They are probably frantically working on a way to hook these things. But, you know, that's got to be over their heads. Until then, 30k dollar missiles will have to do.
People often spot them drifting in front of the moon (from the observers perspective). At their normal altitude they are very difficult to spot because like every child understands, objects shrink with distance.
Perspective. If they are a 100 times closer then you think they are, they need to move at a 100 times lower speed to cover the same distance. So in stead of 2km per second, they would need to cover 20m per second: that is 72km/h, same speed of a airship.
In 1936 the Zeppelin could travel at a speed up to 135km/h, and that thing was 800 foot long. For a modern hybrid airship, I assume they can get closer to the 200km/h mark.
Jet streams vary in height of four to eight miles and can reach speeds of more than 275 mph (239 kts / 442 km/h ). Jet streams occur in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres.
Because orbit is, and was from its historical inception, fictional (As wild as i know that sounds/is). Roughly, it is because of the law of gravity - what goes up, must come down.
Balloon is likely not the only way to keep them aloft, at least hypothetically, but it is the most reasonable/likely considering that orbit does not exist (and the early history of satellites).
Imagine/consider it was true. You don’t think that would be wild?! I certainly did!
it sounds lacking in foundation
And you may continue to flatly presume that, or you could potentially ask a question or two / address the content in a substantive way.
and contrary to observations and reality
It is contrary to belief as to what causes those observations, but not the observations themselves.
You have been very straightforward, which i appreciate, that you are not interested in learning about the subject in any way - but you did ask a valid and reasonable question which in my estimation deserved an earnest response.
Of course, my response may differ greatly from the op’s, and it is certainly not nearly detailed enough to justify/support itself (that would be quite the feat in a sentence or two) alone - but it does have support if you are ever interested in exploring it further!
The “physics” (astrophysics, in point of fact) i am criticizing is not particularly complicated. It’s just intractable, wrong, and fictional.
"what goes up must come down" is correct
I’m glad you recognize that. Many don’t, and mistakenly conflate the law of gravity with the theory of gravitation. My criticisms are towards the latter, not the former.
but you simply not understand this: ... Gravity is "a string" keeping it from running.
I understand centripetal force just fine. I know that you imagine (and were taught) gravitation as a string that is attached in some mysterious and persistently unknown way to bodies at a distance - but i am saying that is entirely fictional, and was its clear historical origin as well.
Gravity well
Right, that’s relativistic fiction. There is no spacetime to warp, whatsoever.
you know your so right, the government totally pays me to tell people that you shouldn't trust a single thing they say and that instead you should think for yourself. lol shut down goyim the vail has been lifted
How are UFO's not able to dodge a missile?
Exactly, a real ufo has the ability to go supersonic and make gravity defying turns.
Now a weather balloon would be rather simple to shoot down, but they got to play this angle for some strange reason.
They are probably frantically working on a way to hook these things. But, you know, that's got to be over their heads. Until then, 30k dollar missiles will have to do.
The Chinese balloon was visible to the naked eye. If all satellites were balloons, it would be blindingly obvious and literally impossible to hide.
probably defective and simply lost altitude.
You know telescopes exist, right? Even at a higher altitude, thousands of big ass balloons flying around would be blindingly obvious.
It's not a conspiracy by any means, NASA and associates launch thousands per year. They simply neglect to mention it in an MSM.
https://youtu.be/ZgcT_aSXFXM
People often spot them drifting in front of the moon (from the observers perspective). At their normal altitude they are very difficult to spot because like every child understands, objects shrink with distance.
How are balloons able to move at several kms per second?
Perspective. If they are a 100 times closer then you think they are, they need to move at a 100 times lower speed to cover the same distance. So in stead of 2km per second, they would need to cover 20m per second: that is 72km/h, same speed of a airship.
The ISS moves 7,2km/s
By your logic it would have to move 252 km/h
No balloon can travel that fast.
Thats about how fast the upper jetstreams move.
