Flat earth theory?

thats what Im saying mate

The satellite only has a curved trajectory , because the earth is curved and the earths mass exerts a gravitational force on the satellite.

if the earth wasnt curved and gravity didnt exist that would not happen! something else would , but who knows what since
we know of no other system where that exists !

Now , Im going to go and enjoy my weekend.

see you monday possibly ! have a nice weekend

a reply to: neutronflux

The question has been answered. You just refuse to acknowledge that a geostationary satellites are just like any other man made satellite.

Completely wrong again. They are not the same. "Normal" satellites orbit the Earth. Geostationary satellites do not orbit the Earth.

How is the orbital velocity of 1.91 miles a second not the right velocity to keep a satellite in orbit 22,236 mi above the earth?

The question was how can it maintain this curved trajectory if its not falling around Earth curvature. What keeps normal satellites from falling back to Earth?

According to all sources its because they fall around and thus orbit the Earth. According to what you just said, geostationary sats do the same, but they obviously dont.

You have no clue. Debunked again.

a reply to: sapien82

The satellite only has a curved trajectory , because the earth is curved

But it doesnt move around Earth curvature, for the umpteenth time, so how can Earth curvature affect its trajectory through space?

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

Again...

A geostationary orbit can be achieved only at an altitude very close to 35,786 km (22,236 mi) and directly above the equator. This equates to an orbital velocity of 3.07 km/s (1.91 mi/s) and an orbital period of 1,436 minutes, which equates to almost exactly one sidereal day (23.934461223 hours).

en.m.wikipedia.org...
[/quotes]

Again. Why wouldn’t a speed of 1.91 mi/s keep a satellite in stable orbit 22,236 mi above the earth’s equator. There are hundreds of satellites doing that very thing proving vital services this very second.

Because you don’t think so?

edit on 16-8-2019 by neutronflux because: Added and fixed

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

You

But it doesnt move around Earth curvature, for the umpteenth time, so how can Earth curvature affect its trajectory through space?

A geostationary/ geosynchronous satellite is just moving at a speed that keeps it above the same point as the earth rotates. So by definition, the satellites has to have a curved trajectory to stay above the same spot. And what does earth’s rotation have to do with the amount of gravity exerted by earth’s mass?

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

You

But it doesnt move around Earth curvature, for the umpteenth time, so how can Earth curvature affect its trajectory through space?

Then how does it stay above the same spot at the same height over the equator? Not by flying in a straight line. Not by having zero speed.

originally posted by: sapien82
thats what Im saying mate

The satellite only has a curved trajectory , because the earth is curved and the earths mass exerts a gravitational force on the satellite.

if the earth wasnt curved and gravity didnt exist that would not happen! something else would , but who knows what since
we know of no other system where that exists !

Now , Im going to go and enjoy my weekend.

see you monday possibly ! have a nice weekend

Oh, that is not a complete answer, and I fear that there is a mistake: The shape of earth does not fully dictate the satelites course.

This is an important difference: as the gravitational field of earth is distorted by a hugely asymmetrical body (of earth, in this case), satellites are indeed going a little wobbly on their course over earth. Over New Jersey, for example.

This does not affect a satellite on geostationary orbit, as it will not experience differing gravitational forces.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

This does not affect a satellite on geostationary orbit, as it will not experience differing gravitational forces.

Pedant this:

No effect due to the large scale shifting of mass on Earth's surface? Tides do not affect Earth's gravitational field? Or does the tide not turn on geostationary orbit?
adsabs.harvard.edu...


Assuming, of course, that the world is round.

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

I never thought I'd see someone who has an even harder time understanding painfully basic concepts than Turbo . . . but here we are, someone who literally can't even understand the concept of movement, just wow.

a reply to: captainpudding

the concept of movement

Can you be more specific?

a reply to: neutronflux

Then how does it stay above the same spot at the same height over the equator?

Exactly.

Geostationary satellites superdebunked.

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

Your entire argument seems based on you not understanding how an object orbiting the earth (at over 10,000kph) can be moving, you've had it explained to you multiple times and still can't seem to process it. You're either a very persistent troll or your cognitive dissonance is so extreme, you're literally unable to process reality.

a reply to: captainpudding

Your entire argument seems based on you not understanding how an object orbiting the earth (at over 10,000kph) can be moving,

A geostationary satellite does not orbit the Earth. Debunked.

