Satellites : general discussion and musings

[whatsgoingon]

a

[Terence.drew]

And I already did respond - with my suggestion to use scale models, to experiment.

hmmmnnnnn...

An experiment

The Earth is 12700km in diameter. Satellites 'are' on average about 350-400 km above the earth. This is a factor of about 35 times.

Take a basketball.
It is 30 inches in diameter.
Hold a coin less than an inch from the surface (factor of 35 times)

Now shine a bright light on the basketball on the far side...and see if you can get the coin to shine??? Qed.

[nonhocapito]

What "appeals" to you or what does not is your own business. I mention the blackbird aircraft because lights in the night sky cannot come from reflected sunlight. If you are sure they do please post proof and evidence. The afterburner from a mach 3 capable aircraft, which can fly from the east coast of America to the west coast in 64 minutes is a prime contender for a mysterious fast moving light in the sky.

Do you get it or do you not?

Terrence, first of all: calm down. As I said there is no reason to make this thread a cause of division among researchers. So we don't share the same vision on this. What's the problem? Why are you so invested in this?

Personally i find the arguments brought forward for the non-existence of satellite non-convincing, albeit obfuscated a bit by technical lingo that I cannot tell if it is being used properly or not (methinks not).

About the satellites being in the shadow of the earth: I don't remember you using the word "umbra", but I remember you making confusing statements about satellites really being debris. This is strange, because you also stated that the debris is one of the reason why we cannot put satellites in orbit.

But... if debris and satellites share the same space, and if I can see the debris at night, doesn't this mean that I can also see the satellites?

Now you say it is not debris, but "afterburner" from those planes. This tells me that you still haven't actually seen with your eyes any of these lights. They are perfectly steady lights that do no flicker and do no change. The are faint like faint stars, but because of their steadiness, cannot be anything but reflected lights. Consider how steady is the reflected light that planets or the moon emit, compared to the light of stars or meteors.

Back into the earth shadow: Because not all satellites travel at the equator, and because not all the people that look at them are at the equator of course they can be outside of the shadow of the earth. Ever noticed how mountain peaks are in the sun when valleys are already in the dark?

I don't know where you take your figures, but satellites are supposed to be very far. Non-geostationary (that evidently we can see moving) up to and even more than 10,000 kilometers far. Consider this picture (that only takes the orbits of satellite constellations into consideration):


From http://www.morpheustechnology.com/ebook ... ystems.htm

Now, taking from the picture above, I made a little rendition to illustrate a simple principle:



I consider this argument of the objects being in the earth shadow over, Terrence. We cannot keep having the same discussion.

More technical information:
http://www.morpheustechnology.com/ebook ... ystems.htm
http://personal.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Persona ... index.html

[Jonathan]

...
Take a basketball.
It is 30 inches in diameter.
Hold a coin less than an inch from the surface (factor of 35 times)

Now shine a bright light on the basketball on the far side...and see if you can get the coin to shine??? Qed.

nonhocapito's post just after the one I'm referring to here is much closer to Q.E.D.

I did'nt have the energy to put such together - thanks nonhocapito!
Please consider it, Terence.drew.

[Terence.drew]

Terrence, first of all: calm down. As I said there is no reason to make this thread a cause of division among researchers. So we don't share the same vision on this. What's the problem? Why are you so invested in this?

Personally i find the arguments brought forward for the non-existence of satellite non-convincing, albeit obfuscated a bit by technical lingo that I cannot tell if it is being used properly or not.

About the satellites being in the shadow of the earth: I don't remember you using the word "umbra", but I remember you making confusing statements about satellites really being debris. This is strange, because you also stated that the debris is one of the reason why we cannot put satellites in orbit.

But... if debris and satellites share the same space, and if I can see the debris at night, doesn't this mean that I can also see the satellites?

