The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: truth on November 09, 2016, 12:11:58 AM
-
Someone has posted that GPS do not work at Sahara, I will argue that it won't work at places with low coverage from GPS Mountain based antennas.
What happen is that antennas all over the world cover with frequencies a lot of space and then you have your signal to GPS.
The best place to put such an antenna is at mountains, there you can has a lot of connections all over the world, second thing is what we call microwave:
You launch signals from far away and the signal get caught on ground and allow you navigate safely.
Rayzor once said there is a specific frequency - yes this is the frequency for GPS Mountain based antennas.
When we know that antennas are hundreds of kilometers far away even thousands of kilometers we can assume that the antenna is in a very remote part of the world, or at very far away part of the world,
The world is full of signals of antennas that's all.
There are satellites at space they produce useless photos but not GPS signal.
Disclaimer:
That's my theory I am not a professional I am just want to speculate according to the laws of this forum.
-
Due respect but I'm having trouble parsing what it is you want to discuss.
Are you saying GPS is strictly ground based, i.e. no GPS satellites?
There are specific frequencies that various devices operate on.
Light (visible or not), television, radio, cell phones, GPS, microwave ovens, etc. all operate at some frequency along the RF spectrum.
-
Another thing that FE's do not seem to take into account is there are many frequencies of operation and many designs of operation of electronic equipment, each designed for its own special use.
You just can't make broad statements . You need to know at least something about a specific type of equipment.
-
Someone has posted that GPS do not work at Sahara, I will argue that it won't work at places with low coverage from GPS Mountain based antennas.
What happen is that antennas all over the world cover with frequencies a lot of space and then you have your signal to GPS.
The best place to put such an antenna is at mountains, there you can has a lot of connections all over the world, second thing is what we call microwave:
You launch signals from far away and the signal get caught on ground and allow you navigate safely.
Rayzor once said there is a specific frequency - yes this is the frequency for GPS Mountain based antennas.
When we know that antennas are hundreds of kilometers far away even thousands of kilometers we can assume that the antenna is in a very remote part of the world, or at very far away part of the world,
The world is full of signals of antennas that's all.
There are satellites at space they produce useless photos but not GPS signal.
Disclaimer:
That's my theory I am not a professional I am just want to speculate according to the laws of this forum.
How many mountains.are there in the middle of the oceans ?
-
Another thing that FE's do not seem to take into account is there are many frequencies of operation and many designs of operation of electronic equipment, each designed for its own special use.
False.
-
Another thing that FE's do not seem to take into account is there are many frequencies of operation and many designs of operation of electronic equipment, each designed for its own special use.
False.
So enlightening and full of the specificity you demand of others.
Which part is false? The part about the FE's? There are many frequencies? Many designs? Designs for special/specific use?
That's a pretty broad statement to call 5 things false.
-
Another thing that FE's do not seem to take into account is there are many frequencies of operation and many designs of operation of electronic equipment, each designed for its own special use.
False.
So enlightening and full of the specificity you demand of others.
Which part is false? The part about the FE's? There are many frequencies? Many designs? Designs for special/specific use?
That's a pretty broad statement to call 5 things false.
I'd suggest taking a minute to understand what context means and then try again.
-
Another thing that FE's do not seem to take into account is there are many frequencies of operation and many designs of operation of electronic equipment, each designed for its own special use.
False.
So enlightening and full of the specificity you demand of others.
Which part is false? The part about the FE's? There are many frequencies? Many designs? Designs for special/specific use?
That's a pretty broad statement to call 5 things false.
I'd suggest taking a minute to understand what context means and then try again.
What would be really nice is if you would explain what you meant by calling the statement false. Or if you think that should be obvious by the context, why you think so. Regardless of how obvious it is to you, it clearly wasn't that obvious to gecko, or me for that matter. This would be a much more conversational approach. It is difficult to have a conversation with someone who gives so many one word answers and basically implies to anyone who doesn't understand what is meant, that they are kind of stupid. (Whether they are or aren't stupid, it would be nice if you would at least make an effort at having a decent conversation.)
-
What would be really nice is if you would explain what you meant by calling the statement false.
Another thing that FE's do not seem to take into account is there are many frequencies of operation and many designs of operation of electronic equipment, each designed for its own special use.
The intentionally broad statement is false. He is making a claim against flat earthers with no evidence to support it. He didn't quantify it in any way, so we can only assume he means all FE proponents. That is simply a nonsensical position and false. gecko likes to make himself sound superior, I am just letting him know he is wrong.
-
What would be really nice is if you would explain what you meant by calling the statement false.
Another thing that FE's do not seem to take into account is there are many frequencies of operation and many designs of operation of electronic equipment, each designed for its own special use.
The intentionally broad statement is false. He is making a claim against flat earthers with no evidence to support it. He didn't quantify it in any way, so we can only assume he means all FE proponents. That is simply a nonsensical position and false. gecko likes to make himself sound superior, I am just letting him know he is wrong.
That goes your way too, in all honesty. And again, you derailed a thread.
-
That goes your way too, in all honesty. And again, you derailed a thread.
Incorrect.
-
Someone has posted that GPS do not work at Sahara, I will argue that it won't work at places with low coverage from GPS Mountain based antennas.
What happen is that antennas all over the world cover with frequencies a lot of space and then you have your signal to GPS.
The best place to put such an antenna is at mountains, there you can has a lot of connections all over the world, second thing is what we call microwave:
You launch signals from far away and the signal get caught on ground and allow you navigate safely.
