a good breakdown:

Yeah, I would agree that a lot comes from the distrust of the space agencies of the world, predominantly NASA. However, it also works the other way around.

Some FErs go from flat earth to space is impossible, or doesn't exist, etc., you know, domers/firmament folks, so by proxy, a distrust in space agencies and their endeavors. Furthering the by proxy distrust is that, especially for the pre-Apollo FEr's, orbiting Sputnik, et al, and any images from space that would show the earth a globe, must be faked. Otherwise, FE would be wrong. Therefore, all space endeavors must be fake. They literally have to be.

And, of course, you have FEr's prior to the space age with no agencies to have distrust in yet.

So no, it doesn't all come from a general distrust of the space industry as a whole. FE = Zero Space Endeavors are real, period.

And then you get their ultimate default, going back to the domers, space just doesn't exist.

...because you first have to prove that 'space' exists, and nobody has ever done THAT yet.

Nobody CAN, or ever WILL, because it is entrirely made up, to start with...It's nonsense to argue about what IS or ISN'T in 'space', when 'space' doesn't exist, or have any PROOF of existing at all! 

So, in light of that hammer being slammed down, the only thing left is to start to pick out spacey things individually and show how they exist, work, etc., ex., satellites. Because there's no real argument against space not existing as a whole other than the things we put up there.
Generally agreed - I probably oversimplified, but I think it's fair to say that a disbelief in space travel doesn't imply a belief in a FE, while a belief in a FE very much implies disbelief in space travel. If someone thinks the world is flat, they have that whole bevy of evidence they perceive as supporting that, thus distrust of claims that appear to contradict that.
So trying to argue for individual things as being in space, I get that as an argument, but like you say the hammer gets slammed down - by default, they'd go for the explanations that don't require space travel, because independent of likelihood they take those options to at least be possible. I think you can do a lot in regards to finding the necessary extent of the conspiracy, but yeah space travel centric arguments have a lot of hurdles to jump over if they're meant to do more than that.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Yeah, I would agree that a lot comes from the distrust of the space agencies of the world, predominantly NASA. However, it also works the other way around.

Some FErs go from flat earth to space is impossible, or doesn't exist, etc., you know, domers/firmament folks, so by proxy, a distrust in space agencies and their endeavors. Furthering the by proxy distrust is that, especially for the pre-Apollo FEr's, orbiting Sputnik, et al, and any images from space that would show the earth a globe, must be faked. Otherwise, FE would be wrong. Therefore, all space endeavors must be fake. They literally have to be.

And, of course, you have FEr's prior to the space age with no agencies to have distrust in yet.

So no, it doesn't all come from a general distrust of the space industry as a whole. FE = Zero Space Endeavors are real, period.

And then you get their ultimate default, going back to the domers, space just doesn't exist.

...because you first have to prove that 'space' exists, and nobody has ever done THAT yet.

Nobody CAN, or ever WILL, because it is entrirely made up, to start with...It's nonsense to argue about what IS or ISN'T in 'space', when 'space' doesn't exist, or have any PROOF of existing at all! 

So, in light of that hammer being slammed down, the only thing left is to start to pick out spacey things individually and show how they exist, work, etc., ex., satellites. Because there's no real argument against space not existing as a whole other than the things we put up there.
Generally agreed - I probably oversimplified, but I think it's fair to say that a disbelief in space travel doesn't imply a belief in a FE, while a belief in a FE very much implies disbelief in space travel. If someone thinks the world is flat, they have that whole bevy of evidence they perceive as supporting that, thus distrust of claims that appear to contradict that.
So trying to argue for individual things as being in space, I get that as an argument, but like you say the hammer gets slammed down - by default, they'd go for the explanations that don't require space travel, because independent of likelihood they take those options to at least be possible. I think you can do a lot in regards to finding the necessary extent of the conspiracy, but yeah space travel centric arguments have a lot of hurdles to jump over if they're meant to do more than that.

