Chitchat The stationary flat Earth

[flatearther]

Yo, i work in a broadcast company............Im not an expert, just an operator.

And that makes you qualified to know for sure that "satellites" are physically located at over a hundred miles above the Earth?
You're only touching and looking at physical things on the Earth, right?

because the coverage of a satellite is limited because the EARTH IS ROUND.

I would say that the flat Earth is BIG.

But you NEED AN OPEN MIND.

It's precisely because my mind is open that I managed to discover, and become convinced, that "satellites" don't exist and that the Earth is flat and stationary.
In my opinion, it is globe-Earthers (such as yourself) that are close-minded.

This is not a religion, you can't use faith as a shield for being an idiot.

And I agree, which is why I've posted so many videos containing scientific proofs, right?
Also:

If "seeing is believing", then to truly see a physical thing clearly, one must see it with one's naked eyes, and not on a screen or through a telescope (no matter how powerful), right?
In which case, it's actually no longer believing (which requires faith), but knowing.

so I would ask globe-Earthers to also open their minds.

but by denying that there are no satellites and no undersea cables

Please show me the post where I said or meant that there are "no undersea cables".
If you can't, please don't put words in my mouth.

you are insulting thousands of us who use them to earn a living and make watching tv, streaming, surfing, listening to radio, play pokemon possible for people on earth.

As I've said, I'm just:

sharing my discovery, and I was also curious to see if anyone agrees.
If nobody agrees (which is what I was initially expecting), I would not mind at all, simply because that's what I was expecting.
Which is why I'm surprised that quite a few agree!
Then again, maybe they were all just being sarcastic, which I also don't mind. :p

I have no intention of insulting anyone.
If anyone feels insulted, it's their own fault for not having an "open mind", just like what you accuse me of lacking, ironically.

If there are no satellites, no undersea fibre cables, tell me, in your own words, in one paragraph, how the fuck we are able to read what you type on your phone/ keyboard?:kma:

Looks like you've not been carefully reading all my posts in this thread; I've already posted it before:

pray tell how you cum out with navigation and synchronization concepts and technologies that hover and operate on a flat earth?

My apologies if I caused you to misunderstand what I meant. :o
I meant the high technology of GPS is a ground-based and atmosphere-based technology, therefore those particular high technologies that actually exist do not "hover" over or "orbit" a "planetary" or "global" Earth; they operate on a stationary flat Earth:

atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html

"166) The “geostationary communications satellite” was first created by Freemason science-fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke and supposedly became science-fact just a decade later. Before this, radio, television, and navigation systems like LORAN and DECCA were already well-established and worked fine using only ground-based technologies. Nowadays huge fibre-optics cables connect the internet across oceans, gigantic cell towers triangulate GPS signals, and ionospheric propagation allows radio waves to be bounced all without the aid of the science-fiction best-seller known as “satellites.”"

[video=youtube;h5i_iDyUTCg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5i_iDyUTCg[/video]

wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_propagation

1. Decades ago before the use of seabased fibre optics cables, the satellites comms was used for live feed of football games (for eg).
2. My engineers when they go to very remote areas, they hire satellite phones to make calls as their normal standard land mobile phones do not work because there is no coverage
3. How does one make phone calls from a flying commercial aircraft (eg SIA 747 or something) to land based home? They use satt comms
4. How does a commercial ship or a boat in the middle of the vast pacific ocean make phone calls to the land? They use satt comms.
5. they do have weather satellites to scan/map images of the land areas (from above)

Once again, what was actually used was a combination of non-fibre:
wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine_communications_cable
wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_wave#Propagation

Think again. I gave you some examples of situations where one needs to use Satt comm devices to make communication between 2 parties.
The examples were air (on the plane), sea (in the middle of the vast ocean), and remote land (unhibited terrain, remote mining area or jungles). Lets say, miners in some remote area in Western Australia or a remote area in a 3rd world country. Try using your standard mobile and one will not get any coverage. If you don't get coverage, it means you are not connected to the comms network that uses, lets say...the sub coms cable and radio wave propagation. One doesn't see a microwave tower bobbing out in the middle of the pacific ocean eh? One needs to use Satt comms to make a phone call.

I thought again, and I soon reached the conclusion that the:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_phone
is simply a more powerful mobile phone, able to detect micro/radio waves that standard mobile phones cannot detect.