Rayzor once said there is a specific frequency - yes this is the frequency for GPS Mountain based antennas.
When we know that antennas are hundreds of kilometers far away even thousands of kilometers we can assume that the antenna is in a very remote part of the world, or at very far away part of the world,
The world is full of signals of antennas that's all.
There are satellites at space they produce useless photos but not GPS signal.
Disclaimer:
That's my theory I am not a professional I am just want to speculate according to the laws of this forum.
How many mountains.are there in the middle of the oceans ?
There are many ways to spread signals across the ocean.
-
Someone has posted that GPS do not work at Sahara, I will argue that it won't work at places with low coverage from GPS Mountain based antennas.
What happen is that antennas all over the world cover with frequencies a lot of space and then you have your signal to GPS.
The best place to put such an antenna is at mountains, there you can has a lot of connections all over the world, second thing is what we call microwave:
You launch signals from far away and the signal get caught on ground and allow you navigate safely.
Rayzor once said there is a specific frequency - yes this is the frequency for GPS Mountain based antennas.
When we know that antennas are hundreds of kilometers far away even thousands of kilometers we can assume that the antenna is in a very remote part of the world, or at very far away part of the world,
The world is full of signals of antennas that's all.
There are satellites at space they produce useless photos but not GPS signal.
Disclaimer:
That's my theory I am not a professional I am just want to speculate according to the laws of this forum.
How many mountains.are there in the middle of the oceans ?
There are many ways to spread signals across the ocean.
Okay. Like, which?
-
Someone has posted that GPS do not work at Sahara, I will argue that it won't work at places with low coverage from GPS Mountain based antennas.
What happen is that antennas all over the world cover with frequencies a lot of space and then you have your signal to GPS.
The best place to put such an antenna is at mountains, there you can has a lot of connections all over the world, second thing is what we call microwave:
You launch signals from far away and the signal get caught on ground and allow you navigate safely.
Rayzor once said there is a specific frequency - yes this is the frequency for GPS Mountain based antennas.
When we know that antennas are hundreds of kilometers far away even thousands of kilometers we can assume that the antenna is in a very remote part of the world, or at very far away part of the world,
The world is full of signals of antennas that's all.
There are satellites at space they produce useless photos but not GPS signal.
Disclaimer:
That's my theory I am not a professional I am just want to speculate according to the laws of this forum.
I don't get it. If you're not a professional, why do you theorize over things that are perfectly well-known to professionals?
It seems like you need to find alternative explanations to things already explained, only to support the belief of a flat earth, for the sake of only yourself.
It's illogical.
-
What would be really nice is if you would explain what you meant by calling the statement false.
Another thing that FE's do not seem to take into account is there are many frequencies of operation and many designs of operation of electronic equipment, each designed for its own special use.
I think the old thread of the "Moon Bounce" operations of "Amateur Radio Operator Measurements Of The Distance From The Earth To The Moon" was a prime example of flat earth ignorance of radiio.
Some flat earth replies.:
"You need an antenna the size of a football field." The frequencies involved included large arrays but not the size of a football field.
"Ham radio operators talking to truckers can't do this." Confusing illegal operations by a few unlicensed Citizen Band "CB" operators with licensed legal operations of Amateur Radio Operators
"Speed of radiio waves is not accurate." If this was so, RADAR would be useless.
"Radio waves slow down going to the moon." Just a baseless assumption.
And others.
FE's have also demonstrated their ignorance in other areas , such as Photography, for one example.
The intentionally broad statement is false. He is making a claim against flat earthers with no evidence to support it. He didn't quantify it in any way, so we can only assume he means all FE proponents. That is simply a nonsensical position and false. gecko likes to make himself sound superior, I am just letting him know he is wrong.
-
Getting back to the subject at hand, ground based GPS could not provide altitude information.
-
Someone has posted that GPS do not work at Sahara, I will argue that it won't work at places with low coverage from GPS Mountain based antennas.
What happen is that antennas all over the world cover with frequencies a lot of space and then you have your signal to GPS.
The best place to put such an antenna is at mountains, there you can has a lot of connections all over the world, second thing is what we call microwave:
You launch signals from far away and the signal get caught on ground and allow you navigate safely.
Rayzor once said there is a specific frequency - yes this is the frequency for GPS Mountain based antennas.
When we know that antennas are hundreds of kilometers far away even thousands of kilometers we can assume that the antenna is in a very remote part of the world, or at very far away part of the world,
The world is full of signals of antennas that's all.
There are satellites at space they produce useless photos but not GPS signal.
Disclaimer:
That's my theory I am not a professional I am just want to speculate according to the laws of this forum.
How many mountains.are there in the middle of the oceans ?
There are many ways to spread signals across the ocean.
Okay. Like, which?
1) Nearby mountain antennas can launch very powerful rays to the ocean and then you can pick them from high altitude,
2)you can use the stratosphere or the concavity of the earth.
3)powerful antennas can launch very powerful rays and signal to the sky then the rays declining or sinking down and what you have to do is to pick the signal from air.
-
Someone has posted that GPS do not work at Sahara, I will argue that it won't work at places with low coverage from GPS Mountain based antennas.
What happen is that antennas all over the world cover with frequencies a lot of space and then you have your signal to GPS.
The best place to put such an antenna is at mountains, there you can has a lot of connections all over the world, second thing is what we call microwave:
You launch signals from far away and the signal get caught on ground and allow you navigate safely.
Rayzor once said there is a specific frequency - yes this is the frequency for GPS Mountain based antennas.
