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

  • 321 Replies
  • 18545 Views
*

NotSoSkeptical

  • 8548
  • Flat like a droplet of water.
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #300 on: February 17, 2023, 02:00:47 PM »
All it takes is one person in the middle looking straight up and observing/data gathering to see what is really going on.
If they are looking straight up they wouldn't be looking towards the alleged location of the geostationary satellite, nor looking towards where the lower ones are.
If they look towards where the geostationary satellite should be and should be giving a signal and don't see one, and don't get the signal, then you have shown the geostationary satellite doesn't exist. But if it does see one, there is again the question of if it is the same object.

For every additional point that looks toward where the geostationary satellite should be and receives the expected signal, the higher the probability that it is the same object.
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.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #301 on: February 17, 2023, 03:26:38 PM »
All it takes is one person in the middle looking straight up and observing/data gathering to see what is really going on.
If they are looking straight up they wouldn't be looking towards the alleged location of the geostationary satellite, nor looking towards where the lower ones are.
If they look towards where the geostationary satellite should be and should be giving a signal and don't see one, and don't get the signal, then you have shown the geostationary satellite doesn't exist. But if it does see one, there is again the question of if it is the same object.

For every additional point that looks toward where the geostationary satellite should be and receives the expected signal, the higher the probability that it is the same object.

That's what I'm thinking. If dozens of people up and down the eastern seaboard are all pointing their dishes at the same spot that would lend credence to the fact that they are pointing at the same thing.

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 2824
  • God winds the universe
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #302 on: February 17, 2023, 04:52:08 PM »
They're pointing at the nearest radio tower.  The pitch of these satellite dishes is simply not high enough to be pointing into space. In many cases, even the sky is a stretch.

I can make a video showing the direct line of sight from several dishes in my town to radio towers.
It's embarrassing that you people are fooled by this.


*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #303 on: February 17, 2023, 10:27:27 PM »
They're pointing at the nearest radio tower.  The pitch of these satellite dishes is simply not high enough to be pointing into space. In many cases, even the sky is a stretch.


*

JackBlack

  • 22526
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #304 on: February 18, 2023, 12:38:13 AM »
They're pointing at the nearest radio tower.  The pitch of these satellite dishes is simply not high enough to be pointing into space. In many cases, even the sky is a stretch.
You not understanding their angle doesn't magically mean they are pointing at the ground.
Most dishes these days use an offset pickup. That means you can't simply draw a line from the dish to the pickup to determine the direction they are pointing.

And as already pointed out, in the US (where it sounds like you are from), the angle is already quite low to get to geostationary satellites.

I can make a video showing the direct line of sight from several dishes in my town to radio towers.
It's embarrassing that you people are fooled by this.
Go ahead and do so. Make sure you include latitude and longitude of the radio tower, and do it in 3D.

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #305 on: February 18, 2023, 01:48:29 AM »
They're pointing at the nearest radio tower.  The pitch of these satellite dishes is simply not high enough to be pointing into space. In many cases, even the sky is a stretch.

I can make a video showing the direct line of sight from several dishes in my town to radio towers.
It's embarrassing that you people are fooled by this.

In addition to what has been pointed out.  In my area in the 1980’s when my neighbor got the first dish in the neighborhood, which was ten foot in diameter.  And a few years later when my parents got their 8 foot diameter satellite dish that could tune between several satellites by actually moving.  There were no cellphone towers in my county. 

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #306 on: February 18, 2023, 02:25:06 AM »
Then there's whole, ain't-no-towers-out-in-the middle-of-the-Pacific thing...

You do have to admire the overwhelming audacity and sheer ridiculousness of the "pitch of these satellite dishes is simply not high enough to be pointing into space. In many cases, even the sky is a stretch" when I can simply look at my Direct TV dish and see that it's pointing up at the sky and there isn't an incredibly tall tower or any tower of any height, for that matter, in it's path. Impressive.

But I guess people are gonna blindly believe what they believe regardless of reality.

The bottomline, no matter the mountains of evidence, an FEr cannot believe, actually is forbidden to believe in space/space usage because that immediately torches flat earth. Therefore, an FEr can't cop to the existence of satellites because that requires space, rockets, orbits, etc. all of which torch flat earth. So at the end of the day, it's not evidence or examples or experiments or measurements that are used to support a flat earth model, it's just blind faith. Basically a religion of sorts.

What would be way more interesting and compelling is if some renegade, free-thinking FEr actually tried to come up with how such things could exist within the flat earth paradigm. This, everything is fake and everyone is lying thing is so tired and boring.

