8381

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.

« on: September 20, 2016, 05:30:12 AM »

Perspective lines intersect?  Can you please prove this?

A demonstration that the perspective lines intersect can be found by taking to rulers against a perspective scene. If we hold rulers over the perspective lines they will overlap each other. And if we draw lines along the perspective lines to the horizon and at some point they will intersect. The same will apply to a real world scene, if one were inclined to draw lines on that.

Wow, there are a ton of problems here.  First, you have not demonstrated clearly that perspective lines intersect.  Second, it does not matter if the math is ancient or created 1 second ago.  What matters is that it works.  No one expects you to assume it works, but it does.  If you don't believe it, we can't prove it here, but questioning trigonometry doesn't make you a maverick, this much I know.  There are a number of sciences that avail themselves of trigonometry.  You should research them.

There are many different types of math. It is possible to apply different maths to the same problem and get a different result. Mathematics is also constrained by the model in which computation takes place. It absolutely needs to be demonstrated that the math chosen is fit for purpose.

8382

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.

« on: September 20, 2016, 04:15:33 AM »

There are imperfections on the earth's surface behind which things can hide, just as a dime can hide an elephant if you hold it out in front of you and the elephant is far enough away. No matter how small of an imperfection, as the perspective lines merge to 0, the imperfection will become apparent.

See the chapter Perspective on the Sea in Earth Not a Globe by Samuel Birley Rowbotham for additional information.

8383

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.

« on: September 20, 2016, 03:51:59 AM »

Wish granted.

As we see, in order to see the angles indicated we must go to a SIDE VIEW scene which takes place outside of the universe.

In your "first person" scene we do not see any angles to measure, being impossible to draw and exist in that orientation. The positions of the objects in the first person scene are impossible to justify and calculate with just that "first person" scene alone -- making your approximations entirely arbitrary without your supporting side view image to attach with it.

Top is the orthographic side view. Bottom is from the perspective of the camera. Notice how the angles in the orthographic side view correspond to the dimensions and placement of the objects in the first person view. That's why the orthographic view is useful. Keep in mind, this isn't 100% accurate, sense any camera will have a bit of distortion due to the shape of the lens or sensor. As long as the camera isn't very wide angle, the distortion should be minimal.

At which point, according to your math, will the sun touch the vanishing point? If you check your math you will find that it is impossible for the sun to ever touch the vanishing point. It will just keep slowing down and never get to the horizon. In fact, under that math, it's impossible for anything to intersect at a vanishing point.

Since the vanishing point exists, the math is clearly an inaccurate representation of perspective.

I agree that the sun is at 0° with the horizon when it sets. The reason the result of my math is wrong (28°) is because it started with a flawed assumption: that the earth is flat. The reason the math doesn't agree with reality is because the earth isn't flat in reality.

This is how models are tested. You make predictions assuming the model is correct. If the predictions disagree with reality, there is probably something wrong with the model. Since my prediction based on the flat earth model is wrong, there is probably something wrong with the flat earth model. Obviously.

We know that it is possible for perspective lines to intersect. Under your math it is impossible for any perspective lines to intersect. Therefore your math is wrong.

Not only does it lack the intersection of perspective lines, your math has not been demonstrated to be an accurate portrayal of large scale perspective in the real world. You bring us math created by ancient civilizations to us and expect us to just assume that it is correct for the situation. Where is the evidence that it is correct for this purpose?

8384

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.

« on: September 19, 2016, 11:09:44 PM »

Draw it. Your math assumes an out-of-universe SIDE VIEW without regards to perspective. We saw in your illustration that when the side view angle was turned it became lower to the horizon.

Considering that the horizon is where everything merges at the vanishing point, I would say that at the horizon the sun is 0 degrees and whatever math you are using is flawed in the face of reality.

8385

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Angles, Perspective, and the Setting Sun.

« on: September 19, 2016, 08:44:11 PM »

As you turned the scene the height of the far end of the terminal arm dropped in height, due to perspective.