When we know that antennas are hundreds of kilometers far away even thousands of kilometers we can assume that the antenna is in a very remote part of the world, or at very far away part of the world,
The world is full of signals of antennas that's all.
There are satellites at space they produce useless photos but not GPS signal.
Disclaimer:
That's my theory I am not a professional I am just want to speculate according to the laws of this forum.
I don't get it. If you're not a professional, why do you theorize over things that are perfectly well-known to professionals?
It seems like you need to find alternative explanations to things already explained, only to support the belief of a flat earth, for the sake of only yourself.
It's illogical.
I may become professional one day :)
-
Getting back to the subject at hand, ground based GPS could not provide altitude information.
It depends where you direct your signal by the antennas it has nothing to do with satellites.
There are tons of antennas around the world you just need to pick the signal from the sky, there where the antennas point.
-
Getting back to the subject at hand, ground based GPS could not provide altitude information.
It depends where you direct your signal by the antennas it has nothing to do with satellites.
There are tons of antennas around the world you just need to pick the signal from the sky, there where the antennas point.
You really need to do some research on GPS systems. Otherwise you are making no sense. As mentioned , GPS transmiitters operate
on special frequencies, special designs and special modes of operation. For one thing, the GPS transmitter must be higher above the object below to give altitude information. Since aircraft operate at altitudes of 30,00 feet or more, ground based towers would have to be at least 30,000 feet tall.
-
Someone has posted that GPS do not work at Sahara, I will argue that it won't work at places with low coverage from GPS Mountain based antennas.
What happen is that antennas all over the world cover with frequencies a lot of space and then you have your signal to GPS.
The best place to put such an antenna is at mountains, there you can has a lot of connections all over the world, second thing is what we call microwave:
You launch signals from far away and the signal get caught on ground and allow you navigate safely.
Rayzor once said there is a specific frequency - yes this is the frequency for GPS Mountain based antennas.
When we know that antennas are hundreds of kilometers far away even thousands of kilometers we can assume that the antenna is in a very remote part of the world, or at very far away part of the world,
The world is full of signals of antennas that's all.
There are satellites at space they produce useless photos but not GPS signal.
Disclaimer:
That's my theory I am not a professional I am just want to speculate according to the laws of this forum.
How many mountains.are there in the middle of the oceans ?
There are many ways to spread signals across the ocean.
Okay. Like, which?
1) Nearby mountain antennas can launch very powerful rays to the ocean and then you can pick them from high altitude,
2)you can use the stratosphere or the concavity of the earth.
3)powerful antennas can launch very powerful rays and signal to the sky then the rays declining or sinking down and what you have to do is to pick the signal from air.
But you kind of miss some key points.
1. Based on GPS data, you can calculate the exact position of any given GPS satellite that your GPS chip is receiving from
2. "Very powerful rays" is.. Well, vague. What kind of "rays"? Frequency, band etc. Those kind of information are kind of... Important. Different bands and frequencies have different properties, pros and cons, especially when it comes to either bouncing off of he upper atmosphere or following the earth's curvature (like VHF for instance)
3. Picking something from high altitudes, I assume that you them refer to line-of-sight. With what then? Extremely tall GPS antennas?
-
Getting back to the subject at hand, ground based GPS could not provide altitude information.
It depends where you direct your signal by the antennas it has nothing to do with satellites.
There are tons of antennas around the world you just need to pick the signal from the sky, there where the antennas point.
You really need to do some research on GPS systems. Otherwise you are making no sense. As mentioned , GPS transmiitters operate
on special frequencies, special designs and special modes of operation. For one thing, the GPS transmitter must be higher above the object below to give altitude information. Since aircraft operate at altitudes of 30,00 feet or more, ground based towers would have to be at least 30,000 feet tall.
They can direct their rays to high altitude above 30000ft and then the Aircraft will pick it.
I have already told before that there are special frequencies.
-
Someone has posted that GPS do not work at Sahara, I will argue that it won't work at places with low coverage from GPS Mountain based antennas.
What happen is that antennas all over the world cover with frequencies a lot of space and then you have your signal to GPS.
The best place to put such an antenna is at mountains, there you can has a lot of connections all over the world, second thing is what we call microwave:
You launch signals from far away and the signal get caught on ground and allow you navigate safely.
Rayzor once said there is a specific frequency - yes this is the frequency for GPS Mountain based antennas.
When we know that antennas are hundreds of kilometers far away even thousands of kilometers we can assume that the antenna is in a very remote part of the world, or at very far away part of the world,
The world is full of signals of antennas that's all.
There are satellites at space they produce useless photos but not GPS signal.
Disclaimer:
That's my theory I am not a professional I am just want to speculate according to the laws of this forum.
How many mountains.are there in the middle of the oceans ?
There are many ways to spread signals across the ocean.
Okay. Like, which?
1) Nearby mountain antennas can launch very powerful rays to the ocean and then you can pick them from high altitude,
2)you can use the stratosphere or the concavity of the earth.
3)powerful antennas can launch very powerful rays and signal to the sky then the rays declining or sinking down and what you have to do is to pick the signal from air.
But you kind of miss some key points.
1. Based on GPS data, you can calculate the exact position of any given GPS satellite that your GPS chip is receiving from
2. "Very powerful rays" is.. Well, vague. What kind of "rays"? Frequency, band etc. Those kind of information are kind of... Important. Different bands and frequencies have different properties, pros and cons, especially when it comes to either bouncing off of he upper atmosphere or following the earth's curvature (like VHF for instance)
3. Picking something from high altitudes, I assume that you them refer to line-of-sight. With what then? Extremely tall GPS antennas?
