/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9521752
The reason the picture looks like this is due to parallax, it's the same thing as bring your thumb close to your eye to have it look like your thumb is as big as a door.

Also in the full footage it's the EPIC satellite that was moving not the Moon. The reason the Earth appears not to move is because the satellite is geosynchronous to Earth so that it will always show once side of the planet.

Is this another conspiracy thread?

Go to >>>/x/ not sci.

Sci is about proven things, not stupid fun theories, those can go on >>>/x/.

>>9521752
Yeah seriously. Now get out.
>>9521785
>> mixing up the name of the instrument and the satellite
>> geosynchronous orbit is higher than lunar orbit
Sir, I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to leave. The deep space climate observatory is at the sun earth lagrange point

>>9521752
LMAO
that cgi glitch on the right side of the moon hahaha
it's got a fucking green outline
globeheads will defend it

Nobody bring up the "Sex" cloud thing. It's a simple case of pareidolia not conspirators trying to brainwash you into think about sex... I guess? I honestly don't even know the fucking problem with that, I mean is sex just a slur now or something?

>>9521823
It was a simple glitch on the satellite's camera. GTFO and go back to your own kind.

>faked 6 moon landings
>still believe in those cgis

>>9521823
This is such a weird line of thinking. If it's a fake why would they put "glitches" in it?

>>9521831
I thought it said JET.

>>9521752

watched video

notice that the moon does not rotate away from the camera

they copy-pastad a static image of the moon across the screen...

it should be in a tidal locked orbit with on side facing the center of the earth at all times

the angles btfo nasa

>>9521921
also

compare to

chinks

>>9521921
The Moon (or Luna as I personally like to call it) is tidally-locked to Earth. It's orbital period and rotational period are the same thus it appears not to rotate.

Also like >>9521785 state beforehand the satellite is moving not the Moon you fucking retard.

>>9521785
>The reason the Earth appears not to move is because the satellite is geosynchronous to Earth so that it will always show once side of the planet.
You fucking retard. Geosync is far closer to the Earth than the moon is.

>>9521951
>You fucking retard. Geosync is far closer to the Earth than the moon is.

All I know about geosynchronous orbits is that the secondary body is always facing one side of the primary body.

>>9521752
Why is the far side so well lit? Isn't supposed to constantly be in shadow?

>>9521921
The pictures are taken at an extreme level of zoom, so the path of the moon across the screen actually represents only a tiny percentage of its orbit.

>>9522009
Hmm... gee. If only there was a natural light source in the Solar System.

>>9522009
No, how the fuck could that be possible?

>>9522009
B T F O S C I E N C E

the sun doesn't exist eclipses are B T F O

>>9522009
>Why is the far side so well lit? Isn't supposed to constantly be in shadow?

No. Where do people get this goofy idea?

One side is constantly towards Earth. Not the sun. Watch the phases of the moon, you can literally see that one side is lit, then the other.

>>9521966
Now you know one other thing about them -- they are closer than the moon.

>>9521836
>>9521823
>>9521883

It's Chromatic Aberration you tards

>>9522059
This.
That's why there are purple smudges on the opposite side too.

>>9521937

that's bullshit

look at image in OP

look at this one I posted >>9521921

look at earth rotating
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMdhQsHbWTs

explain why angle from camera to moon does not change with earth rotation

>>9521937
>The Moon (or Luna as I personally like to call it) is tidally-locked to Earth. It's orbital period and rotational period are the same thus it appears not to rotate.

even this part is irrelevant because that only applies to observations from earth

that camera can is pointed at the far side of the moon, it actual contradicts your point all on its own

>Also like >>9521785 state beforehand the satellite is moving not the Moon you fucking retard.
Just want to re-iterate how desperate nasa is on this one, that's a very pathetic lie posted twice itt

watch and feel awful at the piss poor state of nasa propaganda
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMdhQsHbWTs

>>9522040
So if I'm understanding this correctly. On earth will only ever see one side and its lit because of reflected sunlight bouncing off earth at night. And this satellites camera will only ever see the opposite side and its also lit because of light from behind where sun is.

>>9522093
Because the camera is at the L1 point >>9522014
It's a position in space between the Earth and the Sun where satellites can be balanced, orbiting the Sun in lock step with Earth rather than orbiting Earth.

The reason the Moon doesn't appear to rotate at all is because from that position the transit is a fraction of a degree of the Moon's entire orbit, so there would be a fraction of a degree of rotation

>>9522121
Adding to this, because the L1 point is between the Earth and the Sun the side of the Moon you see is lit by the Sun, so it would be a New Moon on Earth.

>>9522059
Sort of. It's actually because the image is made using three different colour sensors one after the other, and the moon moved in between.
>>9522120
Jesus Christ, how can anyone be this ignorant of how the solar system works?

How can people not understand yet that all the satellite shit is faked? Some of the images are laughable, like OPs.

There are 'shots' from a Japanese satellite that orbits the moon that are so bad, so poorly photoshopped that it's a miracle anyone could even use that as evidence for anything.

>>9522120
>and its lit because of reflected sunlight bouncing off earth at night
What the actual fuck?

>>9522120
nice, you clearly get the passed top of your class at shareblue

>>9522121
are you dense, a fraction of an orbit = a fraction of rotation for the moon in relation to that camera. the dark black spot, top right on the moon, should move at least 10 pixels.

I did the math, the angle should change by about 5 degrees

>>9521787
>sci is about proven things
>never actually having proven anything for himself
>holds things as truth and regards them as self evident after be told so from muh education

>>9522138
>How can people not understand yet that all the satellite shit is faked?
https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/

>>9522138
Enlighten us with those images?

>>9522149

>>9522144
>I did the math, the angle should change by about 5 degrees
Not sure what you did but the pass of the moon in the video took about 3 and a half hours, and the moon's orbital period is 27 days or 648 hours. So it only travelled about 0.54% of its orbit or less than 2 degrees.

>>9522147
What is the satellite in a direct lock with the Earth's rotation and tilt?

I don't think people really understand how unfeasible the idea of unmanned satellites are.
What does the software to track a planetary object look like? What happens if it bugs out? What happens if the satellite tilts? You send a thruster signal? What happens when the thrusters run dry?

>>9522185
>What is the satellite in a direct lock with the Earth's rotation and tilt?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geosynchronous_orbit

>>9522144
>a fraction of an orbit
I said a fraction of a degree.
Your math for 5 degrees is bollocks.
The Moon has an average orbital radius of 384399km, with 2pi*r we get a circumference of 2415250km.

The Moon orbits once every ~27 days, so if we multiply 27 by 24 we get the rough number of hours for its orbit, 648. Divide 2415250 by 648 and we get its orbital speed in km/h, 3727. Divide by 3600 for seconds in an hour and get we 1.04km/s (close to the actual 1.022km/s average) so that math is checking out.

So if we divide 2415250 by 360 we get 6709, or 6709km/degree. Your assertion of 5 degrees would mean 33545km, which is pretty close to the number of seconds it would take the moon to cover that distance, so a division by 3600 gives around 9 and a third hours.

North America starts the transit in the center of the Earth disk and doesn't even make it fully to the edge before the transit ends, so unless it takes more than 9 hours for the Sun to travel from its peak to the horizon in the United States (not counting Alaska, because fuck you) your math is bollocks.

>>9522185
>What happens if it bugs out?
Try to reset and uplink new software, otherwise it's dead.
>What happens if the satellite tilts?
If you can adjust it with onboard controls, like reaction wheels, then you do so. Otherwise it's as good as dead.
>You send a thruster signal?
Of course. Most satellites have thrusters and are deployed in orbits they have to raise themselves from.
>What happens when the thrusters run dry?
It's dead. Usually they are moved into either an orbit that will cause it to fall back to Earth or into a "graveyard" orbit before the thrusters run out of juice.

>>9522144
>nice, you clearly get the passed top of your class at shareblue
Hey, leave us out of this. No need to be like that!

>>9522172
something wrong with this image?

>>9522188
Yeah because you look at the moon.
How do you know what will happen if you send up a metal thing up there? No one even understands the working of gravity yet people are told to believe that whatever you throw up there will result in a perfect geocentric orbit.

So nothing even starts spinning out of control, nothing drops back down, nothing goes outside of the earth's influence, everything just fits like a fucking lego brick.

And not just one LEGO brick, but fucking tens of thousands. There are supposed satellites OUTSIDE of the moon's orbit still locked into Earth's orbit.

And none of these satellites collide by the way, and no one really knows the real numbers of satellites out there. Articles all over the place comment from 2000 to 30,000.

Then you have supposed high fidelity data input and output from these satellites with zero interference from the Earth's ionosphere and God knows what other layers are further up let alone what electrical activity is even going on in deep space OR between the moon and the Earth OR from the sun.

Not only that but to communicate with a satellite to the point of locking it into a perfect orbit with fucking rockets in a supposed zero gravity environment is almost against all odds and that hasn't just been done

>>9522185
>what does the software to track a planetary object look like
A computer.
>what happens if it bugs out
Then we didn't test it very much. If possible, a software patch will be pushed.
>what happens if the satellite tilts? You send a thruster signal?
If we need to rotate the satellite we use gyros or thrusters could be used, which ever method would be part of the design of the satellite.
>what happens when the thrusters run dry?
It reaches end-of-life status and is basically abandoned. Maybe some hobbyists manage to make contact with it and continue to pull data from sensors for fun, but JPL has probably dropped it from their support once it runs out of propellent. The satellite may or may not be turned off

>>9522211
It's a composite, dumbass!