8386

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Length of a day in the Southern Hemisphere in December

« on: September 17, 2016, 08:43:01 PM »

No, it's not.  What is "inaccurate" is the scale estimates in your favorite visual phenomenon, perspective lines.  The demonstration in the video using horizontal slats on a wall, which appear to all come together at a vanishing point?  The distance in the axis he calls Z (typical convention is X and Y are horizontal axes and Z is the vertical, but whatever) compared to the distance from the bottom horizontal slat to the top one is a MUCH greater ratio than the corresponding distance to the sun circling above a flat earth.  Even at the best case for your scenario, midnight of the December Sostice on Hornos Island off South America at 55.9° south with the sun all the way around the disc at 23.3° south, the horizontal distance to the sun (calculated using the wiki-approved 69.5 miles per dgree figure) is still only 18,000 miles, or just over six times as far away horizontally as it is high.  That's nowhere near enough distance for the claimed perspective effects to be enough, and the numbers are even worse for you at sunrise and sunset.

Your math is not reality, and merely an artificial side view representation of the scene. In reality all parallel lines are seen to touch at the vanishing point.

If we extend your side view scene into forever the sun will never touch the ground. There is no perspective point where things touch. This is a proof that the method used is fallacious.

And that's completely aside from the fact that the slats in his photo get obviously much "smaller" as they approach the vanishing point, which the sun does NOT do. 

(Edited to correct my math)

This is addressed here: http://wiki.tfes.org/Magnification_of_the_Sun_at_Sunset

8387

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't we see the sun via telescope after it sets/moves further? or can we?

« on: September 17, 2016, 08:32:57 PM »

Geodetetic surveyors now are just refining measurements and not trying to prove the shape of the Earth.  Not true when we go back in time.  It was geodetic surveyors that found more evidence of the Earth shape.  Astronomers also were very interested in the shape.  People in your claimed field also study the shape.  Most people involved in the Earth sciences make predictions based on the Earth being round.  Those predictions use calculation assuming the Earth is round and are reliable and accurate.

They are only interested in the shape so much as "these slight variations in g must mean that the earth is not perfectly round". They are not interested in the earth's true shape.

If the Earth was flat errors would resonate through many different fields.  Your belief is these errors would go unnoticed.

They do go noticed. Only that it's explained away by an assortment of illusions. There have been times when the sun and moon have been above the surface of the earth during a lunar eclipse and it was called a refraction illusion.

If you recall I showed you paper where scientist were looking for the cause of 3-5mm errors for predictions.  This was for only one part of the globe and involved models for tectonic plates, tidal loading, earth tide, gravity, satellite signal delay, and others I can not think of right now.  If the Earth was flat these models would not work together and used to make fairly accurate predictions that are only 3-5mm off just for a part of the world.

Actually, a lot of prediction models for things like the tides and the appearance and path of celestial bodies are created by looking at historical records of past events and predicting when the next one will occur.

I will tell you again I have communicated with people in North Carolina from Afghanistan and Iraq using a HF radio.  If I was capable of doing this it depended on atmospheric conditions, the antenna, time of day and skip zones.  Skip zones being the area between where the wave is either traveling up or down. 

I was able to communicate with people on the other end of the world with my home phone under the assumption of a Flat Earth and the pseuodolite technologies involved. Where's my medal?

8388

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't we see the sun via telescope after it sets/moves further? or can we?

« on: September 17, 2016, 08:26:07 PM »

Celestial navigation uses math that assumes the Earth is round.  It does not work for a flat surface.

Actually, there is no math necessary:

https://sextantbook.wordpress.com/2014/04/03/how-celestial-navigation-works-in-easy-steps-1/

You may well think celestial navigation is a dark science that calls for a lot of complex mathematics.  In a way that’s perfectly true because it took the work of many brilliant mathematicians to perfect the techniques mariners use to fix their position on the open sea.

But to practice the art of celestial navigation today you really don’t need much mathematical skill.  In fact you only have to be able to add and subtract – and maybe not even that now that we all have access to computers.

To explain the basic principles of celestial navigation let’s start with a crucial concept – the ‘geographical position’ of a heavenly body.

At any given moment every heavenly body is vertically above a precisely defined spot on the surface of the Earth.  So if you imagine a straight line drawn from the centre of the Earth to a star, someone standing where that line passes through the surface of the Earth would see that star directly overhead – or in their zenith.  That person will then be standing at the star’s geographical position (GP).  Its GP can be defined by its latitude (degrees north or south of the equator) and its longitude (degrees east or west of the Greenwich meridian, a line joining the North and South Geographical Poles that happens to pass through the observatory at Greenwich).