Agreed.



but yeah space travel centric arguments have a lot of hurdles to jump over if they're meant to do more than that.

And.  Again.  Having “faith” bullets aren’t a thing doesn’t make a person bulletproof.


It’s not my problem if somebody can’t accept demonstrable reality.  Especially if they can’t come up with an alternative explanation that has more proof, and provides better “results”.

The reality is EchoStar 16 is a geosynchronous satellite broadcasting with a collection of satellite dishes subscribing to its services, aimed at its one position in the sky.  Literally triangulating its position.  With no evidence something else is creating the broadcasts. 


*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
And.  Again.  Having ďfaithĒ bullets arenít a thing doesnít make a person bulletproof.


Itís not my problem if somebody canít accept demonstrable reality.  Especially if they canít come up with an alternative explanation that has more proof, and provides better ďresultsĒ.

The reality is EchoStar 16 is a geosynchronous satellite broadcasting with a collection of satellite dishes subscribing to its services, aimed at its one position in the sky.  Literally triangulating its position.  With no evidence something else is creating the broadcasts.
Ditto, 'Demonstrable reality' is not reality just because you can assert it. If you are unwilling to put the legwork in to show that demonstration with more than "I'm right and you're wrong," as a basis, make a different argument.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

Quote and cite where anyone posted ďsatellitesĒ are impossible in the flat earth model?
Satellites, defined within the context of this thread as objects in space - if they were lower down, they'd fill the role of the replacements you object to - require space travel. That's very consistently something FEers object to - whether it's the "Movement in vacuum is impossible," "Dome gets in the way," "Forces will tear an object apart," etc. Stash had a good breakdown:


Pretty much. And it's like you say "if they were lower down, they'd fill the role of the replacements." I don't object to atmospheric satellites , though I do think just as often, celltowers just ping out a direct signal when a long distance signal is not needed. For example GPS just requires you to be near three celltowers, and it used the phone as the fourth locator. Of course, making an RPG, it was actually even more simple, Map ID, Map X, Map Y. As for sending signals across the world, there's no model of satellite deflection that requires a distant range to deflect.



Ditto, 'Demonstrable reality' is not reality just because you can assert it. If you are unwilling to put the legwork in to show that demonstration with more than "I'm right and you're wrong," as a basis, make a different argument.


Iím not asserting anything.  Iím pointing to a real world situation. The fact that satellite dishes triangulate the position of EchoStar 16.  The fact that published data shows how to aim and tune into the location that EchoStar 16 is in geosynchronous orbit to catch its broadcasts.   


Quote and cite where anyone posted ďsatellitesĒ are impossible in the flat earth model?
Satellites, defined within the context of this thread as objects in space - if they were lower down, they'd fill the role of the replacements you object to - require space travel. That's very consistently something FEers object to - whether it's the "Movement in vacuum is impossible," "Dome gets in the way," "Forces will tear an object apart," etc. Stash had a good breakdown:


Pretty much. And it's like you say "if they were lower down, they'd fill the role of the replacements." I don't object to atmospheric satellites , though I do think just as often, celltowers just ping out a direct signal when a long distance signal is not needed. For example GPS just requires you to be near three celltowers, and it used the phone as the fourth locator. Of course, making an RPG, it was actually even more simple, Map ID, Map X, Map Y. As for sending signals across the world, there's no model of satellite deflection that requires a distant range to deflect.


I never asked you to believe.  The whole point of the thread is in the opening postÖ

Provide evidence, not speculation, that EchoStar 16 is not in earthís orbit.

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


You have failed on both accounts.

While the way to aim a satellite dish to tune into the line of sight broadcast from EchoStar 16 points to itís location.  To its literal existence.

I provided the information from two locations on how to correctly aim satellite dishes at those spots to align them to tune into EchoStar 16.  I can provide more data if you like.

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







Can you show that this data is wrong.   Can you prove the signal from EchoStar 16 is something other than coming from a single point in geosynchronous orbit? 