These "satellite phones" are deliberately not made available to the vast majority of the population to buy (or from another point of view, standard mobile phones are deliberately designed to be less powerful), in order to brainwash the actual users into thinking that since "satellite phones" are so exclusive, therefore they must "really" be using some kind of "satellite" technology!

[video=youtube;j4-JWLjJcvs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4-JWLjJcvs[/video]

 

[ginfreely]

This is proof that satellites exist. People can see Iridium flares or even the Iridium satellites.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_flare#Iridium_flares

Satellite flare, also known as satellite glint, is the phenomenon caused by the reflective surfaces on satellites (such as antennas, SAR or solar panels) reflecting sunlight directly onto the Earth below and appearing as a brief, bright "flare".

The Iridium constellation with 66 active telecommunication satellites in low Earth orbit are known to cause the brightest flares of all orbiting satellites.
....

As the Iridium constellation consists of 66 working satellites, Iridium flares are visible quite often (2–4 times per night). Flares of brightness −5 magnitude occur 3–4 times per week; −8 magnitude may be visible 3–5 times per month for stationary observers.
.....

The flares can be bright enough to be seen at night in big cities where light pollution usually prevents most stellar observation. When not flaring, the satellites are often visible crossing the night sky at a typical magnitude of 6, similar to a dim star.

 

[flatearther]

similar to a dim star.

That's because those are real stars, I'm afraid. :o

If you think this stock exchange listed company is fake and only sending fake cardboard rockets with payload up to space, by all means.

Yes, because once again, "satellites" truly do not exist.

[video=youtube;W2jqtzCKKh8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2jqtzCKKh8[/video]

[video=youtube;pvV9zZktq28]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvV9zZktq28[/video]

[video=youtube;CCts6dtyhjw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCts6dtyhjw[/video]

The powers that be always mix lies with truth, in order to deceive as many people as possible into thinking that the lies are also truths, after gaining their trust by telling them much-easier-to-understand obvious truths and bribing them with sufficient security and material comforts.
Unfortunately, this kind of deception (or brainwashing/mind control) has been ongoing all over the world throughout the entire history of humanity in one form or another. :(

atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/08/200-proofs-earth-is-not-spinning-ball.html

"167) Satellites are allegedly floating around in the thermosphere where temperatures are claimed to be upwards of 4,530 degrees Fahrenheit. The metals used in satellites, however, such as aluminum, gold and titanium have melting points of 1,221, 1,948, and 3,034 degrees respectively, all far lower than they could possibly handle.

168) So-called “satellite” phones have been found to have reception problems in countries like Kazakhstan with very few cell phone towers. If the Earth were a ball with 20,000+ satellites surrounding, such blackouts should not regularly occur in any rural countryside areas.

169) So-called “satellite” TV dishes are almost always positioned at a 45 degree angle towards the nearest ground-based repeater tower. If TV antennae were actually picking up signals from satellites 100+ miles in space, most TV dishes should be pointing more or less straight up to the sky. The fact that “satellite” dishes are never pointing straight up and almost always positioned at a 45 degree angle proves they are picking up ground-based tower signals and not “outer-space satellites.”

170) People even claim to see satellites with their naked eyes, but this is ridiculous considering they are smaller than a bus and allegedly 100+ miles away; It is impossible to see anything so small that far away. Even using telescopes, no one claims to discern the shape of satellites but rather describes seeing passing moving lights, which could easily be any number of things from airplanes to drones to shooting stars or other unidentified flying objects.

171) NASA claims there are upwards of 20,000 satellites floating around Earth’s upper-atmosphere sending us radio, television, GPS, and taking pictures of the planet. All these supposed satellite pictures, however, are admittedly “composite images, edited in photoshop!” They claim to receive “ribbons of imagery” from satellites which must then be spliced together to create composite images of the Earth, all of which are clearly CGI and not photographs. If Earth were truly a ball with 20,000 satellites orbiting, it would be a simple matter to mount a camera and take some real photographs. The fact that no real satellite photographs of the supposed ball Earth exist in favor of NASA’s “ribbons of composite CG imagery,” is further proof we are not being told the truth."

 

[ginfreely]

That's because those are real stars, I'm afraid. :o

Please read the wiki link:

Time and place of the satellite's flare can be predicted only when the satellite is controlled, and its orientation in space is known. In this case it is possible to predict the exact time of the flare, its place in the sky, the brightness and duration.