1)maybe you can calculate the antenna distance from you and it could be very far away antenna as well.
-
You don't understand. The GPS transmiitter has to be higher than the aircraft to give altitude information, A little GPs research should clear up your questions.
-
Getting back to the subject at hand, ground based GPS could not provide altitude information.
It depends where you direct your signal by the antennas it has nothing to do with satellites.
There are tons of antennas around the world you just need to pick the signal from the sky, there where the antennas point.
You don't understand. The GPS transmiitter has to be higher than the aircraft to give altitude information, A little GPs research should clear up your q.
What the difference between the transmitter being taller than the aircraft or the signal from the transmitter be higher than aircraft, you can use plenty of transmitters for such a deal.
-
Someone has posted that GPS do not work at Sahara, I will argue that it won't work at places with low coverage from GPS Mountain based antennas.
What happen is that antennas all over the world cover with frequencies a lot of space and then you have your signal to GPS.
The best place to put such an antenna is at mountains, there you can has a lot of connections all over the world, second thing is what we call microwave:
You launch signals from far away and the signal get caught on ground and allow you navigate safely.
Rayzor once said there is a specific frequency - yes this is the frequency for GPS Mountain based antennas.
When we know that antennas are hundreds of kilometers far away even thousands of kilometers we can assume that the antenna is in a very remote part of the world, or at very far away part of the world,
The world is full of signals of antennas that's all.
There are satellites at space they produce useless photos but not GPS signal.
Disclaimer:
That's my theory I am not a professional I am just want to speculate according to the laws of this forum.
How many mountains.are there in the middle of the oceans ?
There are many ways to spread signals across the ocean.
Okay. Like, which?
1) Nearby mountain antennas can launch very powerful rays to the ocean and then you can pick them from high altitude,
2)you can use the stratosphere or the concavity of the earth.
3)powerful antennas can launch very powerful rays and signal to the sky then the rays declining or sinking down and what you have to do is to pick the signal from air.
But you kind of miss some key points.
1. Based on GPS data, you can calculate the exact position of any given GPS satellite that your GPS chip is receiving from
2. "Very powerful rays" is.. Well, vague. What kind of "rays"? Frequency, band etc. Those kind of information are kind of... Important. Different bands and frequencies have different properties, pros and cons, especially when it comes to either bouncing off of he upper atmosphere or following the earth's curvature (like VHF for instance)
3. Picking something from high altitudes, I assume that you them refer to line-of-sight. With what then? Extremely tall GPS antennas?
1)maybe you can calculate the antenna distance from you and it could be very far away antenna as well.
Ok. You didn't answer my two other points. Please make an effort to.
And no. GPS data doesn't simply consist of a frequency data and a simple direction. I can tell you with 100% certainty, that the data I read from a GPS chip doesn't come from an antenna. Besides the actual coordinates you'd expect from positioning, you also get stuff like azimuth, angle, altitude (in centimeters for consumer grade chips), latitude, longitude, speed, day, month, year, time stamps, and heaps of other data specific to your configuration.
Please find a better explanation, and while you do, please know that I work with this every single day.
-
Maybe similar versions of things like:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Loon
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratellite
But I get it, many of you RErs aren't willing to consider any possibilities outside of your preconceived notions...
-
Maybe similar versions of things like:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Loon
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki
But I get it, many of you RErs aren't willing to consider any possibilities outside of your preconceived notions...
Wrong. It's not about considering possibilities outside of our "preconceived notions" as "Round Earthers" (which isn't even a thing). Most innovation requires thinking outside the box. Not being able to think outside the box can't be attributed to something as weak a definition as a "Round earther". It can be attributed to a person, regardless of belief or level of knowledge. There's no need to think outside the box to explain what is already explained, such as how the Global Position System works.
Now, Project Loon is a very interesting project! Do notice that the planned altitude is (was?) 18 km. High Altitude Balloons won't go much higher than 40km. That is assuming the use of hydrogen instead of helium. With helium, it's probably lower than that for a balloon not supposed to burst. Those altitudes doesn't comply with the calculations of GPS signals regardless, where even the precision of a simple reciever clock and it's drift can be used to calculate the distance to a GPS satellite.
-
Wrong.
Incorrect.
-
Wrong.
Incorrect.
Right down to your usually completely uninformative answers, keep it up!
-
Wrong.
Incorrect.
Right down to your usually completely uninformative answers, keep it up!
I'm sorry if my previous links were too hard for you to understand. If you need any help, please just ask and I'll do my best to explain in a more simple way for you.
-
Time and time again the flat earth "FAQ" and "wifi" have been found to be useless.
If the flat earthers want to live in their own fantasy world , maybe we should leave tnem alone and leave them to it.
It is useless to present real world facts anyway.
-
Time and time again the flat earth "FAQ" and "wifi" have been found to be useless.
If the flat earthers want to live in their own fantasy world , maybe we should leave tnem alone and leave them to it.
It is useless to present real world facts anyway.
So your point is countered and this is your best reply? You never present evidence for anything. You make baseless statements and then deflect when called out on it. I don't expect you to change.
-
Someone has posted that GPS do not work at Sahara, I will argue that it won't work at places with low coverage from GPS Mountain based antennas.
What happen is that antennas all over the world cover with frequencies a lot of space and then you have your signal to GPS.
