Absolute Proof the Earth is Round NOT Flat!

a reply to: cooperton

Video shows earth curvature.

James May Witnesses Curvature of Earth | James May: On The Moon | Brit Lab

m.youtube.com...

Switching gears....

Sputnik 1

en.m.wikipedia.org...

The R-7 core stage, with a mass of 7.5 tonnes and a length of 26 metres, also reached Earth orbit. It was a first magnitude object following behind the satellite and visible at night. Deployable reflective panels were placed on the booster in order to increase its visibility for tracking.[66] A small highly polished sphere, the satellite was barely visible at sixth magnitude, and thus harder to follow optically.[25] The batteries ran out on 26 October 1957, after the satellite completed 326 orbits.[68]

Most Sputnik spotters actually saw its rocket

Though Sputnik 1 was small, it was quite reflective and therefore visible from Earth through a pair of binoculars (and perhaps even with the naked eye, if you had good vision and knew exactly where to look).

Many people reported seeing the satellite overhead in late 1957, but experts think most of these sightings actually involved the R-7. The rocket's 85-foot-long (26 m) core stage also reached orbit, and it was covered with reflective panels to make tracking it easier. This rocket body fell back to Earth on Dec. 2, 1957, according to Zak.

www.space.com...

The first satellite placed in orbit, Sputnik was verified by sight and its active broadcasting.

Flat earth is the lie.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: cooperton

Video shows earth curvature.


James May Witnesses Curvature of Earth | James May: On The Moon | Brit Lab

m.youtube.com...

It depends on the angle of the camera. If the center of the camera is on the earth then it appears curved (convex), if it is looking into outer space it begins to look curved in the other direction (concave). Best example can be seen in the redbull guy who did the space jump. Earth changes from convex to flat to concave and then back again depending on the angle. Sadly this doesn't discern either way

Many people reported seeing the satellite overhead in late 1957, but experts think most of these sightings actually involved the R-7. The rocket's 85-foot-long (26 m) core stage also reached orbit, and it was covered with reflective panels to make tracking it easier. This rocket body fell back to Earth on Dec. 2, 1957, according to Zak.

www.space.com...


The first satellite placed in orbit, Sputnik was verified by sight and its active broadcasting.

Flat earth is the lie.

It was in low earth orbit though. Looking for a video that shows a spaceship exiting earths atmosphere (approximately 6,378km above sea level). Or even going through the ionosphere would be of interest to me. I'd like to see the optics involved with such a transition if you can find one

a reply to: cooperton

You're unlikely to find one I'd think. The only space vehicles that far out are satellitescat geostationary and geosynchronous orbit, and they reach thst position by a sliw period of ever widening transfer orbits, or craft on their way somewhere else. While the latter have been observed, eg

pages.astronomy.ua.edu...

tracking is difficult to achieve optically as the objects are both small and far away, and may not be doing anything observable like firing an engine.

You'd have to find someone who thought it would be interesting enough and had the equipment.

e2a: Thinking about it, you're more likely to have video of objects coming in through that altitude, namely meteors.

a reply to: cooperton

Ok.

AndI just posted video of the curvature of the earth

And the rocket that placed the first satellite Sputnik into orbit was visually verified along its track to place Sputnik into space with photographic evidence. That Sputnik was visible with binoculars. One of the rocket stages orbiting the earth was visible with the naked eye. And the actual satellite Sputnik was actually tracked by its broadcasting.

The fist rocket that place the first satellite in to orbit is verified as making it in to space. A indisputable fact with third party / layers of verification that it existed and completed its mission. Period.

More modern. I saw the skylink satellites with my own eyes.

How to Spot SpaceX's 60 New Starlink Satellites in the Night Sky

www.space.com...

Seen the international space station with my own eyes

Spot the space station

spotthestation.nasa.gov...

I have used satellite TV since the 1980’s.

receive signals on the C-band analog, and were very large. The front cover of the 1979 Neiman-Marcus Christmas catalog featured the first home satellite TV stations on sale.[4] The dishes were nearly 20 feet (6.1 m) in diameter.[5] The satellite dishes of the early 1980s were 10 to 16 feet (3.0 to 4.9 m) in diameter[6] and made of fiberglass with an embedded layer of wire mesh or aluminium foil, or solid aluminium or steel.[7]

en.m.wikipedia.org...

