Satellite orbital dynamics.

They haven't slowed down light to that speed yet.(I think). 

Edit: Apparently they have. 

Too bad light cannot be mistaken for the ISS. 

How do you see the ISS? I would look for light reflecting off it, if it were me.

Perhaps you'd be better off reading what he wrote. Re-read #1 and find where I didn't comply with what he requested. As for #2, he asked a simple question and I gave simple possibilities. Does that bother you?

1. What would you like me to explain about hypersonic speeds?
2. How do you know that this "craft" even has solar panels?
3. I never claimed to showcase balloons that can reach hypersonic speeds.
4. There is no new conspiracy.

Nevermind trolling, this is just plain failure to read.

1. I hope you do not explain anything about hypersonic speeds. Everybody understands them better than what you want people to think you understand.
2. You accept people have seen the ISS, and the ISS has solar panels. In fact, they are the most visible feature on the ISS. Everyone that has used binoculars or telescopes to see it have seen them. There are photos by pretended FE'rs in this forum where the solar panels are in plain view.
3. If you show balloons and imply they can be what people saw instead of satellites, you are implying that they move through the sky at the speeds people see satellites moving.
4. Are "satellites" being refueled in plain sight?

Placing photos without explanation, arguing small, specific little details pretending to ignore the rest of the argument, implying a lot and saying as little as possible, those are the hallmarks of a troll.

I don't understand why the FE'ers aren't more forthcoming with their answers.

Well... I sort of do when the questions are asked by folks who obviously haven't bothered to read the FAQ or otherwise appear to be just posting stuff "off the cuff". But "AmateurAstronomer" spent a lot of time making that animation and so deserves some measure of civility.

For example. When Tom Bishop said "satellites don't exist" while that is technically true in his world view, it fails to answer Astronomer's implied question, which is "how does FE explain these orbital tracks?" You can deny satellites, but you can't deny the observations.

Note, since we have some new folks here... I'm an RE'er, but after reading a bunch of the FE responses, I can imagine what their more "civilized" answers should be and I'll attempt to "channel" them now. But don't miss my point. FE'ers, please be more forthcoming with your answers/explanations.

Satellites don't exist. What you are calling geostationary satellites are balloon based stationary platforms. The other types of satellites, both polar orbiting and regular are not permanently airborn, but land out of range of your ability to observe. It is impossible for a single person to witness a complete orbit of a satellite, not only because they don't exist, but because eventually what you think of as a satellite will move out of your field of view and then it will land. What two widely separated observers think of as being the same satellite are in fact 2 different objects.

This is about as far as I can go in channeling an FEer... but... really, FE'ers, your answers do seem to be intentionally vague and misleading so as to anger the otherwise civil RE'ers here. It is your job to explain any observation. Deny my explanation all you want, that's fine. Do not deny what I observe.

Oh... and another fun link to visit for satellite transits is here. Maybe us RE'ers should start a thread on iridium flares?

Unfortunately it is not in the FE'ers interests to argue the point logically, because they will lose that argument. It should be pretty obvious to everyone that the ISS does not land, because people all over the world see it in the sky constantly and no one has ever seen it land. But since you yourself cannot constantly see the ISS, you have already lost. At least if you play on the skewed FE playing field.

Before trying to argue with Flat-Earthers remember the following rules:

- If you can see something that disproves FE, it either does not exist or you are misinterpreting what you see. Or it is an illusion.

- Theories that disprove FE, no matter how consistently they have been validated, are always wrong. Theories that support FE, no matter how far-fetched, are always right.

- Hypothetical physical phenomena, energy, matter or particles (such as gravitons) may be used in support of FE (bendy light) but not of RE (gravity).

- If Tom Bishop joins the discussion, do not expect it to remain sensible.


Consequently, almost every single astronomer, physicist, geologist and scientist of a related field who has ever lived in at least the past thousand years must either be a complete moron or part of a confusingly inconsistent and nonsensical global conspiracy. Flat-Earthers must have indeed out-witted the likes of Einstein, Newton and Hawking while designing their genius theory....


...or they are just wasting our time.

1) Show me some reference pics of a non-terrestrial pseudolite that fits the definition of not being a satellite, and that also could feasibly look like the ISS.

http://www.geostationarybananaovertexas.com/en.html

If you show balloons and imply they can be what people saw instead of satellites, you are implying that they move through the sky at the speeds people see satellites moving.

The ISS is not traveling at the speeds quoted by NASA. Since the craft is much closer to the surface of the earth it can travel much slower to pass across the sky.

