It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

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

# Flat earth theory?

page: 147
14
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 07:00 PM

The satellite has momentum.

Not in the frame of reference of Earth.

Frame of reference is irrelevant to the discussion.

The Earth is irrelevant?

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 07:00 PM

You

In order to balance the forces it has to keep falling around curvature Phage, just like the other sats.

Wrong.. it has to maintain a path on the curve of the gravity well.

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 07:02 PM

In order to balance the forces it has to keep falling arounf curvature Phage, just like the other sats.

No. It just has to keep moving. And it does, because momentum.

You see Phage, the other satellites have to fall around curvature to maintain a curved trajectory through space.
All satellites, any satellites, need do is move. Gravity causes them to follow a curved path. If they don't move fast enough they reenter the atmosphere. If they move too fast they leave Earth orbit. Anywhere in between they will orbit at an altitude determined by their velocity.

edit on 8/17/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 07:04 PM

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity

Not in the frame of reference of Earth.

False. In your frame of reference that other car wasn't moving but it had momentum.

The Earth is irrelevant?
The rate of its rotation is. The frame of reference to which you refer.

edit on 8/17/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 07:07 PM

You

Didnt make such a claim. Can you say something relevant.

One, then provide a logical argument with evidence.

Two, it’s about earth’s gravity well.

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 07:10 PM

No. It just has to keep moving

How does it maintain its trajectory Phage if its being pulled down by gravity. With no surface curving away from under it it cannot maintain altitude.

Keep arguing against physics Phage.

All satellites, any satellites, need do is move. Gravity causes them to follow a curved path.

What keeps them moving at the right velocity and curved trajectory is the fact that the Earth curves away from under them and they can keep falling around it.

Geostationary sats cannot do this. Debunked.

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 07:11 PM

Do you read anything cited and posted?

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 07:12 PM

How does it maintain its trajectory Phage if its being pulled down by gravity.
Answered. The balance of its momentum and acceleration due to gravity.

What keeps them moving at the right velocity and curved trajectory is the fact that the Earth curves away from under them and they can keep falling around it.
Incorrect. Wait, do you think that gravity is flat?

edit on 8/17/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 07:12 PM

False. In your frame of reference that other car wasn't moving but it had momentum.

They have no momentum in the frame of reference of Earth Phage. Simple as that. They dont move relative to Earth so there is no angular momentum relative to Earth.

The rate of its rotation is. The frame of reference to which you refer.

Didnt make such a claim.

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 07:14 PM

The balance of its momentum and acceleration due to gravity.

Since it doent fall it cannot maintain momentum while being attracted by gravity. When are you going to respond Phage?

Incorrect.

Can you say something specific Phage?

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 07:15 PM

They dont move relative to Earth so there is no angular momentum relative to Earth.

That other car don't move relative to you neither.

Didnt make such a claim.
You just did. See quote above.

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 07:16 PM

When are you going to respond Phage?
When have I not?

Can you say something specific Phage?
I did. You are wrong.

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 07:16 PM

Wait, do you think that gravity is flat?

No Phage, they have to fall around a curve of the direction of gravity, around the Earth in order to maintain a trajectory.

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 07:17 PM

You

Geostationary sats cannot do this. Debunked.

Yet, hundreds of in service satellites in geostationary/ geosynchronous orbit are proving you wrong this very second.

Again......

examples of very real and tangible technology using geostationary and geosynchronous satellites

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...

And you cannot debunk the existence of the service provided by just one satellite

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 07:17 PM

No Phage, they have to fall around a curve of the direction of gravity, around the Earth in order to maintain a trajectory.
Around the center of gravity of Earth. Which they do. Has nothing to do with moving over a point on Earth.

Going to mow my lawn now. Can't say it's been fun chatting.

edit on 8/17/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 07:19 PM

That other car don't move relative to you neither.

Not making any point.

The rate of its rotation is. The frame of reference to which you refer.

Again did not make such a claim. Quote the claim.
edit on 17-8-2019 by InfiniteTrinity because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 07:19 PM

originally posted by: InfiniteTrinity

Wait, do you think that gravity is flat?

No Phage, they have to fall around a curve of the direction of gravity, around the Earth in order to maintain a trajectory.

What does that have to do with earth's rotation vs gravity well.

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 07:21 PM

Around the center of gravity of Earth. Which they do.

Yes they do. Now explain how they maintain this with gravity pulling down, and them not falling around a curve of the direction of gravity to keep them up there.
edit on 17-8-2019 by InfiniteTrinity because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 07:22 PM

What does that have to do with earth's rotation vs gravity well.

What does your irrelevant drivel have to do with a point I made is the question.

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 07:25 PM

I dont have to debunk the service. I am not arguing against its existence.

Geostationary space satellites are debunked. Where you go from there is up to you.
edit on 17-8-2019 by InfiniteTrinity because: (no reason given)

top topics

14