Most Iridium satellites are still controlled, so their flares can be predicted. The Iridium communication satellites have a peculiar shape with three polished door-sized antennas, 120° apart and at 40° angles with the main bus. The forward antenna faces the direction the satellite is travelling. Occasionally, an antenna reflects sunlight directly down at Earth, creating a predictable and quickly moving illuminated spot on the surface below of about 10 km (6.2 mi) diameter. To an observer this looks like a bright flash, or flare in the sky, with a duration of a few seconds.

Ranging up to −8 magnitude (rarely to a brilliant −9.5), some of the flares are so bright that they can be seen in the daytime; but they are most impressive at night. This flashing has caused some annoyance to astronomers, as the flares occasionally disturb observations.

 

[flatearther]

Please read the wiki link:

More importantly, I've seen the photos (and that's if they're not fake), and they look like:
wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting stars
:o

 

[ginfreely]

More importantly, I've seen the photos (and that's if they're not fake), and they look like:
wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting stars
:o

More importantly, can shooting stars be predicted to exact time, place, brightness and duration like the Iridium flares?

"Time and place of the satellite's flare can be predicted only when the satellite is controlled, and its orientation in space is known. In this case it is possible to predict the exact time of the flare, its place in the sky, the brightness and duration."

 

[flatearther]

More importantly, can shooting stars be predicted to exact time, place, brightness and duration like the Iridium flares?

Seems possible:

Meteor showers calendar - for Israel
astroclub.tau.ac.il/ephem/Meteors

 

[ginfreely]

Seems possible:

Meteor showers calendar - for Israel
astroclub.tau.ac.il/ephem/Meteors

According to below, not all meteors can be predicted, only the annual recurring meteor showers can predict. The sporadic meteors not associated with any meteor shower are much less predictable. Btw is the prediction EXACT time and place in the sky of meteor showers? Also brightness and duration can predict or not like the Iridium flares? And in the first place do meteor showers look like Iridium flares or only those lone or few falling stars I.e sporadic meteors look like Iridium flares?

https://www.quora.com/Can-shooting-stars-be-predicted

"There are recurring meteor showers, which occur at the same time each year. There are long-term average meteor rates associated with each of these showers. Some have more year-to-year variation than others. From these, we could calculate an average annual number of meteors associated with recurring showers. I don’t know that number, off-hand, but I’d bet that someone has worked it out.

There are also sporadic meteors, not associated with any meteor shower. As the name implies, they’re much less predictable."

 

[flatearther]

Btw is the prediction EXACT time and place in the sky of meteor showers? Also brightness and duration can predict or not like the Iridium flares? And in the first place do meteor showers look like Iridium flares or only those lone or few falling stars I.e sporadic meteors look like Iridium flares?

I'm afraid I have to be more frank now, i.e. I think that:
wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_flare
is one big lie, just like all the other satellite-related articles on wikipedia and the entire internet.

Very sorry if this offends/insults you. :o

 

[ginfreely]

I'm afraid I have to be more frank now, i.e. I think that:
wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_flare
is one big lie, just like all the other satellite-related articles on wikipedia and the entire internet.

Very sorry if this offends/insults you. :o

But what's your basis? You can't answer my questions and can't prove the Iridium flares are fake means no basis.

 

[flatearther]

But what's your basis? You can't answer my questions and can't prove the Iridium flares are fake means no basis.

The existence of "satellite flares" depends on the existence of "satellites", which has already been proven in other ways to be a hoax, in at least two of my posts:
sammyboy.com/showthread.php?p=2489813
sammyboy.com/showthread.php?p=2491260
Therefore, if "satellites" don't exist, "satellite flares" also cannot exist.

 

[Ed Chigliak]

Flatearther -

Why is the focus on satellites? This is probably due to the standard theory behind satt communication i.e. the satellite orbiting around a “globe” shaped earth. Debunk the theory of satellites and that opens the Pandora box of what actually the earth looks like (hence a point of argument for flat earthers).

I will assume the distances between the earth and the reference subject is generally correct. Please feel free to correct me, if they are inaccurate or wrong.