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Iím not asserting anything.  Iím pointing to a real world situation. The fact that satellite dishes triangulate the position of EchoStar 16.  The fact that published data shows how to aim and tune into the location that EchoStar 16 is in geosynchronous orbit to catch its broadcasts.
Please tell me you can recognise the implications you are drawing that don't follow under FET.
Dishes can only triangulate the position of the satellite if you show they are pointing at the same object. No FEer will deny that said data is published - but it does not immediately follow that it accurately reflects what they acually do. You are asserting a lot. Actual science is not done by claiming what you want to be the case, it is done by actively trying to look for the weaknesses in your position, and testing. You haven't even tried. When asked for how you justify your statements, repeating your claims and handwaving "It's reality!" is dumb. We know it is a reality for a reason. Assertion is no replacement.
If you do not want to back up your argument, don't make it. It's that simple. You are basing this in your pre-existing belief in RET - that's great, again, we're on the same page, but if you do that in conversation with a FEer you just come off as uninformed and closed-minded.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!


Please tell me you can recognise the implications you are drawing that don't follow under FET.

That EchoStar is located 22,000 miles above the earths equator in a stationary position relative to the ground.  An altitude that puts it beyond the altitude of the sun to earthís surface in the majority of the flat earth models.  The sun is never between the earth and the Satellite.

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. 
« Last Edit: January 24, 2023, 07:21:31 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

Logic isn't optional, poor logic gets pointed out.

Ha. I only chimed in here because apparently you couldnít follow the logic of the original question.

Quote
There are specific claims at play here. The idea that satellites are impossible under FET is refuted by possibility

That is not claimed.  The claim is that satellite TV customers point their dishes at specific points in the sky to receive the required signal.  An example of one identifiable signal was given that corresponds to a location in geostationary orbit.

The specific FEer claim, of course is that satellites are fake.

The question is how could that be possible on an allegedly flat earth where apparently satellites donít exist?

Quote
- this is a different topic to 'Why should I accept the FE explanation?'

Also not anything Iíve said.

Quote
and dancing between the two is not helping anyone, because there is no way that the answer to one will answer the other.

The only dancing Iíve seen is yours. Dancing between the question being unhelpful, the FE explanation being trivial, the question being trivialÖ

Quote
The FE explanations offer possibility - unlikely possibility, sure, there's a lot of weird stuff to work with, and some assumptions you have to make, but your objections have been untestable or non sequiturs.

We can test that the signal comes from where itís supposed to.  We even donít really need to, because huge numbers of people actually point their dishes that way to watch TV.  FE explanations amount to ďsatellites are fake, maybe balloons or somethingĒ.  That is untestable, but we can ask for a feasible explanation.

Quote
This is not a strong statement. The number of things that can actually, categorically be disproven practically speaking is not really all that great, you can always take a step back and tweak and find some at least possible approach. Maybe not in as much detail, sure, a conspiracy is involved. Arguing against FET by asking for the blueprints of a conspiracy is not a good approach.


Iím asking for a reasonable FE explanation for how satellite TV could work without satellites.  In a way that explains the direction people point their dishes.  Itís a simple request.

Quote
Where this thread started, and the point you keep backing up to, is the more interesting question - why accept the FE answer?

No, thatís not where this thread started.  It started with an example of a specific satellite, and you complained that it was a pointless question, because FEers donít care about specific satellites.

Quote
And the answer is, well, nothing to do with satellites. No one goes "Hm, the satellites must be balloons or stratellites, therefore the world is flat." They go from the Earth's shape, or moon landing doubts, or whatever, and the dubiousness of satellites does not follow from the properties of a satellite, it comes from general distrust of the space industry as a whole.

Of course they donít. But satellite TV exists and itís accessible by the general public, which leads to awkward questions for flat earthers. 

Youíre now saying that this topic about a specific satellite is ďnothing to do with satellitesĒ?  What was that about poor logic again?

