[daveflat]

Thats all good. I will not dispute ONE SINGLE word you say even though it actually raises more questions for me.

BUT, that does not address the questions I asked originally, which is kind of frustrating because I know you know it doesn't. I should NOT have said I want proof they are up there because that negated the need to answer my original questions, which you promptly knowingly or unknowingly were able to take advantage of.

ROCKMAN, I have seen pictures of people in clean rooms, seen photos of satellites with their gold foil coatings, and heard the math or have seen on boards the physics equations, all of them really do point to satellites EXISTING and MADE ME "believe" that they do.

MY Original Question
Do Satellites never need repair? Who does the work?

How do satellites get their static electricity build up removed and endure the insane temperature fluctuations?

How do satellites reorient themselves with never ending magic recharging satellites fuel?

So why should such simple questions posed above not be able to be addressed quickly, easily, and most importantly CONVINCINGLY. If you are good with the original answers given to me by the first person who answered my original post, then no need for you try and "convince me" to accept them as logical because I do not now nor will I ever find a single answer of his that makes sense when comparing the (As per NASA) fuel needs, maintenance, and orientation requirements of Satellites to the ISS. (of which I have SERIOUS doubts about also lol).

Sometimes things happen that do not make sense, but that does not mean they do NOT happen. I CAN accept that.

You work in the oil biz, maintenance must be somewhat important to drilling and operating oil wells? The environment in the "thermosphere" as it is called ranges from something like 900f degrees to over 3,600f degrees!!!!! I think. seems at least a bit hostile.

Nasa states that it is radiation heat and so easily reflected, I will look more into that but the initial reaction of most is to accept what NASA tells us. But then they state on their website this:

From NASA's site
Without thermal controls, the temperature of the orbiting Space Station's Sun-facing side would soar to 250 degrees F (121 C), while thermometers on the dark side would plunge to minus 250 degrees F (-157 C). There might be a comfortable spot somewhere in the middle of the Station, but searching for it wouldn't be much fun!

I guess the ISS is not at the same level as satellites above earth because nasa states this regarding the ISS, and does not mention temp ranges as high as I stated about the thermosphere.

I am not an expert by any means. But these are just a few of hundreds of things that "are not quite so right" when examined carefully.

You mentioned health of the satellite, I can only imagine a satellites as either working correctly or not, is the health of the satellite really just the "reception" I do not know. It just seems weird that you have the ability to guage from a handheld device how well each and every satellite above our heads is working (if it is above your head and you are utilizing it I guess), that is a pretty neat onboard diagnostic system no? Seems weird to bother having a diagnostic system on a satellite if there is no way to fix a problem you find but anyway, I would really like to see logical explanations for the questions and I do not feel I have one yet.

[daveflat]

Hey Kaiserjeep, I will take your word for it that what you are saying "proves" the earth a "ball". I wish I could have saved you the typing because you lost me very early on in your post.

You sound very intelligent so I will make a statement that should in my mind be only able to occur on a flat earth. Please also know that I DO NOT WANT TO WASTE A SINGLE SECOND of someones life, I am not a troll. The problem that I have with your explanation you just gave me is I am either forced to learn your expertise which sounds like it must be extensive, or believe you and I wish to do niether. With that said you obviously do not need to waste your time with me since I could be considered too "lazy" to learn so I could understand if you do not want to waste any more of your time with me.
But it would be great if you make a convincing argument to me and get me to stopo thinking about this craziness!

On a FLAT EARTH a plane can fly 20 ft above water at 500 mph while the ENTIRE TIME its GYROSCOPE remains at perfect level without needing to compensate up or down for the curvature of the earth.

I hope you can agree with me that that statement CANNOT be true on a ball earth. At 500mph that jet would be travelling approx. 8 miles per minute, with a "drop" or "curve" of the earth of 42ft! per every 8 miles or MINUTE! In 10 minutes at 20 ft above water a pilot would have to correct up or down 420 ft, NOT a small amount of CORRECTION considering we started off only 20 ft above the water.

The calculator that determined the amount the above statement on curvature is smokescreen dot com The math on the calculator predicts with plenty of accuracy but if you do not believe it come up with your own math.

Flying over a ball earth a pilot MUST adjust the planes attitude in order to keep from "gaining" or "losing" altitude. Now here you can either trust what I say or ask a PROFESSIONAL pilot. ANY PROFESSIONAL PILOT.

