Flat earth theory?

a reply to: neutronflux

Based on what?

On the fact that in order to orbit, the one object has to move relative to the other object. Orbit is basically the opposite of what a geostationary satellite does.

Have your heard this before somewhere?

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
a reply to: neutronflux

Are their geostationary satellites above earth providing services at this second.

Oh this one again.

Unlikely since geostationary orbits dont exist.

Surprised?

right great we have your position , now prove that they dont exist with Evidence

and finally we can get somewhere

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
a reply to: neutronflux

Based on what?

On the fact that in order to orbit, the one object has to move relative to the other object. Orbit is basically the opposite of what a geostationary satellite does.

Have your heard this before somewhere?

It is not the opposite, a geostationary satellite is still in orbit around the earth despite your inability to comprehend that.

a reply to: neutronflux

Looking forward to your comprehensive and compelling case for debunking those calculations that Neutronflux gave you. I won't hold my breath, though.

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

Then post the physics definition of orbit.

a reply to: sapien82

a geostationary satellite is still in orbit around the earth

But do you know what "geostationary" means?

Rofl.

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

also what do you think relative means in the sense of an orbit ?

as both a geostationary satellite and a elliptical orbit satellite move relative to the earth !

a reply to: neutronflux

I posted NASA's definition at least 5 times. Did you miss that?

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

Have your heard this before somewhere?

I have. Because you keep repeating it with monotonous regularity with nothing to back up your ridiculous claims.

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

yes I completely understand the definition and I've already explained this to you multiple times , its not my fault that you cant understand it .

and once again , please provide evidence that supports your claim that geostationary satellites cant exist !

PLEASE FOR THE Nth time

otherwise we shall just ignore you and return collectively to Flat earth discussion! ]


because we are completely drifting off course into absurdity

and its been a trial to keep the thread going, and others have tried to derail it and get it closed down , and its not going to be you that does it !

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

Then post the physics definition of orbit.

It does not understand physics so prefers to argue semantics. Very similar in style to certain other posters who have trolled these boards in the past.

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
a reply to: sapien82

a geostationary satellite is still in orbit around the earth

But do you know what "geostationary" means?

Rofl.

Geostationary when spoken in context of satellites in orbit , means that the satellite has a fixed position above the earth , yet continues to orbit ( as in move around the earth ) however it does so at the same speed the earth rotates , giving the illusion that it isnt moving at all to the observer.

Do you know what optical illusions are ?

have you ever seen a wheel hub on a car look as though its stationary when the wheel is spinning rapidly ?

Where's turbo when you need to see this sort of nonsense done with at least some class? This is third rate stuff at best and way off topic.

Can we have some FE, please?

and its been a trial to keep the thread going, and others have tried to derail it and get it closed down , and its not going to be you that does it !

Wow this is getting weirder and weirder.

a reply to: sapien82

Geostationary when spoken in context of satellites in orbit , means that the satellite has a fixed position above the earth , yet continues to orbit ( as in move around the earth ) however it does so at the same speed the earth rotates , giving the illusion that it isnt moving at all to the observer.

But it doesnt orbit the Earth. It is not moving around the Earth.

Rofl.

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

well its true you arent the first troll to derail the thread with absolute nonsense , at least the guys that argue flat earth post what they think is evidence to attempt to debate the flat earth / globe earth !

You on the other hand , just give your opinion , which is for the sake of the debate worthless .

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
a reply to: sapien82

Geostationary when spoken in context of satellites in orbit , means that the satellite has a fixed position above the earth , yet continues to orbit ( as in move around the earth ) however it does so at the same speed the earth rotates , giving the illusion that it isnt moving at all to the observer.

But it doesnt orbit the Earth. It is not moving around the Earth.

Rofl.

Once again you are not understanding that orbit means to move around in a circular fashion

Orbit in this context of satellites of the two varying types, doesnt mean that it completes one full revolution of the earth
like an elliptical satellite does , but the geostationary satellite is still in orbit around the earth as it is always moving in a circular fashion around the earth, but the earth is also rotating at the same speed !

seriously man , why cant you get that ?

anything that is within the earths gravitational field and is in the space outside of earths atmosphere is considered to be in orbit if it is moving !

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
a reply to: neutronflux

I posted NASA's definition at least 5 times. Did you miss that?

It was not a definition. It was an over simplified explanation that has noting to do with real satellites from a geostationary position providing real services.

Now. Please cite the formal physics definition of orbit.

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

Wow this is getting weirder and weirder.

No, but you are getting more and more tedious.

How is your detailed debunking of Neutronflux's post with calculations coming along? Come on, be honest, you are not up to it, are you?

Gonna just ignore it and keep spouting your opinions instead?

Anything to say about FE Theory, the topic of this thread. Anything at all? No?