Satellites : general discussion and musings

If NASA faked the moon landings, does the agency have any credibility at all? Was the Space Shuttle program also a hoax? Is the International Space Station another one? Do not dismiss these hypotheses offhand. Check out our wider NASA research and make up your own mind about it all.
Post Reply
chuck22
Member
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 9:14 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by chuck22 » Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:21 pm

Radio waves at or below 30MHz easily travel across the earth even when being propagated from a ground station. A combinational use of frequencies from various spectrums is a capability as well, i.e. simultaneous transmissions at different frequencies. Talk to any old timer who knows about radio waves and they will tell you HF can easily traverse the world. Tie this together with lower spectrums and various encryption, and you now have the explanation of satellite communications. The transmissions are real, they just aren't coming from those shiny objects floating in the sky as sold in the fairy tale. Someday people will wake up from their stupor brought on by the likes of NASA and other science frauds.

RIP Gus Grissom

whatsgoingon
DELETED THEIR OWN POSTS :(
Posts: 576
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2011 7:56 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by whatsgoingon » Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:23 pm

a
Last edited by whatsgoingon on Fri May 24, 2013 7:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

nonhocapito
Member
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by nonhocapito » Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:29 pm

whatsgoingon wrote:
chuck22 wrote:Radio waves at or below 30MHz easily travel across the earth even when being propagated from a ground station. A combinational use of frequencies from various spectrums is a capability as well, i.e. simultaneous transmissions at different frequencies. Talk to any old timer who knows about radio waves and they will tell you HF can easily traverse the world. Tie this together with lower spectrums and various encryption, and you now have the explanation of satellite communications. The transmissions are real, they just aren't coming from those shiny objects floating in the sky as sold in the fairy tale. Someday people will wake up from their stupor brought on by the likes of NASA and other science frauds.

RIP Gus Grissom
Good point. From a wickedpedia page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionosphere ) I calculated then that a ground station needs to angle its dish at about 6 degrees above the horizon to use ionosphere to reflect a signal.

I used 10^5 for the electron density of the ionosphere, which incidentally is greatest near the equator, which is also where those satellites seem to be. I get a maximal frequency for a 90 degree reflection at about 3 MHZ. But you can get to 30 MHZ at an angle of ~6 degrees off the horizon for the minimal frequency to get ionsphere reflections.

Lots to think about on designing a pure ground based system. Perhaps we should design a ground based system and see what you would need to get the job done.
I am not an expert like you guys seem to be, but... Are those signals bouncing off the ionosphere reliable in term of reaching a specific target? Or would a conversation over satellite phone be broadcast to entire regions?

Terence.drew
Member
Posts: 248
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by Terence.drew » Thu Oct 27, 2011 9:45 pm

Jonathan I will quote you from earlier.....

Jonathan wrote: Maat already said it all.

Satellites are seen by the reflection of sunlight off of them.
Consider their altitude and path - they are in sunlight much longer than we are in daylight down here.
This can also be observed: they are often seen as appearing suddenly already high up above the horizon - that is when they come out of earths shadow (or it is when their reflecting surfaces are at the right angle to mirror sunlight at your location).
They also disappear like that - often not by going below the horizon but by going into shadow or by not reflecting the sun to your location any longer - then they are observable elsewhere.

These things are easily observable and at least one big question would arise which was already stated:
never in the history of astronomy where these things described though they seem to behave so strangely.
Has nobody speculated or even asked what those would be?

If taking into account that these objects did not exist until about 50 years ago you have one very good reason as to why such things where never described...
This is a discussion about the reality of satellites. Satellites reflecting sunlight is one of your (and others here) main arguments.
Are you going to respond to what I have posted regarding the Earth's Umbra and the impossibility of reflections of Satellites within this Umbra or not????


Jonathan wrote:
I do not have the problem of not believing in the existence of satellites.
I also do not have a problem with them being visible via reflection of sunlight.

