4 hours ago, Effective altruism said:

Someone needs to go Buzz Aldrin on you for posting this.

One of the defining characteristics of a cult is hostility, by the cultists and directed at the individuals who break away from the cult.

4 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Is that a certainty or an assumption?

Not ten minutes. As I said, I let it run for two hours (on a second screen placed at the side of my desk). I never mentioned the word 'proof', I raised a question, which an open and honest mind will pursue honestly in search of the truth (as opposed to looking for an angle to prove me wrong).

Beyond what time frame does it become mathematically impossible to not see a single satellite? 12 hours? 24?

The problem is not the lack of explanation. The problem is that you reject explanations that go against your preferred conclusion. Elementary physics already answers this, but self-interest seems to matter more than evidence.

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

The problem is not the lack of explanation. The problem is that you reject explanations that go against your preferred conclusion. Elementary physics already answers this, but self-interest seems to matter more than evidence.

I trust my own eyes and am willing to experiment. You science aficionados must have a way to work this out, an actionable method to demonstrate (as opposed to explain in an abstract manner) the truth. Once said demonstration is done and the truth is shown (as opposed to projected or rationalised), the matter is closed.

Yellowtail stated that satellites do in fact show up in the ISS livestream once in a while. If I let it run for a full week, surely I will encounter at least one? I could record it for future reference.

As a friendly reminder, there purportedly are 10,000+ satellites in lower orbit, which is where the ISS also is.

10 hours ago, Hummin said:

So perhaps the better question is not only whether official stories deserve scrutiny, but whether we are equally willing to examine our own assumptions. That, to me, is where genuine skepticism begins.

I think it's both.

29 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

I trust my own eyes and am willing to experiment. You science aficionados must have a way to work this out, an actionable method to demonstrate (as opposed to explain in an abstract manner) the truth. Once said demonstration is done and the truth is shown (as opposed to projected or rationalised), the matter is closed.

Yellowtail stated that satellites do in fact show up in the ISS livestream once in a while. If I let it run for a full week, surely I will encounter at least one? I could record it for future reference.

As a friendly reminder, there purportedly are 10,000+ satellites in lower orbit, which is where the ISS also is.

If the ISS livestream were staged, they would probably overdo it and show obvious satellites passing by. The fact that they usually do not is actually more consistent with real orbital conditions, where satellites are tiny, distant, fast, and rarely visible on camera.

Here's a Conspiracy Theory for yer.

The US will formally remove itself from NATO.

The US will formally announce a political, commercial and military alliance with Israel. Turkey will be in the X-hairs.

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

If the ISS livestream were staged, they would probably overdo it and show obvious satellites passing by. The fact that they usually do not is actually more consistent with real orbital conditions, where satellites are tiny, distant, fast, and rarely visible on camera.

What you think they would probably do or not is irrelevant, what matters is the demonstration of the truth.

The ISS is, we are told, capable of filming objects as small as 1 cm in extreme detail within a 10-50 metre range. And outside of the 'extreme detail' range, it can capture and identify larger objects at distances ranging from a few km up to 500 km.

Based on this information, it should easily capture satellites present in its environment. There are purportedly 2,500-3,000 medium (the size of a refrigerator) to large (the size of a schoolbus) satellites in low Earth orbit.

4 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

What you think they would probably do or not is irrelevant, what matters is the demonstration of the truth.

The ISS is, we are told, capable of filming objects as small as 1 cm in extreme detail within a 10-50 metre range.

Based on this information, it should easily capture satellites present in its environment. There are purportedly 2,500-3,000 medium (the size of a refrigerator) to large (the size of a schoolbus) satellites in low Eart orbit.

Im loosing my patience, this is going nowhere! I understand now why you think the earth is flat. And if that comforts you, keeps your mind occupied, great

5 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Im loosing my patience

As is systematically the case with the Science proponents when they face a contradiction in their belief. Irritation, hostility (c.f. the poster on this page saying Stiddle should be physically assaulted because of his ideas).

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

As is always the case, 100% of the time, with the Science proponents when they face a contradiction in their belief. Irritation, hostility.

There is a huge difference between belief and science, and that is where we part ways. When it comes to basic physics and camera settings, we are no longer dealing with belief, but with measurable facts.

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

I trust my own eyes and am willing to experiment. You science aficionados must have a way to work this out, an actionable method to demonstrate (as opposed to explain in an abstract manner) the truth. Once said demonstration is done and the truth is shown (as opposed to projected or rationalised), the matter is closed.

Yellowtail stated that satellites do in fact show up in the ISS livestream once in a while. If I let it run for a full week, surely I will encounter at least one? I could record it for future reference.

As a friendly reminder, there purportedly are 10,000+ satellites in lower orbit, which is where the ISS also is.

Depending on where you live, seeing satellites is fairly common.

Well this is awkward:

https://www.newsweek.com/behind-curve-netflix-ending-light-experiment-mark-sargent-documentary-movie-1343362

Behind the Curve’ Ending: Flat Earthers Disprove Themselves With Own Experiments in Netflix Documentary

Their own experiment proved the Earth is not flat. Ooops!

1 minute ago, emptypockets said:

Depending on where you live, seeing satellites is fairly common.