Quote
You have to engage with it on that front. Anything else is actively missing the point, and to a FEer is going to come off as straw manning because it is doing the utmost to put their actual response off the table for no reason except personal distaste.

No, I donít.  Iím under no obligation to only ask things on FEers terms.  Iíd prefer to ask challenging questions. 

Perhaps itís you thatís actively missing my point?

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
That EchoStar is located 22,000 miles above the earths equator in a stationary position relative to the ground.  An altitude that puts it beyond the altitude of the sun to earthís surface in the majority of the flat earth models.  The sun is never between the earth and the Satellite.

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.
Cool. And if you could give the evidence of that in a way that didn't rely on a basis that FEers will object to, you would have a point. Otherwise you're just asserting. Ignoring my posts won't make them go away.


No, I donít.  Iím under no obligation to only ask things on FEers terms.  Iíd prefer to ask challenging questions. 

Perhaps itís you thatís actively missing my point?
Perhaps. This is why I try to address more than one reading of your posts. Taking sentences out of context to argue against them is a dumb tactic because posts function as a unit. What I expressed may not be the arguments you wanted to make, but they are the arguments you need to make if your conclusions are to have any meaning.

If your claim is that satellites cannot work under FET (I am aware you said this was not what you sought to prove, rather than pluck a sentence out of context try engaging with the actual content of my post), then you need to provide actual evidence against the possibility. Your attempt to do this is 'satellite dishes get a signal from anywhere along one particular line.' We have already been through this, and apparently you now think the further details you had to provide are irrelevant to the point. But, again, if we take this argument in the strongest form that you previously supplied, you could not remove the possibility of FET, you merely demonstrated that it is complicated and unlikely. Ergo, your claim cannot be straightforward impossibility - this is fine, basically nothing can conclusively be shown to be impossible. FE explanations have been proposed. Flawed ones? Sure, but all that's been established so far is possibility, however remote.
Then we are left with your claim as it being unreasonable to think satellites function under FET. That's an interesting claim. However, this is where the irrelevancy enters into it - satellite dishes exist, no FEer denies that. If the world is flat, then satellites must co-exist with FET. That's necessarily true. The question then becomes if the world is flat, and that's where you get onto the actual comparison here - is the unlikelihood of the FE explanation of satellites more compelling than the perceived likelihood of a flat Earth? That is, the justification for the FE position on satellites can ultimately be rooted in the arguments for the Earth being flat. This is inescapably logical. If the world is flat, then the FE explanations for what we observe must be sufficient.
This is why I point out the "Satellites are impossible," as a necessary argument for you to make - you are attacking a branch as thought it is a trunk.

To reiterate: "The question is how could that be possible on an allegedly flat earth where apparently satellites donít exist?"
Answered. The answer is one you and I both do not accept as sufficient or reflective of reality, but the reasons for that are rooted in the fact that neither of us are flat earthers. If we became convinced that the weight of evidence supported a flat Earth, then necessarily it would follow that we would have to accept their explanation for satellites because those observations would happen on a flat earth.
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.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!


No, I donít.  Iím under no obligation to only ask things on FEers terms.  Iíd prefer to ask challenging questions. 

Perhaps itís you thatís actively missing my point?
Perhaps. This is why I try to address more than one reading of your posts. Taking sentences out of context to argue against them is a dumb tactic because posts function as a unit. What I expressed may not be the arguments you wanted to make, but they are the arguments you need to make if your conclusions are to have any meaning.