Pilots DO NOT adjust for the curvature of the earth at very low altitudes, nor at ANY altitude, and THEIR NUMBER ONE PRIORITY AFTER TAKING OFF IS KEEPING their GYROSCOPE AT LEVEL at ALL TIMES!!!!!.

I hope you would agree that the last sentence above should be IMPOSSIBLE on a BALL earth.

[Subjectivist]

FInd a place with a very large room, like a gymnasium. Use a spirit level on the opposite walls to verify they are perfectly verticle. Now that you have done that measure precisely how far apart the two verticle walls are a foot above the floor, and again a foot below the ceiling.

If you follow all those steps properly you will discover the top of the walls are further apart than the bottoms of the walls.

This happens because walls are built verticle so their mass and whatever material above they support is balanced on a spot instead of leaning, to prevent them from toppling over. The curvature of the earth forces the tops of every verticle object set to be further apart than the base. This is even true of two people, but with a vertivle height of only two meters or less it is hard to measure.

[KaiserJeep]

I will keep this as simple as possible. You will need a simple knowledge of Newtonian Physics plus some Geometry. Your problem is your "planar" mindset. The gravity field of the Earth is NOT planar, it is instead "radial". Gravity everywhere on the globe's surface is "pulling" all objects in range towards a point in the exact center of the planet, known as the "center of gravity". The definition of "level" on one side of the planet is exactly 180 degrees from "level" on the opposite side of the planet. In both cases, gravity (as explained by Newton) is always calculated from these points called "centers of gravity". Your own body, ever so much smaller than the Earth, has it's own center of gravity, and exerts a pull on the Earth and all other objects around it, which is real and measureable with sensitive instruments.

These interposed gravity fields are proportional to the size and distance between the centers of gravity of the bodies involved. For example, the main influence on the surface of the planet is the planet itself, because the nearest center of gravity is that of the Earth, precisely the distance of the radius of the Earth away. The Earth's Moon and the Sun also have significant mass and are relatively close. The moon is the smaller of the two but closer, the Sun is truly massive but much further away. Yet by observing the positions of the Moon and the Sun relative to the Earth, and making calculations based upon Newton's law of gravity, one may precisely calculate the effect of these gravitational fields in moving water on the face of the Earth in movements called "tides". Newton's laws of gravity were used as the basis for calculating the planetary orbits of every observable planet, moon, asteroid, and comet in the solar system - further evidence that the Laws of Gravity are correct.

Physics, Mathematics, and Astronomy are among the tools that we use to understand the Universe. You can either accept the totality of our accumulated knowledge or reject it, that is your decision. But to choose rejection is to choose to be a loser, because when you study basic Physics, you repeat many of Newton's basic experiments, confirming that his laws of gravity are correct.

[daveflat]

First off thank you for answering my question directly and thoroughly

Thank You for the comprehensive response. I would start by stating that simple and newtonian physics are not words I would usually choose to combine lol, but I do think I grasp the gist of what you are explaining.

I do NOT think your answer refutes my complete statement. (I could very well be wrong)

It seems at first like a rational explanation for how an airplane could fly with the gyroscope at perfect level, BUT, my question also included that the pilot NOT have to adjust attitude of the aircraft also.

If/where I am incorrect just let me know. So we are flying over a big ball 20 ft off its surface, Do you agree that the pilot at some point MUST physically correct the attitude of the plane down at intervals to stay "level" to the ball as the earth drops off in front of you. (Lets call that point #1) meaning - YES the gyroscope is showing you you are level as related to a point on the opposite side of the ball like you stated, BUT if that pilot does NOT continuously and physically point the nose down (or up i guess) as it travels (insert curvature formula here) it would still end up gaining or losing altitude, unless you are TELLING ME that a pilot can travel around a ball earth in a straight line NEVER in the entire trip need to change the aircrafts attitude (Point #2 pretty much the same as one only brought to its extreme).

To picture it better imagine that the plane is travelling over the ball earth ocean at an altitude of 20 ft and 3000 miles in distance. Over that distance there is approximately 1000 miles!!!!! of curvature, drop what ever you want to call it. With your explanation the pilot does not have to ever point(change) the attitude of the plane up or down physically and his gyroscope is going to magically show level, that is impossible.