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #307 on: February 18, 2023, 03:40:00 AM »

Therefore, an FEr can't cop to the existence of satellites because that requires space, rockets, orbits, etc. all of which torch flat earth.

And yet,  somehow for the flat earth delusion of a dome and a firmament which has to work with earth’s magnetic field, the Van Allen belts, solar radiation (glass blocks UV light and I would think a thick layer of water too), solar wind, the moon, the planets, the moons of planets, meteorites, comets, background radiation from space.  All with a distance to the sun only 300 to 7,000 miles. And have it all “hang” there and move about.  And somehow magically block any travel by man made objects/rockets…
« Last Edit: February 18, 2023, 03:47:22 AM by DataOverFlow2022 »

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 2824
  • God winds the universe
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #308 on: February 18, 2023, 07:11:19 AM »
They're pointing at the nearest radio tower.  The pitch of these satellite dishes is simply not high enough to be pointing into space. In many cases, even the sky is a stretch.



Uhhh, yeah, except this is not how I see most satellite dishes facing (and that proves nothing, since ircan still be atmospheric). Most satellite dishes I've see on houses are like so...



Not like this.


About 80% of satellite dishes I've seen do not point straight up. So, when you follow line of sight what are they pointing to? And the answer is practically always... straight to a nearby radio or cell tower.

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #309 on: February 18, 2023, 07:54:32 AM »


Uhhh, yeah, except this is not how I see most satellite dishes facing

When’s the last time you went to the equator to photograph home satellite dishes pointing to satellites in geosynchronous orbit.  Vs large arrayed dishes used for radio astronomy not on the equator.  Or for transmitting/receiving data from space craft used in planter exploration? 


https://www.vastantenna.com/10-largest-satellite-dishes-on-earth/


Different designs for different purposes.


https://www.vastantenna.com/10-largest-satellite-dishes-on-earth/

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #310 on: February 18, 2023, 07:59:18 AM »

About 80% of satellite dishes I've seen do not point straight up. So, when you follow line of sight what are they pointing to? And the answer is practically always... straight to a nearby radio or cell tower.

And again.  Lived out in the sticks in the 1980’s.  No cellphone towers.  Our satellite dish pointed south to the Satellites in geosynchronous orbit above the equator.  The only local TV towers were to the east.  The rest of the TV towers were out of broadcast range.  Like the earth’s curvature was blocking the signal to our TV antenna set at about 15 feet above ground.  And we lived on a hill.

*

Stash

  • Ethical Stash
  • 13398
  • I am car!
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #311 on: February 18, 2023, 09:19:26 AM »
They're pointing at the nearest radio tower.  The pitch of these satellite dishes is simply not high enough to be pointing into space. In many cases, even the sky is a stretch.



Uhhh, yeah, except this is not how I see most satellite dishes facing (and that proves nothing, since ircan still be atmospheric). Most satellite dishes I've see on houses are like so...

I wouldn't expect you to see dishes pointe like that. Just because you haven't seen something, it doesn't exist?

If you actually understood what you were arguing against and perhaps got out past your county lines you would understand why dishes point higher and higher as you move closer toward the equator. Here's a clue, the image is from Ecuador. But since you refuse to learn what you are actually arguing against, I didn't expect you to have any sort of a cogent argument. Which as no surprise, you don't.

What is obviously blind of you and absolutely disingenuous is that you know full well that you could look at the angle of dishes near your home and see that they are pointing at the sky and that there is no radio tower in their line of site. But you are so blind to your belief, you would deny what you actually could see for yourself. This is why you get accused of being a troll all the time.

And as far as your atmospheric argument, that doesn't work either. Dishes need to be pointed with a level of precision. If they aren't, you get no signal. And all of the Direct TV dishes in a given area are pointed in the same direction, precisely.

Get outside, drive around, log where you see all of your local Direct TV dishes, take note of how they are all pointed the same and take note of the fact they aren't all pointed at some tower(s).

*

JackBlack

  • 22526
Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #312 on: February 18, 2023, 01:09:28 PM »
Uhhh, yeah, except this is not how I see most satellite dishes facing
About 80% of satellite dishes I've seen do not point straight up.
Because you aren't on the equator.
If a satellite dish is pointing to a geostationary satellite, it will only point straight up if it is on the equator, and below the satellite in question.
If it is at a significantly different latitude (i.e. not on the equator) or longitude to the satellite, then it will need to point at an angle.

So, when you follow line of sight what are they pointing to? And the answer is practically always... straight to a nearby radio or cell tower.
You said you were going to demonstrate that.
I don't see you doing so yet.