It is occasionally possible to see floating contraptions from the ground, yes. But the issue discussed here is whether they can be seen on the ISS livestream, i.e. in low Earth orbit, as depicted in the (typically CGI-aided) space agency visuals:

2 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

It is occasionally possible to see floating contraptions from the ground, yes. But the issue discussed here is whether they can be seen on the ISS livestream, i.e. in low Earth orbit, as depicted in the (typically CGI-aided) space agency visuals:

I imagine the astronauts have more important tasks to do than to take photos of other satellites to suit some people's needs on the Earth.

2 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

Well this is awkward:

https://www.newsweek.com/behind-curve-netflix-ending-light-experiment-mark-sargent-documentary-movie-1343362

Behind the Curve’ Ending: Flat Earthers Disprove Themselves With Own Experiments in Netflix Documentary

Their own experiment proved the Earth is not flat. Ooops!

Show and focus on a couple of outlandish individuals and/or claims in order to preemptively invalidate all challenges formulated towards a given issue. An old (and still pretty effective) trick.

1 minute ago, emptypockets said:

I imagine the astronauts have more important tasks to do than to take photos of other satellites to suit some people's needs on the Earth.

The ISS livestream randomly captures the whole orbital environment 24/7.

6 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

The ISS livestream randomly captures the whole orbital environment 24/7.

I wouldn't know. I have no interest in watching it. If they spotted a fleet of UFO's I would see that on the news. No way I'm spending 24/7 watching it.

Particularly as it would not prove anything I already know. I've seen numerous satellites, including the ISS in the night sky.

Does it show the Earth as flat or roughly a globe shape?

31 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

What you think they would probably do or not is irrelevant, what matters is the demonstration of the truth.

The ISS is, we are told, capable of filming objects as small as 1 cm in extreme detail within a 10-50 metre range. And outside of the 'extreme detail' range, it can capture and identify larger objects at distances ranging from a few km up to 500 km.

Based on this information, it should easily capture satellites present in its environment. There are purportedly 2,500-3,000 medium (the size of a refrigerator) to large (the size of a schoolbus) satellites in low Earth orbit.

The ISS occasionally captures images of satellites.

Again, low Earth orbit has an approximate volume 275 billion cubic kilometers. If there 3,000 school-bus sized satellites, that is one in 91,666,667 cubic kilometers.

16 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

The ISS occasionally captures images of satellites.

Again, low Earth orbit has an approximate volume 275 billion cubic kilometers. If there 3,000 school-bus sized satellites, that is one in 91,666,667 cubic kilometers.

Beyond what time frame (and/or surface covered) would it become probabilistically impossible to not see one?

22 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

Does it show the Earth as flat or roughly a globe shape?

The ISS depicts planet Earth as represented by NASA on all its communication visuals.

2 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Beyond what time frame (and/or surface covered) would it become probabilistically impossible to not see one?

Not enough data. What is the field of view volume, within the LEO volume?

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

As a friendly reminder, there purportedly are 10,000+ satellites in lower orbit, which is where the ISS also is.

The surface of the smallest sphere that includes most LEO satellites is 28M sq. miles. That would make the density of satellites in LEO about 1 per 2800 sq. miles. The ISS orbit is almost midway between equatorial and polar orbits. Most LEO's are in polar orbits. I think these numbers would mean that sightings of other satellites in LEOs from ISS wouldn't be that easy or common.

The communication satellites are normally kitchen table or small car size. You would have to spot one of those in a patch of sky slightly bigger than Delaware.

6 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

accidental duplicate

10 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

The surface of a the smallest sphere that includes most LEO satellites is 28M sq. miles. That would make the density of satellites in LEO about 1 per 2800 sq. miles. The ISS orbits almost midway between equatorial and polar orbits. Most LEO's are in polar orbits. I think these numbers would mean that sightings of other satellites in LEO's from ISS wouldn't be that easy or common.

The communication satellites are normally kitchen table or small car size. You would have to spot one of those in a patch of sky slightly bigger than Delaware.

Okay, interesting. Most depictions I have seen indicate a rather uniform layout, though.

https://www.popsci.com/now-you-can-see-all-space-junk-floating-around-earth-real-time/

2 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Okay, interesting. Most depictions I have seen indicate a rather uniform layout, though.

the dots in that photo are tremendously exaggerated in scale. Now you are trusting of suspicious images??

2 minutes ago, gamb00ler said:

the dots in that photo are tremendously exaggerated in scale. Now you are trusting of suspicious photographs??

For the purposes of this discussion, I am not overly suspicious or trusting of anything. NASA has similar depictions, of course the sizes are exaggerated for visibility purposes, but the layout seems pretty uniform is all I was saying. I note you mentioned a potential height difference, this is something I had considered too and which warrants being looked into..

7 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Okay, interesting. Most depictions I have seen indicate a rather uniform layout, though.

https://www.popsci.com/now-you-can-see-all-space-junk-floating-around-earth-real-time/

Still waiting for you to provide the field of view volume, within the LEO volume so we can run those numbers.

24 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Not enough data. What is the field of view volume, within the LEO volume?

Great question.

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

Still waiting for you to provide the field of view volume, within the LEO volume so we can run those numbers.

I will look into it later when I have time, others are welcome to weigh in.

39 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

The ISS depicts planet Earth as represented by NASA on all its communication visuals.

What does that mean?

You cannot accept that the Earth is not flat?