Either the gyroscope will not show level or the pilot at all times MUST be adjusting for the curvature of the earth to keep the gyroscope level (which pilots do NOT do once level weather 20 ft or 5 mile up). Remember, when we start this trip we are only 20ft above the sea, and over the of 3000 miles the pilot MUST account for and adjust for curvature. When the pilots gyroscope shows level they make NO attitude adjustments and stay at the EXACT altitude. Maybe you will try to tell me gravity automatically points only the nose of the plane down but that would be just absurd, if gravity is acting on the plane it would act on the entire aircraft in a vertical mannor with respect to the center of the earth so that nose adjustment would still be necessary. (last sentence point 3)

FUNNY enough but my last statement is 100% congruent with a FLAT EARTH and what actual PILOTS state is how they fly. Your explanation means that once in the air, a PILOT could theoretically find level on his gyroscope, the gyroscope will continue to stay level, even with no PHYSICAL changes in the attitude of the aircraft and flyaround the entire ball earth (lets call that point 4).That is impossible, you are effectively telling me that you can fly in a straight line around the BALL earth while at the same altitude, with your gyroscope always pointing level.



( I could very possibly be wrong in my logic and thats why we are having this conversation but please take a moment to seriously think through what I am saying and more importantly what pilots say, and that is -they DO NOT account for earths curvature when they fly their aircraft, so keep in mind that is possible that it is YOUR logic and argument that is not correct.)

My Brain hurts!!!

Thanks

[daveflat]

Subjectivist- The problem with your argument is that maybe it is the curvature of the earth (which it could be) or maybe the builder is a shitty builder like me and nothing was square from step one no?

I would be very interested in hearing your answers for my original questions about the satellites and aircraft scenarios I put forth. Also how do you use this site so that when you answer a question it shows up below the persons original question, I usually am not a big poster but this thing got in my head!

[KaiserJeep]

The pilot - or more often today, the autopilot - is continuously adjusting the attitude of the plane to maintain "level" flight (remember that in this context "level" is not a straight line, but defined as a 90 degree angle from a line connecting the plane and the Earth's center of gravity) and constant altitude above mean sea level. In spite of Newton's first law of motion, the airplane will not maintain a straight line, due to winds, air pressures, and air currents - all which are larger forces that overcome the inertia of straight line travel. The "altitude" is really a constant distance from the Earth's center of gravity - a "constant altitude of 20 feet" above your perfect sphere would be a perfect globe-shaped shell 40 feet greater in diameter than the Earth itself, and located as to have the same center of gravity as the planet.

I am reasonably familiar with gyroscopes which are used in SINS (ships inertial navigation systems). The gyroscopes you speak of, which used to be precision high speed rotating instruments made by Sperry among others, are today much more precise "ring laser gyros" where light travels in a circle at "the speed of light". These can be entirely contained in one component soldered into a circuit board. Gyros are "rotation sensors", and if you took one entirely around the earth, it would point one degree in a different direction as you moved North-South or South-North, for every "degree of longitude" you travelled on the Earth's surface, a distance of about 69 miles, in the 24,840 "statute miles" of the Earth's circumference. Then 1/60th of that 69 mile distance is a "minute" of longitude, or a distance of "one nautical mile" which is about 1.15078 "statute miles".

Gyroscopes are in fact not directly usable for navigation, and the term "gyrocompass" is nonsensical, because as you pointed out, the axis of the compass is always pointing in the same direction. A "gyrocompass" actually measures how far the axis of the gyro deviates from the direction of travel, using the axis "zero" when the gyroscope was spun up, then calculates the direction of North, and points an electric compass needle in that direction. Movement is measured by another instrument called an "accelerometer". Today the ring laser gyro, the accelerometer, a 12-channel GPS receiver, and a computer to calculate your position on the Earth's surface, can all be built into your cell phone.

That's right, your phone is continuously calculating your position, both with GPS and with inertial navigation when it doesn't have GPS signals. This is done "for your own good" in case you are in distress and call 911 here in America, or for "the good of the USA" if you are a terrorist in Afghanistan, so we can rain a missile down on you from a UAV.

[daveflat]

Riddle me this?

A Boat will "disappear over the "Horizon" at about 3 to 5 miles yet, it is difficult to"see" curvature of the earth from a plane at 30,000 feet. Yeah, that makes sense , not. Now, get a pair of binoculars and watch all those boats that went "over" the horizon come back into FULL view.