If I follow the line of sight for satellite dishes near me, they go far too high to hit any nearby radio tower.

Re: Please debunk the existence and transmissions of a specific sat, EchoStar 16
« Reply #313 on: February 21, 2023, 05:49:55 AM »
Hmmm, not entirely sure what you’ve done with this graph, but some of your numbers look significantly out to me
The x axis is latitude, the y axis is angle of elevation.
I plotted the angle required for a geostationary satellite at an altitude of 35 000 km in purple (I know that is very rounded).
Then I used the "sweep 5 degrees either side" to set the allowed tolerance to + or - 5 degrees, and plotted the angle required for a geostationary satellite plus 5 degrees in red, and the angle required - 5 degrees in black.

This gives us the range the stratollites would need to be at in order to meet the required tolerance of +- 5 degrees.
Plotted in blue are the angles required to reach these stratollites.

For the graph, I used a stratollite elevation of 4100 km as an example, as that worked well.
I started with one at the equator, tweaking the height until I got the best coverage, then cut it off as it passed the red line.
I then added another one, setup to match where the previous one stopped, and again and again, ending up with 4 stratollites.

How do you get 1 “stratellite” per degree latitude if they are 100km high?

Take the simplest possible case, with it directly overhead.  You only need to move 1.7km for the angle to target to change 1 deg on flat ground.  It’s a bit further at lower elevation angle.  I make it 3.2km at an elevation angle of 42deg, which is about in the middle of the range. 

So even with the generous accuracy requirement of +/- 1 deg, each “stratellite” could only cover an area on average about 6.5km across.  (The observed change in elevation angle due to the real geometry over this distance is so small, we can effectively ignore it).  All while somehow perfectly focusing their transmissions to give  continuous coverage without overlapping, and all of them somehow keeping position.
I used a tolerance of 5 degrees.
Also, the distance per degree increases with increasing separation between the stratollite and the area it is targeting.

If the stratollite is angled at an angle of a from straight down to the start of its range, and has a range of b, then the distance covered is given by:
h*(tan(a+b)-tan(a))

For a stratollite at 100 km directly above the equator, with b=2 degrees (for + or - 1 degree), this would give a range of roughly 3.5 km.
But with b=10 degrees, it would give 17.63 km, which is over 0.1 degree of latitude.
But if we go much further away, to say 60 degrees from straight down, we get 101 km, or close to 1 degree latitude.
But over 1 degree latitude change, we would also have the position to the geostationary satellite change by over 1 degree (which would continue until it drops below the horizon). Putting in an extra degree gives us 117.2 km. If instead we put in the angle corresponding to the distance from the first step we get 115.8 km. Either way, over 1 degree.

So faking it with stratollites becomes easier the further away from the equator you are.

But even with a range of 1 degree, you need a ridiculous amount of them to cover the contiguous US.

OK.  The way you worded it sounded like you used tighter accuracies for the later numbers.

I get the trig, that’s what I did. And it was just the blue lines on graph I couldn’t work out.

Oh.  The old school satellite dish…



The area TV stations are to the west or north.  At 30 to 60 miles away. 

What would this dish be pointing at in the 1990’s other than a satellite….

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30068
Still no answer as to how this supposed space satellite got into the supposed high orbit and also to get to the speed of rotation of the supposed spinning globe.

Ok, we get a rocket that apparently gets through the atmosphere and into a space vacuum and then that rocket is spent but not before releasing this satellite as we're told.

We are then told this satellite then manages to keep orbiting Earth and against orbit after orbit until it reaches this super distance to finalise orbit at exactly the same speed as the Earth's rotation.

Then it apparently still has fuel to keep thrusting to alter position to ensure it keeps geosynchronous.


And this apparently just relays data back to Earth from data sent to it from Earth, back to dishes stuff on walls, and such.

Never a chance to be repaired if anything should go wrong or any glitch happens.
It is the stuff of absolute fantasy or shall I say the stuff of fantasy stories sold to us as factual.


Batteries and electrical components within these supposed satellites would obviously have no cooling fan and no heatsinks to do anything because they simply cannot play any part in the cooling of electronic heat build-up, not to mention the dangerous recharging of batteries.

Whatever human beings can put into the sky, is in the atmosphere, not in any space vacuum.

So many questions that do not have answers.

My daughter changed from BT to sky. She does not have a dish. Sky now uses the original aerial on her roof. From where? Space?
Or a tower?

You have to direct a tv aerial just as you have to direct a dish to ensure a signal.

