Flat earth theory?

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.

Ok infinite you said that it isn't moving around the earth , now please give us some evidence which backs up your claim !

then we can debate the idea

until you do , your opinion is not evidence
and therefore the debate is dead in the water, and its still Geostationary satellites 1 - InfiniteTrinity 0

a reply to: sapien82

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

First of that's not the complete definition.

Second it is not moving in a circular fashion around Earth, which you guys keep on claiming.

a reply to: oldcarpy

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?

Lol.

Ah, the numbers right? Carpy just because you are impressed by numbers doesnt mean others are. Why should I debunk these irrelevant numbers that have nothing to do with a point I made.

Rofl.

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
a reply to: sapien82

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

First of that's not the complete definition.

Second it is not moving in a circular fashion around Earth, which you guys keep on claiming.

check the word origin

mid 16th century (in orbit (sense 3 of the noun)): from Latin orbita ‘course, track’ (in medieval Latin ‘eye socket’), feminine of orbitus ‘circular’, from orbis ‘ring’.

We arent claiming anything , science has proven this , that geostationary satellites are orbiting the earth because of geosychronicity
they appear motionless or "GEO STATIONARY"

you want to debunk it then provide evidence which makes us question the already understood process .

Show us something other than your own opinion .

and with that Im no longer replying to you until you provide evidence

geostationary satellites 1 - infinite trinity - 0

nice try , but absolutely no cigar

a reply to: sapien82

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 !

You said it was orbiting Earth in every post I responded to.

a reply to: neutronflux

Now. Please cite the formal physics definition of orbit.

What is stopping you?

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
a reply to: neutronflux

Now. Please cite the formal physics definition of orbit.

What is stopping you?

What is stopping you ? because if you want disprove something the burden of responsibility is on you , not the other way around !

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
a reply to: sapien82

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 !

You said it was orbiting Earth in every post I responded to.

Yes because both geostationary satellites and elliptical satellites orbit the earth

a reply to: sapien82

Like I just pointed out, I have already posted NASA's definition 5 times. You disagree with NASA and now I have to find a source to back you up?

Sure thing.

a reply to: sapien82

Yes because both geostationary satellites and elliptical satellites orbit the earth

No geostationary satellites dont move relative to Earth, so no, they dont orbit Earth. It seemed you finally had a moment of clarity, but nope. No no.

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
a reply to: oldcarpy

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?

Lol.

Ah, the numbers right? Carpy just because you are impressed by numbers doesnt mean others are. Why should I debunk these irrelevant numbers that have nothing to do with a point I made.

Rofl.

Oh, what a lame excuse.

Do you not understand that those "numbers" actually have relevance and that they mean something? No, I didn't think so. Science is not your strong subject, is it?

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

Glad you asked. I have posted for you. Is that false.

a reply to: oldcarpy

Do you not understand that those "numbers" actually have relevance and that they mean something? No, I didn't think so. Science is not your strong subject, is it?

Please Carpy. I dont need to debunk these numbers because I dont disagree with them. These numbers are correct within the rules of the popular model and distances given. You are so transparant carpy. Getting all excited. Just no clue.

a reply to: neutronflux

Can you post them again. What is stopping you?

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

Here, everything explained to you:

en.wikipedia.org...

A geostationary orbit, often referred to as a geosynchronous equatorial orbit[1] (GEO), is a circular geosynchronous orbit 35,786 km (22,236 mi) above Earth's equator and following the direction of Earth's rotation. An object in such an orbit appears motionless, at a fixed position in the sky, to ground observers. Communications satellites and weather satellites are often placed in geostationary orbits, so that the satellite antennas (located on Earth) that communicate with them do not have to rotate to track them, but can be pointed permanently at the position in the sky where the satellites are located. Using this characteristic, ocean-color monitoring satellites with visible and near-infrared light sensors (e.g. GOCI) can also be operated in geostationary orbit in order to monitor sensitive changes of ocean environments. A geostationary orbit is a particular type of geosynchronous orbit, which has an orbital period equal to Earth's rotational period, or one sidereal day (23 hours, 56 minutes, 4 seconds). Thus, the distinction is that, while an object in geosynchronous orbit returns to the same point in the sky at the same time each day, an object in geostationary orbit never leaves that position. Geosynchronous orbits move around relative to a point on Earth's surface because, while geostationary orbits have an inclination of 0° with respect to the Equator, geosynchronous orbits have varying inclinations and eccentricities.

No doubt you will find this "hilarious" or somesuch.

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

Please Carpy. I dont need to debunk these numbers because I dont disagree with them. These numbers are correct within the rules of the popular model and distances given. You are so transparant carpy. Getting all excited. Just no clue.

You don't even understand any of this so your pretending otherwise is very lame.

Whose "Getting all excited"? Not me, I am just getting bored with you.

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity


neutronflux

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
Well, still no opposition. Thanks for the display.

Geostationary orbits debunked.

How. How is it debunked?

How does geostationary orbit not meet the definition of orbit...

neutronflux
a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

You

Then why do you keep making the same mistake.

What mistake? You don’t have a clear statement on what the mistake is. All you have is an erroneous opinion that has no logic, and keep posting debunked with no actual proof or evidence.

Orbit

en.m.wikipedia.org...

In physics, an orbit is the gravitationally curved trajectory of an object,[1] such as the trajectory of a planet around a star or a natural satellite around a planet. Normally, orbit refers to a regularly repeating trajectory, although it may also refer to a non-repeating trajectory. To a close approximation, planets and satellites follow elliptic orbits, with the central mass being orbited at a focal point of the ellipse,[2] as described by Kepler's laws of planetary motion.

One, “In physics, an orbit is the gravitationally curved trajectory of an object,“. Does a geostationary satellite have a curved trajectory? It’s does by definition to stay above the same point on the rotating curved surface of the earth. To do this, a geostationary satellite is orbiting the central mass of the earth. Is that false.

Two, “Normally, orbit refers to a regularly repeating trajectory, although it may also refer to a non-repeating trajectory”. For a geostationary satellite, the orbit has the same period as the rotation of the earth. As a point on earth completes a full rotation, a geostationary satellite completes one full rotation of its obit. Is that false.

Three, “To a close approximation, planets and satellites follow elliptic orbits, with the central mass being orbited at a focal point of the ellipse,[2] as described by Kepler's laws of planetary motion.” Geostationary satellites complete one orbit around the earth’s central mass every 24 hours. Is that false.

Four. Now, what your hung up on. “such as the trajectory of a planet around a star or a natural satellite around a planet.“ a geostationary satellite completes one orbit ever 24 hours as the earth completes one rotation. It’s that false.


By definition, a geostationary orbit is an orbit. If a geostationary satellite did not complete one full circle of its orbit every 24 hours, it would not stay above the same point on earth. That full circle orbit is around the earth’s central mass.

With the definition of orbit having noting to do with earth’s rotation.

a reply to: oldcarpy

You disagree with me agreeing with the numbers?

So according to you the numbers are wrong?

Waiting for your detailed debunk.

a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

What does your misunderstanding have to do with the reality of geostationary satellites providing actual services.

a reply to: neutronflux

No physics definition of orbit first?