When you say that you haven't quite convinced yourself that satellites don't exist, are you aware of the fundamental problem with your logic and reasoning? Why would you ever need to convince yourself of the non-existence of something? Shouldn't the existence of something need to be proven in the first place? For example, if I told you that invisible unicorns rule the world and are hovering over the planet at all times, would you need to convince yourself that this isn't true? We have no proof that the concept of satellites in orbit exists. NASA doesn't even provide much in terms of fake photos to support this tall tale. Why believe any of it from the beginning? Why would your starting point be "satellites exist and I have to convince myself that they don't", instead of the opposite?roastrunner wrote:anonjedi2,
I apologize for taking your response personally - I shouldn't assume I know anything about the moon for certain. I do believe if nothing else that orbital velocity makes sense, as it's a system at rest if you look at in the right context. I don't understand how it could be done practically with satellites as it would involve too many minor corrections since the earth's isn't perfectly round and its density isn't evenly distributed. I haven't quite convinced myself that satellites don't exist though. Too hard to explain global telecommunications that existed in the 60s.
I think you need to spend some time in the satellites thread.
Why do you believe that the earth isn't perfectly round, or round at all to begin with? Where do you get your ideas of the shape of the Earth?