All areas are saturated with a signal on a tv aerial but some signals are encrypted and you need a box that is capable of allowing it upon a subscription.
Putting it through an aerial would give the game away. Offering a dish to simply catch the signal being encrypted gets you your TV shows based on setting the direction, just like setting an aerial, only a little bit more delicate due to placement on the sides of buildings as opposed to placement on top.

But anyway.
The biggest point is in getting a satellite into orbit 23,000 miles into a space vacuum to then sync with a spinning Earth.
And why the need for 23,000 miles in orbit?

It makes me smile when I think how we get totally pee took by those who throw this stuff out. I smile because I just realise how easily we comply as humans with everything no matter how absurd it is.
And how very few people will even bother to question it.





*

JackBlack

  • 22526
Still no answer as to how this supposed space satellite got into the supposed high orbit and also to get to the speed of rotation of the supposed spinning globe.
With a rocket.
What is so hard about that?

It is the stuff of absolute fantasy or shall I say the stuff of fantasy stories sold to us as factual.
Why? Because it doesn't fit your delusional BS?

Batteries and electrical components within these supposed satellites would obviously have no cooling fan and no heatsinks to do anything because they simply cannot play any part in the cooling of electronic heat build-up, not to mention the dangerous recharging of batteries.
And more garbage.
Satellites can radiate heat away.

So many questions that do not have answers.
So perhaps you should stop deflecting and instead try answer the questions?

My daughter changed from BT to sky. She does not have a dish. Sky now uses the original aerial on her roof. From where? Space?
Or a tower?
We have been over this, you are wrong, they are using the internet.

Offering a dish to simply catch the signal being encrypted gets you your TV shows based on setting the direction, just like setting an aerial
Only the antenna lays horizontal, while the dish points up into the sky, at a satellite, and has a parabolic reflector to focus the signal.

And why the need for 23,000 miles in orbit?
Because of something you hate, GRAVITY!

An honest sane person who actually cared would think about why? Why would it need to be that altitude? What would happen if it is lower? What would happen if it was higher?
This would lead them to 2 big questions, how does gravity vary with altitude, and how does the acceleration required to maintain an orbit vary with altitude and orbital period?

They would recognise that if you had a stable orbit and you lowered it, the acceleration due to gravity would increase but the acceleration required to maintain that orbital period would decrease. That means if the orbit lowers, the angular velocity will need to increase, meaning it will no longer be synchronised with Earth. And they would recognise that going higher means the opposite occurs, gravity is weaker and the acceleration needed is larger, so the angular velocity is lower, and it still is not longer synchronised.

This is why things like the ISS in LEO orbit every 90 minutes or so, while the moon takes almost an entire month.

With that they would recognise that there is going to be a point where it is balanced such that the orbital period matches Earth, and they just need to do the math (another thing you hate) to find out what altitude that is.

The acceleration due to gravity is given by a=GM/r^2; where a is the acceleration, G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the primary body, and r is the radius of the orbit (not altitude).
The acceleration required to maintain a circular orbit is given by a=w^2*r=w*v=v^2/r; where w is the angular velocity; v is the linear velocity, and a and r are as above.
This can also be rewritten by noting w=2*pi/T, where T is the period.
This gives a=(2*pi/T)^2*r
If we are going to let gravity do the work, we simply equate the 2:
(2*pi/T)^2*r = GM/r^2
which gives:
r^3=GM*(T/2pi)^2
r=(GM*(T/2pi)^2)^1/3

Putting in G=6.6743e-11 N m^2/kg^2; M=5.972168e24 kg; and T=86164 s (the length of a sidereal day); we end up with r=42164 km. Subtracting Earth's equatorial radius of 6378.1 km we end up with 35786 km. Converting to archaic units we get 22236 archaic units.

But of course, you are an honest person that actually cares. You just want to pretend people are making up numbers to dismiss it all as fantasy to try and replace reality with your delusional BS.

*

bulmabriefs144

  • 2824
  • God winds the universe
Quote
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.

I would say the quickest way of doing so is to point out that Kazakhstan is a largely Islamic country, and that Islam is even more committed to flat Earth than I am. Moreover, unlike me, Islam actually tends to oppose science (I support real science). Kazakhstan as a Russian satellite state did not build such a thing.

Quote
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.

I would say the quickest way of doing so is to point out that Kazakhstan is a largely Islamic country, and that Islam is even more committed to flat Earth than I am. Moreover, unlike me, Islam actually tends to oppose science (I support real science). Kazakhstan as a Russian satellite state did not build such a thing.


Ok?