In 1936 the Zeppelin could travel at a speed up to 135km/h, and that thing was 800 foot long. For a modern hybrid airship, I assume they can get closer to the 200km/h mark.
You would think that an 800 foot long zeppelin would be visible. Why isn't it?
If the airships that suspend satellites aren't invisible, we'd see them all the time.
Probably fly when it is dark outside.
How high up is the ISS?
Try googling it.
408 km
Do you agree?
I have no way of verifying if that is the correct height for myself. So the number could be made up for all I know.
Then why do you claim that satellites are 100 times closer than stated?
You admit that you have no evidence for it.
Because satellites are said to be up to 2000 km above earths surface.
Did not claim I had any evidence for it.
The speed of the ISS is constant. How does that work?
Besides, is there a seperate jetstream for every sattelite? Must be or they would all have the same speed and direction.
More retarded flat earth "science".
Remind us why aren't actual "non balloon" satellites aren't possible?
Because orbit is, and was from its historical inception, fictional (As wild as i know that sounds/is). Roughly, it is because of the law of gravity - what goes up, must come down.
Balloon is likely not the only way to keep them aloft, at least hypothetically, but it is the most reasonable/likely considering that orbit does not exist (and the early history of satellites).
It doesn't sound wild, it sounds lacking in foundation and contrary to observations and reality.
Imagine/consider it was true. You don’t think that would be wild?! I certainly did!
And you may continue to flatly presume that, or you could potentially ask a question or two / address the content in a substantive way.
It is contrary to belief as to what causes those observations, but not the observations themselves.
You have been very straightforward, which i appreciate, that you are not interested in learning about the subject in any way - but you did ask a valid and reasonable question which in my estimation deserved an earnest response.
Of course, my response may differ greatly from the op’s, and it is certainly not nearly detailed enough to justify/support itself (that would be quite the feat in a sentence or two) alone - but it does have support if you are ever interested in exploring it further!
You poor retard... Physics bit is more complicated.
"what goes up must come down" is correct,but you simply not understand this: https://microbenotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Centrifugal-force.jpg
Similar. Gravity is "a string" keeping it from running.
With almost complete vacuum force is constant and almost equal to gravity (no gas no friction). After years satellites actually have to fall.
Gravity well. They are falling but only a bit.
Obfuscation by feigned abstruseness.
The “physics” (astrophysics, in point of fact) i am criticizing is not particularly complicated. It’s just intractable, wrong, and fictional.
I’m glad you recognize that. Many don’t, and mistakenly conflate the law of gravity with the theory of gravitation. My criticisms are towards the latter, not the former.
I understand centripetal force just fine. I know that you imagine (and were taught) gravitation as a string that is attached in some mysterious and persistently unknown way to bodies at a distance - but i am saying that is entirely fictional, and was its clear historical origin as well.
Right, that’s relativistic fiction. There is no spacetime to warp, whatsoever.
thats for you to figure out ;)
Another paid government shill for the list.
says the guy with a buzz Aldrin sex doll
Confirmed for fed shill. Account blown. You’ll never be believed anymore. You failed.
Damn, did anyone else hear a gavel slam?
You’re already on the list.
Of what? I told you I believed the Chicago zoom was a mirage big daddy. At least give me a drink bleach.
I've got an idea, can I get one of those flairs, you know, those things that poal does?
Great argument.
Holy shit, your wings have been clipped, NO MORE DEATH THREATS
We're gonna need a new bot, you're not nearly as entertaining.
you know your so right, the government totally pays me to tell people that you shouldn't trust a single thing they say and that instead you should think for yourself. lol shut down goyim the vail has been lifted
Hahahaha right!?
when you know you know lol
Satellites exist. Space exists. You’re either clinically insane or paid to post lies here. Which is it.
i will only after you post pics of your buzz doll, deal?
Shill confirmed. Fuck off.
You know how many times I've seen you repeat the same responses? It can be proven by looking through your comment history. You are in fact a NPC.
You're a fucking retard