Flat earth theory?

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

How to Calculate a Satellite’s Speed around the Earth

Physics I For Dummies, 2nd Edition

www.dummies.com...

No show where it’s impossible to calculate a height and speed of an orbit where a satellite would orbit the earth’s circumference once a day.

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

Don’t want to lose this on a previous page...

No..

Now, answer the question below. It has nothing to do with earth’s rotation.

But you think there is no speed for a given height where a satellite would only orbit the circumference of the earth once a day. Why.

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
a reply to: neutronflux

You are correct, in order to orbit the Earth, a satellite has to move relative to Earth.

Does a geostationary satellite move relative to Earth. No it doesnt.

Geostationary orbits debunked.

Yes... yes it does...

it orbits at the same speed as the earth turns

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: InfiniteTrinity
...
The onus is on you infinity to provide such evidence , science isnt here to convince you otherwise , it is up to you to see the objective facts for yourself and conclude like many other humans before you that this is at least the truth of the matter.

Of course there is completely more to gravity than we currently comprehend , so all truths are really but half truth!
and science knows this , hence its drive to improve and expand upon our present understanding of the natural phenomenon we call gravity!

( Emphasis added ).

Have we forgotten that science is not truth ?
Have we retooled our scientism briefcase ?

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

Just wow. Lazyness cannot explain this level of oblivion.

If you are going to make snide comments about other poster's spelling and punctuation you really ought to learn how to spell. It's "laziness".

All you are doing on this thread is arguing semantics because you have nothing else. Orbital mechanics has been very patiently explained to you over and over again. I can't believe that you are that thick that you cannot understand what has been explained to you so the only conclusion that remains is that you are just trolling.

Very badly.

Do you have anything to say on topic about Flat Earth theory, bearing in mind that that is the title of this thread? No?

a reply to: oldcarpy

It’s more than semantics. The person actually argues a satellite cannot achieve a speed and height that would result in a 24 hour orbit of earth’s circumference. And denies that geostationary satellites are actually in orbit and being utilized.

All with brilliant, logical, well cited, and evidence provided one word declaration and argument of “debunked”

a reply to: neutronflux

All with brilliant, logical, well cited, and evidence

I must have missed that!

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

I believe the non stationary orbits are not impossible within the rules of the popular model.

What does this actually mean? I thought you said that they were impossible?

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
a reply to: neutronflux

You didn’t answer the question.

There is no question to answer since the situation you present does not exist. I just told you. A geostationary satellite does not orbit the Earth once a day, which you claim is the situation and is the base of your question.

You have serious cognitive problems buddy.

Geostationary orbits debunked.

and that is only your opinion , as you have provided no evidence to the contrary

a geostationary satellite is in a permanent orbit just like other satellites , but thanks to the geosynchronous orbit
it appears fixed over the earth so doesn't appear to orbit the earth like the elliptical orbits of non geostationary satellites.
So the elliptical orbits will complete a full revolution of the earths circumference to the observer , a geostationary satellite wont appear to complete a revolution of the earths circumference because its orbital speed is matched to the earths rotation and through this process appears motionless.

A simple concept that you fail to understand

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

I believe the non stationary orbits are not impossible within the rules of the popular model.

What does this actually mean? I thought you said that they were impossible?

He believes that non geosynchronous , elliptical orbits are possible within the current model , but geo stationary satellites arent , because he believes that they cant orbit the earth and remain fixed in position over the earth at the same time.

and that is because they dont complete an elliptical orbit , because he doesnt believe that geosynchronous satellites result in geostationary orbits.

That is as far as I think I understand his position.
but he hasnt provided any evidence to support his position, only opinion !

a reply to: sapien82

Oh, I see. Must admit reading this thread I am rather losing the will to live.

Still no clue I see. Still not able to say something relevant.

Geostationary orbits debunked.

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
Still no clue I see. Still not able to say something relevant.

The irony!

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
Still no clue I see. Still not able to say something relevant.

Geostationary orbits debunked.

0/10

try harder

You have provided no evidence only your OPINION !

your opinion is not evidence , so therefore you cannot debunk something without providing objective evidence
which we can see , not just your own subjective opinion on a natural phenomenon

Mate , we have done so to prove to you that this is real and tangible
you have only have your own opinion that its not real . That is fine as a far as opinions go , but in order for you to debunk anything , you need evidence .

So far you havent given us one single piece of evidence to make me rethink orbital mechanics and geostationary satellites
I am completely open to read your evidence when you actually get around to providing it.

Thanks

a reply to: oldcarpy

Best I can tell from reading their posts is that they're either a very persistent troll or the living embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Their entire argument seems to be based on the fact that they can't fathom how something that doesn't appear to be moving can be moving.

because he believes that they cant orbit the earth and remain fixed in position over the earth at the same time.

No because in order to orbit the Earth it is going to have to move around the Earth.


Really some sort of cognitive behavior study should be done on this group.

Amazing stuff.

Best I can tell from reading their posts is that they're either a very persistent troll or the living embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

a reply to: captainpudding

Those two are not mutually exclusive. My money is on both.

If only we could get back to FE madness which is the topic of this thread. I could do with a laugh and this is all just tedious now.

He just believes "orbit" requires something to travel from continent to continent...

a reply to: oldcarpy

If only we could get back to FE madness which is the topic of this thread.

Now that is irony.

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

It is? How, exactly?