Now you say it is not debris, but "afterburner" from those planes. This tells me that you still haven't actually seen with your eyes any of these lights. They are perfectly steady lights that do no flicker and do no change. The are faint like faint stars, but because of their steadiness, cannot be anything but reflected lights. Consider how steady is the reflected light that planets or the moon emit, compared to the light of stars or meteors.

As to the shadow of the earth: Because not all satellites travel at the equator, and because not all the people that look at them are at the equator of course they can be outside of the shadow of the earth. Ever noticed how mountain peaks are in the sun when valleys are already in the dark?

Satellites are supposed to be very far. Non-geostationary up and more than 10,000 kilometers far. Consider this picture:


From http://www.morpheustechnology.com/ebook ... ystems.htm

Now, taking from the picture above, I made a little rendition to illustrate a simple principle:



I consider this argument of the objects being in the earth shadow over, Terrence. We cannot keep having the same discussion.

Nonho. Are you serious? This is not what I said in this thread and the other threads? Would you like me to go through each misrepresented point you have made here and rebut it or will you do it yourself?

We are not a cosy little group here. Either something stands up to scrutiny or it does not.

Debris...afterburner...are you serious?

[Terence.drew]

...
Take a basketball.
It is 30 inches in diameter.
Hold a coin less than an inch from the surface (factor of 35 times)

Now shine a bright light on the basketball on the far side...and see if you can get the coin to shine??? Qed.

nonhocapito's post just after the one I'm referring to here is much closer to Q.E.D.

I did'nt have the energy to put such together - thanks nonhocapito!
Please consider it, Terence.drew.

Fuck off.

[Dcopymope]

...
Take a basketball.
It is 30 inches in diameter.
Hold a coin less than an inch from the surface (factor of 35 times)

Now shine a bright light on the basketball on the far side...and see if you can get the coin to shine??? Qed.

nonhocapito's post just after the one I'm referring to here is much closer to Q.E.D.

I did'nt have the energy to put such together - thanks nonhocapito!
Please consider it, Terence.drew.

Fuck off.

[nonhocapito]

Debris...afterburner...are you serious?

In this post of yours: viewtopic.php?p=2360876#p2360876 you seem to discuss debris as one of the explanations for the traces appearing in photography.

in this post: viewtopic.php?p=2361215#p2361215 you suggested that "The afterburner from a mach 3 capable aircraft, which can fly from the east coast of America to the west coast in 64 minutes is a prime contender for a mysterious fast moving light in the sky."

If I mistook what you were trying to say, maybe I am not-serious, or stupid, or maybe your arguments were a bit obscure, and you should try to rationalize them a little better.

In any case: I cannot really appreciate how you are dodging the fact that you arguments about the earth shadow are completely unsubstantiated, a reality which incidentally gives you even less right to be a bully and insult other members of this forum who simply politely disagreed with you.

p.s. i had in fact missed a post of yours where you mention the umbra, but alas I found it equally unconvincing. See below.

[Jonathan]

Fuck off.

...so you won't consider it?

I wonder why.

No, I actually don't.
And I also don't another thing: appreciate that kind of language.

...not that I want you to care - it's just to let you know

Bye!
and have a nice life!

[nonhocapito]

You're right. The "reflection" argument would only apply to those satellites traveling some distance from the umbra. The blue circle on the right is our view of Earth from the sun. Note none of the satellites' paths go into the umbra. These are hypothetical satellites but even if they dipped into the umbra for a fraction of their orbit you could have thousands of satellites doing this without crossing paths, supposedly.



In any case they would have to be at the right angle to give you a constant unwavering reflection of the sun, which is difficult to imagine since they are not round objects but perhaps their direct exposure to the sunlight makes them glow?

To me, then the question becomes: how do such things survive such direct exposure to the intense radiation of the sun without exploding, frying or otherwise malfunctioning on a regular basis? If there is no "break" for them from the electromagnetic waves and radiation how do they not constantly heat up until they melt/malfunction? How do the "dark" parts of the satellites get rid of the excess heat? Do they have cooling systems on board? Does the mostly empty space around them serve as enough of a cooling system?

