T1B

Jayne wrote:Want to talk about how satellites don't exist again poptard? A simple question...why do television satellite vans have satellite dishes on them pointed toward the sky? Same question for radio and television stations. Any home or apartment or business with a dish. Any field satellite array. What are these things all actually doing.

Jayne gets his head kicked and he starts murmuring about satellites.




This was covered on page 1.

1, Over 8,000 satellites have supposedly gone up to space, and yet not a single time has one been videoed going from land to space.

2. Is there a picture of even one satellite in space, other than the International Farce Station?

3. You posted this...

Jayne wrote:You do know I worked in television, remember? I know exactly how satellites work. I've programmed them.

And I laffed at you.

You dumb grunt.

Go ahead and tell us about it.


4. If there are satellites in space, how does that prove you are living on a globe that is 25,000 miles in circumference?

5. I couldn't care less how "satellite TV" works.

I
Do
Not
Care

6. I don't claim to know for sure what the shape of the earth is.

But with tens of thousands of people keeping up the myth it is amazing no one has spilled the beans.

For sure there is laughing, it is just the world laughing at you.

LS wrote:But with tens of thousands of people keeping up the myth...

Nice fairy tale.

Anyone who has looked into fl@t earth with an open mind soon realizes that comments such as the one you just made are -----> insane.

Desperate BS.
The strange, crackpot musings of a mentally defeated man.

You know, I don't even think about flat earth much these days.

I might look at a video or something once-in-a-while.
Or check around occasionally to see if there are any fresh developments, experiments, or findings.

But it is evident that a few of you people in here have flat earth constantly zipping around your prefrontal cortex.


Why?[/rhetorical]

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 11:10 am

LS wrote:But with tens of thousands of people keeping up the myth...

Nice fairy tale.

Just among the space agencies at different countries, the astronauts of different countries, the politicians, the media covering such. Tens of thousands of people.

Pilots flying non stop between cities south of the equator.

Not a single one of these thousands of people has ever spilled the beans.

Your delusion knows no bounds.

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 7:35 am 1, Over 8,000 satellites have supposedly gone up to space, and yet not a single time has one been videoed going from land to space.

2. Is there a picture of even one satellite in space, other than the International Farce Station?

There is a very good reason that there isn't, but since you are incapable of understanding, there's no point in explaining it. You would just go into denial mode anyway. You're a waste of time.

3. You posted this...




And I laffed at you.

You dumb grunt.

Go ahead and tell us about it.

You laugh at what you cannot conceive. You laugh to deflect your inferior intellect and reason. You laugh to hide your pathetic delusions.

Keep laughing nut job.

4. If there are satellites in space, how does that prove you are living on a globe that is 25,000 miles in circumference?

5. I couldn't care less how "satellite TV" works.

I
Do
Not
Care

6. I don't claim to know for sure what the shape of the earth is.

But you claim to know what it isn't. Double speak much, liar?

You say you don't care how it works to keep from acknowledging the truth, as it will shatter everything your feeble mind believes in.

Pathetic.

But you and the midget keep on keeping on with your lesbian/faggot rhetoric.

It suits you, gay pedo tart.

poptart wrote:6. I don't claim to know for sure what the shape of the earth is.

Jayne wrote:But you claim to know what it isn't. Double speak much, liar?

Jayne, I don't know for sure who will win the World Series this year, but I know it isn't going to be the Baltimore Orioles.


Why are you 'tards confounded by such elementary things?

Oh...

Because you are dull enough to actually believe things like -----> water clings to the outside of a flying, spinning ball.

rotf...



The rest of your post is just you bleeding all over the place.
A truly pathetic mess of an offering.





#research

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 2:12 pmJayne, I don't know for sure who will win the World Series this year, but I know it isn't going to be the Baltimore Orioles.


Why are you 'tards confounded by such elementary things?

Nice apples to artichoke comparison. Not even remotely the same thing. But that is what you do, deflect and dodge.

Oh...

Because you are dull enough to actually believe things like -----> water clings to the outside of a flying, spinning ball.

I see gravity still eludes you. What a shock.

The rest of your post is just you bleeding all over the place.
A truly pathetic mess of an offering.