If your claim is that satellites cannot work under FET (I am aware you said this was not what you sought to prove, rather than pluck a sentence out of context try engaging with the actual content of my post), then you need to provide actual evidence against the possibility. Your attempt to do this is 'satellite dishes get a signal from anywhere along one particular line.' We have already been through this, and apparently you now think the further details you had to provide are irrelevant to the point. But, again, if we take this argument in the strongest form that you previously supplied, you could not remove the possibility of FET, you merely demonstrated that it is complicated and unlikely. Ergo, your claim cannot be straightforward impossibility - this is fine, basically nothing can conclusively be shown to be impossible. FE explanations have been proposed. Flawed ones? Sure, but all that's been established so far is possibility, however remote.
Then we are left with your claim as it being unreasonable to think satellites function under FET. That's an interesting claim. However, this is where the irrelevancy enters into it - satellite dishes exist, no FEer denies that. If the world is flat, then satellites must co-exist with FET. That's necessarily true. The question then becomes if the world is flat, and that's where you get onto the actual comparison here - is the unlikelihood of the FE explanation of satellites more compelling than the perceived likelihood of a flat Earth? That is, the justification for the FE position on satellites can ultimately be rooted in the arguments for the Earth being flat. This is inescapably logical. If the world is flat, then the FE explanations for what we observe must be sufficient.
This is why I point out the "Satellites are impossible," as a necessary argument for you to make - you are attacking a branch as thought it is a trunk.

To reiterate: "The question is how could that be possible on an allegedly flat earth where apparently satellites donít exist?"
Answered. The answer is one you and I both do not accept as sufficient or reflective of reality, but the reasons for that are rooted in the fact that neither of us are flat earthers. If we became convinced that the weight of evidence supported a flat Earth, then necessarily it would follow that we would have to accept their explanation for satellites because those observations would happen on a flat earth.
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.

Thatís 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?

Itís fine if you donít, but I remind you again that I only got into this because you apparently couldnít see how the original post was ďhelpfulĒ in focusing on a specific satellite.

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


Cool. And if you could give the evidence of that in a way that didn't rely on a basis that FEers will object to, you would have a point.



Really donít care about people that have a faith system based on mythology.


Itís well documented on scientific facts and principals how and why to aim a satellite dish to catch the broadcast from EchoStar 16.  The principles of line of sight communication and triangulation by satellite dishes pointing to the spot EchoStar 16 is in geosynchronous orbit. Dishes literally pointing to the origin of EchoStar 16ís broadcast and existence.  With no other reports and evidence a satellite dish can be pointed in another spot other than that correlates to 22,000 miles above the equator at a longitude of 61.5į West to get a broadcast attributed to EchoStar 16. 

Something carried out by thousands of Dish users. 

Do you have any evidence other than slander the satellite provider is lying about the location of EchoStar 16, the everyday subscriber, the guides that address how to aim a satellite dish, the websites that give the data to aim a satellite dish for EchoStar 16, and the manufacturers of electrical equipment that aid in determining signal strength.

Because if one canít produce credible evidence, and it comes down to bases claims they lie.  Thatís slander.  And that seems what the FE argument always ends up being.  Baseless claims ďtheyĒlied.

I know that response is not going to make you happy.   But what am I supposed to post when you or a flat earther canít provide any evidence than slander?  I am very ok with questioning.  But there has been no effort to show the signal from EchoStar 16 comes from someplace other than its reported location.  I understand alternate possibilities have been given.  But the way to point and aim a satellite dish to tune in EchoStar 16 shows exactly the spot EchoStar 16 is broadcasting from.  There is no evidence you can point a line of sight antenna to anything other than the reported spot of EchoStar 16 to receive broadcasts from Echostar 16.  There are no reports, sightings, evidence of additional infrastructure that are mimicking/emulating the broadcasts of EchoStar 16 from its geosynchronous orbit.

The broadcasts attribute to Echostar 16 are being transmitted as published.  If not, there would be a legitimate case for consumer complaints.  And there would be lots of pissed off customers if EchoStart 16 wasnít providing programming to the continental USA as promised/advertised. 

I get what youíre trying to push.  And where I agree itís good to question.  But itís sad to see arguments by flat Estherís are at times right out slander.  And nothing more than slander. 


Adding example

FromÖ Is Qantas killing the passangers?




Where are there a million passangers? Simple answer that query.

You have not evidence about their returning. Just numbers.

There is a claim, a query, true? In ordinary conditions Qantas has to provide the name of list of passangers, then has to prove they have aliving.