>>9522146
>holds things as truth and regards them as self evident after inventing a fairy tale.
Where's your robust evidence of a global conspiracy that fakes footages and tricks experts all around the world? Where's your evidence that all sorts of instruments are tampered with?
Do everybody a favour. Drive a car east across a continent. Then drive north across the continent. Then drive back to your starting position. Compare the distance logged in the car vs. the expected distance driven on a flat earth model vs. the expected distance driven on a global earth model.
Then please come back with evidence on how your car was tampered with when you find out that the actual distance driven is closer to the expected distance driven on a global model, and how pilots who make similar trips are fooled every day.

>>9522215
Oh no was it the pixels that told you, you must be a real expert.

>>9522120
Earthlight (reflected light from Earth) will always shine on the side of the moon facing the Earth. it will be a lot of light when the Earth is full, as seen from the moon, and a lot less as the Earth goes further and further into crescent and then "new" phase. Even when the Earth's shadowed side is totally facing the moon, you'll get a little light through the atmosphere, and a very VERY small amount from things like city lights.

Earthlight, at its brightest, will be brighter than moonlight as seen from Earth.

But sunlight is a LOT brighter than that, of course. As we see the moon run through its phases in a month, we see the sunlight illumination moving around the globe of the moon.

A little more than half of the lunar surface will see some Earthlight at some point (The moon "wiggles" a little bit as seen from Earth since it's orbit is, as orbits are, elliptical, meaning the moon's speed in orbit varies more during a month than its speed of rotation. A btit less than half of the lunar surface never sees any Earthlight, and is never visible from Earth.

But all of the points on the lunar surface see the sunlight over the course of a month

>>9522201
>>9522214
Let's take a simple example about tracking.

Say the satellite tilts for whatever reason, thruster went on for too long for example.
But we'll even leave out the delay in signalling all of those given the distance of some and the idea that all of them perfectly fall into orbit.

What happens when this occurs and you lose the Earth entirely? And then you have to have the same thing check out or not check out at the darkside of the earth. How do you differentiate between both?

Well everyone can just explain it away. "They use the wheels, they use the compass, they use this".

There should be extensive documentation and tracking of satellites but it doesn't exist. You should have fucking day long outages and errors happening with these things, but nothing happens.

>>9522232
That GIF is composed of consecutive full moons, in slightly different parts of the lunar orbit -- so you can see how it moves closer to and further from the Earth in its elliptical orbit, and how we see it from a slightly different angle, and so see a slightly different hemisphere, over the course of the orbit. All frames are taken when it is full so you don't see the phases as the sunlight sweeps around.

If you want to see the Earthlight on the moon, look at the moon when it is close to New Moon, the slimmest crescent you can. Because you see only a sliver of the lighted moon, your eyes don't adjust for brightness, and you can see the "dark" part of the moon, of the part that is facing Earth, glowing faintly in Earthlight.

>>9522238
You ignorance of how things are done does not constitute data about whether a thing is done.

>>9522213
It's almost like we've spent centuries working to understand the fundamental laws of the universe, and having found them to be consistent and predictable, we can now build machines that behave in extremely precise ways by utilizing our understanding of the laws which govern them. Crazy, huh?

>No one even understands the working of gravity
Please don't project your own profound ignorance on the rest of us.

>>9522213
It's almost as if you can't comprehend the size of the Earth, the size of these satellites and any of the technologies gone into this.

>>9522238
You calculate how much you overshot your target by measuring the duration the thruster fired, plan another maneuver, and then execute to correct the mistake.

Luckily for us, our rocket scientists are a lot better at figuring shit out than you are, so they don't make these mistakes very often.

>>9522219
Another fun thing to try would be to go to the North pole, and get a bearing on two points on the equator, 90 degrees apart. Then go to those two other places, take a bearing on the pole and each other. All three angles will be 90 degrees

On your flat map, you will have drawn a triangle, but the angles your bearings will have shown, when added, will equal 270 degrees.

270 degree triangles on a flat surface are not possible.

It is, of course, harder to do than your "drive a triangle" plan. But even if you did it for places not as far apart as the pole and the equator, you'd still get triangles with more than 180 degrees.

>>9522238
>There should be extensive documentation and tracking of satellites but it doesn't exist.
There is.

>What happens when this occurs and you lose the Earth entirely? And then you have to have the same thing check out or not check out at the darkside of the earth. How do you differentiate between both?
Luckily the Earth isn't the only thing they can use to check their orientation and direction. There is also the Sun and these things called stars.
http://www.leonardocompany.com/documents/63265270/65635102/Copia+di+A_STR_Autonomous_Star_Trackers_LQ_mm07786_.pdf?download_file

>>9522247
There is no data.

You put something up there with a camera and perfect signal between it and you and you're coming back with mountains of data. Fucking loads.

You look at the satellite data and imaging that exists right now. Things like a dozen images of the planet or moon with varying pixel dimensions or obtuse dimensions that wouldn't even fit on a fucking iPhone from 2009.

All the weather and telescopic data can be taken from high altitude planes and balloons, and they are.

Where is the satellite that acts as a receiver for the moon's field to gauge it? Where is the satellite that probes the far side of the moon?
Where is the satellite that receives the sun's pulses? Where is the satellite for working as a solar panel for research? Where is the one taking dust samples from space? Where is the satellite analysing the upper stratospheres of the Earth?

They don't exist.

>>9522248
>Please don't project your own profound ignorance on the rest of us.
Do gravity waves exist? Explain why yes or no. Also, is gravity felt instantaneously like quantum entanglement or takes the speed of light between the two objects to be felt?

>>9522248
You don't know the laws of the universe. And neither do I. And neither do they.
You live on a ball and you haven't been up there. Yet.

The idea of man-made 'laws' having precedence what actually 'is' is unscientific at its core.

>>9522269
>Do gravity waves exist? Explain why yes or no.
Yes, we know because we have detected them multiple times at different facilities, including the most recent (known) detection of the collision of two neutron stars that was verified by the visible light it created.
>inb4 you act like those measurements are somehow not valid though I know you will anyway
>Also, is gravity felt instantaneously like quantum entanglement or takes the speed of light between the two objects to be felt?
The latter, which is what allows gravity waves to exist in the first place.

>>9522213
>And none of these satellites collide by the way,

Yes they do, though it is rare. The reason it is rare is that they are almost all going the same way and those at the same altitude tend to go at the same speed, and because people pay attention to whether they are likely to hit anything when planning the orbit for their expensive satellite. But rarely, something collides with another satellite or with a large enough piece of junk to do serious damage.
Known collisions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_collision

>no one really knows the real numbers of satellites out there. Articles all over the place comment from 2000 to 30,000.

Depends on what you count. There is a shit ton of bits and pieces of debris, bits of junk, loos screws, etc. up there. There would be no way to get an accurate count. There was even a camera from Ed White's space walk up there for awhile (it can be seen in film of the space walk drifting away from the capsule after he got distracted and "put it down" for a moment) but it will have re-entered and burned up long ago.

>>9522256
Don't give me that fucking shit Anon.
We've seen how the wheels work, how the gyroscopes can work, the engine furnaces to test against temperature, how the mechanics are programmed and how the thrusters and deployment sails are tested.

I feel bad at the people at NASA and other stations, they do a lot of work for nothing.

>>9522279
What's it like going through life and relying on this much magic thinking to explain the world around you?
It must be pretty frightening I imagine.

>>9522268
Your ignorance of where the satellites are (or were, some taking older readings may be out of commission now) does not constitute evidence of whether the exist(ed).

No matter how triggered you get, your ignorance is not data about anything other than you.

>>9522279
Please, right before this threads dies, post that you are a troll. I will acknowledge your mighty troll skills, and will sleep better knowing that you are not really this ignorant abut so many things.

>>9522261
How do you make an unmanned object come to a standstill in space? Do you realise how difficult that is?

Really think about it, you already have a delay between the transmitter and satellite in space, so any attempt to manually adjust the satellite is almost fucked completely because you'll be constantly hitting delayed offsets to its movements.
And not only that but it's in space too, so you can't just work on the x and y for rotations as in when gravity is involved. But hang on, gravity is involved except it isn't because the satellite just sits there in orbit. So which is it?

What happens then when you try to automate it? That's a mess waiting to happen. What would you do, take signals from the gyro wheels and thruster duration and pressure?
Well maybe that would work, but then how do you confirm the satellite's orientation in space? You need a livefeed.

So where are these 'setup' livefeeds? Where are the things going wrong? Where are the hours or rotation and orientation to set thse things up?

>>9522280
I dont think you can practically build anything (especially anything useful) that makes use of this information. QED.

>>9522299
Satellites aren't at a standstill you octuple nigger
That being said, you do some basic integration and figure out how long your thrusters need to fire for, point in your retrograde direction, and fire them.

>>9522268
>All the weather and telescopic data can be taken from high altitude planes and balloons, and they are.
https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/

>You look at the satellite data and imaging that exists right now. Things like a dozen images of the planet or moon with varying pixel dimensions or obtuse dimensions that wouldn't even fit on a fucking iPhone from 2009.
https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/
https://www.google.com/maps/

>Where is the satellite that acts as a receiver for the moon's field to gauge it? Where is the satellite that probes the far side of the moon?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Reconnaissance_Orbiter

>Where is the satellite that receives the sun's pulses?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interface_Region_Imaging_Spectrograph
>Where is the satellite for working as a solar panel for research?
Most satellites have solar panels on them. I'm not sure what your point here is.
>Where is the one taking dust samples from space?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample-return_mission#Sample-return_missions
>Where is the satellite analysing the upper stratospheres of the Earth?

>>9522307
geostationary satellites lol

>>9522306
>I don't believe...
>QED

You really, really suck at this.

>>9522299
Why do you think anything in space is at a standstill?

>livefeed
Why do you think humans would be better at precision timing than a computer? Humans have ~250 millisecond reaction times. Computers have ~250 NANOsecond reaction times.

>>9522309
Oh shit, this is now a /sci/ ylyl thread.