#research

No, it really isn't. Just because you can't answer a simple question, it isn't at all. But keep bleeding out of your own ass.

#Yes please, do some ACTUAL research.
#Not Youtube
#science
#facts
#You're an idiot

Jay in Phoenix wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 2:00 pm

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 7:35 am 1, Over 8,000 satellites have supposedly gone up to space, and yet not a single time has one been videoed going from land to space.

2. Is there a picture of even one satellite in space, other than the International Farce Station?

There is a very good reason that there isn't, but since you are incapable of understanding, there's no point in explaining it.

I would like to hear it Rocky.

Kierland wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 3:02 pmThere is a very good reason that there isn't, but since you are incapable of understanding, there's no point in explaining it.


I would like to hear it Rocky.

I'll be happy to answer your question, but there is a condition attached.

If I answer your question, we continue with an adult, non smack dialogue. Drop the bullshit and I will too.

Deal?

The first time I call you a deformed lesbian you can stop being nice.

Kierland wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:40 pm The first time I call you a deformed lesbian you can stop being nice.

Do you want the answer or not?

Yes that is what that meant.

Okay. There are a couple of parts to the answer. One, is that a lot of satellites are either military or highly classified, so pictures are taboo.

However, the real reason is purely physics. No, it's not some massive conspiracy. The space above our planet is getting increasingly crowded with satellites and space junk. It's just that humans and the things we build are tiny compared to the vastness of our planet. There are about 4,256 human-made satellites orbiting the Earth, of which about 1,149 are still working. Most of these are fairly small, ranging from tiny CubeSats that are only four inches on each side to communications satellites that can be over 100 feet long.

That’s still tiny when you consider that the Earth is 7,917.5 miles across.

Even our space station is puny when compared to our planet. Measuring 357 feet end-to-end, the International Space Station (ISS) is by far the largest human-made object orbiting the Earth. Even that isn't large enough to register on Earth-observing instruments such as the DSCOVR satellite's EPIC camera, which takes absolutely gorgeous pictures of the Earth from a million miles away.

Also, considering the speed of the geosynchronous orbit of the satellites, it is difficult to photograph them in space.

That’s not to say that there are no orbiting observatories capable of taking images of other satellites or space junk. Some of the commercial high-resolution satellites would be able to see the ISS and probably even smaller spacecraft.

But even then, it’s a matter of perspective and position. Satellites are designed to not crash into each other, which means that it’s very rare that their paths cross, and many of them operate at different altitudes. The ISS orbits at a height of around 250 miles, for example, while other satellites orbit closer to Earth or much further away. The commercial satellites would be able to see the ISS, which is in a fairly low orbit, But they wouldn’t be able to see MODIS, by example, which is in a higher orbit than the commercial high-resolution satellites.

Seeing is believing. There is one way to spot satellites in Earth's orbit, but it doesn't involve radar tracking or photographs. Just go outside on a clear night with little moonlight, find a spot with minimal light pollution and look up at the stars. The desert for instance. Once your eyes adjust, you should be able to see small pinpricks of light moving steadily across the sky, smaller and steadier than an airplane. Those are some of the hundreds of satellites that are large and low enough to be spotted from Earth. While the smaller objects that make up the majority of items floating around our planet are far too tiny to ever be seen with the naked eye, there are enough large satellites orbiting the Earth that you should be able to spot at least a few. All you have to do is look up.

I’m sorry you wrote all that cause it’s not really what I asking. In court I would have stopped you with a non responsive objection. The question is why don’t people take pics of satellites in space. Is it technical? Like cameras don’t work in space? Or is it practical? Like who the fuck cares and it’s expensive? Can you please answer more along those lines please?

Kierland wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 6:46 pm I’m sorry you wrote all that cause it’s not really what I asking. In court I would have stopped you with a non responsive objection. The question is why don’t people take pics of satellites in space. Is it technical? Like cameras don’t work in space? Or is it practical? Like who the fuck cares and it’s expensive? Can you please answer more along those lines please?

Your objection would have been overruled, as I DID answer the question. Did you even read the entire response?

Look, I'll simplify it for you.