Quote
The space program of Kazakhstan is originated from the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, when Kazakhstan declared their independence. The Kazakh space program consist of cosmonaut and satellite missions. The only launch site situated at Kazakhstan is Baikonur Cosmodrome, which is leased to Russia. The program is led by KazCosmos since 2007.

History

The first Kazakh person to go to space is Toktar Aubakirov in 1991, followed by Talgat Musabayev in 1994.[1] On 7 January 2000, the government of Kazakhstan decreed it would form a cosmonaut corps.[2] Out of 2000 candidates, two were selected, Aidyn Aimbetov and Mukhtar Aymakhanov, in 2002.[3] Aymakhanov left Kazakhstan in 2012 to become a Russian citizen to pursue a cosmonaut career.[4] Aimbetov was selected for Soyuz TMA-18M/Soyuz TMA-16M in June 2015.

On 18 June 2006, the KazSat-1 was launched from Baikonur Cosmodrome, marking the beginning of Kazakhstan's independent inflight space operations.[5] In 2008 communications with the satellite ended, and it was declared lost.[6] The next satellite, KazSat-2, experienced a series of delays, but was launched on 16 July 2011 on board a Proton rocket. KazSat-2 was built by Krunichev and Thales Alenia Space.[7] KazCosmos signed a contract with ISS-Reshetnev and Thales Alenia Space Italy on 21 June 2011 for the third telecommunications satellite, named KazSat-3 and launched it in 2014. Two more satellites, KazEOSat 2 and Al Farabi-1, were launched in 29 June 2014 and 15 February 2017, respectively.

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

Quote
THE ASTANA TIMES
BRINGING KAZAKHSTAN TO THE WORLD


Kazakhstan Explores Limitless Potential of Space Industry

https://astanatimes.com/2023/04/kazakhstan-explores-limitless-potential-of-space-industry/

The first area is scientific space research – fundamental and applied. Space research starts with science. In our case, it is being conducted by the Fesenkov Astrophysical Institute and the Institute of Ionosphere, which study far and near space, solar-terrestrial relations, within which unique cosmological objects of the Universe are monitored. In addition, they try to solve problems of modeling large astronomical systems and establish a method for diagnosing and predicting the state of space around Earth.

Our organizations also conduct applied research, including developing satellite technologies, creating instruments and developing systems for monitoring near-Earth space. These are critical technologies to increase Kazakhstan’s contribution to the satellite industry and develop Kazakh engineers’ skills and competencies.

The second area is the production of space equipment, which entails building spacecraft in the context of applied scientific developments. The Spacecraft Assembling and Testing Facility was launched at the National Space Center on March 30. It is intended to design, manufacture, assemble, and test satellites weighing 100 kilograms to six tons. The complex has five production and six test sites and three laboratories.

The work of the organization, including the competence of its specialists, is certified by its international partner Airbus, which will enable it to attract international orders in the future.

Quote
Astronomy in the medieval Islamic world

Doubts on Ptolemy
Edit
In 850, the Abbasid astronomer Al-Farghani wrote Kitab fi Jawami ("A compendium of the science of stars"). The book gave a summary of Ptolemic cosmography. However, it also corrected Ptolemy based on the findings of earlier Arab astronomers. Al-Farghani gave revised values for the obliquity of the ecliptic, the precession of the apogees of the Sun and the Moon, and the circumference of the Earth. The book was circulated through the Muslim world, and translated into Latin.[8]

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


Hmm…

Funny how FE’s over look early attempts to measure the size of the earth resulted in dimensioning a sphere? 

It’s not that early people didn’t care about the shape of the earth.  But meaningful attempts to size the earth resulted in logical dimensions of a sphere. 

*

JackBlack

  • 22526
I would say the quickest way of doing so is to point out that Kazakhstan is a largely Islamic country, and that Islam is even more committed to flat Earth than I am. Moreover, unlike me, Islam actually tends to oppose science (I support real science). Kazakhstan as a Russian satellite state did not build such a thing.
That may be the general trend, but the question is what do those in power do.

We can see a great example in Saudi Arabia, which decided to become slightly more civilised and stop trying to conquer the world (leading to splinter groups like ISIS forming), so they could get money for oil.
We see in the UAE, they are more than happy to have non-Islamic tourists to make money, including catering to them. You are perfectly fine to drink and get drunk in a hotel, just don't go out in public.

But even worse for you, unlike these official Islamic countries, Kazakhstan is NOT an Islamic country. Islam may be the largest religion, with over 50% of people in the country being Muslims, but it is not an Islamic country. It does not use Sharia law.

And even worse, Kazakhstan is more a puppet state of Russia, and will do what Russia tells it to.

So your "quickest way" has been a complete failure.