The best place to put such an antenna is at mountains, there you can has a lot of connections all over the world, second thing is what we call microwave:
You launch signals from far away and the signal get caught on ground and allow you navigate safely.
Rayzor once said there is a specific frequency - yes this is the frequency for GPS Mountain based antennas.
When we know that antennas are hundreds of kilometers far away even thousands of kilometers we can assume that the antenna is in a very remote part of the world, or at very far away part of the world,
The world is full of signals of antennas that's all.
There are satellites at space they produce useless photos but not GPS signal.
Disclaimer:
That's my theory I am not a professional I am just want to speculate according to the laws of this forum.
How many mountains.are there in the middle of the oceans ?
There are many ways to spread signals across the ocean.
Okay. Like, which?
1) Nearby mountain antennas can launch very powerful rays to the ocean and then you can pick them from high altitude,
2)you can use the stratosphere or the concavity of the earth.
3)powerful antennas can launch very powerful rays and signal to the sky then the rays declining or sinking down and what you have to do is to pick the signal from air.
But you kind of miss some key points.
1. Based on GPS data, you can calculate the exact position of any given GPS satellite that your GPS chip is receiving from
2. "Very powerful rays" is.. Well, vague. What kind of "rays"? Frequency, band etc. Those kind of information are kind of... Important. Different bands and frequencies have different properties, pros and cons, especially when it comes to either bouncing off of he upper atmosphere or following the earth's curvature (like VHF for instance)
3. Picking something from high altitudes, I assume that you them refer to line-of-sight. With what then? Extremely tall GPS antennas?
1)maybe you can calculate the antenna distance from you and it could be very far away antenna as well.
Ok. You didn't answer my two other points. Please make an effort to.
And no. GPS data doesn't simply consist of a frequency data and a simple direction. I can tell you with 100% certainty, that the data I read from a GPS chip doesn't come from an antenna. Besides the actual coordinates you'd expect from positioning, you also get stuff like azimuth, angle, altitude (in centimeters for consumer grade chips), latitude, longitude, speed, day, month, year, time stamps, and heaps of other data specific to your configuration.
Please find a better explanation, and while you do, please know that I work with this every single day.
You are uninformative, how can you tell please that the GPS chip data come from Satellite please share it with us, all of other things can be manipulate without any need of satellites in my opinion you just need imagination.
-
Wrong.
Incorrect.
Right down to your usually completely uninformative answers, keep it up!
I'm sorry if my previous links were too hard for you to understand. If you need any help, please just ask and I'll do my best to explain in a more simple way for you.
I would really like that. One thing I am not understanding is if the GPS system is based on balloons at 18 - 40 KM why don't these altitudes comply with the calculations of the GPS? And I'm not sure but I think you can get altitude or elevation information from positions higher than 18 - 40 Km. How is this possible?
-
Wrong.
Incorrect.
Right down to your usually completely uninformative answers, keep it up!
I'm sorry if my previous links were too hard for you to understand. If you need any help, please just ask and I'll do my best to explain in a more simple way for you.
I would really like that. One thing I am not understanding is if the GPS system is based on balloons at 18 - 40 KM why don't these altitudes comply with the calculations of the GPS? And I'm not sure but I think you can get altitude or elevation information from positions higher than 18 - 40 Km. How is this possible?
I thought you get the distance between the transmitters to the device ?
-
... GPS system is based on balloons at 18 - 40 KM why don't these altitudes comply with the calculations of the GPS?
Do you have any evidence to support this implication?
And I'm not sure but I think you can get altitude or elevation information from positions higher than 18 - 40 Km. How is this possible?
If you aren't sure then why are you positing the question to begin with? Additionally, as I mentioned previously, it is possible that "similar versions" could be responsible. I didn't say this was unequivocal, but obviously these versions would be capable of higher attitudes. I get that you RE types aren't good at context or critical thinking, but please try to make an effort once in a while.
-
... GPS system is based on balloons at 18 - 40 KM why don't these altitudes comply with the calculations of the GPS?
Do you have any evidence to support this implication?
And I'm not sure but I think you can get altitude or elevation information from positions higher than 18 - 40 Km. How is this possible?
If you aren't sure then why are you positing the question to begin with? Additionally, as I mentioned previously, it is possible that "similar versions" could be responsible. I didn't say this was unequivocal, but obviously these versions would be capable of higher attitudes. I get that you RE types aren't good at context or critical thinking, but please try to make an effort once in a while.
I know about the Atomic clock in the Receiver and in the antenna - The atomic clock can calculate the time which the signal arrived, then you know how far is the satellite/antenna - My Theory goes like that - the atomic clock is there to keep the contact with the remote antenna for better coordinates to get in wider Visual, if there were not the clock the gps would pick other signals from closer antennas - that's my theory.
-
... GPS system is based on balloons at 18 - 40 KM why don't these altitudes comply with the calculations of the GPS?
Do you have any evidence to support this implication?
I based this on the following:
Those altitudes doesn't comply with the calculations of GPS signals regardless, where even the precision of a simple reciever clock and it's drift can be used to calculate the distance to a GPS satellite.
Do you disagree with this? Why?
And I'm not sure but I think you can get altitude or elevation information from positions higher than 18 - 40 Km. How is this possible?
If you aren't sure then why are you positing the question to begin with? Additionally, as I mentioned previously, it is possible that "similar versions" could be responsible. I didn't say this was unequivocal, but obviously these versions would be capable of higher attitudes. I get that you RE types aren't good at context or critical thinking, but please try to make an effort once in a while.