They are simply too small to be seen in Earth orbit, by contrast to the size of the planet. Think of it like this...you go across the street and take a picture of your house. Around your house are numerous insects, flies, gnats, ants, etc. Are you going to see them in the picture? Of course not, they're too small to see. Take a picture of a full body. Will it show the huge number of germs and bacteria and mites we all carry around with us? No. Same analogy applies here.

Another thing. The ISS takes pictures of the planet all the time, but they don't include other satellites. Why? The other satellites are in orbits higher than the Space Station.

People on Earth cannot take pictures of satellites in space, again...due to their very small size and speed. It's physically impossible.

But again, on a clear night with no light pollution, you can see them with the naked eye, as points of light streaking across the sky.

There's your answer.

Again I need to ask a better question. Why don’t people take pics if satellites in space from space?
Why don’t they show us a live feed of the satellite launch from the satellite?

Kierland wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 7:21 pm Again I need to ask a better question. Why don’t people take pics if satellites in space from space?
Why don’t they show us a live feed of the satellite launch from the satellite?

That can be done, to a point. This was addressed in my first response.

I said, "That’s not to say that there are no orbiting observatories capable of taking images of other satellites or space junk. Some of the commercial high-resolution satellites would be able to see the ISS and probably even smaller spacecraft.

But even then, it’s a matter of perspective and position. Satellites are designed to not crash into each other, which means that it’s very rare that their paths cross, and many of them operate at different altitudes. The ISS orbits at a height of around 250 miles, for example, while other satellites orbit closer to Earth or much further away. The commercial satellites would be able to see the ISS, which is in a fairly low orbit, But they wouldn’t be able to see MODIS, by example, which is in a higher orbit than the commercial high-resolution satellites."

In addition, as I also mentioned, there's the matter of proprietary dictum. Military and top-secret satellites are forbidden from being photographed. Remember as well, the idea of perspective and position. They are designed not to have their paths cross. Plus, they are very, very small. And in very fast motion.

Ok so how big is a satellite like in pounds?
Can’t you just add a camera? And then couldn’t you just show a land to space shot where the horizon changes from a line to a curve?
I get that it takes money and maybe nobody will pay them to do it, but seems like a lot of people want to see that footage. So it has to be worth something.

Kierland wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:20 pm
Can’t you just add a camera?

Every micro-gram on satellites and inter-planetary vehicles is scrupulously accounted for and not much accommodation is made for anti-lunatic instrumentation.

"Hey, let's shitcan the mass spectrometer to get some lift off footage for poptart."

It doesn't work that way.

I figured I would get that answer. So it’s possible just nobody has done it. It sounds like horseshit to me, but I promised Jay I would be nice so I will leave it at that.

Kierland wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:20 pm Ok so how big is a satellite like in pounds?
Can’t you just add a camera? And then couldn’t you just show a land to space shot where the horizon changes from a line to a curve?
I get that it takes money and maybe nobody will pay them to do it, but seems like a lot of people want to see that footage. So it has to be worth something.

They can be as small as 4'' cubes or be as big as a school bus. So from a weight standpoint, you're talking anywhere from 2 pounds to nearly 4 tons. But even with the larger units, you still have to factor in the size ratio to Earth and their speed. Plus, most aren't designed to take pictures of each other, except for military grade spy satellites. Of course, no civilian will ever have access to those photos.

What Mart said is true. The fact remains, you and I both know they are up there, in masses.

If they weigh 4tons why can’t they slap on a camera? It seems like it would be an incredible shot to see the curve come into view.

Kierland wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:02 pm If they weigh 4tons why can’t they slap on a camera?

Shlomart Ben Yisrael wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 9:41 pm
Every micro-gram on satellites and inter-planetary vehicles is scrupulously accounted for...

Kierland wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:02 pm It seems like it would be an incredible shot to see the curve come into view.

The space program isn't structured around your titillation.

Kierland wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:02 pm If they weigh 4tons why can’t they slap on a camera? It seems like it would be an incredible shot to see the curve come into view.

I completely agree. It would be amazing. As I mentioned, it can be done. It's very tricky and would take a great effort, as well as a lot of money. The satellites would have to be programmed to synchronize to each others orbits and proximity in space. It's highly risky with a great potential for them crashing into each other.