>>9522306
>>9522309
What is the point of you coming here and acting so incredibly retarded? Is this something you enjoy? Is it a fetish?
I know you're just taking the piss at this point but I'm trying to understand why you're so dedicated.

>>9522309
>Geostationary satellites aren't moving

>>9522265
Except that you can't see the sun and stars in space, and you can easily see that from balloons and fighters when you send them 30km up. That's how you know the Hubble shots are taken ON the Earth.

People say that it's the Earth's light that causes that or the moon's light, which is fair. Maybe that's true.
Except that all the satellite images are pitch black, and none of them show the stars for the exact reason that it's too complex to map.
So essentially every satellite could act as a telescope and take shots of the stars but none do.
Well maybe it's the sun that's causing that against the lenses. Well have you ever seen the sun from a satellite? That doesn't exist either.

And then you have the problem of actually mapping the sun and stars if it all did exists and worked perfectly as you're saying.
Understand how difficult that is. Understand it.
Because if you're mapping your position to the stars it needs to recognize pixel patterns, sort of like constellations.
But the satellites are constantly orbiting and not only that but they're all locked to the Earth too AND they're locked to the Earth's seasonal axis.
So they have almost 160 degress on a y zxis and 360 degrees on their x axis and someone is expected to write an algorithm to map the ship's position to the galactic background with the amount of data present there ON the basis that the satellite with never move not even an inch from its predicted orbit, of which no one can even check due to a lack of instrumentation and live feed, realistically, of which every single satellite should have.

>>9522299
>Well maybe that would work, but then how do you confirm the satellite's orientation in space?
see >>9522265

>But hang on, gravity is involved except it isn't because the satellite just sits there in orbit. So which is it?
Of course gravity is still involved. That's why they use rockets to put the satellites into space, why the satellites us thrusters to raise and maintain their orbits and why there are specific distances from Earth you need to place your satellite for different speed orbits.
That's why all geosync satellites are at the distance of around (I think) 33,000km. Because at that distance the speed they require to stay in orbit is the same as required to remain over the same spot on the Earth.

>Where are the things going wrong?
There are many cases of things going wrong, but if we continued making the same mistakes then we would be pretty fucking stupid, wouldn't we?

>>9522059
wrong. chromatic aberration looks more rainbow-y. That artefact is probably because the telescope doesn't take 3-color photos at once. They probably had to set the camera up to take 3 separate frames with different filters several seconds or minutes apart, so the images don't exactly match up when they throw the composite together, and the non-matching parts show up as single colors.

>>9522324
>Except that you can't see the sun and stars in space
For a moment I thought I was talking to someone with at least a little intelligence.

>>9522309
>Satellite that goes around the Earth once every 24 hours
>Standing still in space.

>>9522309
Geostationary orbits have an orbital velocity of 3.07km/s. Also, they only appear stationary over the equator. Inclined geosynchronous orbits move over the surface in a figure 8 pattern.

Why are you even talking about this shit if you know literally nothing about orbital mechanics

>>9522324
>You can't see the sun and stars in space.
Google "Hubble Space Telescope... you are wrong.

You can't see them in photographs where the exposure is set correctly for a brightly lit object in frame, like the planet Earth or the lunar landscape.

Similarly, try taking a picture of the sets and the full moon in the same frame. Let us now how that works.

>>9522290
The same can be said about you using laws to explain away what you don't understand. That's the epitome of folly.

If you told me your story about how you saw a plant grow in a certain way and I responded with it going against the Law of Planteresis and brushed it off, you would call me knowingly ignorant.

>>9522327
This guy is correct.

>>9522337
>Try taking a picture of the STARS and the full moon in the same frame.

Sorry for the typo.

>>9522324
Holy shit how fucking difficult how could people ever navigate using the stars?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzGaO4Kdz2Y

>>9522338
What the fuck are you talking about?
The laws that we rely on to guide our understanding of how satellites behave in orbit have been tested countless times in the century since they were formulated, and have been vindicated with extreme accuracy every single time.
Tell me how I'm wrong about that. Please.

>>9522338
The flaw in your analogy:

If I saw a plant grow a certain way, I would have data -- the observed way a plant grew. If it violated the laws of how plants grow, we'd have to look for an error in our formulating of the laws.
In you case, though, you have no data about anything. There is no plant you saw grow. Yu just have a long, long list of things you either do not understand, or that you pretend not to understand. Nobody has to revisit anything we've learned about ho the world works based on the fact that you don't understand it.

>>9522319
>>9522307
I should have written lock in. These satellites are locking themselves into an orbit from launch, yes?

>>9521752
Oh look, it's this thread again.

>>9522349
>These satellites are locking themselves into an orbit from launch, yes?
No.
Almost always they are launched first into a parking orbit at a much lower altitude.
Then it is boosted on one side to an altitude that is around, but usually above, the final circular orbit height.
Then the satellite slowly raises the opposite orbit until it reaches a circular orbit over the position it is going to stay synchronized with.

>>9522338
>The same can be said about you using laws to explain away what you don't understand

Actually, nigger, we use laws to explain "away" what we *do* understand through repeated testing and observation. Holy fuck if this is bait, I salute you. If not, I pity you for being this fucking retarded.

>>9522354
I will add to this that the process usually takes weeks to months, depending on what propulsion they use on the satellite.

>>9521785
> parallax

>>9522349
They maneuver into their desired orbit sometime after launch. But there is no locking. The Earth is nonuniform enough that over time it would slowly disturb geosynchronous satellites from their orbit. The moon will also slightly disturb the satellites from their orbit too when it passes over them. The satellites will need to expend a very small amount of propellent over time to keep from drifting too far from their desired orbit. All of this is monitored and calculated on the ground and planned as maneuvers issued to the satellite whenever needed.

>>9522347
People won't look at changing the laws because they're arrogant about their own knowledge.
Look at yourself, I just gave you a hypothetical about plants and immediately the person looking at the plant has no data. Not only that, the observer has faults in cognitive understanding and learning too. The irony is awful here.

You do have to revisit things you've learned, constantly, even if they seem 100% foolproof. Anything else is dogmatic.
You have to be willing to accept that everything you know is wrong, as cheesy as that sounds, as do I, as should anyone

>>9522352
Although it started out as "this thread again," it has metastasized into a pretty amazing (hopefully) troll thread.

>>9522359
Cool. Now where is the video feed of these adjustments? That sounds like a cool view.

>>9522358
>To explain away what we do understand

>>9522367
You're reading comprehension is terrible.

If you are looking at a plant, if you have an observable phenomenon that does not fit the model, please produce it.

If you do not, then you did not observe a plant, you just are ignorant about plants and so think that means everybody else is, too.

You have so far, as far as I can see, not yet put forward anything but questions about what you do not understand, or statements that the fact that you don't understand must be evidence that everybody else is wrong.

So let's simplify this thread. Put forward any point of data you have, anything that you have observed, anything that you do, in fact, understand, that is contrary to the laws of physics everybody else is using.

If you just post more "my ignorance is data" bullshit, I'm trolled out for tonight but salute you for your tenacity.

>>9522324
>you can't see the sun and stars in space

lol, no

>>9522371
Satellites typically take pictures, not video

>>9522375
>You're

Apologies, I am tired.

>>9522366
It's too hard to calculate from the ground.

How do you even get the position of the satellite? Maybe if you had a base on the moon, okay, you could get an idea.
Maybe if you used other satellites as relays to triangulate it, maybe. But does that idea exist anywhere?

>>9522371
Why would there be public video feeds of it? Because you want there to be?
These orbit raising procedures take weeks, the video wouldn't be very interesting from a public perspective, and probably wouldn't even be useful from an operator perspective (maybe if they point the cameras at the thrusters so they know if they are firing) because you won't see the changes to the orbit in the short term (when you adjust your orbit it always adjusts the opposite side of the orbit).

>>9522372
Away was in quotations for a reason

>>9522382
>But does that idea exist anywhere?
Gee, I don't know....
If only someone had thought of some kind of global positioning system that used multiple radio signals from different sources to determine a location.

>>9522382
>It's too hard to calculate from the ground.
Please explain how you came to that conclusion.

>>9522388
>>9522384
>>9522366
>>9522354

You, sir (I assume you are all the same guy) have the patience of a saint.

I would post tits for you, but we're on a blue board.

>>9522371
>That sounds like a cool view.
It wouldn't be. There's essentially nothing to see, you certainly wouldn't be able to discern any change in movement or anything like that.

Who do you people insist on turning your incredulity at how space flight works into some wacked-out worldview where everything is fake instead of I don't know.... learning something about it? Literally go play Kerbal Space Program for a couple of hours and 90% of your questions would have been answered.

>>9522375
If you were a plant scientist, and someone told you about an offhanded observed occurrence and you started berating them about how they should reproduce the plant and that they're an idiot and their story isn't true and they don't understand plants and plants have been with us for 10,000,000,000 years and you know nothing about them then you're not a plant scientist, because science is part philosophy, so the perceptions and experiences from different people either within or outside the profession are worth looking into, even if they're wrong.

In my eyes, I don't care if satellites do their thing or not, I'm happier if they exist.
My problem is that I have no data from these satellites. And my argument is for there being no satellites in orbit due to the lack of data.

>>9522395
Not him, but... Is KSP any good? As a "learn how it works" tool?

Never messed ith it.

>>9522397
Then, as you have only posted more "my ignorance is data" bullshit, I salute your tenacity as a troll and bid you good night. Going to watch these last few guys skate.

>>9522377
Well, I look at the GoPro balloon footage on YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3y0nHhFGXDo

And they're saying their balloon is 18 miles high at its peak in the video.
That satellite in your image only looks about double that height, yet in our balloon shows nothing.
Maybe there's a threshold where you can instantly see the cosmos after it, but I'm not sure, I've never seen the transition.