It should be pretty obvious to everyone that the ISS does not land,

That would be because the government is constantly sending craft up to maintain it.

Consequently, almost every single astronomer, physicist, geologist and scientist of a related field who has ever lived in at least the past thousand years must either be a complete moron or part of a confusingly inconsistent and nonsensical global conspiracy. Flat-Earthers must have indeed out-witted the likes of Einstein, Newton and Hawking while designing their genius theory....

An appeal by authority is a logical fallacy.

Learn more: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

Quote from: Robosteve on August 19, 2008, 07:58:56 AM

Quote from: sokarul on August 19, 2008, 07:56:56 AM

Or for that matter show me anything that can travel at 27,000 km/hr and not be in orbit.   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light

They haven't slowed down light to that speed yet.(I think). 

Edit: Apparently they have. 

Too bad light cannot be mistaken for the ISS. 

They have but only through a solid medium i believe. Last time i check space wasnt solid

LOL. The floating banana is now proof of FE! HAHAHAHA

http://www.geostationarybananaovertexas.com/en.html

How about something that has actually been built not a just an artists rendition?

Quote

1) Show me some reference pics of a non-terrestrial pseudolite that fits the definition of not being a satellite, and that also could feasibly look like the ISS.

http://www.geostationarybananaovertexas.com/en.html

I can see how you'd get those 2 confused. It turns out you're right though... I zoomed in on that transit and it's definitely a banana.

Quote

If you show balloons and imply they can be what people saw instead of satellites, you are implying that they move through the sky at the speeds people see satellites moving.

The ISS is not traveling at the speeds quoted by NASA. Since the craft is much closer to the surface of the earth it can travel much slower to pass across the sky.

Tom, Tom, Tom... You're slipping. When you're circling a flat earth, regardless of how high you are you still cover the same distance. Increase in distance with greater height is purely a round earth phenomena. If you're talking about the time it takes to cover a patch of sky, remember there are other ways of tracking how long it takes to orbit the earth.

Bottom line, a pseudolite is just a blimp, and I refuse to believe in a supersonic blimp.

Quote

If you show balloons and imply they can be what people saw instead of satellites, you are implying that they move through the sky at the speeds people see satellites moving.

The ISS is not traveling at the speeds quoted by NASA. Since the craft is much closer to the surface of the earth it can travel much slower to pass across the sky.

On another thread I did an approximate calculation to show that the ISS was really high up and travelling very fast:

This object is clearly moving very fast, because it travels around the world in 90 minutes (visit any satellite tracking website). If we transform the ISS's orbit onto a FE map we get this:


The yellow ellipse is the ISS's orbit.

If we estimate its size, it's roughly a circle 20,000km across, which means it travels 20,000*Pi km in 90mins which gives a speed of about 40 kms/s.

We can clearly see through a telescope that the object is not aerodynamic and it is not glowing due to atmospheric friction. Therefore, it must be above the atmsphere.

On another thread I did an approximate calculation to show that the ISS was really high up and travelling very fast:

and I seem to remember that they "ignored" it then as well.  It gives inconvenient evidence.

I was going to crunch some numbers for measuring the ISS's altitude by comparing it's actual size to it's visual size at sea level, and using that to fathom out an approximate speed(I might need help for that). Before I/others go to that kind of trouble though, I want to see if FET proponents dispute the size of the ISS.

By NASA and ISA estimates of the current hardware attached, the ISS is @ 300 feet from leftmost solar panel to rightmost solar panel (or vise-versa).


Is it anyones assertion that this size is smaller/larger, and if so by how much?

Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 20, 2008, 02:00:18 AM

Quote

If you show balloons and imply they can be what people saw instead of satellites, you are implying that they move through the sky at the speeds people see satellites moving.

The ISS is not traveling at the speeds quoted by NASA. Since the craft is much closer to the surface of the earth it can travel much slower to pass across the sky.

On another thread I did an approximate calculation to show that the ISS was really high up and travelling very fast:

Quote from: ghazwozza on June 12, 2008, 04:31:57 AM

This object is clearly moving very fast, because it travels around the world in 90 minutes (visit any satellite tracking website). If we transform the ISS's orbit onto a FE map we get this:


The yellow ellipse is the ISS's orbit.

If we estimate its size, it's roughly a circle 20,000km across, which means it travels 20,000*Pi km in 90mins which gives a speed of about 40 kms/s.

We can clearly see through a telescope that the object is not aerodynamic and it is not glowing due to atmospheric friction. Therefore, it must be above the atmosphere.

