Denial of easily observable reality is not a belief system, it's simply denial. And why would we see THOUSANDS of satellites swarming around the moon? You seem to have no understanding of the concepts you deny. When you are going to reject a theory, to do it intelligently, it helps to actually understand the model and concepts you are rejecting. For instance, relative speeds, and how much space there is per satellite.
Well, you continue to try to insult me , yet you didn't respond to my main point: how can geostationary satellites avoid the pull of the Earths gravity when there are only two objects in said system, and they ARE NOT MOVING in relation to each other?
And I never said Satellites would be SWARMING around the moon, but the numbers vary between 1.100 and 3.500 operational and defunct satellites depending on your source and in addition 21 THOUSAND pieces of space debris larger than 10 cm....
So my challenge to you is go out on a full moon and with a high def camera, on a clear night, take a single video still or photo of ANYTHING in between you and the light of the moon. Again spoiler it will not happen, because things dont magically float around in space.
Where is your 'easily observable reality'? On an android app? On NASAs website? A photo with a fish-eye lens? I think your definition of 'observable reality' might be a bit off scope..
Again since you insult my response yet provide no intellectual debate yourself, I will further explain how the very concept of satellites is farcical.
Textbook and observable physics: A bullet dropped and a bullet fired along a straight parallel to the horizon will make contact with the ground at the same exact millisecond. Please reread that, then go look it up. This is how physics work in observable reality - it has even been proven on the show 'mythbusters', if it's too hard to grasp for you.
What this means: even thought there is an enormous change in speed in relation to the surface of the Earth, there is no difference whatsoever in the downwards pull of gravity against any object, be it dropped or moving at hundreds of feet per second. Welcome to reality.
The satellite idea was cooked up by theoretical physicists on paper, and it's called 'Newton's Cannon' the ridiculous concept that if you took a powerful enough cannon onto a tall enough mountain and fired it, it would magically float around the Earth with gravity having no downwards effect on it whatsoever.
I realize this might be a lot to take in, so another way to observe reality: Next time you are in the middle of the woods, or the middle of a large body of water, take out your 'GPS' connected smartphone - notice how Google maps has no clue where you are? That is because 'gps' works by triangulating pings from towers, as was designed over 100 years ago, long before the first 'satellite' launch.
Want another experiment to try: in your spare time, try to get a cotton ball to orbit around a skyscraper (this is a joke, as no one has EVER detected any form of gravity from any direction but down.) How about getting a grain of sand to slightly attract to the vertical face of the rocky mountains? Am I getting over your head here? Waiting for your intelligent response to these points I have made.
In case you got lost I will summarize:
"What goes up must come down. Another asinine masonic theory easily disproven with childs logic."
Speaking of a child's logic. Geez.
They don't avoid the pull of earth's gravity.
You can if there happens to be something between you and the moon and your lens is good enough AND the object is large enough to even have a chance of being seen.
A fired bullet is affected by the pull of gravity.
You really haven't thought that one through? FFS.
{"Please explain why a fired bullet makes no difference to the pull of gravity, "
A fired bullet is affected by the pull of gravity.}
Yes, that is my point, a fired bullet is affected by gravity in the EXACT same way as a bullet dropped from the same height of the firing chamber... So in conclusion we see that the SPEED makes no difference in the rate of fall - GET IT? So a fast object falls at the same rate as a still object thus disproving newton's cannon- are you still missing something?
{"Please show any example of one body orbiting another body here on Earth or one instance of gravity making a sideways pull against an object (ie feather to mountain)"
You really haven't thought that one through? FFS.}
What about this is hard for you to understand? So a satellite can orbit the earth, the earth can orbit the sun etc etc but this idea is in no way reproducible in any setting here in the realm of actual physics. If you drop some micron dust flakes next to the great MASS of the Andes mountains they will fall in the exact same way as they would in the middle of the pacific ocean. In other words, gravity doesnt work the way it ought to. Keep thinking about it, go on, you got this.
I am answering your original questions on the first thread you started. Please, no one answer this, thus continuing a new subthread. She is Gish Galloping and starting multiple threads with multiple questions, and I'm asking her to stick to one single thread with the questions that we are already discussing.