Draw scale models. Experiment. And you will truly see.

My - to me... - much stronger point was the other one anyway.
Those things are seen - and where not ever mentioned or seen all the thousands of years up until about 50 years ago.

The black airplane and things like it may be an appealing theory to you - but that is all that it is and it does not begin to appeal to me.

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?

Jonathan
Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:17 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by Jonathan » Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:02 pm

chuck22 wrote:Radio waves at or below 30MHz easily travel across the earth even when being propagated from a ground station.
Wavelengths used for satellite comunication are are much smaller than that - frequencies much higher.

Such high frequencies won't propagate as far when coming from ground stations - just little more than line of sight.

Now look at the design of a satellite antenna and you (can) know which frequency it is resonant to.
There you have one verification of the frequency used.

Try to pick up a satellites signal from anywhere, for specifity try to pick up a TV-satellites signal from anywhere else than its supposed location and see what you get.
There you have another verification.

Or believe what you want to but don't expect others to ignore all the easily verifyable facts.
whatsgoingon wrote: But who has the resources to do such a project? You are talking about several hundred grand to figure that out.
The task is far less costly than you suggest.

Get a GPS capable smartphone - Android powered for example but an IPhone will do too.
Mine cost me 100 Euros.
Used is even cheaper.

Then you are almost ready to hack your own GPS application.
No need to just use the already available software while all the while doubting its working basis.
Hack your own - Android is Open Source - thereby verifying the existence, format and correctness of the data.
What is in it. What you can use to pinpoint a location.
It will become obvious along the way that those signals are indeed what we are told and what you doubt.

It is even easier to pinpoint the location, the source, the direction those waves carrying the data are coming from.

A budget of one grand will enable you to get very far.

You resigned to an idea ... don't want to know?

Self created smoke and mirrors, but just as effective.

Jonathan
Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:17 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by Jonathan » Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:18 pm

Terence.drew wrote:... Do you get it or do you not?
I get what you mean - I think ;)

And I already did respond - with my suggestion to use scale models, to experiment.
To really see for yourself the effects of earths shadow from the sun.
Kindly look at hoi.polloi's post too.

What appeals to me is my own business - exactly.
Same goes for everyones including yours.

Afterburners from aircraft can be made to resemble an explanation.
It just does not appeal to me - as a good theory.

For just one:
To me it lacks probability - the other explanation is much easier.

It usually works the other way around:
theories are falsified - else they stand.

I'm tired...
Last edited by Jonathan on Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Terence.drew
Member
Posts: 248
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by Terence.drew » Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:43 pm

Jonathan wrote:

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
Member
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by nonhocapito » Thu Oct 27, 2011 10:53 pm

Terence.drew wrote: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? :lol: B)

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):

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

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

Image

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
Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:17 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by Jonathan » Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:11 pm

Terence.drew wrote: ...
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
Member
Posts: 248
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:55 pm
Contact:

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by Terence.drew » Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:17 pm

nonhocapito wrote:
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? :lol: B)

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:

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

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

Image

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?

nonhocapito
Member
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by nonhocapito » Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:28 pm

Terence.drew wrote:Debris...afterburner...are you serious?
In this post of yours: http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2360876#p2360876 you seem to discuss debris as one of the explanations for the traces appearing in photography.

in this post: http://cluesforum.info/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
Member
Posts: 100
Joined: Tue Jul 26, 2011 8:17 am

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by Jonathan » Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:32 pm

Terence.drew wrote: 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
Member
Posts: 2579
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by nonhocapito » Thu Oct 27, 2011 11:45 pm

hoi.polloi wrote: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.

Image

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
Member
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 1:14 am
Contact:

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by Maat » Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:31 pm

Hey guys, as I suggested in my earlier post: http://cluesforum.info/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:

Image

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
Member
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Satellites : general discussion and musings

Unread post by hoi.polloi » Fri Oct 28, 2011 5:48 pm

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.

Post Reply