>>9522392
Close.

>>9522405
The satellite in my image is 250 miles up, and its camera's exposure is set to capture low light, unlike yours.

If you go outside at night and stand underneath a streetlight, you won't see any stars either.

>>9522398
It's probably the best tool that exists for learning how things like orbital mechanics work.

>>9522392
>>9522408
366 checking in. Phoneposting from bed until I am tired enough to fall asleep

>>9522398
It's pretty good within its limitations.
You can get mods for gravity values more like Earth and real solar system scales. It gives you a basic understanding of the mechanics but you can't transition it directly to real world applications because of some limitations of the engine (LKO has no atmospheric drag, for example, stable orbits are stable, only one gravitational body affects you at a time).

>>9522388
Right, but that's on Earth. That's a system with three stationary towers and their point.

Now what exactly is happening in space?
If we're going with the idea that the satellites can act as the triangulation points then you also have to factor in their velocity, orbit, the delay between ground and them.

Tell me about how good your GPS works when those phone towers are moving at 28,000 km per hour.

>>9522398
Ya, pretty good. The orbits on rails is a bit of a limiting factor if you wanted to do cool shit like Lagrange points, but for everything else it is pretty great. Helps you understand docking, transfer windows, launch windows, deltaV, oberth effect, gravity assists.. Pretty good.

>>9522395
The consensus is that you can see the stars that far out. And the Earth is there.

Oh I guess there's nothing to see.

>>9522417
>If we're going with the idea that the satellites can act as the triangulation points then you also have to factor in their velocity, orbit, the delay between ground and them.
Welcome to the wonderful world of GPS (and similar systems).

>>9522422
There's plenty of them giving nice views, like Himawari, DSCOVR and many others. There's just no point in them broadcasting video of their orbital insertion maneuvers in particular.

>>9522412
It just doesn't seem right.

I don't know the specifics on lenses and shutter rates but that doesn't look like a shot to capture low light, it's too focused.

>>9522439
OK, anon. Your feelings are important to me, and I'll use that to determine what is and what isn't scientifically valid. If it doesn't feel right, then it's wrong.

>>9522417
A final word before I bugger off for a couple hours.
Most of your arguments/complaints are along the lines of
>we would need something to do X
and then when we post something that does what you are asking for you respond with
>its impossible to do X

First you make an argument from ignorance, claiming that something that exists, doesn't exist. Then you make an argument from incredulity, claiming that it's impossible to do what is required simply because you don't understand how you would do it.

It's okay to question what you don't understand, that is how you learn things, but you can't assume that you will ever know everything, that you will ever understand everything. There are some things you need to learn before other things will make sense, even if you can't fully grasp them.
Start researching things, not just watching some Youtube videos. A lot of these systems have their basis in things we use on Earth, some things that we use every day.

>>9522433
To expand upon this. When the spacecraft points in the right direction for maneuver, it has a very limited option for where it can point its camera. It only had 1 axis of freedom to orient the camera with, and if the camera is along this axis it doesn't have any option. Second, video take a lot more energy than taking a single photo. It also takes a lot more memory. Most spacecraft are as light weight as possible so they usually don't have the battery reserves to even take long term video.
Third, significant changes usually take a very long time to occur, so even if a video was taken, you would watch it at a faster than real time playback anyway. So a timelapse would be more appropriate anyway.

For these reasons and more many satellites can't even take video. It was a design choice to not include video capable technology.

>>9522439
>I don't know the specifics on lenses and shutter rates but that doesn't look like a shot to capture low light, it's too focused.
Focusing on things far away is pretty easy but it certainly does look like low light.
Those bright patches on Earth are most likely city lights and clouds lit up by city lights.
It also looks very grainy, as though taken at a high ISO.

>>9522423
No, the electromagnetic signal and triangulation point are only moving, the towers aren't moving.

So that's paradoxical if you're trying to get the position of a satellite, right?
So a quick Google search says 8km per second. Good enough for hypothetical purposes.
So you need a send and receive for the satellites to track each other. But one might be moving at twice the speed of another, or might be moving 1000 km out.

Alright, no big deal, except now you're comparing the delay against something that has probably moved kilometers away in a second. So where is the satellite that sent the send signal out now?
Well now you have to triangulate that one now against the others to find the first. Except the others all have the same problems.

So you'll immediately hit an endless loop and you'll never be able to find the position.

>>9522454
It's also 631x350.

>>9522452
>It was a design choice to not include video capable technology

My Chinese phone can take video for 2 hours.

>>9522466
Your chinese phone can also plug into a wall and recharge its battery @ like 2A. Satellites typically need to last more than 5 hours AND usually perform some form of data collection besides taking pretty pictures

>>9522473
I guess solar panels are no good.
>I've spent 200 million on this space thing, fuck that extra 2000 for a camera

>>9522481
It isn't just 2000 for a camera. The cost/benefit is considered. Do we really NEED a video camera?

Juno almost launched to Jupiter with no camera at all. Not just no video, no visible light spectrum pictures at all and it was a billion dollar probe with solar panels. A small camera was thumbtacked on at the end for community outreach purposes. The pictures aren't part of the probes primary mission goals.

>>9522487
That's great, why take something halfway across the solar system with nothing to show for it.

>>9522496
It has tons of scientific packages from multiple agencies on it, what do you mean nothing to show for it? It is going to provide us with far more data and information about Jupiter than any image ever could

>>9522481
I mean, we just had an HD video feed from a car orbiting the Earth like a week ago, and people like you just dismiss it as fake. There's all sorts of images from satellites which are taken for mostly aesthetic reasons but as far as using them to prove to brainlets that space is real, it's an entire pointless endeavour.

>>9522506
Space isn't fake. I'm not some flat earther retard and no one should be.

But you're in shallow water if you think NASA has nothing to cover up.
People laugh at the idea of rockets going to space, you know that? They laugh at people like you.

And when you see how they move, and how they work, and how they reach the moon in 12 seconds flat you won't even dare to believe it.

Have fun laughing at the mannequin in a car though, don't worry that money is being pissed down the drain to put rovers in northern Canada.

>>9521752
>>9521921
>>9522172
>>9522439
this is some scorpion king cgi. why are you "smart" people believing this? what happened to your critical capacities?

>>9522460
Luckily we solved this with Relativity, which is why GPS works even when flying over the ocean.
Using very accurate atomic clocks the positioning satellites are able to transmit their "relative" times and your GPS receiver can pick them up. From the time taken for the signal to arrive, and the relative position data of the nearby satellites that is also sent your GPS receiver can work out where in the sky the satellites are and then from the transmission latencies work out where you are in relation to them.

Surely you didn't think there was no data being sent in the GPS transmissions.

>>9522554
We used our brains for a second.

>>9522554
Can one of you at least explain what it is that makes it so obvious to you that these pictures are cgi? Is it just that everything looks very smooth and crisp? Because that's also what you'll see when you look at gigantic objects at a planetary scale with no atmosphere to scatter light and a single point light source.

>>9521752
>earth
>round
kek. simpletons.

>>9522314
No rebuttal. nothing useful. victory lap. get out of the echo chamber bro.

>>9522321
So nothing useful can be built with this gravity information. Thats what I though. Camacho out. Cure cancer. Make a fusion reactor that can work. Do something useful rather than stare at "fucking science" pictures. choose life.

>>9521752
What do they have to gain from faking space images really? NASA budget comes out of taxpayer money so the government would be robbing themselves.

>>9522674
They're all fake. First one is a composite from high altitude weather planes.
Second is a shot from a Japanese far moon satellite that was found to have the earth cropped in poorly after the exposure was turned up.
Third is just a mockup.

So I guess you could say that the images of the earth are real, just fragmented and not from that actual distance.

>>9522691
Some things we pursue for the sake of knowledge. That's not a bad thing. We don't know what that knowledge will lead to in the future.
As for cancer and fusion reactors, we have lots of people and lots of money in working on them already. Throwing more money and people at it won't inherently speed up finding the solutions.

>>9522694
Funny thing is that the DoD spends more money on space than NASA but NASA gets all the blame.

>>9522712
>Second is a shot from a Japanese far moon satellite that was found to have the earth cropped in poorly after the exposure was turned up.
Really? Show me this.

>>9522691
They, thought nothing useful would come from prime number research, actually they kind of hoped there wouldn't, but now our modern society hinges on it.
So you go ahead and study all the practical stuff like a good engineer and let the geniuses study the stuff that will transform our future.

>>9522629
Yeah, but doesn't work when I go out into the wilderness or up some mountain.

>>9522738
You are probably using your cellphone.
Many cellphones use what is called aGPS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assisted_GPS

>>9522718
So what if they pasted an earth into an image? What is that going to do for you?

>>9522748
You can't do positioning with satellites, it's too hard because they're too quick.
Calculating for the velocity and orbit alongside orbital errors with is rediculous.

>>9522764
global positioning system

>>9522755
I want to check it myself.

>>9522764
What makes you an expert in the field?
Is it just that you think it is too difficult? You may want to start with reading this to create a basis for your understanding
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Basic_concept_of_GPS

>>9522773
Stop fucking posting Wikipedia.

Listen, the concept is very simple. The triangulation is the signal time sent back and forth, right?
So how are you going to return the signal to the satellite when some are moving at 28,000 km per hour so close to the earth?

You'd end up with a really spotty positioning system with an error margin of 8km.

>>9522712
>Second is a shot from a Japanese far moon satellite that was found to have the earth cropped in
So the footage of the moon is real, but they cropped in a fake Earth, even though that's exactly how we'd expect the Earth to appear from that position? Why?

>>9521752
>muh all of history is fake and every government and all private companies and hobbyists in the world are lying to me meme
Neck yourself

>>9522797
NASA and the rest are fronts with vested interest from the private military and energy coroporations to suppress any idea real space travel through "antigravity".