The distance between:

Earth – Moon: 384,400km
Earth – Van Allen Belt: 1000-6000km
Earth – Satellites: 160 -2000km (LEO, GEO, GSO satellites)
Earth –ISS (International Space Station): 400km
Earth – Mars: 225km
Earth – Beginning of Space: 100km (? Subjective)
Earth – SR71 Blackbird: 26km
Earth - Airbus380: 13km
Earth – Sky diving: 1-5-2.5km
Singapore size from East to West: 50km

Some of my thoughts:

If you take a plane from take off, you will see the cars getting smaller and smaller. Eventually, the higher the plane flies, one only gets to see the outline shape of the land mass. When the plane reaches average altitude of 10-13km, I would generally assume you are above the clouds and probably see nothing much below. From land looking up, does a plane exist if you can’t see it? From the plane looking down, if you can’t see cars, do cars exist? The ISS at 400km sees the overall landmass called “earth”. What “earth” is…well that is subjective as we only have one reference point i.e. NASA.

Claims of why we can’t see “20,000 satellites” from the ISS: Does one think the ISS can get a view of the smaller satellites (size of a car/bus) which orbits around 160km (400-160 = 240km height different)? Likewise, can ISS be able to see planes flying across (eg. An average 6,000 planes at given one time, 400-13 = 387km). Just because it is unable to see the planes/LEO satellites, does it mean the ISS does not exist? Think about it.

If you want to track the movement of the ISS:-

https://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/index.cfm

Note: Depending on where you live, you might be lucky enough to catch the movement path of the ISS. Probably you need cameras with special fitted lens/timers. There is a huge following of Space enthusiasts around the world who enjoy satellite watching. Not everyone is into Pokemon and Sammyboy chats, you know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eF7LQl0f0c
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSOCsJg48E
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE_USPTmYXM

PS: I didn’t want to comment on Apollo moon landings, astronauts, Van Allen belt, moon pics/vids which would do no service to the narrowed discussion on “satellites”.

EC

 

[PretenderSam]

google for Flight route , you will be surprised.

 

[ginfreely]

Flatearther -

Why is the focus on satellites? This is probably due to the standard theory behind satt communication i.e. the satellite orbiting around a “globe” shaped earth. Debunk the theory of satellites and that opens the Pandora box of what actually the earth looks like (hence a point of argument for flat earthers).

I will assume the distances between the earth and the reference subject is generally correct. Please feel free to correct me, if they are inaccurate or wrong.

The distance between:

Earth – Moon: 384,400km
Earth – Van Allen Belt: 1000-6000km
Earth – Satellites: 160 -2000km (LEO, GEO, GSO satellites)
Earth –ISS (International Space Station): 400km
Earth – Mars: 225km
Earth – Beginning of Space: 100km (? Subjective)
Earth – SR71 Blackbird: 26km
Earth - Airbus380: 13km
Earth – Sky diving: 1-5-2.5km
Singapore size from East to West: 50km

According to Inmarsat, their satellites are at distance of about 36000 km from earth.

http://www.inmarsat.com/about-us/our-satellites/

"Today we own and operate a total of 11 spacecraft flying in geostationary orbit 35,786km (22,236 miles) above the Earth. We remain a pioneer and industry leader in space communications with the worldwide launch of Global Xpress in 2015 and the development of our unique S-band aviation network across Europe."

 

[ginfreely]

GEO versus LEO

Most of the satellites that Intelsat General uses for its customer services are located in geostationary orbit.

The concept of geostationary satellite communications systems is generally credited to the futurist Arthur C. Clarke. Mr. Clarke wrote an article in 1945 stating that communications signals could be transmitted to and from Earth by a relay station launched into orbit at a distance of about 22,300 miles (36,000 kilometers) above the Earth’s equator. From that altitude, the satellite would travel at the same rotational rate as Earth and would appear to remain fixed over a location on the ground below, thereby providing a stationary platform for the continuous relay of communications signals.

In addition to geostationary spacecraft, a few commercial satellite communications systems operate from low earth orbits (typically several hundred miles above earth). The lower orbit significantly reduces the delay that is created as the signal travels between Earth and the satellite. This approach is particularly advantageous for global mobile telephone services in which signal delays during two-way communications can be disruptive and confusing.

Unlike geostationary satellites, low earth orbit satellites do not remain in a fixed position in the sky relative to Earth. As a result, the satellite must have the capability to hand off the signal to another satellite or a local ground-based gateway once it passes beyond direct view.

http://www.intelsatgeneral.com/resources/satellite-basics/

 

[ginfreely]

So the existence of Inmarsat geostationary satellites in orbit at about 36000 km is solid proof that the earth is round and not stationary.