You guys are hilarious. You keep posting the same dumb contradiction I debunked about 40 times now.

I cant even write this up to cognitive dissonance. It has become plain stupidity at this point.

Funny how the only other person here who has a clue does not comment on the matter.

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
a reply to: captainpudding

Your entire argument seems based on you not understanding how an object orbiting the earth (at over 10,000kph) can be moving,

A geostationary satellite does not orbit the Earth. Debunked.

You guys are hilarious. You keep posting the same dumb contradiction I debunked about 40 times now.

I cant even write this up to cognitive dissonance. It has become plain stupidity at this point.

Your such a sad little individual.

How? How is it debunked when the technology is used ever day?


Whole lists of geostationary and geosynchronous satellites. Looking forward to you debunking their existence one by one.

List of satellites in geosynchronous orbit

en.m.wikipedia.org...

List of Satellites in Geostationary Orbit
www.satsig.net...

You literally have to debunk the existences of hundreds of satellites, explain what is creating the services they provide, and explain what is transmitting from geostationary/ geosynchronous orbit.

And you didn’t answer to:

Again. Why wouldn’t a speed of 1.91 mi/s keep a satellite in stable orbit 22,236 mi above the earth’s equator. There are hundreds of satellites doing that very thing proving vital services this very second.

Because you don’t think so?

A geostationary/ geosynchronous satellite is just moving at a speed that keeps it above the same point as the earth rotates. So by definition, the satellites has to have a curved trajectory to stay above the same spot. And what does earth’s rotation have to do with the amount of gravity exerted by earth’s mass?

a reply to: neutronflux

You literally have to debunk the existences of hundreds of satellites, explain what is creating the services they provide, and explain what is transmitting from geostationary/ geosynchronous orbit.

I dont have to do squat. Geostationary orbits are not possible within the rules of the popular model.

You cannot explain it. You didnt even come close.

Seems you have to explain where your tv signals are coming from, now that geostationary satellites are debunked. Not me.

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
a reply to: neutronflux

You literally have to debunk the existences of hundreds of satellites, explain what is creating the services they provide, and explain what is transmitting from geostationary/ geosynchronous orbit.

I dont have to do sqaut. Geostationary orbits are not possible within the rules of the popular model.

You cannot explain it. You didnt even come close.

Seems you have to explain where your tv signals are coming from, now that geostationary satellites are debunked. Not me.

Just more rants with no proof by you?

a reply to: neutronflux

A geostationary/ geosynchronous satellite is just moving at a speed that keeps it above the same point as the earth rotates. So by definition, the satellites has to have a curved trajectory to stay above the same spot

So again I ask, how does it maintain this curved trajectory without falling around Earth curvature. Isnt this getting familiar by now? I ask the only relevant question. You dont answer it and look inept. Are you still expecting a different outcome?

When are you going to admit that you cannot answer this? When are you going to pop out of your hilarious state of denial?

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
a reply to: neutronflux

A geostationary/ geosynchronous satellite is just moving at a speed that keeps it above the same point as the earth rotates. So by definition, the satellites has to have a curved trajectory to stay above the same spot

So again I ask, how does it maintain this curved trajectory without falling around Earth curvature. Isnt this getting familiar by now? I ask the only relevant question. You dont answer it and look inept. Are you still expecting a different outcome?

When are you going to admit that you cannot answer this? When are you going to pop out of your hilarious state of denial?

And I asked

Again. Why wouldn’t a speed of 1.91 mi/s keep a satellite in stable orbit 22,236 mi above the earth’s equator. There are hundreds of satellites doing that very thing proving vital services this very second.

Because you don’t think so?


Then posted lists of working satellites, with no explanation by what are all the objects broadcasting from geostationary / geosynchronous orbit.

a reply to: neutronflux

Why wouldn’t a speed of 1.91 mi/s keep a satellite in stable orbit 22,236 mi above the earth’s equator.

A geostationary satellite does not orbit the Earth.

It simply does not compute does it Neutronflux?