In our country, when a claim arises, even by internet, our internet detectives detect it and a prosecutor starts an investigation without any appealing, automatically. We are talking about a country that are blamed by others have not enough human rights. But our public prosecutors start instantly when a serious claim arrive them.

But Australia is different, true? for some reason, no prosecutor sees this as a serious claim. or in Australia the system does not work this way. Somehow, there is something missing in Australia. I had previously claimed a lot about chemtrails, but no investigation was initiated.

As far as I see, there is no public prosecutor in Australia who respect human life.


Add to the example

This is a thought. I wonder what happens people boarding Qantas Sydney-Santiago flights.

Maybe Qantas taking money from both NASA for deceive world and from Australia government for reducing number of homeless people. This may be a great monetization method. This meanwhile destroys flat earthers who want to try existance of this route.

win-win-win strategy. minimum fuel maximal gain. As a Qantas pilot, All you have to do is go and back from Antarctica and say, "I went and came back from Santiago."



« Last Edit: January 24, 2023, 12:00:33 PM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

JackBlack

  • 22457
Pretty much. And it's like you say "if they were lower down, they'd fill the role of the replacements." I don't object to atmospheric satellites
Which means they wouldn't be in the same location, and by determining the direction to it from multiple locations you can determine where it is, so you should be able to show it is lower down.

For example GPS just requires you to be near three celltowers
No it doesn't.
It even works in the middle of an ocean with no cell towers near by.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Thatís 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.

Quote
Itís fine if you donít, but I remind you again that I only got into this because you apparently couldnít see how the original post was ďhelpfulĒ 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.



I get what youíre trying to push.  And where I agree itís good to question.  But itís sad to see arguments by flat Estherís are at times right out slander.  And nothing more than slander. 
And appeals to emotion are a tactic of conmen. Is that really the ideal you want to push?
You've gone from circular reasoning, to another fallacy. Consider that maybe, rather than these shallow takes, it would be better to spend your time and energy on a different approach.
This is why Curiouser's first post was a really good one, that shouldn't have been brushed aside. What you call slander, FEers call factual - those two positions aren't equally relevant, but sorting between them isn't as simple as going 'I think that's slander.' You are very good at repeating what you think. The problem is that preconceptions are basically the lens through which we view the world - if you are not willing to engage with what stands behind your preconceptions, you're just asserting that you're right and they're wrong.
It isn't about questioning, it's about basic communication.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Pretty much. And it's like you say "if they were lower down, they'd fill the role of the replacements." I don't object to atmospheric satellites
Which means they wouldn't be in the same location, and by determining the direction to it from multiple locations you can determine where it is, so you should be able to show it is lower down.
I don't know if this is necessarily a good line of argumentation. Like, maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if we're looking at it from a perspective where there are lies at play, how could you determine the direction from multiple locations? That seems to imply you know that each receiver is receiving a signal from the same source - that feels like something that could easily be disguised. Two dishes supposedly pointing at the same satellite, are actually pointing at two different, lower transmitters etc.
Like, maybe there is an answer, I just haven't seen anyone explain how we can know that they're pointing at the same satellite unless we just take the agencies under question at their word.
We all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!

*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8548
  • Flat like a droplet of water.
Pretty much. And it's like you say "if they were lower down, they'd fill the role of the replacements." I don't object to atmospheric satellites
Which means they wouldn't be in the same location, and by determining the direction to it from multiple locations you can determine where it is, so you should be able to show it is lower down.
I don't know if this is necessarily a good line of argumentation. Like, maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if we're looking at it from a perspective where there are lies at play, how could you determine the direction from multiple locations? That seems to imply you know that each receiver is receiving a signal from the same source - that feels like something that could easily be disguised. Two dishes supposedly pointing at the same satellite, are actually pointing at two different, lower transmitters etc.
Like, maybe there is an answer, I just haven't seen anyone explain how we can know that they're pointing at the same satellite unless we just take the agencies under question at their word.