Now if the Earth did not rotate about its axis all the stars (though not the sun, moon or planets) would appear to stand still in the sky.  That would of course also mean that their GPs were fixed.  So a very simple way of navigating would be to identify the star whose GP was closest to your goal and then sail (or walk, or fly – or whatever) until that particular star was overhead.

You may say that won’t work because the Earth actually does turn.  But wait.  There are two special places on the Earth’s surface that actually do remain stationary in relation to the sky immediately above them: the North and South Geographical Poles.  So if you want to find your way to either Pole you only need to identify the star whose GP is closest to it and travel until it’s overhead.

8389

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't we see the sun via telescope after it sets/moves further? or can we?

« on: September 17, 2016, 08:24:23 PM »

How about celestial navigation that the math involved assumes a round Earth?

Actually Celestial Navigation mainly involves finding the North Star and basing your Eastwards or Westwards travel on that.

Again with the Northern Hemisphere chauvinism! 
Plenty of celestial navigation takes place in the Southern Hemisphere, beyond sight of the North Star.  I've been there, at sea, for months at a time, and I can tell you: You cannot see (or navigate from) the North Star from the Southern Hemisphere.

Only 10% of the human population lives in the Southern Hemiplane, which is why I said "mainly" above. In the Southern Hemiplane navigation occurs by looking at the South Pole star, Sigma Octantis, or the stars that point to it, and basing your Eastwards or Westwards or Northwards or Southwards travel on that.

8390

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Length of a day in the Southern Hemisphere in December

« on: September 17, 2016, 01:27:54 PM »

I am prone to confusion about perspective and actual location/motion on FE model, that is my bad.

Not your fault; the model takes great liberties with how perspective actually works, which causes confusion for anybody who is used to thinking about perspective the way we are accustomed to.

One of the major problems with the FE model is the fact that on a flat surface the angle of elevation to a fixed object in the sky would not be a constant mileage per degree.  The further away from zero one travels north or south, the further you should have to travel to get another degree of elevation change to the sun.

Way above my head. My attempt at pun.

Perhaps an illustration will help. 

In the picture, let's start with observer B and his view of the sun.  He is at the magic 45° mark where his distance to the sub-solar point equals the distance up to the sun from a flat earth.  I've used the FE figure of 3000 miles (or as they would say, "about" 3000 miles).  3000 miles over 45° gives 66.7 miles per degree.  This figure does not hold true at any other distance, however.  Consider Observer A, half the distance to the sub-solar point.  His viewing angle is 63.4°, which means that from his spot to the sub-solar point one covers 26.6° of latitude (90 minus 63.4).  So for him, the miles per degree is less, quite a bit less in fact, at only 56.3 miles per degree.  Looking at Observers C and D, you see the pattern: the further away you go, the larger the miles per degree figure grows. 
The FE model attempts to address this problem by proposing an atmospheric optical effect that would refract the sun's light very severely in order to lower its apparent elevation in the sky to a position lower than what I have shown in my figure.  This attempt fails to address the left-to-right shift in apparent solar position that would also be required for observation to match the FE model.

I don't understand the parabolic reflection theory well enough to argue it.

Not sure what you are referring to here.

I shouldn't have tried to argue a point I only thought I understood.

Naw, you're fine.  The more you participate, the more you will understand.  I have quite enjoyed doing some of the research I have needed to bolster my belief in the RE side and refute the FE arguments.

That math is inaccurate.

8391

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't we see the sun via telescope after it sets/moves further? or can we?

« on: September 17, 2016, 09:45:50 AM »

Is that statement true?

Yes.

So after the Greeks nobody like geodetic surveyors did anything like measuring distances and curvature?

Geodetic surveyors tend to take measurements and assume that the earth is a globe. No one is questioning the shape of the earth anymore.

And if anyone does detect a Flat Earth over long distances, it's explained by an illusion like "Atmospheric Ducting," which is ridiculous explanation that em waves can bounce between the ground and the sky to reach far off locations they shouldn't.