"The concept of geostationary satellite communications systems is generally credited to the futurist Arthur C. Clarke. Mr. Clarke wrote an article in 1945 stating that communications signals could be transmitted to and from Earth by a relay station launched into orbit at a distance of about 22,300 miles (36,000 kilometers) above the Earth’s equator. From that altitude, the satellite would travel at the same rotational rate as Earth and would appear to remain fixed over a location on the ground below, thereby providing a stationary platform for the continuous relay of communications signals"

 

[zeebjii]

If there are no satellites, no undersea fibre cables, tell me, in your own words, in one paragraph, how the fuck we are able to read what you type on your phone/ keyboard?

Looks like you've not been carefully reading all my posts in this thread; I've already posted it before: .................

----------------------------

I dont't care what you posted before..

Again, you didn't answer my simple question, I asked you a simple question and as expected you beat around the bush without giving an answer. Same as in many other threads. So enough is enough, not going to waste more time on you. You are indeed an idiot and it's evident to all people here, and very likely very young and and a christian nutcase.

Below is a typical plan for live broadcast of a sports event, but for an idiot like you, you would still be in denial if you were tied up to a satellite to be sent into space (hopefully never to return to weaken the gene pool):


FIA Formula E | 2015/2016 | Round 9 & 10 | London, United Kingdom
World Feed (Backup Path)
American
Broadcasters
Intelsat 20 @ 68.5° E
SAT: +1 404 381 2600
Asian
Broadcasters
Eutelsat 7B @ 7.0° E
SAT: +33 180 132 424
Intelsat 21 @ 58.0° W
SAT: +1 404 381 2600
BMS, UK
BACKUP: HD/FAW/G1
Primary Contact:
BMS | MCR +44 207 896 4111
Escalation (Stage 1):
BMS | Colin Mackay +44 7795 200 696
BMS | Alex Jablonski +44 7787 430 851
BMS | Carolina Santos +44 7972 352 689
Escalation (Stage 2):
Formula E | Dave Adey +44 7808 729 306
Formula E | Tim Godfrey +44 7548 093 813
Other:
BT Tower | MCR +44 800 212 857
Video: Contact Details:
Standard: 1080i50
Aspect Ratio: 16:9
Compression: MPEG-4 4:2:0
Audio:
Standard: 48kHz
Compression: MPEG-1 Layer 2
CH1: Full Mix inc. Commentary
CH2: Full Mix inc. Commentary
CH3: International Sound
CH4: International Sound
CH5: * International Sound exc. Music
CH6: * International Sound exc. Music
CH7: * English Commentary
CH8: * Production Talkback
* not available for other packages including
highlights and VNR
Americas: Satellite Europe: Satellite
Satellite: Eutelsat 7B @ 7.0° E
Transponder: TXP F1 CH719-724
U/L Frequency: 14,073.2000 V
D/L Frequency: 12,573.2000 H
Symbol Rate: 7.50Msym/s
FEC: 2/3
Modulation: DVB-S2 8PSK
(20% RO) PILOT ON
BISS-1: 133D 4AAC B672
Asia: Satellite
Satellite: Intelsat 20 @ 68.5° E
Transponder: TXP LM18C Slot C
U/L Frequency: 6,328.0000 V
D/L Frequency: 4,103.0000 V
Symbol Rate: 7.50Msym/s
FEC: 2/3
Modulation: DVB-S2 8PSK
(20% RO) PILOT ON
BISS-1: 133D 4AAC B672
Satellite & BT Tower Operating Times:
01-Jul-16 14:30 > 01-Jul-16 15:00 GMT - Test
02-Jul-16 06:45 > 02-Jul-16 08:15 GMT - Practice 1
02-Jul-16 09:00 > 02-Jul-16 12:15 GMT - Practice 2 and Qualifying
02-Jul-16 14:00 > 02-Jul-16 16:45 GMT - Race
03-Jul-16 06:45 > 03-Jul-16 08:15 GMT - Practice 1
03-Jul-16 09:00 > 03-Jul-16 12:15 GMT - Practice 2 and Qualifying
03-Jul-16 14:00 > 03-Jul-16 16:45 GMT - Race
BT Tower, UK
Key:
Uplink
Downlink
Fibre
BMS
European
Broadcasters
Satellite: Intelsat 21 @ 58.0° W
Transponder: TXP 21C Slot C
U/L Frequency: 6,349.5000 H
D/L Frequency: 4,124.5000 V
Symbol Rate: 7.50Msym/s
FEC: 2/3
Modulation: DVB-S2 8PSK
(20% RO) PILOT ON