They would just argue that the satellite tracking station is part of the conspiracy. I waited for and saw just the hint of the ISS on the horizon after watching a last quarter moon transit this spring, but I'm part of the conspiracy too probably, since I own a telescope...

Any orbital path converted over to FE loses hundreds or even thousands of miles off it's flight path anyway, so it's not propitious to us RET proponents to argue conversions that would throw off our real world estimates, and would just be disputed anyway. My main point for this thread was to argue flight paths, not to end up in this circular argument about the existence of satellites that we're stuck in now.

Blimps for christs sake... 


And for a kind of off tangent thought, I came to this site about a month and week ago, and in some thread I read that day Tom linked to some post where he explained his curving light theory. Well either in that thread, or some thread that was linked to in that thread I came to a post where Tom, obviously in his pre-satellite denying days, had a long ass post where he explained that some satellites were skipping like stones across the atmosphere, except curved, and all the rest were big ass towers. The first person to find that thread/post gets an IOU from me for anything that you want that I can do well, within reason in my discretion...

Ask, and ye shall receive.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21993.0

Here's another on the first page of this thread.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=21215.0

Another...this looks like the exact same post as the first one.

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=16146.msg301354#msg301354

There is some bouncing in here as well

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13370.20

And my all time favorite....all the way toward the bottom of the first page

http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=13643.0

Hold on.  Let’s get back to reality.  I’ve skimmed over the “ground rules”, and understand the one of those rules is that satellites do not exist.  Got it.
What does exist is students enrolled in aerospace programs at universities across the nation.  These students graduate each year and some go to work for companies and government agencies involved with satellites.  Satellite control, maintenance, development… it’s a known industry.  Am I to believe that these students go to work and find out that everything they learned in college is wrong.  There are no satellites, and furthermore, the Earth is flat.  And after learning this, they say nothing to anyone?

If the Earth is flat and the satellites are actually balloons, then who/where are the teachers showing new students how to control, maintain and develop these balloons.  No one can argue that satellite/balloon (which ever you believe) technology has advanced in the past years.  If they are in fact balloons that are advancing then there MUST be teachers of this technology.  Where are they?  How do I enroll?

If the Earth is flat and the satellites are actually balloons, then who/where are the teachers showing new students how to control, maintain and develop these balloons.  No one can argue that satellite/balloon (which ever you believe) technology has advanced in the past years.  If they are in fact balloons that are advancing then there MUST be teachers of this technology.  Where are they?  How do I enroll?

You couldn't teach this stuff at a university, it would be giving away the existence of the conspiracy, that would jeopardize their funding.  Instead, it must be an apprenticeship.  They have to select and train their successor.

Thanks Wardogg, I'm in your debt. That's exactly the thread.

Hold on.  Let’s get back to reality.  I’ve skimmed over the “ground rules”, and understand the one of those rules is that satellites do not exist.  Got it.

Just because it's in the FAQ's does not mean it's true. Demand proof if you do not feel the burden has been met. Ask for their proofs, and subject their proofs to the standards that they require of RE proofs...

Quote from: Lubbocks on August 26, 2008, 07:16:01 PM

If the Earth is flat and the satellites are actually balloons, then who/where are the teachers showing new students how to control, maintain and develop these balloons.  No one can argue that satellite/balloon (which ever you believe) technology has advanced in the past years.  If they are in fact balloons that are advancing then there MUST be teachers of this technology.  Where are they?  How do I enroll?

You couldn't teach this stuff at a university, it would be giving away the existence of the conspiracy, that would jeopardize their funding.  Instead, it must be an apprenticeship.  They have to select and train their successor.

Apprenticeship involves one person learning what someone else does.  I’m talking about pushing the technology forward.  That takes lots of people learning about the balloon technology and other related fields.  The intermixing of ideas from balloon people with computer people with physics people is what pushes the technology forward.  Not one person teaching someone else how to do his job.

Apprenticeship involves one person learning what someone else does.  I’m talking about pushing the technology forward.  That takes lots of people learning about the balloon technology and other related fields.  The intermixing of ideas from balloon people with computer people with physics people is what pushes the technology forward.  Not one person teaching someone else how to do his job.

Yes, but if you open this up to everyone, how do they maintain the conspiracy?  And the conspiracy has to exist for the Earth to be flat. 

Then we are back to the question of the number of people that it would take to maintain this conspiracy.  It seems we are getting much bigger than a 40 people conspiracy as has been posted in other threads (http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=6308.0).