Signal Triangulation
Rabinoz RIP

That would put you in the same category as pedophile perverts like John Davis, NSS, robots like Stash, Shifter, and victimized kids like Alexey.



And appeals to emotion are a tactic of conmen. Is that really the ideal you want to push?



Its actually very simple.


Quote
EchoStar-16 is a Direct Broadcast Service (DBS) commercial communication satellite manufactured by Space Systems Loral of Palo

https://spaceflight101.com/spacecraft/echostar-16/

Quote
The spacecraft will be permanently leased to the DISH Network as part of its Direct-To-Home DTH services in the US.

https://spaceflight101.com/spacecraft/echostar-16/

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 61.5į west longitude which was built to, and is broadcasting 24/7 programming to the continental USA?






*

JackBlack

  • 22457
I don't know if this is necessarily a good line of argumentation. Like, maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if we're looking at it from a perspective where there are lies at play, how could you determine the direction from multiple locations? That seems to imply you know that each receiver is receiving a signal from the same source - that feels like something that could easily be disguised. Two dishes supposedly pointing at the same satellite, are actually pointing at two different, lower transmitters etc.
Like, maybe there is an answer, I just haven't seen anyone explain how we can know that they're pointing at the same satellite unless we just take the agencies under question at their word.
That was explained more in my previous post.
Get a dish and find the source of the signal. Then move, and track how the apparent direction to it changes as you move.

Try driving across a continent while it is being tracked.

If it is a single transmitter, then you should be able to maintain signal for the entire trip.
If it is multiple transmitters, then at some point you should lose the signal and have to move to a different one.
For this transition there will either be a period with no signal, or a period with multiple signals.
Then the only way to avoid being able to tell which is the case is if the sky is blanketed with transmitters.

*

Mikey T.

  • 3545
Pretty much. And it's like you say "if they were lower down, they'd fill the role of the replacements." I don't object to atmospheric satellites
Which means they wouldn't be in the same location, and by determining the direction to it from multiple locations you can determine where it is, so you should be able to show it is lower down.
I don't know if this is necessarily a good line of argumentation. Like, maybe I'm misunderstanding, but if we're looking at it from a perspective where there are lies at play, how could you determine the direction from multiple locations? That seems to imply you know that each receiver is receiving a signal from the same source - that feels like something that could easily be disguised. Two dishes supposedly pointing at the same satellite, are actually pointing at two different, lower transmitters etc.
Like, maybe there is an answer, I just haven't seen anyone explain how we can know that they're pointing at the same satellite unless we just take the agencies under question at their word.
Ok, would the specific signal frequency, polarity, and embedded ID into the signal work for you?  You keep trying so hard to misrepresent what is said to appear as if you are taking a moral high ground in a debate. 
If you do not understand how microwave signals work, then stop speaking until you do get a little understanding.  No the signal cannot come from multiple sources because it does have identifying attributes, couple that with how microwave transmissions propagate, aka LOS, and the fact that you cannot find a place where you have to point the dish in any direction other than the geostationary location.  There are never 2 spots, there are no areas where you can't get the same signal strength as another towards a clear sky.  The angle of intercept for the reflector.  The knowledge and prior testing, by me as just one person, of how the LOS signal works at multiple, aka more than 4, different places separated by many hundreds of miles in the US alone.  These are why talking about how known things like Sat communications cannot work on a FE model.  Not at all.  Please, come prepared if you wish to challenge further on how these work.  I've got almost 8 years of practical in the field experience with sat coms, from TV to Internet to military systems.  I'm not relying on what anyone told me, I tested things to better understand how the systems worked, so I would always know how to either ensure my customers had almost zero rain fade or me and my soldiers wouldn't lose vital coms in Iraq.  I'm not a commo guy, I'm was a recon guy, scrape, scrounge, do for yourself because the help ain't out there with you.
But yeah, keep acting like it is possible to simulate 24/7 microwave band satellite communications with a bunch of balloons.  It's laughable at best, it makes you sound d like a complete idiot at worst.  I get what you want, but learn and try to understand things before you try to improperly use them failing to shame someone else.

