It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Flat earth theory?

page: 138
14
<< 135  136  137    139  140  141 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2019 @ 07:50 AM
link   
a reply to: neutronflux




Because, about the axis of the earth, a geostationary satellite to stay in orbit must travel at 1.91 miles a second around to maintain its “ gravitationally curved trajectory” .


This is the answer to the question how it does that?

How does it maintain this gravitationally curved trajectory. It has to fall around the curvature of the Earth to orbit. It doesnt.

Why do you refuse to touch the issue?

Goestationary satellites debunked.
edit on 16-8-2019 by InfiniteTrinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2019 @ 07:55 AM
link   
So now that geostationary orbits are debunked without any of the experts here being able to say one thing of substance in defense of the ridiculous notion, we can conclude that geostationary space satellites can and do not exist. This must mean there is another technology used to do the things all satellites are said to do and there is no need for space satellites.

Therefore all the satellite arguments in support of the popular model are invalid.



posted on Aug, 16 2019 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
a reply to: oldcarpy




Well, I Googled that and guess what? That is completely untrue.


You arent the sharpest tool in the shed are you?


Maybe not, but I don't come on here and tell obvious lies.



posted on Aug, 16 2019 @ 08:01 AM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy

What lie?

If I type "why dont satellites fall back to Earth?" this is the first sentence that appears,




Satellites don't fall from the sky because they are orbiting Earth.





edit on 16-8-2019 by InfiniteTrinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2019 @ 08:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
So now that geostationary orbits are debunked without any of the experts here being able to say one thing of substance in defense of the ridiculous notion, we can conclude that geostationary space satellites can and do not exist. This must mean there is another technology used to do the things all satellites are said to do and there is no need for space satellites.

Therefore all the satellite arguments in support of the popular model are invalid.



Thank you for at last coming out of the closet. You believe that satellites do not exist.

And you accuse me of not being the sharpest tool in the shed?

By the way, you have not "debunked" anything. I posted an explanation that was aimed at educating children but even that seems to be out of your depth. You are just making an even bigger fool of yourself.





posted on Aug, 16 2019 @ 08:03 AM
link   
This lie:


originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity
Lets ask Google. Google! Why dont satellites fall back to Earth?

"Because they are orbiting Earth."

Google! Why dont geostationary satellites fall back to Earth?

".....Earth is the third planet in our solar system, it's.."



posted on Aug, 16 2019 @ 08:04 AM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy

What lie?




Thank you for at last coming out of the closet. You believe that satellites do not exist.


It's not a matter of belief. It is a simple deduction based on the impossibility of geostationary orbits, something which noone here is able to refute.
edit on 16-8-2019 by InfiniteTrinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2019 @ 08:07 AM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy




I posted an explanation that was aimed at educating children but even that seems to be out of your depth. You are just making an even bigger fool of yourself.


Please quote the part that explains how it orbits the Earth without moving relative to the Earth. And qoute the part that explains how they maintain this curved trajectory through space without falling around the curvature of the Earth.

This is what you guys have to explain.

But you cant.

Geostationary satellites debunked.
edit on 16-8-2019 by InfiniteTrinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2019 @ 08:14 AM
link   
a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

Why should I bother? You can lead a horse to water..., and so on.

Anyway, I have come to the conclusion that I am speaking to a petulant child so, I will leave you to it.



Geostationary satellites debunked.


Oh, please.......

if you want to troll around these parts why not at least provide us with some entertainment and post a FE or Moon landing Hoax thread? I could do with a laugh. Bored now.




edit on 16-8-2019 by oldcarpy because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2019 @ 08:18 AM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy

Bye Carpy. Thanks you for failing to put up any argument here.

Geostationary satellites debunked.



posted on Aug, 16 2019 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

Whatever.



posted on Aug, 16 2019 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

Ok a geostationary satellite will remain in its fixed location above the earth , by putting it into a geosynchronous orbit

this means the satellite has an orbital speed the same as the earths rotational speed meaning it will remain fixed in its position over the earth as it will obrit the earth at the same speed in which it rotates!
If you can imagine a natural satellite , oh wait perfect we have one of those , the moon is tidally locked to earth because its rotational speed matches its orbit meaning we only see the near side of the moon !

That isnt hard to understand., in fact the concept is that easy to grasp that they do teach this concept of space flight and satellites to children !

Satellites will have small maneuvering thrusters to position it if its orbit begins to decay over time , or they are corrected by astronauts who regularly repair satellites in orbit around earth if they dont have thrusters.
Others that arent that important or have come to the end of their life are just left their to float away or fall to earth.

The Key to this whole concept , is the term "GEOSYNCHRONOUS"

if you really want to blow your mind , look up lagrange points Lagrange points , no thrusters or corrections required




edit on 16-8-2019 by sapien82 because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-8-2019 by sapien82 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2019 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: sapien82




That isnt hard to understand.


You'd be surprised, mate!



posted on Aug, 16 2019 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: sapien82




Ok a geostationary satellite will remain in its fixed location above the earth , by putting it into a geosynchronous orbit


Stopped reading after this.


edit on 16-8-2019 by InfiniteTrinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2019 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Amazing how none of your are able to say something relevant. Even after I directly pointed out what needs to be explained in order to save your hilarious geostationary orbit fantasies, multiple times. In fact it seems you guys cant post a single argument without a blatant contradiction. Is it perhaps because your model is one big contradiction?

Geostationary orbit=contradiction.



edit on 16-8-2019 by InfiniteTrinity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2019 @ 08:31 AM
link   
a reply to: sapien82




in fact the concept is that easy to grasp that they do teach this concept of space flight and satellites to children !


Indeed. But trying to explain it to a troll is a waste of time.



posted on Aug, 16 2019 @ 08:32 AM
link   
a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

Care to explain further , because you haven't at all debunked geostationary satellites, all you have shown is your refusal to entertain a rather simple concept !

Step 1 , read a dictionary and learn what geosynchronous means

this stuff is simple , basic understanding of movement , it isnt hard to understand at all , all you are doing is putting your own confirmation bias into it as you refuse to look into something which will alter your own understanding or perception of reality based on nothing more than HYPE train new age thinking , which simply makes you look like an ignorant fool !

Im not trying to insult you by calling you a fool , but when you refuse to read factual objective information , it just makes you look ignorant !
not even considering an opposing view point is a fail for anyone mate!

the difference being , we have all considered flat earth and all the #e hype train fan boy # that goes with it , but when presented with objective facts , you cant argue in defense of any of it , the water doesnt hold and literally falls off the flat plane into the vacuum of space.



posted on Aug, 16 2019 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: oldcarpy

Still waiting for your explanation. You know what I am asking for. Go right ahead!



posted on Aug, 16 2019 @ 08:35 AM
link   
a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

yes its your failure to understand English language that is the problem

I have said , look up the definition of geostationary orbit

an object remains stationary , fixed over the object it orbits, so long as the object that is the satellite has an orbital speed which matches the objects rotational speed !

What is #ing so hard to understand about that statement ?

its #ing simple comprehension of language



posted on Aug, 16 2019 @ 08:37 AM
link   
a reply to: InfiniteTrinity

You can stay hungry, I'm not feeding you anymore. Run out of troll spray, too, dammit.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 135  136  137    139  140  141 >>

log in

join