I'm now thinking you must be a WUM. You caught a fish.

28.2 is the orbital position. Not the elevation.

A flyby is where one satellite is moved out of position and a new one moved in. It takes a lot of planning and coordination. The end customers don't usually even notice.

Satellites are moved when they are knackered and old. Its called planning.

Spoon fed? Unlike you I didn't need the internet or wiki for any of that satellite info...

You see here is a CLASSIC example of cherry picking the facts to suit your argument.

You have provided the ONE definition which is in accordance with YOUR beliefs and completely IGNORED every other defintion such as"confidence or trust in a person or thing

What did I say about chalk outlines?

So it's agreed then - only Mugwump and Stan are allowed on to massage each other "intellectually". Enjoy! You deserve each other. and It was all getting a bit anyway!

It's not compulsory to post replies, Stan. My aim is just to get you to THINK about it, so you can see where you are in error. It is very hard, as you refuse to consider alternatives, but I'm reasonably patient. If you can't handle the truth, then walk away.


Whilst they could predict LUNAR eclipses with some degree of accuracy, they struggled with SOLAr eclipses, and to say that they could predict either with equal accuracy to modern astronomy is, simply put, completely wrong, so why make that claim up?


Any fool can see that the Moon is a globe by observing it nightly, in particular the shadows cast on the moon, and the terminator area. It only takes a second to consider a view like this (which you can do with your own eyes, binoculars or telescope) to KNOW that the Moon is a globehttps://www.pa.msu.edu/people/frenchj/moon/moon-3day-2391.jpg" >

You could only think that it is not a globe, once you consider for a minute what you can see, if you were spectacularly stupid.


Sorry but it is not legitimate to simply make such a bold "statement of fact" without explaining in what way they "prove" this. So-called supermoons (meaning the moon looks a bit bigger than at most other times) mean simply that. They occur at full moons when the Moon is at its closest approach to Earth, and occur because the orbit is not perfectly circular.


The reason I have asked you this dozens of times is to make you THINK about it. But as I have already debunked your simplistic and frankly childish "explanation", you clearly refuse to think.

If you take a paper plate and blue-tack it to the ceiling and mark the top with your pen, you will have performed a miracle. Once you have blu-tacked it to the ceiling you obviously cannot mark the top. You'd need to remove it from the ceiling again, before you could mark the top.

What you are doing is repeating the same fundamental logical error that I already pointed out . Why?

What you seem to think is that by writing "TOP" on the bottom of the plate, this miraculously makes the point where you write "the top of the plate". It doesn't. Once the plate is blu-tacked to your ceiling, you can only ever see the BOTTOM of the plate! Writing "TOP" on it does not alter this simple and obvious fact, any more than writing "CAT" on a dog would make it a cat.

You should consider having a globe model of the moon suspended from your ceiling. Walk around that, and see what the effect is. It's exactly the same as if you hang a person from the ceiling, their "top" (head) will always look to be at the top. Their feet will always be at the bottom. Writing "TOP" on the soles of their shoes will not magically make them upside down.

You are failing to understand an extremely basic point. The effect seen from Australia would be that a hypothetical giant plate stuck to the "bottom" of the Moon as seen from the UK would to an Australian look to be stuck to the "top" of the Moon. That is the effect you need to explain. A "TOP becomes BOTTOM" effect. Like this Moon as viewed from Australia. From the UK, it's the "other way up". (You'll love this pic Stan since as luck would have it, it also shows the silhouette of the ISS)

This image, incidentally is by an amateur Australian astrophotographer, Dylan O'Donnell, who appears to have no known connection with NASA or any other space agency, but just enjoys taking photos and putting them in the public domain. You can see more of his work here]'"

So, you're not totally convinced? Possible, apparently ... somewhat unconvincing.

I think this thread has reached the end of its useful life.