>>9522789
>Stop fucking posting Wikipedia.
I knew you would say something like that. It is a fairly condensed place to read the information. If you want to read further then you can follow the links to the sources of that information.

>The triangulation is the signal time sent back and forth, right?
No. You don't transmit anything to the satellite.

>>9522825
You do if you want the satellites position.
I don't know what they think an atomic clock would have to do with anything.

And how do you know who writes on Wikipedia? That's a bigger conspiracy than NASA.

>>9522828
>You do if you want the satellites position.
The satellites send you their position.

>>9522856
Right, you could have an algorithm on board taking into consideration the velocity and altitude and pump it out.

But people were saying before that the orbits aren't perfect, things have to go off track even slightly now and then.

It's real finicky if you're doing it like that.

>>9522864
>But people were saying before that the orbits aren't perfect, things have to go off track even slightly now and then.
Yeah, and they do have station keeping thrusters, and some have been replaced. There are also a couple of extras up there in case there's an unsolvable problem with one.

The fact is that they know their position (possibly with help from triangulation with several ground stations) and they send that position information to you.
GPS positioning can be done completely passively. That's why when I was on a plane 12km above the ground, 50km from the nearest land >>9522629 I was able to get positioning information (and no, the plane didn't have WIFI on it, it was a Jetstar Airbus A340, I think, 5 years ago).

>>9522872
It can't be done passively Ie with a single signal. You need to send back out too.

>>9522920
It's not a single signal. You are receiving from multiple satellites. You are receiving time and satellite position data from multiple satellites which is used with the local clock in your device (which can sync its time from the satellites as well) to calculate transmission latency and derive position.

If you will not bother to read how the system works, stop trying to tell us what it needs to do because you don't know what it is doing.

>>9522930
We just went over this. The radius result from such a system wold be too great for any fine usage.

Because you couldn't get an accurate position of the satellite with electromagnetic waves and thus you can't get an accurate position of a person with a phone for example. You would get a 5 kilometer radius point at best.

>>9522994
No, your assertion was that the result would be too large if there was communication back to the satellites.
There isn't. You device gets everything it needs to calculate its location in the data it receives from the satellites.

>>9523014
You need to know the position of the satellite, and you can't get it accurately to the extent of GPS when it's moving that quick that close to the earth.

And not only that, the satellites would all have to interface with each other to confirm their positions.
And that's with everything going right. So no orbits going of course.

It's like a top down 3D triangulation with way too much variance. It doesn't work, and that's why the current GPS just works off phone towers and radio stations, or grounded satellites.

Look at the amount of maintenance on any of the above. Phone towers, ground satellite dishes. You would have weekly repairs up above the Earth at best.

>>9523049
>You need to know the position of the satellite
The satellites tell you their position.
>the satellites would all have to interface with each other to confirm their positions.
They talk to ground stations and with each other.
>So no orbits going of course.
They have station keeping thrusters to ensure they stay in orbit, and, considering they can constantly confirm and update their positions by talking to each other and the ground stations, this is a non-issue.

That seems to be all of your issues.

The idea of satellites began in science fiction magazines, and they have remained science fiction ever since. There was even a magazine called Satellite Science Fiction: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_Science_Fiction

All "satellite" imagery is taken from high altitude weather balloons/planes/drones etc.

This whole "orbiting" shit is convoluted sci-fi nonsense.

>>9523084
https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/
>all of this (oh wait it's night, switch to an IR view) is from weather balloons, planes and drones. the largest fleet of stealth vehicles ever seen

>>9523072
Except that things don't stay in orbit anyway, even if you're 121 km up. It'll sit there for a bit and then drop.

You can get the positions, but you cant get it accurately with electromagnetic propagation. Too much guesswork.
You can get the initial position of the satellite, but then you need its secondary position.
For all the work involved and mishaps that could happen you just might as well use the towers and nothing else.

If you watch things high up, like real rockets and whatnot, you'll see how they move.
And you'll realise how stupid the idea of thrusters are to perfect a geocentric orbit perfectly around the Earth and keep it there. It doesn't happen.

>>9523090
>https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/

I have no idea why people keep posting this. This is clearly imagery taken by weather balloons that's then mapped around a CGI sphere. This is obvious when you look at the "Japan view".

>>9523090
>It can't be composite shots layered onto NASA's Blue Marble Next Generation 3D model nooooooooo

>>9523096
>Except that things don't stay in orbit anyway, even if you're 121 km up
Yeah, but satellites are generally a lot higher up than 121km. Like those GPS ones are generally around 21,000km.

>You can get the positions, but you cant get it accurately with electromagnetic propagation.
Have you heard of WIFI? You know, sending DATA wirelessly?
>You can get the initial position of the satellite, but then you need its secondary position.
What secondary position? All you need to know is the position when it sends the data.
>For all the work involved and mishaps that could happen you just might as well use the towers and nothing else.
This is just an assumption you made up.

>And you'll realise how stupid the idea of thrusters are to perfect a geocentric orbit perfectly around the Earth and keep it there.
GPS satellites aren't in geosync orbit, geosync orbit isn't 121km (more like 42,000km), and the thrusters don't have to be used often because there is no atmosphere that high up and the gravitational effects of other objects is pretty small.

>>9523099
The view of Japan is just a zoomed subview of the wider view. The photos are still taken from the same position so that's why they distort like that, because of the curvature of the Earth away from the position of the satellite.

>>9523106
Certainly not, there's no overlapping or anything, there's no duplicates or any of the other problems inherent to doing composite shots.

>>9523122
>21,000 km
That just makes everything even worse. 350 km was bad enough. This is without going into any evidences with the Earth's atmosphere, especially the ionosphere or its own field at that altitude.

The towers are essentially on a 2D plane in regards to triangulation. Their positions don't need to be known.
The satellites, would need to have their positions known.

I don't even need to argue any more points at this point. If something is 21,000km to 42,000 km away and you're thinking it's being used for electromagnetic signalling for a positioning system when you can use three towers that are at most 5 km away each then you're lost.

>>9523122
>The view of Japan is just a zoomed subview of the wider view. The photos are still taken from the same position so that's why they distort like that, because of the curvature of the Earth away from the position of the satellite.

I'm not following these mental gymnastics. They are clearly composite images stitched together, don't know why that's so hard to admit.

>>9523122
>so that's why they distort like that, because of the curvature of the Earth away from the position of the satellite

They are fucking texture maps, stretched and stuck together over a 3D sphere.
Look at how they're loading in that image, look at the aliasing along the edges.

>>9523132
You've lost all of your arguments and keep going back to the points I have already refuted. You do need to stop arguing your points because they're busted.

>>9523133
Right, sorry I forgot how the camera on the newer Himawari satellites work. It does composite but rather than compositing across multiple orbits like the satellites used in the blue marble image it takes multiple fast scan photos across the visible disc from its perch in less than a minute and composites those, so the Japan view is just the photos from that scanning process.

>>9523143
>Look at how they're loading in that image, look at the aliasing along the edges.
Pixels gonna pixel mate.

Take the globe pill, flatlets.

>>9523157
Fuck off forever with your flat earth shit.

On a side note, found this pretty cool pdf.
http://www.data.jma.go.jp/mscweb/en/himawari89/space_segment/hsd_sample/HS_D_users_guide_en_v13.pdf

>>9523153
>Right, sorry I forgot how the camera on the newer Himawari satellites work. It does composite but rather than compositing across multiple orbits like the satellites used in the blue marble image it takes multiple fast scan photos across the visible disc from its perch in less than a minute and composites those, so the Japan view is just the photos from that scanning process.

Yet more mental gymnastics. You've really caught the sci-fi bug.

>>9523157
Th globe pill is given to you when you're 5 years old.

>>9523153
Your argument is that metallic objects 21,000 km out moving at a velocity of 8km per second are being used as part of a GPS system to accurately give us the positioning data we currently have while overlooking all the things that could go wrong and the absolute difficulty and 'in-the-dark' maneuverability of geocentrically locking a satellite into the Earth's orbit like this Japanese satellite here. The Earth's diameter is 12,000km.

Anon there are no satellites up there. It's just not feasible. It's super expensive and super error prone and just a bad idea overall.

>>9523164
Now that I have read this, I suddenly want to try this out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjClTnZ4Xh4

>>9523164

They even call the "full earth" a disk...

>>9523170
I don't see anything wrong with those things.
It is expensive, yes. There were a lot of mistakes along the way but we have been at this for more than 50 years now. It's amazing what we can accomplish in just a couple of decades.

You should try this out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeah3fFYlnA

>>9523168
Actually, reading the PDF I linked it seems my memory wasn't really correct. It looks like just the Japan image is composited (two regions) while the full disk is in one shot.
Fascinating, really. They have the full data payload structure there too so if you can pic up the transmission you could decode the data yourself.

>>9522172
This picture is highly misleading. Here's how it was made:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmpS3s17rrA

>>9523176
Yeah, because what you see is a disk.
You can't see all sides of the globe at once from one side you know.

>>9523181
Their experiment isn't exactly indicative of a satellite, even though it's a cool experiment.
They said it was 35,000 km out. How many satellites are in orbit around the Earth right now?

There isn't a single piece of telescopic or photographic evidence of a satellite. The best people have gotten are UFOs and commercial flights using the moon as a backdrop.

>>9523183
The fuck is this?

>>9523201
>There isn't a single piece of telescopic or photographic evidence of a satellite.
How about the ISS transiting the Sun during the solar eclipse last year?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lepQoU4oek4

That should give you an idea of the scale you're looking at. The ISS is in LEO and is fairly large in comparison with other satellites. Most of the large satellites are in higher orbits.

>>9523215
>thinking you can see the ISS that is over a million feet up when you can barely see a 747 30,000ft up.

