[TomInAustin]

A network of solar planes travelling at 14,000km/h? If you believe they're NOT travelling at 14,000km/h (i.e the speed of GPS satellites), it's exactly same argument as above: impossible to spoof.

Besides, it's NOT simpler to run solar plane fleet than orbiting satellites... Orbits are very predicable: atmosphere is not. Planes are mechanical, satellites are not. Mechanical things fail, especially those constantly adjusting for weather conditions. If you're saying they fly "above weather" the amount of additional power required to stay airborne on very thin air would be significant. If it were easy to run a fleet of solar planes, there would also be fleets of commercial/passenger solar planes. Planes fall out of the sky all the time: do you think solar planes never would? Do we keep that quiet somehow?

Adjusting GPS for time dilation, although extremely awesome and surprising, is also pretty trivial to calculate. Giant chunks of metal orbiting around a globe at 14,000km/h is extremely awesome, but reasonably simple. Don't confuse "awesome" for "complicated"

Way off, that speed is needed to orbit earth in 12 hours at the supposed altitude of 12,000 miles above earth.  If the planes are traveling approx 15 miles about earth, that works out to around 2,200 mph, or Mach 3....based on round earth math.  Reasonable, try again

LOL Mach 3 is reasonable for a solar-powered aircraft?  Now that is funny!   Where are the sonic booms we would hear with every pass?

[Round Eyes]

A network of solar planes travelling at 14,000km/h? If you believe they're NOT travelling at 14,000km/h (i.e the speed of GPS satellites), it's exactly same argument as above: impossible to spoof.

Besides, it's NOT simpler to run solar plane fleet than orbiting satellites... Orbits are very predicable: atmosphere is not. Planes are mechanical, satellites are not. Mechanical things fail, especially those constantly adjusting for weather conditions. If you're saying they fly "above weather" the amount of additional power required to stay airborne on very thin air would be significant. If it were easy to run a fleet of solar planes, there would also be fleets of commercial/passenger solar planes. Planes fall out of the sky all the time: do you think solar planes never would? Do we keep that quiet somehow?

Adjusting GPS for time dilation, although extremely awesome and surprising, is also pretty trivial to calculate. Giant chunks of metal orbiting around a globe at 14,000km/h is extremely awesome, but reasonably simple. Don't confuse "awesome" for "complicated"

Way off, that speed is needed to orbit earth in 12 hours at the supposed altitude of 12,000 miles above earth.  If the planes are traveling approx 15 miles about earth, that works out to around 2,200 mph, or Mach 3....based on round earth math.  Reasonable, try again

LOL Mach 3 is reasonable for a solar-powered aircraft?  Now that is funny!   Where are the sonic booms we would hear with every pass?

Might want to do some research on that before making yourself look silly

[TomInAustin]

A network of solar planes travelling at 14,000km/h? If you believe they're NOT travelling at 14,000km/h (i.e the speed of GPS satellites), it's exactly same argument as above: impossible to spoof.

Besides, it's NOT simpler to run solar plane fleet than orbiting satellites... Orbits are very predicable: atmosphere is not. Planes are mechanical, satellites are not. Mechanical things fail, especially those constantly adjusting for weather conditions. If you're saying they fly "above weather" the amount of additional power required to stay airborne on very thin air would be significant. If it were easy to run a fleet of solar planes, there would also be fleets of commercial/passenger solar planes. Planes fall out of the sky all the time: do you think solar planes never would? Do we keep that quiet somehow?

Adjusting GPS for time dilation, although extremely awesome and surprising, is also pretty trivial to calculate. Giant chunks of metal orbiting around a globe at 14,000km/h is extremely awesome, but reasonably simple. Don't confuse "awesome" for "complicated"

Way off, that speed is needed to orbit earth in 12 hours at the supposed altitude of 12,000 miles above earth.  If the planes are traveling approx 15 miles about earth, that works out to around 2,200 mph, or Mach 3....based on round earth math.  Reasonable, try again

LOL Mach 3 is reasonable for a solar-powered aircraft?  Now that is funny!   Where are the sonic booms we would hear with every pass?

Might want to do some research on that before making yourself look silly

i know enough about aviation ot not have to look anything up.  I stick by what I said.   The one who looks silly is the one that thinks solar-powered airplanes are the GPS platform.

[Round Eyes]

A network of solar planes travelling at 14,000km/h? If you believe they're NOT travelling at 14,000km/h (i.e the speed of GPS satellites), it's exactly same argument as above: impossible to spoof.

Besides, it's NOT simpler to run solar plane fleet than orbiting satellites... Orbits are very predicable: atmosphere is not. Planes are mechanical, satellites are not. Mechanical things fail, especially those constantly adjusting for weather conditions. If you're saying they fly "above weather" the amount of additional power required to stay airborne on very thin air would be significant. If it were easy to run a fleet of solar planes, there would also be fleets of commercial/passenger solar planes. Planes fall out of the sky all the time: do you think solar planes never would? Do we keep that quiet somehow?