With there being so many different ways to prove objects have been placed in orbit by rocket than Turbos very limited acceptance that turbo will label CGI is TOTAL BS

Still waiting on Turbo to post video evidence that Turbo exists.

Do you have video evidence you are willing to post you exist?

Then you have comets and meteorites. Natural phenomena that proves the night sky is not permanent, and that travel about the solar system does occur at even a natural level.

Flat earth is the lie.

a reply to: cooperton

But there are other means to track man made objects in space....

How to cast a wider net for tracking space junk
There are only so many hours of the day you can use to track orbital debris. Some scientists think they’ve found more hours.

www.technologyreview.com...

Man has been in orbit around the earth. And in humans true fashion we have left our junk behind to prove it.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

The karman line is generally considered the begining of space. At about 100 KM (62 miles) though NASA and the US military define space at 50 miles instead of 62. Rockets going above the Karman line start using orbital mechanics to achieve higher altitudes.

a reply to: neutronflux

Yeah the TV satellites are apparently multiple earth radii above the earth. I've been working out this idea that our earth, similar to an atom, has various energy orbitals. The highest satellite in orbit is about 42,164 km above earth's surface, which is between 6 and 7 earth radii. I think our views of space need to go more towards Einstein's relativity theory rather than the 3D spheres magically floating in gravitational equilibrium (I say magically because the equations don't add up).

I'm hoping that privatized space travel will make things clear and more transparent.

a reply to: cooperton

The orbital altitude is not like electron energy levels. The fact is that the higher a satellite orbits, the slower it will move in that orbit (due to the physical nature of orbits). It's the same idea as the planets. Mercury and Venus move at a much faster orbital speed around the sun than does Saturn and Uranus. The closer/farther a planet is to its star, the faster/slower it moves while orbiting. The closer/farther a satellite is from earth, the faster/slower it will move while orbiting.

We use those difference in orbital speed to our advantage. A particular orbital altitude (and other orbital aspects) can be chosen that naturally affect the orbital characteristics of a satellite to get a particular orbit the satellite operators might desire.

For example, the majority of TV satellites orbits at about 23,000 miles (37,000 km). At that particular altitude, a satellite will move at a particular speed around the earth so that the satellite moves at the exact same speed that the earth rotates. This means that the satellite will always stay at the same point above the earth as the earth rotates.

There are other orbital variables as well that are used in order to get a satellite to have a particular desired orbit, such as manipulating the inclination (e.g., having its orbit not always be above the equator, but maybe sometime above the northern hemisphere and sometimes above the southern hemisphere) or maybe manipulating the orbital eccentricity (i.e., having a greatly elliptical orbit that takes it farther from Earth at some points and closer in at other points), or a combination of these.

Here's a good reference page on the different kinds of satellite orbits and what they might be good for:

Catalog of Earth Satellite Orbits

a reply to: cooperton

I think our views of space need to go more towards Einstein's relativity theory

Relativity is used to solve many a problem...

Einstein's Relativity and Everyday Life
By Clifford M. Will



To determine its location, the GPS receiver uses the time at which each signal from a satellite was emitted, as determined by the on-board atomic clock and encoded into the signal, together the with speed of light, to calculate the distance between itself and the satellites it communicated with. The orbit of each satellite is known accurately. Given enough satellites, it is a simple problem in Euclidean geometry to compute the receiver's precise location, both in space and time. To achieve a navigation accuracy of 15 meters, time throughout the GPS system must be known to an accuracy of 50 nanoseconds, which simply corresponds to the time required for light to travel 15 meters.

But at 38 microseconds per day, the relativistic offset in the rates of the satellite clocks is so large that, if left uncompensated, it would cause navigational errors that accumulate faster than 10 km per day! GPS accounts for relativity by electronically adjusting the rates of the satellite clocks, and by building mathematical corrections into the computer chips which solve for the user's location. Without the proper application of relativity, GPS would fail in its navigational functions within about 2 minutes.

So the next time your plane approaches an airport in bad weather, and you just happen to be wondering "what good is basic physics?", think about Einstein and the GPS tracker in the cockpit, helping the pilots guide you to a safe landing.

www.physicscentral.com...

a reply to: turbonium1

Rockets place satellites in orbit, get over that fact.

ABOUT
Tracking Sputnik I’s Orbit

distributedmuseum.illinois.edu...