>>9523221
Oh look. A 747 at cruising altitude transiting the Sun is way bigger than the ISS in orbit transiting the sun. It is almost as if the 747 must be way closer.

>>9523221
>>9523229
Oh look, here is one nearly directly overhead. So this one is likely very nearly 30000 feet from the camera.

For reference, that yellow circle (the sun) has an apparent size of a pea held at arm's length.

>>9523229

It is claimed you can see the ISS with your own eyes which is impossible if it's as far away as they say it is.

>>9523229
The measurements on this have been done before due to a well known fake shot of the ISS in the same dimensions as a 747 even given it's altitude that circulated an astrology forum years back.

The amount of amateurs using the moon as a backdrop to capture the exact same thing have all resulted in nothing.

>>9523244
>>9523229
Realise that the ISS is only slightly larger than a 747 and is 390 km higher.

>>9523250
Why would you be unable to see it? The size doesn't matter as long as it's bright enough (e.g. from refectling sun light). Size only comes into play when you want to tell things appart (see nyquist theorem and others). Too small things you will simply see as point sources of light instead of areas of brightness.

>>9523250
You can see light reflecting off the ISS easily just before dawn or just after dusk as it passes overhead. You will see this light, but will be unable to make out any detail in the ISS because it would have an apparent size comparable to a grain of salt held at arm's length. If you then looked at the light through a telescope however and managed to be skilled enough to hold it in view would see enough detail to recognize it as the ISS.

>>9523262
Realise the ISS appears far smaller in solar transit photos.

>>9523256
???

>>9523280
>>9523292

There's no one in that thing and it's not moving across the sky due to some invisible gravitational orbit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzyPN8-AbJQ

>>9523312
Seek help.

>>9523314

The irony is lost on you.

>>9522764
Do you have any proof that they're "too quick" or do you just sperg when you see a big number?

>>9521752
Oh my god is this thread still up? Go home, people, the bait is stale.

>>9521785
Kys kys kys kys kys kys

>>9521752
>moon gravity is claimed to be 0.16g of earths
>moon is evidently 1/15th the size of earth and probably considerably less dense
>at most it could only have a gravity of 0.06g if it were at least as dense per volume as earth

Nasa tries too fucking hard. How desperate.

>>9524253
>The acceleration due to gravity on the surface of the Moon is about 1.625 m/s2, about 16.6% that on Earth's surface or 0.16 ɡ. Over the entire surface, the variation in gravitational acceleration is about 0.0253 m/s2 (1.6% of the acceleration due to gravity). Because weight is directly dependent upon gravitational acceleration, things on the Moon will weigh only 16.6% of what they weigh on the Earth.

>>9524263
Learn to read. If you're over the age of 18 and havent learned how to read you should just go try to stab a police officer or buy a gun to shoot yourself through the brain.

>>9524253
You're forgetting that the radius of the moon is much less than the radius of Earth.

>>9524253
The moon is almost half the density of earth, according to google. So it's gravity should be 0.03g at 1/15th the size and 1/2 the density of earth. It would be almost entirely weightless at the surface

>>9524289
No it's only 2% of the size of the Earth. And it's radius is 25% of the Earth's.

(0.01*0.5)/(0.25^2) = 0.16

>>9524289
No it's only 2% of the size of the Earth. And it's radius is 25% of the Earth's.

(0.02*0.5)/(0.25^2) = 0.16

>>9524307

>>9524253
>>9524286
>>9524289
>>9524307
No one knows what the gravity of the moon is like. That would depend on how hollow the moon is.

>>9524377
Luckily using measurements and MATH we can determine its mass from here.

>>9524405
Except that mass has the opposite effect with gravity.
The thinner a planet is, the more intense the gravity. The opposite should be true for a thin planet.

But then the bigger the celestial object, the larger its field, or the more tiers in its field (hence your orbits along a plane in tiers, most likely along a ratio).

>>9524405
Alongside the above, mass has no definition anyway. Molecular count? Atomic count? Just plain weight?
In that case what is the weight of a planet in space? What are the density of inner layers of the Earth? How far down do they go?

Determining the mass of something with your eyes isn't clever.

>>9524358

>>9522721
A mathematicians apology is very ironic nowadays.
Hardy literally talks about how studying primes is useless in a practical sense and he loves that fact.

Here's how Gravity works. The bigger the object, the more gravity. The smaller the object, the less gravity. Got it, good

Oh christ this thread.

>>9524486
Maybe. Or maybe not. What is gravity anyway?
Can you have an amount of gravity? Perhaps it's universally constant?

What is the weight of something 1 km up on a mountain? What is the weight of something 100 km up?
What is the weight of something 1 km under the Earth?

What about the weight of something along the equator? Can you balance yourself on the equator?

What is the weight of something if you drop it spinning at ridiculous speeds towards the Earth? Now what about if you drop it spinning in the opposite direction?

What is the rate of acceleration for something under the influence of gravity? Does that equation correlate with anything else?

What about hurricanes and twisters? Have any ever crossed the equator? What about fluid dynamics at both hemispheres of the planet?

And the big question: Is there any gravity at the center of the planet?

>>9524486
That's wrong, though.

The more mass the object has, the more gravity, the less mass the less gravity.
The strength of the gravity on the surface has to do with how large the object is.

>>9524522
>What is the weight of something 1 km up on a mountain?
Slightly less.
>What is the weight of something 100 km up?
Less still.
>What is the weight of something 1 km under the Earth?
Slightly more.
>What about the weight of something along the equator?
About 500g more than at the poles.
>Can you balance yourself on the equator?
Yes, of course.
>What is the weight of something if you drop it spinning at ridiculous speeds towards the Earth? Now what about if you drop it spinning in the opposite direction?
The weights are the same as an object not spinning.
>What is the rate of acceleration for something under the influence of gravity?
On Earth, about 9m/s/s
>Does that equation correlate with anything else?
No.
>What about hurricanes and twisters? Have any ever crossed the equator?
Hurricanes have not, I cannot confirm twisters. Cyclones that form in the northern hemisphere stay in the northern, southern stay in the southern.
>What about fluid dynamics at both hemispheres of the planet?
Fluid dynamics are the same on both sides, it's just coriolis effect.
>And the big question: Is there any gravity at the center of the planet?
Yes, though will all the mass around that center it will be pulling out uniformly.

>>9524553
That's an assumption.
What happens if you were to find a planet twice the size of Earth and feel it only has half the gravitational pull of Earth?

>>9524568
>About 500g more than at the poles
Hmm, I wonder if something can weight less at the equator... Like an egg.
>Yes, of course
Walking along the equator must be hard.
>The weights are the same as an object not spinning
Hmm.
>No
Doesn't correlate with any other force I can think of.
>it's just coriolis effect
Maybe.
>Yes, though will all the mass around that center it will be pulling out uniformly
I wonder what is at the center of other certain bodies with effects similar to gravity.

Conspiratards should be given a basic HS math/physics tests before talking about subjects beyond them. They will shut up every time, the dumb animals can barely do geometry.

>>9524609
>Physics
>Non-applied maths
>M-Maths is the language of the universe!
>Physics isn't the cumstain of science!

@9524618
Like I said, absolute moronic pieces of shits that failed grade-school, now raving about conspiracies because they NEED to feel better about themselves. There's no talking logic to these shitstains of society. I love scamming them in /biz/ too.

>>9524625
My problem with the NASA stuff is that it holds back a lot of people on electrical engineering.
Like this is just shitposting >>9524618
but I am trying to make a point with it.

A lot of people DO use conspiracy theories to differentiate themselves and elevate themselves along with aligning facts to fiction, but people in the scientific realm do exactly that too.

Any good scientist, philosophizer or engineer shouldn't shut down others because their views contradict with their own.

>>9524570
Then it has the same mass as the Earth, which means that it is less dense.

>>9524599
>Hmm, I wonder if something can weight less at the equator... Like an egg.
Sorry, I should have qualified that. A person weighs about 500g less. The reduction is a percentage so it has to do with the objects mass.
>Walking along the equator must be hard.
Walking a straight line can be difficult for some people.
>Maybe.
Definitely, it's well understood.
>I wonder what is at the center of other certain bodies with effects similar to gravity.
You mean gravity, so the same.

>>9524650
>Any good scientist, philosophizer or engineer shouldn't shut down others because their views contradict with their own.

That's fine, because that's how progress is made. But there is no reason to even engage people who don't have the most basic knowledge on a subject.

What do you think is the P-value for there being no mare on the dark side of the moon? Is the concentration of the mare on the side that faces Earth a 5-sigma anomaly? This is a solvable problem.

>>9524783
The p-value is that you should get glasses

>>9524790
I don't get it

>>9524777
>But there is no reason to even engage people who don't have the most basic knowledge on a subject.

Of course there is, what kind of silly elitist thing is this to admit?

>>9524704
What if the Coriolis effect is wrong?
Anyway, that's just a hypothetical. The more important thing is walking in a straight line across the equator. It must be hard.

>>9524948
>The more important thing is walking in a straight line across the equator. It must be hard.
Why would it be hard? It's just a fucking line.

>>9524980
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XtzMYnn7kQ

Such a simple little observation, that leads to a whole lot more questions.

>>9524987
Those are tourist traps.
There are many different places in those countries that claim to be on the equator and have all kind of tricks that are gamed.

>>9524987
For one thing you can tell even in the video that the ground there isn't actually level.
So you're not walking on a flat straight line but a slanted straight line, which makes things more difficult.

>>9524996
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WbmFIVVid4w
I mean it looks flat to me. But maybe it is a common tourist trap. There's a fake equator line in Equador isn't there?

Maybe there are some other examples then. Maybe something like a river flowing uphill somewhere.
Maybe a mountain that's easier to walk up than down.
Armenia looks like a nice place to visit.