How about celestial navigation that the math involved assumes a round Earth?

Actually Celestial Navigation mainly involves finding the North Star and basing your Eastwards or Westwards travel on that.

If you have a geology degree you must know about the many people now and throughout history whose research and work involve the shape of the Earth.  An error about the shape would result in errors throughout many fields. If they are wrong about the shape things would not fit together and there would be holes like there is with the flat Earth hypothesis.

As I said, no one is studying whether the earth is round or flat. They are studying a Round Earth. If they happen to not see a Round Earth, they make up a phenomenon to explain it.

8392

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't we see the sun via telescope after it sets/moves further? or can we?

« on: September 16, 2016, 12:40:27 PM »

I post about a Conspiracy, yes, that is the premise of this society, but not about the Illuminati, and mainly the "filthy fool" and "They feed you lobster!" parts gives it away that it is a non-serious parody account.

Feeding rich tourists drugs to enhance their trip is very possible.

I said that Rowbotham is the only man in history to have conducted a serious inquiry into the shape of the world, and still maintain that today. We've spent a lot of time looking at studies in history and the only scientists we can find who argue over the shape of the world or actively look for evidence are the Ancient Greeks, who don't really conduct thorough studies. Aristotle gives three proofs that the earth is a globe. They are three casual observations, and not serious studies. It appears that from that point on Western civilization assumes that the earth is a globe. The East holds out for a bit longer, but eventually adopts the views of the West without explanation.

8393

Science & Alternative Science / Re: Cancer is easily cured with common grocery store items

« on: September 16, 2016, 03:20:39 AM »

In ancient times garlic was used as a treatment for cancer:

Throwing virgins into volcanoes was once popular.

Actually, that's a myth:

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/columns/straight-dope/article/13043717/straight-dope-were-virgins-ever-really-thrown-into-volcanoes

As with so many popular beliefs, the answer boils down to: (1) this story is mostly Hollywood BS, but (2) not 100 percent. To get a better handle on things, let’s look at different permutations of the concept, starting with the least plausible and working up.

Virgins have been thrown into volcanoes to appease god(s). This is the story in purest form—so pure, in fact, that I haven’t been able to find any actual examples of it. The closest I got was the 1932 film Bird of Paradise, starring Dolores del Rio as native girl Luana. Plotwise it breaks down as: Boy meets girl, boy hooks up with girl, girl is betrothed to someone else, boy steals girl, boy is cursed by volcano goddess Pele, girl sacrifices self to appease Pele and save boy. Long in the public domain, the film is available for free download and worth every penny.

I need to point out a couple things. First, while Luana’s primitive culture is willing to sacrifice her to placate the volcano god, it doesn’t actually do so. She sacrifices herself.

Second, volcanoes suitable for throwing women into for the most part don’t exist. The popular idea is that a volcanic cone has a lake of molten lava inside, perhaps with a rocky promontory jutting out from the rim to provide a convenient spot for victim-flinging. In reality, an erupting volcano typically spews lava up or outward from a cone, vent, or fissure, after which the lava flows laterally along the flattish surfaces nearby. One could, I suppose, shove a sacrificial individual into one of these flows and thereby incinerate her (or him), but that doesn’t constitute tossing a virgin into a volcano as the trope is usually understood.

Virgins have been sacrificed on, if not in, volcanoes. I’ll go out on a limb and say this is 100 percent true. The mummified remains of numerous murdered Incan children, many of them female, have been found on the upper slopes of volcanoes in the Andes. For example, a girl was discovered on Mount Ampato in Peru in 1995 and two girls and a boy on Llullaillaco in Argentina in 1999. The victims, aged six to adulthood, were well dressed and nourished, suggesting they’d been fattened for the slaughter. I don’t know if on examination any of the children were found to be virgins but will politely assume they were.

Archaeologist Johan Reinhard, who led the expeditions that found the Ampato and Llullaillaco mummies, has conjectured that sacrifices at Ampato were intended to stop a volcanic eruption nearby.