Sputnik I was launched by the Soviet Union on October 4, 1957, surprising the United States. By the evening of that same day, Astronomy department faculty and students gathered in the basement of the Observatory to begin making observations as the satellite passed over Urbana.

During the previous year the United States was gearing up to launch its own satellites and deployed Minitrack, a worldwide array of radio interferometer stations that could track the US satellite. Astronomy and Electrical Engineering Professor George Swenson obtained a Minitrack interferometer for the members of the University of Illinois Astronomical Society.

On the night of October 4th, students quickly assembled the antennas in the south yard of the Observatory. Sputnik transmitted its signal on a different frequency, but Swenson was quickly able to obtain another receiver and the students began recording the signals from “an enormous lavatory roll,” in the south yard. The interferometer made crude position measurements of Sputnik along with Doppler tracking data. Students also made visual observations using other instruments, such as theodolites, astronomical clocks, and WWV time signal receivers available at the Observatory.

Astronomers were among the few who knew celestial mechanics, so department chair George McVitte and astronomers Stanley Wyatt and Ivan King used the data to derive Sputnik’s orbital elements, with help from mathematician Donald Gillies and physicist James Snyder, who programed the ILLIAC I computer. The result was an ephemeris, or astronomical data set describing the orbit and position of the satellite in the sky, within two days of its launch and published in Nature by November of 1957.

Engineers Erect Sputnik-Tracking Antennas
Electronics engineers at the 1957 National Electronics Conference in Chicago set up equipment to listen for signals from Sputnik 1.

www.space.com...

How tracking Sputnik inspired GPS

www.theglobeandmail.com...

The night after Sputnik's historic launch on Oct. 4, 1957, scientists at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology set out to chart the satellite's precise orbit in the sky by tuning into the "beep-beep-beep" of its radio signal.

As the satellite approach overhead, the frequency of the single increased, and as it got further away, the frequency decreased. Or put another way, the signal seemed to become stronger as satellite got closer and then weaker as the spacecraft receded in the distance- a phenomenon known as the Doppler effect.

It was readily apparent to the scientists that satellite signals could be used for a sophisticated space-based navigational and guidance system. Just as you could use the Doppler effect to pinpoint the location of a satellite flying overhead, you could also employ satellite signals to find your location on the ground. With such beckons in the sky, ships would always know their precise position at sea, troops could manoeuvre on the ground and bombs could be guided to their targets with deadly accuracy.

The Beep Heard Round The World
www.scientificamerican.com...

originally posted by: FinallyAwake
Aren't those restricted areas at sea to stop sh1t falling on people? And the sound of course!

What would the average decibel level be at the launch area, compared to elsewhere? So what are you talking about 'sound' for?

And of course, they use 'falling debris' as their great excuse for it, why do you think they designed rockets with 'booster engines', and so forth, in the first place?

Their main power, and main fuel source, is obviously from the massive 'booster' engines, attached to their sides, which drops after the first 3-4 minutes, at low altitudes, as they fly out of all view, over the ocean!

What would fuel these rockets after they drop their tanks, booster engines, after 3-4 minutes?

Look at when, and where, they always drop boosters, etc..

They give us a show, a spectacle, to see, and be amazed by, which is a rocket launching from the Earth, going straight upward, in the sky, and that's a very, very dramatic, powerful display to see, and film, which sells the dream, the fairy tale, the fantasy, is a reality, without any proof.

If anyone wishes to believe it's about safety, they wouldn't allow people to the launch areas, or near to them.

They have always restricted us from those areas, to keep it a grotesque secret.

a reply to: turbonium1

Rockets are very loud anything over 185 db can kill you. You see this in combat its called blast overpressure. It can cause your lungs to burst and damage organs. To someone near by it would look like you just fell over dead if it wasnt for the loud boom . When they do rocket launches they have to consider the sound in fact they take measures to reduce the sound. This can be as simple as building a burm to using water to supress engine blast. There is a reason that NASA launches from a secluded island off the coast.



This is cool you can actually see the sound waves.

a reply to: dragonridr

Don't confuse him with facts... he's still trying to figure out what orbit is

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: FinallyAwake
Aren't those restricted areas at sea to stop sh1t falling on people? And the sound of course!

What would the average decibel level be at the launch area, compared to elsewhere? So what are you talking about 'sound' for?