 

[Ed Chigliak]

ginfreely,

Yes you are correct about the Inmarsat/GSO : 36,000km. Thanks for the correction.
Intelsat has similar satellites of those range, if I remember correctly.

My focus was on the satellites below the ISS. Flat earth groups view was that they could not see any of the 20,000 small satellites from ISS.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Orbitalaltitudes.jpg

According to Inmarsat, their satellites are at distance of about 36000 km from earth.

http://www.inmarsat.com/about-us/our-satellites/

"Today we own and operate a total of 11 spacecraft flying in geostationary orbit 35,786km (22,236 miles) above the Earth. We remain a pioneer and industry leader in space communications with the worldwide launch of Global Xpress in 2015 and the development of our unique S-band aviation network across Europe."

 

[eatshitndie]

ginfreely,

Yes you are correct about the Inmarsat/GSO : 36,000km. Thanks for the correction.
Intelsat has similar satellites of those range, if I remember correctly.

My focus was on the satellites below the ISS. Flat earth groups view was that they could not see any of the 20,000 small satellites from ISS.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/82/Orbitalaltitudes.jpg

low earth orbit satellites such as from iridium and globalstar are smaller, less visible, and travel at much higher velocities relative to earth as they are on lower orbitals around the planet. it's very similar to electrons orbiting around a nucleas of protons and neutrons. for iridium satellites one can sometimes see the reflective light (from the sun) of one or two in the night sky as they zoom past at relatively high velocity. there's a need for more low earth orbit satellites that can carry higher rates of throughput (1 gbps or more per user) at much lower latencies (less than 5ms). currently geosync sats are too far out and the long round trip delay is not optimal for advanced wireless communications.

 

[ginfreely]

Another proof the earth is a sphere. Satellites don't fall from the sky due to the earth is a sphere.

http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/2014/05/08/heres-why-satellites-dont-fall-to-earth

Here's why satellites don't fall to Earth

To understand why a spacecraft is able to orbit the Earth without falling down, at least under normal circumstances, you need to perform a thought experiment. Imagine that you are on a planet just like Earth, but there is no air surrounding the planet. We need to get rid of the air so we can make our model as simple as possible. Now, if you were to climb to the top of a high mountain with a large cannon, you will be in a position to understand why spacecraft stay in space.

Let's aim the cannon exactly horizontally and shoot a cannon ball toward the western horizon. The ball will leave the gun with a huge velocity and head west. As soon as the ball has left the mouth of the cannon, it will start to drop and fall toward the planet's surface.

Because the cannon ball is moving rapidly west, it will strike the ground at some distance from the top of the mountain. If we keep increasing the power of the cannon, the projectile will hit the ground farther and farther from the mountain. Because the planet is a sphere, each time the cannon ball is fired, it will fall farther because the surface of the planet is dropping away as the ball travels away from the gun.

Because this is a thought experiment, we can make the cannon more and more powerful. Eventually, you will get to a situation where the cannon ball is flying away so fast that the surface of the planet is dropping away from the cannon ball at exactly the same speed as the cannon ball is dropping.

At this speed, with no air resistance to slow it, the cannon ball will continue to "orbit" the planet forever as it continuously falls toward the planet, but the ground keeps dropping away at the same rate. This condition is called freefall.

Now, in real life, things are not as simple as in our thought experiment. Now we have to deal with air resistance that would cause drag that would slow our cannon ball, eventually robbing it of the speed that it needs to remain in orbit. That is why we can only orbit satellites in space, far above the majority of the atmosphere.

Even at a few hundred kilometres from the surface of the Earth, there is still some air resistance that acts on satellites and the space station to slow them. This drag will eventually cause the spacecraft to be dragged down into the thicker atmosphere where they usually burn up due to friction with the air. If it weren't for the space station and other satellites having boosters to push them higher in their orbits, they would all eventually be dragged back to the earth.