I am positing the question because I am quite sure they are accurate at higher elevations.Do you think this is correct or false? If you think it's correct then how is this possible?
I am of the understanding that 40 Km is the upper limit of elevation you can achieve with balloons. Do agree with this or do you think they can achieve even higher altitude?What do you think would be the upper limit?
Also, why are you painting all REers with the same brush? When Gecko did that to FEers we concluded that this position was nonsensical and false.
-
I based this on the following:
Those altitudes doesn't comply with the calculations of GPS signals regardless, where even the precision of a simple reciever clock and it's drift can be used to calculate the distance to a GPS satellite.
Do you disagree with this? Why?
Irrelevant. What I am asking for is evidence. You have provided none. Repeating something that someone else posted, also without evidence, doesn't constitute evidence. If you have none, then simply say so.
I am positing the question because I am quite sure they are accurate at higher elevations.
Fantastic. I am sure you can provide supporting evidence for this.
Do you think this is correct or false?
Irrelevant.
I am of the understanding that 40 Km is the upper limit of elevation you can achieve with balloons.
Cool story, who is talking about balloons?
Do agree with this or do you think they can achieve even higher altitude?
Irrelevant.
Also, why are you painting all REers with the same brush? When Gecko did that to FEers we concluded that this position was nonsensical and false.
I am glad you agree that Gecko is nonsensical.
-
Wrong.
Incorrect.
Right down to your usually completely uninformative answers, keep it up!
I'm sorry if my previous links were too hard for you to understand. If you need any help, please just ask and I'll do my best to explain in a more simple way for you.
I would really like that. One thing I am not understanding is if the GPS system is based on balloons at 18 - 40 KM why don't these altitudes comply with the calculations of the GPS? And I'm not sure but I think you can get altitude or elevation information from positions higher than 18 - 40 Km. How is this possible?
I thought you get the distance between the transmitters to the device ?
No, you measure the difference in time between the atomic watch on the satellite and whatever kind of clock on the receiver.
And guys, stop replying to junker. He's quite clearly just messing around with you.
-
I based this on the following:
Those altitudes doesn't comply with the calculations of GPS signals regardless, where even the precision of a simple reciever clock and it's drift can be used to calculate the distance to a GPS satellite.
Do you disagree with this? Why?
Irrelevant. What I am asking for is evidence. You have provided none. Repeating something that someone else posted, also without evidence, doesn't constitute evidence. If you have none, then simply say so.
First hand observations are evidence.
I am positing the question because I am quite sure they are accurate at higher elevations.
Fantastic. I am sure you can provide supporting evidence for this.
http://www.gps.gov/multimedia/presentations/2011/09/ICG/miller.pdf
Do you think this is correct or false?
Irrelevant.
Incorrect
I am of the understanding that 40 Km is the upper limit of elevation you can achieve with balloons.
Cool story, who is talking about balloons?
You are:
"Project Loon is a research and development project being developed by X (formerly Google X) with the mission of providing Internet access to rural and remote areas. The project uses high-altitude balloons..."
Do agree with this or do you think they can achieve even higher altitude?
Irrelevant.
Incorrect
Also, why are you painting all REers with the same brush? When Gecko did that to FEers we concluded that this position was nonsensical and false.
I am glad you agree that Gecko is nonsensical.
I can agree with your earlier statement that painting a whole group of people with the same brush is nonsensical. Which is what you did here.
-
I can agree with your earlier statement that painting a whole group of people with the same brush is nonsensical. Which is what you did here.
False.
-
The Lapwing Defence.
Describes the two main defensive postures of the FE community on this site and is named (by me) in honour of the Lapwing (Green Plover) that use to grace the fields of my childhood.
Lapwings are fiercely territorial; evolution took the short cut of instead of recognising actual threat species, they will see any and everything that comes close to their nest as “that which must be fucked up” which they will do by mobbing said threat, dive bombing, head pecking and shitting upon, they do this in quite large numbers in the right conditions. FE wise we have seen this with the mobbing of Andruzsky some time back and the wholly unnecessary attacks on Rabs rather cute and pretty style of formatting his posts. This is to be expected and anyone who fails to recognise and deal with this should be derided.
Lapwings however have a fall-back strategy, if alone or the pecking and the shitting isn’t cutting the mustard they will limp along the ground dragging their wing and making pathetic noises, many predators will see an easy meal and stalk the “injured” bird and be drawn away from the nest, it is a fine art to keep the pretence up until the “danger” has forgotten where the fuck he thought the eggs were, but Junker is a master and people keep getting drawn off.
Focus on the eggs people!
-
I can agree with your earlier statement that painting a whole group of people with the same brush is nonsensical. Which is what you did here.
False.
LOL. I really tried to engage you in an actual discussion. It was clear that people who have been here much longer than me thought it was futile. Clearly I should have listened. BTW I have had discussions with FEers whom, though I completely disagree with their view, I can respect them and have a decent discussion with them. And there are GEers who are worse than you. It appears you define everyone by what their position is on the shape of the earth. When you accuse people of not knowing how to have a discussion or you accuse someone of painting a whole group with the same brush, that is practically the definition of hypocrisy. And just to save you the bother of responding to this post, I'll do it for you:
Incorrect. Irrelevant. False. Do you have evidence?
To everyone else: I apologize for being duped by the Lapwing defense and helping to derail various topics. I'll try to recognize it and ignore it from now on. Back to why GPS cannot be ground based:
-
I can agree with your earlier statement that painting a whole group of people with the same brush is nonsensical. Which is what you did here.