These lights that pass by in the night sky around the equator are something else out of the argument entirely. They are in the umbra and yet they emit such intense light.

So that umbra argument is quite good. Oftentimes, it must be a light source on the object itself. Many alleged satellites would be impossible from the world-view Terrence.drew and I are describing, no?

Hoi I had missed this post of yours (and the previous one by Terrence as well), so I respond to them now:

I would not be confused by the reasoning about the umbra. It only works if you are at the equator, and if the object is at the equator. Or in any case if both the observer and the object are 180° opposite to the sun.

In all other cases it doesn't work.

Considering that many satellites do not have orbits at the equator, and many observer do not live at the equator, reflected lights from objects that are thousands of kilometers away are perfectly possible.

Your objections about the satellites frying up in the sun are reasonable; and I guess the only explanation to this is that said satellites do not stay in the sun long enough to fry up; that are designed that way, their orbits and speed take this into consideration. I am sure they don't have cooling systems (in the traditional sense) on board (nor artificial lights that would be visible from the earth). A great part of modern technology seem to be focused in finding materials that better dissipate/withstand extreme temperatures, for several purposes. I can imagine that the most highly priced solutions would be used in scientific contexts such as the design of satellites.

But the argument about the umbra does not subsist: it simply applies to the many satellites that we don't see at night. See the picture I posted a couple of post above for reference.

Also, you write: "These lights that pass by in the night sky around the equator are something else out of the argument entirely. They are in the umbra and yet they emit such intense light." However, I am not sure any of the lights that I see passing at night can be described as "passing around the equator". I don't know about you, but I don't see the equator from where I live, and the paths these lights follow go in all sorts of directions, none of which can be described as "around the equator".

[Maat]

Hey guys, as I suggested in my earlier post: viewtopic.php?p=2360973#p2360973
wouldn't it be so much easier to verify it for yourself by looking up which satellites are supposed to be visible from your location at a given time? : http://www.heavens-above.com/

If you go to that site and choose your location from the data base it gives you the full list of all the satellites that should be visible to you, by name (type), magnitude, time, and compass orientation.
e.g. This is a cropped shot of my list, it actually totals 19:



Note the times are between 6:06-7:40 pm DST on my full list (Fall season from mid-south USA), so Standard Time: 5:06-6:40 pm. i.e. for about 1 ½ hours.
Of course we don't know what all their functions really are (some are actually described as 'military').

[hoi.polloi]

Also, you write: "These lights that pass by in the night sky around the equator are something else out of the argument entirely. They are in the umbra and yet they emit such intense light." However, I am not sure any of the lights that I see passing at night can be described as "passing around the equator". I don't know about you, but I don't see the equator from where I live, and the paths these lights follow go in all sorts of directions, none of which can be described as "around the equator".

Yes. Right, in fact I don't know if I've seen them either. I am only making an argument from the perspective that apparently there are lights going around the dark side of the Earth sometimes according to the anti-satellite perspective that argues those orbiting things should be dark then.

Of course the equator would also allow light at times because the Earth is tilted on its axis and there would even be periods where something going around the dark of the Earth via the equator line would peek into the sunlight. It would have to be a very specific orbit that allows a satellite to always stay in the exact position opposite the sun. So, it seems the umbra argument is quite invalid in deflecting the idea of sunlight reflection.

[Terence.drew]

Where did you get this image from hoi polloi???

[Unleashed]

I am no techie. So I try to apply what I consider logic that makes sense to me.
When I see an airplane reflecting light the best, it is usually during the hour before sunset/dusk.

It would seem to be logical that any satellites passing overhead might similarly be reflective then and even a little later. I don't see them. Just the airplanes. Which are in the atmosphere and maybe 6 miles up. We are talking an object, that is smaller than the average passenger jet and about 600 to a thousand miles up!! For the geostationary orbits in the equatorial ranges.