Humans, but especially children, have been sacrificed to the gods, or to accompany deceased rulers who presumably were going to join the gods. This is so abundantly and widely true that it may not seem worth mentioning, but we ought not to let our interest in a particularly baroque sacrificial mode blind us to the larger truth, namely that our species has slaughtered innocents by the uncountable thousands since antiquity, without even the excuse of war. Examples:

- In the Bible, Abraham famously comes close to sacrificing his son Isaac, and Jephthah actually does kill his daughter in return for winning a war.
- As part of the funeral rites of the Incan ruler Huayna Capac a thousand people were sacrificed, including many children.
- The sacrificial cenote, a big sinkhole at the Mayan city of Chichen Itza, was found to contain the skeletons of children mostly from 7 to 15 years old. It’s guessed that the victims were selected for their beauty and freedom from blemish.

Getting back to volcanoes:

- In Indonesian legend, a princess and her husband prayed to the god of the Mount Bromo volcano to give them children. The volcano delivered 25, but required the last be offered as a sacrifice. Today, villagers commemorate the event by throwing food, livestock, and money into the crater, which more practical types wait below the rim to catch.
- American writer Armstrong Perry claimed he witnessed the sacrifice of a young man thrown into a lava pit in the Solomon Islands, and says he narrowly escaped the same fate.
- Classical legend says the Greek philosopher Empedocles threw himself into Mount Etna as a sacrifice after healing a woman near death. Why? Who knows? We’ll file this one under “alcohol may have been involved.”

8394

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't we see the sun via telescope after it sets/moves further? or can we?

« on: September 16, 2016, 02:43:25 AM »

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=139159&p=7086690#p7086690

You filly fool, who said the Illuminati would ever do that? They already have all the sheep in line. Completely induced into thinking our world is round.

They feed you lobster!

When have I said anything like that?

8395

Flat Earth Community / Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?

« on: September 16, 2016, 02:32:29 AM »

That is 2'4" and still could not send a signal from the Middle East to North Carolina like I could with sat-comm. Which used a dish about 1/2 that size. Not only was it 1/2 the size it was not solid but made of mesh material.  Which decrease the effectiveness at transmitting and receiving.  Even then it worked 100% of the time I used it.

As we can see from my last post, a smaller Troposcatter receiver is arguably better than a larger Troposcatter receiver.

It is still directional the size of the antenna is not going to change that and it still does not provide wide spread coverage like GPS or satellite TV.

I've already provided a source showing that it is possible for multiple receivers in to point at the same spot in the sky and receive signal.

You are missing one rather important thing.  The amount of data that needs to be transmitted effects the effective range.  The less data needed to transmit the further apart you can have the antennas.

Compression and bandwidth is something Satellite TV also had to overcome. I've posted a source which stated that high bandwidth applications like video are possible with Troposcatter technology. It would follow that if Satellite TV was really Troposcatter TV, whoever is behind Troposcatter TV would have invested in Troposcatter compression and bandwidth tech rather than Satellite compression and bandwidth tech.

8396

Flat Earth Community / Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?

« on: September 14, 2016, 10:23:28 AM »

Again I pointed out like a lot of stuff size is decreasing, amount of data and reliability is increasing.  Troposcatter antenna are still not carried by soldiers, but on trucks and trailers.  Troposcatter antennas need to be larger than a satellite antenna with the current technology we have.

This link says that a Troposcatter terminal can be as small as a "portable transit case system":

http://www.comtechsystems.com/industries-capabilities/troposcatter-overview/

A troposcatter system is a point-to-point link that requires a terminal on each end, with each terminal both transmitting and receiving. Terminals can range in size from a portable transit case system to a vehicle-mounted system or large fixed installation.

The portable transit antennas are about 3 feet in diameter. A little over in my experience.  They are not cosidered man portable over long distances like the satellite antenna I carried that was 1 foot in diameter.  Usually deployed by being transported in a vehicle then set up when the vehicle arrives at a location.  It also has a decreased range, max being about 150km in good conditions.  Sometimes a little further in ideal conditions.

I am telling you I work with communications systems rather frequently and received a lot training.  You are wrong in assuming that troposcatter is used to send things like satellite tv signals and GPS.  It is highly directional and can not be used for wide spread coverage.