>>9524999
So is it slanted on both sides then? Just one? Why is it that the people are wobbling from left to right?

>>9524948
>What if the Coriolis effect is wrong?
What the fuck?
It's just a fancy name given to the apparent acceleration of objects in a rotating reference frame.

>>9525012
>Maybe there are some other examples then. Maybe something like a river flowing uphill somewhere.
>Maybe a mountain that's easier to walk up than down.
?????????

>>9525018
>Why is it that the people are wobbling from left to right?
Because they are trying to balance for the slant. There is a thing called over correcting, where you adjust your balance too far and swing the other way.
It's like you people have never walked on anything not flat in your lives.

>>9525012
Honestly I have no idea what the fuck you are on about.

>>9525035
Yes but why do they rotate differently per hemisphere and fall straight at the equator?
Is it really the rotation of the Earth in a friction-less space?

I wonder how water would drain right at the north and south poles. Maybe it would spin the opposite way, go straight down.

I wonder about hydrogen bubbles sometimes. Hydrogen bubbles and magnets. I think about those two things a lot.

>>9525041
So the people are not only standing straight, but the entire surrounding land is slopped too? And the cameramen and women are compensating for that slant as well to record their friends for 12 seconds so as to seem straight in the video?

>>9521831
I'm more worried about the creepy clown with a crossbow captured in the op's pic peeking out from above the moon

>>9525068
Not to mention the midget taking a squat in the north pole.

>>9522789
BECAUSE GPS SATS ARE IN GEOSTATIONARY ORBIT YOU FUCKING DOLT. THEY DO NOT MOVE RELATIVE TO YOUR LOCATION.

>>9525092
>GPS SATS ARE IN GEOSTATIONARY ORBIT
You should probably check wikipedia before hitting capslock.

>>9525092
No one can agree on anything.
One in is geostationary orbit, the other is 48,000 km out.
Two are around the moon, one's PAST the moon.
One's traveling at 28,000 km per hour. Other's don't even move relative to the Earth.
Some are just boxes. People put fucking boxes up there.

I don't care anymore. You have to jump hoops with satellite orbits.

>>9521790
Well done.

>>9521752
It's amazing how the most effective bait is also the most elegant and succinct.

>>9525152
>Bait

>>9525145
I will agree that there is misinformation in this thread but it seems to me that you have decided that all satellites should be in the same place.

This isn't true. How far a satellite is above the Earth is directly linked to how often you want it to be orbiting the planet.
Geostationary orbits once every 24 hours (same orbit rate as rotation rate), so any satellite placed there stays over the same spot on the Earth. This is around 48000km out (I think it varies a bit depending on the mass of the satellite).
Anything closer than that orbits faster than 24 hours. The ISS, which is about 400km up, orbits once every 90 minutes.
The satellites around the Moon orbit the Moon, not Earth (though technically Earth as well as the Moon orbits the Earth). And the satellite past the Moon (and isn't moving relative to Earth), I think you are referring to DSCOVR, is actually orbiting the Sun, not Earth.

The 28,000km/h number was thrown in by someone arguing against GPS satellites. I don't know where he got that number from but that's roughly the speed the ISS is going, so that's an orbit around 400km (and he was claiming around 120km, so his shit still isn't adding up).

But yeah, >>9525092 is completely wrong. I don't want to go through the whole thing again explaining everything. I have given enough information in this thread that you can easily search for more in-depth material to educate yourself from.

>>9525062
Yeah, sure.
I'm not talking about a massive slant that makes it impossible to stand, but it is something you need to compensate for and you generally do automatically.
But compensating for it while looking straight forward with your arms outstretched attempting to walk a straight line without wobbling or anything? You're asking a lot from the average person. If walking straight line were easy we would all be tightrope walkers.

>>9525047
>Yes but why do they rotate differently per hemisphere and fall straight at the equator?
>Is it really the rotation of the Earth in a friction-less space?
If you're talking about the bowls that they use in those demonstrations it is because they are gamed to cause water to drain like that. This is well understood.

If you want to see an actual demonstration of the coriolis effect then watch these two videos
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDorTBEhEtk

>>9525178
To me it smells like fairy-tale engineering.
There's just nothing 'hard' about satellite launches, there's no blood and sweat. How monumental the idea that a satellite is roaming around outside the Earth.

Hard engineering documents that document 40 consecutive fuck ups before getting it right. Video feeds that show navigation in space, cockpit control, air pressure dangers, views from ship to outside, people actually fucking wrenching shit and welding up there.

Oh instead we get some Masonic idiots on wires playing guitars and fucking around with toothpaste and water.

You don't even understand the point, the whole thing might as well not be real irregardless the truth actually is or what anyone in this thread thinks.

The whole thing is fucking weak, and it's all backed by piss weak evidence about orbits and a lack of understanding of gravity.
There's a reason the planets orbit in tiers governed by your golden ratio around the sun.
There is no orbit between the Earth and the Moon, it's the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard.

>>9522534
>And when you see how they move, and how they work, and how they reach the moon in 12 seconds flat you won't even dare to believe it.
....what.

>>9525194
Chirst Anon, realise the Kenyans doing the exact same experiment in a bucket with grass and goat shit plus a hole at the bottom produces the exact same results.

Some of them are even in a sink. A kitchen sink.
The majority of the bowls are even stabilized when the water enters to keep it still.
It is the absolute most simple experiment any one person could do.

That video is the exact same as the equator experiments and shows exactly the same results sans the straight drop at the equator. None of it is to do with the Earth rotating.
There is no friction space except against the sun's field.
It's the Earth's field that is moving, rotating. That's the Coriolis effect.

It's the exact same observable effect with magnets, in that the fields are not static and that they converge from the outer regions of the poles to the center, or your bloch's wall.

>>9525202
>Hard engineering documents that document 40 consecutive fuck ups before getting it right. Video feeds that show navigation in space, cockpit control, air pressure dangers, views from ship to outside, people actually fucking wrenching shit and welding up there.
Then read some of the space history. You think it's all just been roses?

Do you look at the Burj Khalifa and go "That's not fucking real. They built that in one go? It should have taken them 40 tries to build that thing."
How many tries did it take them to build the Freedom Tower?

>There is no orbit between the Earth and the Moon, it's the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard.
Honestly don't know what you're talking about here.

>>9525207
Please don't make me go into UFOs Anon. Onegai.

>>9525215
>Chirst Anon, realise the Kenyans doing the exact same experiment in a bucket with grass and goat shit plus a hole at the bottom produces the exact same results.
>Some of them are even in a sink. A kitchen sink.
>fill it on one side so it creates the angular momentum you want and you fool 99% of the patrons

>The majority of the bowls are even stabilized when the water enters to keep it still.
>100% of the bowls are gamed in some way, in the case i saw using painted stripes to induce a pattern of friction that would cause the angular momentum required

>the earths magnetic fields are north/south so this magically causes the direction of water draining to switch as soon as the equator is crossed
That along with no one ever demonstrating a magnet changing the direction water drains. Though there are some interesting experiments involving water and magnetism.

>>9524987
Do you have any proof that that line is the true equiatorian line? Because in my experience, there are a lot of places like that.

>>9525220
I want some actual experiments and science. There's nothing there. There's people fixing a satellite arm in a practice pool against a green screen with a single static camera, big deal.

If you had the chance to go up there, you would be doing crazy shit. You would go up there with lightbulbs, flashlights, all sorts of substances and materials.

Here's one: Is there a video that exists showing the exit of a ship into space? What's that even like? I don't even think I've even seen a decompression chamber, I think the Chinese have ONE and that's it and it looks like the most unstable piece of shit I've ever seen.. What about a two hour long video from the POV of a repair guy compete with radio chatter?

Not one.

>>9525231
>What about a two hour long video from the POV of a repair guy compete with radio chatter?
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ISS+space+walk

>>9525227
>That along with no one ever demonstrating a magnet changing the direction water drains

I wonder what role salt could play in that. Oh and they're just bowls Anon.

>>9525237
Pretty cool right? But here's the thing: You'll never find a video where the astronaut exits the ship in first person into space.

>>9525244
So basically your argument is that you want one specific thing and we must search through all the videos to find it for you.

>>9525202
>There's just nothing 'hard' about satellite launches, there's no blood and sweat.
What? They take a shittonne of resources and effort.

>Hard engineering documents that document 40 consecutive fuck ups before getting it right.
Check the launch history of any rocket family on wikipedia. Even the most reliable rockets have at least a few failure and partial failures before they start working reliably.

>Video feeds that show navigation in space, cockpit control, air pressure dangers, views from ship to outside, people actually fucking wrenching shit and welding up there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vLl3K8yzOk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0fnp-O1iGs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqDZAYUT34E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bb1bkodii0M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xKdVhjhcPk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_TR7-YIdPA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=scGc1NS_IV8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIqqeKh0qGE
Not that you'll believe any of them.

>Oh instead we get some Masonic idiots on wires playing guitars and fucking around with toothpaste and water.
That stuff gets circulated around a lot, because it's the kind of thing most people find entertaining. There's plenty of real work that gets recorded.

>The whole thing is fucking weak, and it's all backed by piss weak evidence about orbits and a lack of understanding of gravity.
Orbits aren't that complicated. If you don't understand it that's on you.

>There's a reason the planets orbit in tiers governed by your golden ratio around the sun.
????

>There is no orbit between the Earth and the Moon, it's the dumbest fucking thing I've ever heard.
What? Why?

>>9525202
But there are a lot of failures with satelite launches and launches in general. The Soviet space program is filled with errors and mistakes.
>Hard engineering documents that document 40 consecutive fuck ups before getting it right.
Usually you don't need that many fuckups to learn to get it right. On the other hand, fucking up might be part of the mission in order to learn more and that is why they aren't considered mistakes.