And of course, they use 'falling debris' as their great excuse for it, why do you think they designed rockets with 'booster engines', and so forth, in the first place?

Their main power, and main fuel source, is obviously from the massive 'booster' engines, attached to their sides, which drops after the first 3-4 minutes, at low altitudes, as they fly out of all view, over the ocean!

What would fuel these rockets after they drop their tanks, booster engines, after 3-4 minutes?

Look at when, and where, they always drop boosters, etc..

They give us a show, a spectacle, to see, and be amazed by, which is a rocket launching from the Earth, going straight upward, in the sky, and that's a very, very dramatic, powerful display to see, and film, which sells the dream, the fairy tale, the fantasy, is a reality, without any proof.

If anyone wishes to believe it's about safety, they wouldn't allow people to the launch areas, or near to them.

They have always restricted us from those areas, to keep it a grotesque secret.

You're wrong about the sound (see above post)

And you're wrong about everything else, sorry dude.

I don't know who convinced you about a flat earth
In the 1st place, but they deserve a hard slap.

It seems like it has consumed your entire life. You are probably single and have no genuine friends left from your childhood. I feel sorry for you bro

You openly (and proudly) deny both geometry and logic, that's speaks volumes on it's own.

Maybe you should think about spending more time on something productive, that actually helps people. Someone with your passion would be great doing voluntary/charity work.

Seriously, stop wasting your time.

originally posted by: neutronflux
With there being so many different ways to prove objects have been placed in orbit by rocket than Turbos very limited acceptance that turbo will label CGI is TOTAL BS

You don't want the truth, you just want to hold up all of their fakery, to confirm what you want to believe is true, instead.

They claim rockets are tracked, throughout, except we cannot see it, or film it, from another area, 100-300 miles out, perhaps, to see a rocket flying overhead, or whatever, it's simple common sense, that we would want to see a rocket in flight, from everywhere we COULD see it.


You suggest that we have always been allowed to go there, or anywhere we want to go, on the ocean, and you claim anyone who is on the ocean, at those points, would be on international waters, where one nation has no jurisdiction, over another nation, it's even considered to be a crime, if it's defied.

But only if it's defied by some people, some groups, of course. It's legitimate, in some cases, of course, like for rocket launches! That's an exclusion, since it's done for our 'safety'!


They have always guarded the flight paths of rockets, but most people don't know about this, as I didn't know it until recently, as others did not know it, as well.

It's always been done, but we never knew about it before now, most still don't know it, obviously.

Anyone who tries claiming it's not restricted has been proven wrong. Anyone who claims they couldn't enforce it, or mostly not, are trying to dismiss it as a trivial thing. They can't enforce it, and anyway, it's not a big deal if they DO find people there, it's nothing serious!

What else would they tell us about it, anyway?

Lots of people would certainly go there, if they could, but they cannot, as it's restricted, and patrolled, by the US military.


This has nothing to do with 'our safety'. They invite us to the launch sites, so don't play the fool! It's a lame excuse. Pure nonsense.


I've said why this area is so sensitive, so important to keep secret.


Every rocket crashes into the ocean, within this area, that's why it's always restricted.


This is why rockets were designed to have external boosters, which will detach from the rocket, after 3-5 minutes, and then, come down into the ocean. This makes a 'danger zone', and is always 'a restricted area'.

If they didn't have external engines that detach and fall into the ocean, after 3-5 minutes, they'd have made up another excuse, instead of this crap.


To excuse why rockets fly over the ocean, into a restricted area, that is all about our 'serious safety concerns', from falling debris in the area.


To excuse why rockets veer off in a horizontal path, when they're going up into 'orbit', or 'space', they said it was for gaining more and more speed, from flying an 'orbit' around Earth, at a lower altitude, than a normal 'orbit' is, while in 'space'.

'Orbit' is where you gain super-duper 'speed', in a rocket, because they say it does, so it must be true, right? No reason to lie about that, is there? So it's true, if there's no reason they'd lie about it.


But why do rockets have to gain super-duper speed?

Super-duper speed is required for a 'rocket to 'break free' of Earth's 'gravity', that's why!


Except they claim gravity lessens with more distance, which contradicts their other claim, that rockets must gain super-duper speed to 'break free' of Earth's 'gravity'.

That's what happens, when you lie, repeatedly. It catches up to you, eventually.