This page is about hobbyist Troposcatter tech, and says that a 70 cm receiver is better for a greater range than a 2 meter receiver:

http://www.qsl.net/oz1rh/troposcatter99/troposcatter99.htm

Greater range on 70 cm than on 2 m

70 cm may have greater range than 2 m, because:

a.   lower noise level in the sky means you can take better advantage of a low-noise preamplifier in your 70 cm receiver

b.   greater path loss is compensated by a larger antenna gain, given the same physical dimensions of the antenna

c.   more frequent ducting because a smaller duct will do

Why do most amateurs then think that 70 cm has shorter range?

fewer other amateurs are active
greater antenna gain => smaller beam width
difficult to have the same transmitter power output
in the old days it was more difficult to make a low-noise preamplifier for 70 cm than for 2 m
greater cable loss
 

8397

Flat Earth Theory / Re: Why can't we see the sun via telescope after it sets/moves further? or can we?

« on: September 14, 2016, 09:45:37 AM »

Tom is either willfully ignorant, dishonest or FE is just like a religion to him.  Probably a combination of all 3.

He demonstrates willful ignorance by refusing do any experiment that will offer evidence he is wrong.  Like tracking satellites by taking advantage of doppler shift or simply buying a telescope to observe the ISS.  Will not research anything like wave propagation to learn more about a subject that says he could be wrong.

The dishonest part is demonstrated in the errors he will change in the distances stated in his experiment.  Both the distance to the beach from his observation point and the height of the telescope above the water.

Then there is more dishonesty here:

http://www.fstdt.com/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=93430
Claims he went to Harvard and acquired a masters in sociology and minor in history. Anyone who has a masters degree will notice what is wrong with that statement.  Also Harvard does not offer a Master in Sociology.

I also read somewhere I can not find right now where he claimed to have went to college in California.

The religious aspect is demonstrated throughout the forums on this site.  Simply refusing to accept anything saying his beliefs could be wrong.

An obvious parody account.

http://forum.nationstates.net/search.php?author_id=91975&sr=posts

8398

Flat Earth Community / Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?

« on: September 14, 2016, 09:33:55 AM »

Again I pointed out like a lot of stuff size is decreasing, amount of data and reliability is increasing.  Troposcatter antenna are still not carried by soldiers, but on trucks and trailers.  Troposcatter antennas need to be larger than a satellite antenna with the current technology we have.

This link says that a Troposcatter terminal can be as small as a "portable transit case system":

http://www.comtechsystems.com/industries-capabilities/troposcatter-overview/

A troposcatter system is a point-to-point link that requires a terminal on each end, with each terminal both transmitting and receiving. Terminals can range in size from a portable transit case system to a vehicle-mounted system or large fixed installation.

8399

Flat Earth Community / Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?

« on: September 14, 2016, 09:26:16 AM »

It is harder to detect a signal sent only in one direction.  It does not work like a spot light in the sky, do more research.  It is a directional signal being sent.  I was in the military in intelligence units using this technology and trained how to use it.  If the antenna's direction and elevation is off by a rather small margin depending on weather no signal is received.

I did do research:

Some notes from this article on Troposcatter transmissions:

http://www.comtechsystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Troposcatter-Introduction-Nov-2013.pdf

Today, using high speed modems with advanced signal processing, digital voice, data and video
can be streamed across high reliability links for military and commercial applications as part of a
complete communications network.

In section 4.3 we see that it is possible to have multiple receivers. This seems to suggest that it works more like a spotlight in the sky (but probably on a very high reflective layer) that anyone can receive a signal from:

8400

Flat Earth Community / Re: Satellites.... Troposcatter Technology?

« on: September 14, 2016, 09:19:43 AM »

Some notes from this article on Troposcatter transmissions:

http://www.comtechsystems.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Troposcatter-Introduction-Nov-2013.pdf

It appears that high bandwidth applications are not a problem:

Today, using high speed modems with advanced signal processing, digital voice, data and video
can be streamed across high reliability links for military and commercial applications as part of a
complete communications network.

In section 4.3 we see that it is possible to have multiple receivers. This seems to suggest that it works more like a spotlight in the sky (but probably on a very high reflective layer) that anyone can receive a signal from:

http://i68.tinypic.com/2hprw95.png