*

Slemon

  • Flat Earth Researcher
  • 12330
Ok, would the specific signal frequency, polarity, and embedded ID into the signal work for you?  You keep trying so hard to misrepresent what is said to appear as if you are taking a moral high ground in a debate. 
If you do not understand how microwave signals work, then stop speaking until you do get a little understanding.  No the signal cannot come from multiple sources because it does have identifying attributes, couple that with how microwave transmissions propagate, aka LOS, and the fact that you cannot find a place where you have to point the dish in any direction other than the geostationary location.  There are never 2 spots, there are no areas where you can't get the same signal strength as another towards a clear sky.  The angle of intercept for the reflector.  The knowledge and prior testing, by me as just one person, of how the LOS signal works at multiple, aka more than 4, different places separated by many hundreds of miles in the US alone.  These are why talking about how known things like Sat communications cannot work on a FE model.  Not at all.  Please, come prepared if you wish to challenge further on how these work.  I've got almost 8 years of practical in the field experience with sat coms, from TV to Internet to military systems.  I'm not relying on what anyone told me, I tested things to better understand how the systems worked, so I would always know how to either ensure my customers had almost zero rain fade or me and my soldiers wouldn't lose vital coms in Iraq.  I'm not a commo guy, I'm was a recon guy, scrape, scrounge, do for yourself because the help ain't out there with you.
But yeah, keep acting like it is possible to simulate 24/7 microwave band satellite communications with a bunch of balloons.  It's laughable at best, it makes you sound d like a complete idiot at worst.  I get what you want, but learn and try to understand things before you try to improperly use them failing to shame someone else.
...Getting mad is very rarely a useful response when someone's asking for clarification. When most of the time the reply is "They can just tell," - as others users have said before you - it's hard to not actually wonder. The problem is that this kind of justification is given significantly less often than this argument. Wanting people to do their own research is great, but there's a lot of sources out there which don't answer the question, and a wealth more that are just on search-term-similar topics. If I'm making an argument, I usually will - but asking someone to justify their own argument should not be a controversial thing to do. "There's an answer but we shouldn't need to give it," is a bad take.
Also, don't put words in my mouth. It's not 'I think this is possible,' it's 'Using signal triangulation is insufficient as an argument unless it follows that you can identify a shared source.' This isn't a challenge, this is a request for a necessity if someone is going to try to make this point. 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. Ditto, it's not 'moral high ground,' it is 'There are certain things that are necessary for a logical implication to follow.' Like, especially on the post you're responding to. Do I get snippy with some users with dodgy histories? Yes, absolutely. No idea how the heck you get to that from "Maybe there's an answer, I just haven't seen anyone give it."
Next time, maybe don't spend the majority of your post getting mad at asking for the justifcation, and focus more on the actual question.

But, okay. What jumps out to me first is that 'embedded ID' feels like something that would be easy to duplicate? Even just hypothetically, is there anything that would prevent two transmitters claiming the same ID? Like, this was the first potential explanation that jumped out to me, and it doesn't seem to work by itself unless there's something unique going on.
Frequency and polarity, it's harder to work with, without applications given. I'm seen an argument made for attenuation before - which, again, runs into problems with respect to knowing the initial state, though it does get a potential out in regards to the rate of change with motion. Similarly, LOS seems like a lot of issues could at least be mitigated with regard to narrow-beam signals - though I agree, and did before, that the 'Is there a point where multiple transmitters are picked up?' idea, as JackBlack also said, is a significantly better response.
(The pedant in me is compelled to point out how that is standalone and doesn't require faffing around with the multitude of assumptions that triangulation requires, but it is certainly sound, if tested)

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 61.5į 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 all know deep in our hearts that Jane is the last face we'll see before we're choked to death!