It's a lie that rockets must gain ANY more speed, based on their other claim, of equal, or less, gravity, at such altitudes, which assumes 'gravity' is real, and is lessened with more distance.

But, if it's a lie that gravity is an actual force, which is lessened with distance, then both claims are lies, of course.

And they always are, sadly.

a reply to: dragonridr

To excuse why rockets veer off in a horizontal path, when they're going up into 'orbit', or 'space', they said it was for gaining more and more speed, from flying an 'orbit' around Earth, at a lower altitude, than a normal 'orbit' is, while in 'space'.

'Orbit' is where you gain super-duper 'speed', in a rocket, because they say it does, so it must be true, right? No reason to lie about that, is there? So it's true, if there's no reason they'd lie about it.

Told ya...

a reply to: turbonium1

What the duck does your rant have to do with....

The rocket placing the first satellite Sputnik into orbit was observed in flight over North America.



That rocket placed objects in the sky, changing the “heavens”

Sputnik could be seen around sunset and sunrise with a pair of binoculars.

One of the stages of the rocket could be seen by the naked eye orbiting the earth.

Sputnik’s orbit was tracked by its radio broadcasting.

The satellite flew at a speed of 18,000 miles per hour and orbited Earth in a little more than an hour and a half. It traveled a total of 43 million miles in 1,440 orbits before it fell back to Earth in January of 1958.

www.teletracnavman.com...

The time to tune in to Sputnik as it flew over the USA was limited because the signal would be blocked by the curvature of the earth.

By the way people could tune in to Sputnik, and the way the signal was blocked by the earth. It’s proven Sputnik orbited the earth, and the earth is spherical. Along with visual evidence of its orbit, and man can change the heavens by adding artificial satellites.


Flat earth is the lie.

a reply to: turbonium1

And comets and meteorites proves the rearrangement of the heavens and travel about the solar system does occur on a natural level. Proving that rockets can travel about the solar system.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

What the duck does your rant have to do with....

The rocket placing the first satellite Sputnik into orbit was observed in flight over North America.

That rocket placed objects in the sky, changing the “heavens”

Sputnik could be seen around sunset and sunrise with a pair of binoculars.

One of the stages of the rocket could be seen by the naked eye orbiting the earth.

Sputnik’s orbit was tracked by its radio broadcasting.

The satellite flew at a speed of 18,000 miles per hour and orbited Earth in a little more than an hour and a half. It traveled a total of 43 million miles in 1,440 orbits before it fell back to Earth in January of 1958.

www.teletracnavman.com...

The time to tune in to Sputnik as it flew over the USA was limited because the signal would be blocked by the curvature of the earth.

By the way people could tune in to Sputnik, and the way the signal was blocked by the earth. It’s proven Sputnik orbited the earth, and the earth is spherical. Along with visual evidence of its orbit, and man can change the heavens by adding artificial satellites.

They are all liars, caught in lies, and faking things, some of which are hilariously bad fakes, that's the only reality found here. And we have never seen a rocket from 100-300 miles off the coast, because it's for 'our safety', right?


Sad, very sad.

originally posted by: turbonium1

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: turbonium1

What the duck does your rant have to do with....

The rocket placing the first satellite Sputnik into orbit was observed in flight over North America.

That rocket placed objects in the sky, changing the “heavens”

Sputnik could be seen around sunset and sunrise with a pair of binoculars.

One of the stages of the rocket could be seen by the naked eye orbiting the earth.

Sputnik’s orbit was tracked by its radio broadcasting.

The satellite flew at a speed of 18,000 miles per hour and orbited Earth in a little more than an hour and a half. It traveled a total of 43 million miles in 1,440 orbits before it fell back to Earth in January of 1958.

www.teletracnavman.com...

The time to tune in to Sputnik as it flew over the USA was limited because the signal would be blocked by the curvature of the earth.

By the way people could tune in to Sputnik, and the way the signal was blocked by the earth. It’s proven Sputnik orbited the earth, and the earth is spherical. Along with visual evidence of its orbit, and man can change the heavens by adding artificial satellites.

They are all liars, caught in lies, and faking things, some of which are hilariously bad fakes, that's the only reality found here. And we have never seen a rocket from 100-300 miles off the coast, because it's for 'our safety', right?


Sad, very sad.

What.

Do you have any proof?

Especially when GPS satellites are actively broadcasting and providing a service to millions of individuals this very second?