It's not something that is typically done.

No I mean just a shot from land to space not from land to space and then show me a satellite. I just don’t get why no one has done it. You would think a rich person or country would have done it. I find it highly suspicious.

Kierland wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 10:48 pm No I mean just a shot from land to space not from land to space and then show me a satellite. I just don’t get why no one has done it. You would think a rich person or country would have done it. I find it highly suspicious.

Okay, sorry I missed that. But there should be no suspicion. The answer, like the song, remains the same. They are just too high, too small and too fast. The best that can be done is something like this...



NASA's space shuttle Discovery and the International Space Station are seen in this time-lapsed image as they fly over Leiden, The Netherlands, just before the two spacecraft docked on March 17, 2009 during the STS-119 mission. The shuttle is the object slightly fainter and lower in the sky. Movement is from right to left.

Very impressed with Jay's knowledge of satellites. Maybe the Rocky the Lesbian gloss wasn't deserved after all...

NASA is LGBTQ friendly, it would seem.

poptart wrote:Because you are dull enough to actually believe things like -----> water clings to the outside of a flying, spinning ball.

Jayne wrote:I see gravity still eludes you. What a shock.

Post the science experiment showing "gravity" holding water to the outside of a flying, spinning ball.



Why do people turn their brain off?

Jayne wrote:I completely agree. It would be amazing. As I mentioned, it can be done. It's very tricky and would take a great effort, as well as a lot of money.

They send things (allegedly) to friggin' Pluto and film it.
lol

They could film a rocket going from land to space.

They would film that if they could.


Nothing goes to space, Jayne.

It is a fairy tale.

Yank your tooth out tonight and lay it under your pillow.





#firmament

Your response is both expected and ridiculous. Believe what you want pops. If the truth is too painful, hiding behind your pillow is the safest bet. I've offered plenty of science and evidence here. Simple facts.

You offer nothing.

Run along and let the adults have a conversation.

Jayne wrote:science and evidence

You posted speculation, rationalization, and no science proving your dumb globe.

The idea that a ball flies and spins around with water staying glued to it is made for retards.

It is directly contrary to both common sense and observation.

Then you lob out -- gravity -- as if it is supposed to solve your problem.

It only shows how intellectually bankrupt you are.

poptart wrote:I have noticed that there is a very real "middle-aged-male-lesbian" family, also.

Some males, for whatever reason, take on a lesbian appearance as they age.

Clay AIken

Softball Bat wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2019 2:35 pmYou posted speculation, rationalization, and no science proving your dumb globe.

The idea that a ball flies and spins around with water staying glued to it is made for retards.

It is directly contrary to both common sense and observation.

Then you lob out -- gravity -- as if it is supposed to solve your problem.

It only shows how intellectually bankrupt you are.

1. The current discussion was about satellites. Typical backspin to avoid the FACTS about that topic.

2. Ignoring the physics and physical reality of how gravity works is childish and ignorant. Of which you are both. The fact that your using the term "glued" proves this. My challenge for you is to prove the world is NOT a globe.

Gravity is not a law. It’s a theory. Which is a very important distinction. Gravitation is a law, but it doesn’t help us decide if erf is flat.

Kierland wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2019 5:53 pm Gravity is not a law. It’s a theory. Which is a very important distinction. Gravitation is a law, but it doesn’t help us decide if erf is flat.

Yes, as it's actually both.

When scientifically discussing gravity, you can talk about the law of gravity that describes the attraction between two objects, and you can also talk about the theory of gravity that describes why the objects attract each other.

There's a longer, more detailed explanation I could provide, but it's sort of off topic.

Here's a scenario for the flat erfers. The majority of Earth is covered in water. Inevitably, if the Earth were indeed flat, then on at least one edge, there would be water. Wouldn't the water then spill off the edge, emptying the oceans?

The ice wall duh. Never mind no one has seen it. Just trust them.

Left Seater wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2019 9:17 pm The ice wall duh. Never mind no one has seen it. Just trust them.

I would love to hear how you can prove gravity, if that is what you are claiming and it is absolutely relevant to flat erf.