>Video feeds that show navigation in space, cockpit control, air pressure dangers, views from ship to outside, people actually fucking wrenching shit and welding up there.
Usually having video feeds of that is not worth it because it cost a lot to launch something into space; according to NASA it takes around 10,000 dollars per pound to lift something to low earth orbit, but it surely costed more in the past. You can now begin to see why there is so little pieces of footage; The recording equipment of the time was heavy, the lifting prices were prohibitive and it simply wasn't worth it.
>Oh instead we get some Masonic idiots on wires playing guitars and fucking around with toothpaste and water.
Well, that is what if catches the attention of the public. Its not their fault that they want to make something grabs the attention of the masses.

>>9525248
You'll never find it anyway. The rest of the stuff is filmed in buoyancy labs and the ISS livefeeds have been outed how many times before with effects layering failing to render.

Even the pool stuff has been outed before how many times. That video's ISS speed doesn't even match with the supposed speed.

>>9525253
>Orbits aren't that complicated. If you don't understand it that's on you.
>>There's a reason the planets orbit in tiers governed by your golden ratio around the sun.
>????

To me they just look like nothing videos. One of them in the rocket taking off almost has no shaking in the cockpit, half of them are just 2 minute clips of something.
I'm not saying they aren't wrenching on the actual equipment, I'm asking whether they're in space, and I see no real hard evidence of it.
Even the docking videos look too clean, you know?

>>9525261
So asking for a two hour long video from the POV of a repair guy complete with radio chatter was just a red herring then? Seeing you were just going to deny those videos anyway when presented with them.

>>9525268
>One of them in the rocket taking off almost has no shaking in the cockpit
G forces are relatively low, within 3G, in most launches, especially human launches.
What are you expecting?
>Even the docking videos look too clean, you know?
Because it is done meticulously.

>>9525268
>To me they just look like nothing videos. One of them in the rocket taking off almost has no shaking in the cockpit, half of them are just 2 minute clips of something.
There is very little shaking when accelerating anything. Its like asking why a car/bus/train/plane doesn't shake when it accelerates.
>I'm not saying they aren't wrenching on the actual equipment, I'm asking whether they're in space, and I see no real hard evidence of it.
What kind of evidence would you like, because short of sending you up there into orbit, most of it is available on youtube.
>Even the docking videos look too clean, you know?
Well, do you expect some "dirty", unprofessional work Because those spaceships are worth millions. The last thing you would want to do is to damage them. that is also why they are computer assisted, so that the procedures are made as efficiently as possible.

>>9525271
I should add that excessive vibration is bad for rockets and their payloads so a lot goes into reducing it.

>>9525271
How fast is the rocket traveling again? How much turbulence is that commercial flight experiencing again at not even a 1/20th of the speed?

>>9525269
I don't see a difference between my views and yours. I'm a stubborn ass dick because I hate NASA and you're a sucker for whatever those videos were showing with the fidelity of a 1987 Russian home video.

>>9525293
turbulence is not correlated to a plane's speed. A turbulence is created when there are drastic changes in pressure and flow; that's why the rockets launch on a sunny, cloudless, clear weather, to avoid such meteorological problems.

>>9525303
No one can even agree on the temperature of the thermosphere or even the electric density just above the mesosphere but everything is fine.

>>9525305
The particles in the thermosphere are very hot, but very thin, because the atmosphere isn't dense you can think of it having low thermal mass.

Think of it like a cup of water vs a pot of water. Boiling a cup of water is much faster than a pot (putting the same amount of energy in) and once they are both boiling once you remove the heat the cup cools faster than the pot.
They were both at 100C but the pot takes longer to heat and to cool down because there's more mass there.

So the particles in the thermosphere are very hot, but because there are relatively few particles in the atmosphere there when they hit something like a satellite or the ISS, those objects have so much thermal mass that they don't heat up very fast.
Also they have thermal control systems to draw excess heat to the radiators so it can be radiated away.

>>9525295
Okay, I can see how you may have that opinion.

>>9525324
I have that opinion because I've seen UFO's up close, and they're not alien related at all.

>>9525347
Wow, you identified a UFO?
What was it?

>>9525362
It's a semi-circle ship with a rounded hull and flat bottom.
Hull glows with a startlight/sun light, bottom has various areas glowing a dull red.
The white hull light is similar to experiments surrounding pulsed electrical experiments from electrostatic generators.

The idea the it would be electrostatic in nature also lends to the idea the Earth's gravity is magnetic in nature except along the equator and the center of the north and south poles.

Also lends to the idea of voidance being the focal point for gravity and electrical phenomena as the ship produces no noise or pressure on the surrounding atmosphere even given the speeds it is traveling at.

>>9525377
Wow. Do you have pictures of it?

>>9525377
I'm glad the schizophrenia running through and sustaining this entire thread has finally come to light.

Fucking idiots will believe anything.

>I-it's real NASA said so

>>9525819
You do know that in the actual underwater training sessions you Flatards claim is how they fake space, that the astronauts are immobile and have to be carried by scuba divers. If you watch the actual livefeed footage you'll notice a surprising lack of scuba divers. How do you explain this, green screen suit?

>>9525847
The satellite taking the photo is moving not the moon.

>>9525895
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crMw-QOHvBQ

>>9526019
>You do know that in the actual underwater training sessions you Flatards claim is how they fake space, that the astronauts are immobile and have to be carried by scuba divers. If you watch the actual livefeed footage you'll notice a surprising lack of scuba divers. How do you explain this, green screen suit?

What are you talking about brainlet? It's not like the "astronauts" are trying to swim around space, they're holding on to the structures.

>The satellite taking the photo is moving not the moon.

That's biggest load of nonsense I've read all day.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crMw-QOHvBQ

JPEG compression that forms a rectangle around the earth, not suspicious at all.

>>9525819
Actually looks a lot like an astronauts leg.

I know that scuba tank is something you are familiar with but the big problem with them is that you need to expel the carbon dioxide still, so there would be lots of bubbles coming from that hole if there was a scuba diver in there.
What you would need is a rebreather system, but those use completely different tanks.

If you were going to spend millions on faking these in a pool would you use scuba tanks and try to manage the fuckton of bubbles or use rebreather systems? Give me your honest opinion.

>>9526119

That gif is made all the more hilarious by the backdrop of the Earth behind the guy being purported as a scuba diver

>>9526119
>reflection of the partner astronaut in the visor with the Earth behind him
>its a scuba diver guys!
Holy shit that's terrible.

Since NASA is nice enough to provide a tonne of videos of underwater EVA training, I would have thought you conspiracy folks would have bothered to compare them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3kjc7lQcok
Notice how it looks completely different to real EVAs. There's harnesses and cables on the suit. The bubbles don't move in the same way as dust and flakes in microgravity. The lighting is dappled due to ripples on the surface, and shadows are less sharp because it's not a point source. Even the way small objects float is clearly different.

>>9526019
>The satellite taking the photo is moving not the moon.
That satellite is at Earth-Sun L1 - It's not going anywhere.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Climate_Observatory

>>9522417
>Tell me about how good your GPS works when those phone towers are moving at 28,000 km per hour.
Just checked my phone (which has gps) and it seems to be doing just fine.

>>9526119
I can tell that's an astronaut and not a scuba diver. Do you really think I'm that gullible.

>>9521923
>what is field of view?

>>9521923
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dS12p0Zqlt0

>>9525847
Keep up the good work anon, youre not alone

>>9521752
FAKE! - flat earth tard.

>>9522222
check'd

>>9525377

>>9526019
>The satellite taking the photo is moving not the moon.

Technically, the moon is also moving, as is the Earth.

Why is water always flat when manipulated?

>>9526484
>Actually looks a lot like an astronauts leg.

Yeah sure does, if their leg is a stump without a foot.

>
If you were going to spend millions on faking these in a pool would you use scuba tanks and try to manage the fuckton of bubbles or use rebreather systems? Give me your honest opinion.

Waaaaay easier than actually going to space.


>>9526489
>>9526490

Brainwashed brainlets ignoring the blatant scuba diver in front of their eyes.

>>9527306

It's called editing. And that video is from what, 1980? It's 2018 of course they can fake this shit.

>>9527418

Brainlet ignoring the obvious.

>>9528289

Thanks anon - these brainlet nerds are very stubborn.

>>9522014
>The pictures are taken at an extreme level of zoom

From that distance the Earth would have an angular size of 0.45°. You don't need "EXTREME SUPER ZOOM" to look at something like that.

>>9528490
>Brainwashed brainlets ignoring the blatant scuba diver in front of their eyes.
You mean the fucking obvious space suit wearing astronaut in the reflection?
>totally a scuba diver guys. just has a fuckhuge helmet on his head and no scuba tank

>Yeah sure does, if their leg is a stump without a foot.
Legs can bend at the knee you know.

>Waaaaay easier than actually going to space.
So, making it harder to film/fake is still easier than going into space so not a single fuck was given?
You are aware that you are claiming this organization (and others) are part of a massive conspiracy to hide the truth from us, aren't you?

>>9528490
>It's called editing.
You can't edit away away drag or refraction from the water. The pool footage looks nothing like real EVA footage.

>>9523256
>>9523256
>The amount of amateurs using the moon as a backdrop to capture the exact same thing have all resulted in nothing.

Many will fail -- the timing has to be precise as fuck, the transit takes less than a second.

But amateurs capture ISS transits all the time. Google is your friend.

>>9525012
There are two Equator Parks in Ecuador. One s official, the other is a tourist trap. BUT the tourist trap was built later, and has more accuracy in it's placement.

The tourist trap has all the gimmicked shit about balancing eggs and water draining with and without spiraling by moving a basing a few inches.

Been to both, the tourist one is more fun, but you can;t take the faked shit seriously.

I don't know how this thread avoided getting deleted but it was fun.