I still would love to here where my logic is wrong on the aircraft from anyone. I have been told that the atmosphere is attached to the globe and that explains this phenomena. That sounds strange and illogical too me.

It all also sounds strange that if the earth truly is a ball spinning at 1000 mph on its axis, that I shouldn't be able to fly up 5 miles high in a helicopter, hover, and then arrive 1000 miles away from where I started ALL why just hovering? Thanks for helping!

[KaiserJeep]

You cannot see a straight line with your eyes, due to the distortion of the lens. This is a case where your eyes lie to you. To understand more, search on the term "pinhole camera pictures". I have shown one below. Pinhole cameras do not have lenses, they are the only way to capture images with perspective undistorted.

Remember I told you that one degree of longitudinal travel around the globe was 69 statute miles? You have to at least be outside the atmosphere in low Earth orbit, to really perceive the curvature of the Earth.

[sparky]

.
there are satellite up there , I dabble in astronomy and saw them many time ,
their orbits velocity is those of a satellite

The rotundity of the Earth can be seen from its shadow on the moon
on the same day at noon , in the same hemisphere , a tall object will project its shadow at a different angle
the angles are consistent with a sinus curve indicating the Earth as a continuous spheroidal shape .
the other hemisphere has the exact mirror phenomenon

[daveflat]

KaiserJeep - YOU are AWESOME! WHY? Because you are keeping it real in a way, taking an extraordinary amount of time with someone (me) who I am somewhat sure you think just isn't getting it, and yet continuing to try and help me. Thats very very cool, only a few people have treated me this fairly and with so much patience.

Now imagine for a moment, that I am actually the one treating you with patience, until you understand the earth ACTUALLY IS FLAT(I am not right now saying I even believe that myself just imagine that is true), are you chuckling to yourself at all? You may or may not be I do not know.

Now lets be fair. Lets go back to original question below. As you can CLEARLY see in it, it includes the limitation that there should be NO need to compensate up or down for ANY reason.
I did NOT include "because the autopilot leveling system bla bla bla already does this or that".

ORIGINAL STATEMENT:
On a FLAT EARTH a plane can fly 20 ft above water at 500 mph while the ENTIRE TIME its GYROSCOPE remains at perfect level without needing to compensate up or down for the curvature of the earth.

That is the reason I was specific as to my question and I hope you will agree with me that taken at its root meaning "without" means "not having" and in this case it meant not having ANY compensation up or down for curvature! That would include auto pilot. (I am only putting in exclamations because I think those parts where I do so are VERY VERY important.
Impossible! is what you say. But, ENTIRELY possible on a FLAT EARTH ONLY, which is why I worded the statement the way I did.

So what does all this mean?

On youtube there is a video titled ---- Surveyors, Engineers, Pilots and Sailors Expose the Flat Earth eric dubay 18 mins or so.

In the video created by eric dubay, is TESTIMONY, of pilots, engineers, sailors etc etc where they state that over the course of there PROFRESSIONAL lives they NEVER needed to take into account the curvature of the earth in order to accomplish their objectives. Everything that I have been arguing I have only learned recently (past 2 weeks), so I'm NO expert by any means. BUT in this particular video are Professional PILOTS WHO SUPPORT my original STATEMENT, and declare that the EARTH is FLAT. Does that in and of itself make it a FLAT EARTH, hell no. But the testimoney of these professionals if you watch the video and listen to their statements will shake you to your core, they sound sincere, thoughtful and intelligent along with their reason as to why they come to the conclusion of a flat earth.

Maybe we can get ROCKMAN to chime in here, he mentioned he was a surveyor at some point!

If you review all of the responses to all of my questions, only you and one other person actually addressed the questions I asked, most others asked me their own questions.

As of right now you cannot dispute that my original remains unchallenged. The statement will now read

ONLY on a FLAT EARTH a plane can fly 20 ft above water at 500 mph while the ENTIRE TIME its GYROSCOPE remains at perfect level without needing to compensate up or down for the curvature of the earth.

You should accept that as truth because you proved it to ME! Now watch the video on youtube Surveyors, Engineers, Pilots and Sailors Expose the Flat Earth by eric dubay.

Because the next step maybe you will help me prove the above statement as FALSE?