False.
LOL. I really tried to engage you in an actual discussion. It was clear that people who have been here much longer than me thought it was futile. Clearly I should have listened. BTW I have had discussions with FEers whom, though I completely disagree with their view, I can respect them and have a decent discussion with them. And there are GEers who are worse than you. It appears you define everyone by what their position is on the shape of the earth. When you accuse people of not knowing how to have a discussion or you accuse someone of painting a whole group with the same brush, that is practically the definition of hypocrisy. And just to save you the bother of responding to this post, I'll do it for you:
Incorrect. Irrelevant. False. Do you have evidence?
To everyone else: I apologize for being duped by the Lapwing defense and helping to derail various topics. I'll try to recognize it and ignore it from now on. Back to why GPS cannot be ground based:
Still no evidence for your position, then. Gotcha.
-
I can agree with your earlier statement that painting a whole group of people with the same brush is nonsensical. Which is what you did here.
False.
LOL. I really tried to engage you in an actual discussion. It was clear that people who have been here much longer than me thought it was futile. Clearly I should have listened. BTW I have had discussions with FEers whom, though I completely disagree with their view, I can respect them and have a decent discussion with them. And there are GEers who are worse than you. It appears you define everyone by what their position is on the shape of the earth. When you accuse people of not knowing how to have a discussion or you accuse someone of painting a whole group with the same brush, that is practically the definition of hypocrisy. And just to save you the bother of responding to this post, I'll do it for you:
Incorrect. Irrelevant. False. Do you have evidence?
To everyone else: I apologize for being duped by the Lapwing defense and helping to derail various topics. I'll try to recognize it and ignore it from now on. Back to why GPS cannot be ground based:
Still no evidence for your position, then. Gotcha.
He don't have to, I've already asked a few questions based on reality that needs explanation before we can continue.
-
He don't have to, I've already asked a few questions based on reality that needs explanation before we can continue.
Not providing evidence seems to be the default position of many RErs...
You'll need to clarify your "reality" claim, though.
-
I am of the understanding that 40 Km is the upper limit of elevation you can achieve with balloons.
Cool story, who is talking about balloons?
You. Remember that post a few back when you were imploring everyone (at least RE's) to think outside the box? You know, the one in which you posited similar ideas to two balloons.
-
Is the question:
a) Is it possible to design, build and maintain a navigation and timing system with the same coverage and features of the GPS systems we currently use?
or b) Is there evidence to show the existing GPS systems use satellites?
a) No, each county would have to agree to build transmitters for the current 4 systems and a solution found for oceans.
b) Read the documentation and the receiver output.
-
I am of the understanding that 40 Km is the upper limit of elevation you can achieve with balloons.
Cool story, who is talking about balloons?
You. Remember that post a few back when you were imploring everyone (at least RE's) to think outside the box? You know, the one in which you posited similar ideas to two balloons.
I would suggest you go back and read the thread again to gain a better understanding of what's being discussed.
-
I am of the understanding that 40 Km is the upper limit of elevation you can achieve with balloons.
Cool story, who is talking about balloons?
You. Remember that post a few back when you were imploring everyone (at least RE's) to think outside the box? You know, the one in which you posited similar ideas to two balloons.
I would suggest you go back and read the thread again to gain a better understanding of what's being discussed.
I've read it and was giving some reason's why ground bases are not a feasible for multi-national Global Navigation Systems.
By the way, I commonly receive over satellites, being a mixture of GPS, GLONASS and a few others.
Are you suggest I could be in range of 20 or more ground (or balloon) bases?
You might be interested in debating "etiquette", I am interested in facts.
-
I am of the understanding that 40 Km is the upper limit of elevation you can achieve with balloons.
Cool story, who is talking about balloons?
You. Remember that post a few back when you were imploring everyone (at least RE's) to think outside the box? You know, the one in which you posited similar ideas to two balloons.
I would suggest you go back and read the thread again to gain a better understanding of what's being discussed.
What's to understand? You told all the RE's to think outside the box and posted two links to balloon based systems. If you don't want to talk about balloons or systems similar to the two you linked to, don't introduce them to support your argument.
-
I am of the understanding that 40 Km is the upper limit of elevation you can achieve with balloons.
Cool story, who is talking about balloons?
You. Remember that post a few back when you were imploring everyone (at least RE's) to think outside the box? You know, the one in which you posited similar ideas to two balloons.
I would suggest you go back and read the thread again to gain a better understanding of what's being discussed.
What's to understand? You told all the RE's to think outside the box and posted two links to balloon based systems. If you don't want to talk about balloons or systems similar to the two you linked to, don't introduce them to support your argument.
I suppose it's a good thing that didn't happen, then.
-
Still no evidence that GPS uses anything other than satellites.
-
Still no evidence that GPS uses anything other than satellites.
Or evidence that it has to use satellites. What a fun thread.
-
Still no evidence that GPS uses anything other than satellites.
Or evidence that it has to use satellites. What a fun thread.
Note, I'm not arguing against the existence of pseudolites. They are being investigated for various applications, such as in
Pseudolite Applications in Positioning and Navigation: Progress and Problems (http://www.sage.unsw.edu.au/wang/jgps/v1n1/v1n1pF.pdf)
and
Test Results of Local Area Augmentation of GPS With an In-Band Pseudolite (https://www.ion.org/publications/abstract.cfm?articleID=389) - abstract only.
Since I have no idea of the properties of your non-satellite GPS stations I can only guess at the range.