The other thousand upon thousand we are told are in orbit can be as high as 32,000 MILES up, not feet. How are you supposed to witness the reflection from this with the naked eye?

I still need one of the other posters to explain about the debris from the two satellites that crashed into one another, supposedly. Where did the debris go, and wouldn't it have posed a danger to other satellites in orbit? I thought that this crash material would have kept moving through space infinitely until it was stopped by crashing into something else. Which might have in turn caused that satellite to break up, continuing the chain reaction.

If radiowaves are still as viable and dependable as always, why set up the proposition of the eventuality that all this stuff will drop out of the sky at some point possibly wreaking havoc on their own important cities and installations?

[nonhocapito]

I am no techie. So I try to apply what I consider logic that makes sense to me.
When I see an airplane reflecting light the best, it is usually during the hour before sunset/dusk.
It would seem to be logical that any satellites passing overhead might similarly be reflective then and even a little later. I don't see them. Just the airplanes. Which are in the atmosphere and maybe 6 miles up. We are talking an object, that is smaller than the average passenger jet and about 600 to a thousand miles up!! For the geostationary orbits in the equatorial ranges.
The other thousand upon thousand we are told are in orbit can be as high as 32,000 MILES up, not feet. How are you supposed to witness the reflection from this with the naked eye?

The way I understand it, it is the other way around. Geo satellites are supposed to be the ones further away from the earth.
See this picture, from just a few posts above:

See the earlier post for the links to the page where all the exact distances of satellites constellations are given.

And well, I am sorry that you or others don't see these objects going by! I don't know what to tell you! I have seen them since when I was a kid.

As to the reflections, well, light travels far, apparently, considering we can see the reflecting light from planets and planetoids that are much further away. We can assume a powerful reflection from these objects, due to the shiny materials we can suppose they are composed with.

I still need one of the other posters to explain about the debris from the two satellites that crashed into one another, supposedly. Where did the debris go, and wouldn't it have posed a danger to other satellites in orbit? I thought that this crash material would have kept moving through space infinitely until it was stopped by crashing into something else. Which might have in turn caused that satellite to break up, continuing the chain reaction.

This has been discussed already. We are told there are 17,000 pieces of debris flying in orbit. 17,000 is nothing. Space is vast. Also, it certainly does not fly infinitely. Instead, it descend into progressively lower orbits until it falls into the atmosphere. Logic dictates this, considering that we are told how satellites themselves need to correct their path periodically not to fall over to the earth. I guess orbits are almost, but not entirely, free from friction.

The idea that "orbits are full of debris that can fall on our heads" seems more likely to be part of the daily psyop that wants us to be scared about everything, than to be a real fact.

If radiowaves are still as viable and dependable as always, why set up the proposition of the eventuality that all this stuff will drop out of the sky at some point possibly wreaking havoc on their own important cities and installations?

I doubt satellites have or will ever cause havoc on cities and installations. As you probably know, we have mocked the alleged risks from the fall of satellites only recently, and we have a thread dedicated to this psyop in particular. Of course the great part of material is consumed in the atmosphere (this seems logical), while on the other hand the earth is vast and mostly uninhabited (oceans, deserts, etc). So the risks must be lower than being struck by lightning, as the classic comparison want.

If instead here you mean to say that, because satellites "die" sooner or later, we should exprience disruption in our communication systems: I guess this is true, however, we can also imagine that such systems are designed to compensate for accidental disruptions. Until, I guess, solar eruptions of unprecedented force will not fry up all the satellites altogether. Which incidentally, could turn out to be a happy day, since it would force a lot of people far from TV.

So these above are my hopefully logic answers to you. I am no techie either. Allow me, though, to be the annoying moderator again, and remind you and myself and everyone that once again this discussion seem to be repeating itself a little bit: I feel like I have responded to the above arguments already a zillion times.