Try to follow all the logic here- YOU did the proving not me. So take a 18 min break PLEASE from my rambling and with an open mind listen to the video. THSANKS you are AWESOME and Patient!

[Cog]

Rockman is a geologist. I am the surveyor. While Rockman is certainly talented in his field of expertise, he does not bestride the earth as a demi-god the way a land surveyor does.

Oh and one of your comments about surveyors not compensating for the earth's curvature is incorrect. For small sites, we can assume the earth is a flat plane but on long linear projects, the earth's curvature is compensated by the use of a scale factor which gives us accurate coordinates throughout the length of the project.

[daveflat]

Sorry about the confusion there, I was only referring to people in this video---- "Surveyors, Engineers, Pilots and Sailors Expose the Flat Earth" on youtube ,if you have 18 min I would LOVE your opinion and if you can tear their testimony apart all the better.

THIS IS MOST IMPORTANT and I almost forgot, in it,the professionals DO confirm what YOU just said. The say that "we are given instructions that include the curvature of the earth but in not a single instance was it EVER NECESSARY to accomplish the job. This includes, building a railroad where the difference in the amount of track over thousand of miles would be a very large % more in a curved earth than on a flat earth and YET they NEVER needed the EXTRA track.

SOOOOO, in a way your statement confirms what they say in the video. OR if you watch it and want to call me stupid for believing
its content that would be good too, I think the video is COMPELLING.

Thanks for being patient with me.

[Subjectivist]

Subjectivist- The problem with your argument is that maybe it is the curvature of the earth (which it could be) or maybe the builder is a shitty builder like me and nothing was square from step one no?

I would be very interested in hearing your answers for my original questions about the satellites and aircraft scenarios I put forth. Also how do you use this site so that when you answer a question it shows up below the persons original question, I usually am not a big poster but this thing got in my head!

Think back, I said if you first verify the walls are verticle with a spirit level. That will only happen if the builder is competent and the wall has no lean. Thus you have eliminated the possibilty of an incompetent builder before continuing on to the second step.

[daveflat]

Cog, I just reread this entire thread and I have NO idea why I started calling you rockman in the first place, temporary insanity maybe lololo! Sorry about that.

[daveflat]

Good point Subjectivist, I missed that, sorry. One other thought on that. Wouldn't a building built on a level foundation negate the possibility of attributing anything that happens above that level foundation to a round earth.

In the video I mentioned in a few posts -- created by eric dubay, is TESTIMONY, of pilots, engineers, sailors etc etc where they state that over the course of there PROFRESSIONAL lives they NEVER needed to take into account the curvature of the earth in order to accomplish their objectives even though sometimes their BOSSES included the curvature calculation in there plans. So for example building a rail road the plans for a ball earth said you need 1000 miles, in actuality they used only 600 miles = No Curve. Thats what these professionals on this video are saying. VERY COMPELLING.
And yes I know this proves nothing- just the testimony is very consistent,
Don't let the title scare you off the testimony is very interesting, only 18 min.
Surveyors, Engineers, Pilots and Sailors Expose the Flat Earth - youtube

[daveflat]

Am I allowed to put in a direct link to a youtube video on this forum?

[daveflat]

Watch this youtube NASSA propaganda video with diapers on- YOU gonna piss your pants so funny!!!!!

Nasa Hoax Absolute Proof of Harness Wires
TheMediaLies

[ralfy]

ralfi-
At 8 min 44 seconds or so he talks about how much FILM would be needed to lug around on the moon, is that what he is saying? Because they could have made 10,000 reels it would not have mattered one bit if they were'nt on the moon. He sounds stupid. He does not address the actual footage just creates strawmen which are NOT even logical sometimes, horrible complete fraud who probably got paid.
Did you look up video and watch it that I posted?

He wasn't talking about film that had to be lugged around on the moon.

[daveflat]

ralfy-

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation”

Obviously works both ways, I 'm pretty sure NO ONE has taken a few minutes to watch videos I posted. At least I would have expected them to comment one way or another but nothing yet. Thats ok everyone knows I'm crazy.

Have you ever heard the story of the moon rock that turned out to be petrified wood? Google it.

Towards the end of the video he says something along the lines that it could be more difficult to fake the landing then actually go. And that seems reasonable to you? Wow. NASA 1/2 TRILLION SPENT since 1st moon landing. 2016 Budget $16 BIllion. And how has NASA improved your life directly?