This reference suggests a range about 150 km China Satellite Navigation Conference (CSNC) 2013 Proceedings: Satellite . . . . . . . (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=O7tOKccovDoC&pg=PA162&lpg=PA162&dq=range+of+pseudolites&source=bl&ots=W5o3Gx8AfI&sig=uoz-PztKabDd4ZhrDwzGdjJQBj4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj87OfclsDQAhVGKpQKHYYfDfcQ6AEIRzAH#v=onepage&q=range%20of%20pseudolites&f=false)
With Australia being roughly 3,000 km x 4,000 km, this would mean around 10 x 13 = 130 pseudolites to guarantee I could receive one anywhere in the country.
But, I can receive signals up to 23 satellites when in a clear space.
Up to a half of these are GLONOSS and most of the rest the GPS Global Navigation System, so that would seem to need around 3,000 pseudolites, just to cover Australia.
If you have better information on the range of you non-satellite GPS stations we could comment more intelligently, but since it's all a big guess on your part that's the best I can do.
Of course you have no evidence that Australia (or anywhere else) has thousands of "pseudolites" or "ground stations" or whatever you suggest installed by Russia, USA and the EU, so over to you to make suggestions.
Keep dreaming. I'll keep to the simple model so I don't have to dream up excuses for numerous simple observations, like the appearance of sunrises, sunsets and lunar phases.
If it's fun models you want, why not try Terry Pratchett's "Discworld" series - at least his model "hangs together" - more or less!
Mind you if this is his "theory of creation:, he probably was a "big bang" adherent!
"In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded."
Sir Terry Pratchett.
-
Still no evidence that GPS uses anything other than satellites.
Or evidence that it has to use satellites. What a fun thread.
There is no doubt that the systems we use for navigation and timing and call GPS use satellites.
Could we realistically build a land based system giving the same features and performance? No.
-
Still no evidence that GPS uses anything other than satellites.
Or evidence that it has to use satellites. What a fun thread.
There is no doubt that the systems we use for navigation and timing and call GPS use satellites.
Could we realistically build a land based system giving the same features and performance? No.
Citation needed...
-
Still no evidence that GPS uses anything other than satellites.
Or evidence that it has to use satellites. What a fun thread.
There is no doubt that the systems we use for navigation and timing and call GPS use satellites.
Could we realistically build a land based system giving the same features and performance? No.
Citation needed...
1 - Documentation, observation, no evidence of alternative method. Operation in oceans etc.
2 - Please provide links to documented design of an equivalent land based system.
-
Irrelevant. (In b4 junker)
Sorry. Back to GPS systems.
-
Still no evidence that GPS uses anything other than satellites.
Or evidence that it has to use satellites. What a fun thread.
There is no doubt that the systems we use for navigation and timing and call GPS use satellites.
Could we realistically build a land based system giving the same features and performance? No.
Citation needed...
1 - Documentation, observation, no evidence of alternative method. Operation in oceans etc.
2 - Please provide links to documented design of an equivalent land based system.
You're the one who just made the claims, friend. While I appreciate your numbered points, it's up to provide evidence for your claims.
-
Irrelevant. (In b4 junker)
Sorry. Back to GPS systems.
Please refrain from making low content posts in the upper fora. Warned.
-
Still no evidence that GPS uses anything other than satellites.
Or evidence that it has to use satellites. What a fun thread.
There is no doubt that the systems we use for navigation and timing and call GPS use satellites.
Could we realistically build a land based system giving the same features and performance? No.
Citation needed...
(1) You completely ignore Re: I want to hear again the excuses why GPS cannot be ground based ? « Reply #56 on: Today at 01:29:07 AM ». (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=5487.msg107335#msg107335)
Now I fully realise that my posts are irrelevant and worthless, but to be even denied your usual imperious "irrelevant" answer is a little impolite.
But, in that post I described how GPS can be ground based - it is NOT impossible, but absolutely impractical for both political and financial reasons.
(2) You have the boot completely on the wrong foot. You demand "Citation" for inquisitive's claim.
You seem to be the one claiming that we can "realistically build a land based system giving the same features and performance".
So, YOU come up with evidence supporting your inference. We do have a GPS (Global Positioning System),
it gives the claimed accuracy and as far as I can tell gives world coverage, apart from near each pole and under obstructions.
Claims of GPS not working "in the Sahara" and other locations usually boil down to "smartphone" GPS, which usually needs mobile data for maps.
I have self-contained GPS handsets with built-in maps and I have coverage all over Australia and in aircraft and ships over open ocean.
I guess I could waste my time and go through the DECCA and Loran systems, which had neither the accuracy (200 m and 180 m) nor range needed for a modern global navigation system, but you would rubbish that too so I'll leave with your fiction.
-
Irrelevant.
Please refrain from making low content posts in the upper fora. Warned.
I could not agree more with your assessment of my post. That was pretty stupid of me. Just posting the word "irrelevant" without any explanation to back up my one word statement. I will try to refrain from being such an ignorant ignoramus in the future.
Sorry. Back to GPS systems.
-
I will apologize to all the fe'ers. But I am sort of a techie nerd.
All that fe'ers seem to do is to try to ignore , deny , or deride any thing of scientific or technical nature.
And it's usually something of which they are completely ignorant.
The old "Ham Radio Measurements Of The Distance From The Earth To The Moon" was my first attempt and a prime example.
It got so stupid replies from some fe's that it got hilarious.
It does get a bit irksome, but if you don't take it seriously, it can get downright funny.
Seems like GPS is falling into the same pattern.