Adjusting GPS for time dilation, although extremely awesome and surprising, is also pretty trivial to calculate. Giant chunks of metal orbiting around a globe at 14,000km/h is extremely awesome, but reasonably simple. Don't confuse "awesome" for "complicated"

Way off, that speed is needed to orbit earth in 12 hours at the supposed altitude of 12,000 miles above earth.  If the planes are traveling approx 15 miles about earth, that works out to around 2,200 mph, or Mach 3....based on round earth math.  Reasonable, try again

LOL Mach 3 is reasonable for a solar-powered aircraft?  Now that is funny!   Where are the sonic booms we would hear with every pass?

Might want to do some research on that before making yourself look silly

i know enough about aviation ot not have to look anything up.  I stick by what I said.   The one who looks silly is the one that thinks solar-powered airplanes are the GPS platform.

So you know that sonic boom drastically decreases as altitude increases and the impact once you go past 1.3 Mach is neglible?  That kind of aviation knowledge?  Remind me to never get on an airplane with you, co-pilot

You round earthers will say anything without any knowledge or research

[TomInAustin]

A network of solar planes travelling at 14,000km/h? If you believe they're NOT travelling at 14,000km/h (i.e the speed of GPS satellites), it's exactly same argument as above: impossible to spoof.

Besides, it's NOT simpler to run solar plane fleet than orbiting satellites... Orbits are very predicable: atmosphere is not. Planes are mechanical, satellites are not. Mechanical things fail, especially those constantly adjusting for weather conditions. If you're saying they fly "above weather" the amount of additional power required to stay airborne on very thin air would be significant. If it were easy to run a fleet of solar planes, there would also be fleets of commercial/passenger solar planes. Planes fall out of the sky all the time: do you think solar planes never would? Do we keep that quiet somehow?

Adjusting GPS for time dilation, although extremely awesome and surprising, is also pretty trivial to calculate. Giant chunks of metal orbiting around a globe at 14,000km/h is extremely awesome, but reasonably simple. Don't confuse "awesome" for "complicated"

Way off, that speed is needed to orbit earth in 12 hours at the supposed altitude of 12,000 miles above earth.  If the planes are traveling approx 15 miles about earth, that works out to around 2,200 mph, or Mach 3....based on round earth math.  Reasonable, try again

LOL Mach 3 is reasonable for a solar-powered aircraft?  Now that is funny!   Where are the sonic booms we would hear with every pass?

Might want to do some research on that before making yourself look silly

i know enough about aviation ot not have to look anything up.  I stick by what I said.   The one who looks silly is the one that thinks solar-powered airplanes are the GPS platform.

So you know that sonic boom drastically decreases as altitude increases and the impact once you go past 1.3 Mach is neglible?  That kind of aviation knowledge?  Remind me to never get on an airplane with you, co-pilot

You round earthers will say anything without any knowledge or research

I was referring to the silly idea that a solar-powered aircraft that could achieve supersonic flight.  Remind me to never read your silly ideas again.   As for sonic booms, they are still very noticeable, it's why Concord was not allowed to fly supersonic over land.  Get your facts straight or stay out of debates.    GPS aircraft indeed... LOL

[Round Eyes]

A network of solar planes travelling at 14,000km/h? If you believe they're NOT travelling at 14,000km/h (i.e the speed of GPS satellites), it's exactly same argument as above: impossible to spoof.

Besides, it's NOT simpler to run solar plane fleet than orbiting satellites... Orbits are very predicable: atmosphere is not. Planes are mechanical, satellites are not. Mechanical things fail, especially those constantly adjusting for weather conditions. If you're saying they fly "above weather" the amount of additional power required to stay airborne on very thin air would be significant. If it were easy to run a fleet of solar planes, there would also be fleets of commercial/passenger solar planes. Planes fall out of the sky all the time: do you think solar planes never would? Do we keep that quiet somehow?

Adjusting GPS for time dilation, although extremely awesome and surprising, is also pretty trivial to calculate. Giant chunks of metal orbiting around a globe at 14,000km/h is extremely awesome, but reasonably simple. Don't confuse "awesome" for "complicated"

Way off, that speed is needed to orbit earth in 12 hours at the supposed altitude of 12,000 miles above earth.  If the planes are traveling approx 15 miles about earth, that works out to around 2,200 mph, or Mach 3....based on round earth math.  Reasonable, try again

LOL Mach 3 is reasonable for a solar-powered aircraft?  Now that is funny!   Where are the sonic booms we would hear with every pass?

Might want to do some research on that before making yourself look silly

i know enough about aviation ot not have to look anything up.  I stick by what I said.   The one who looks silly is the one that thinks solar-powered airplanes are the GPS platform.

So you know that sonic boom drastically decreases as altitude increases and the impact once you go past 1.3 Mach is neglible?  That kind of aviation knowledge?  Remind me to never get on an airplane with you, co-pilot

You round earthers will say anything without any knowledge or research

I was referring to the silly idea that a solar-powered aircraft that could achieve supersonic flight.  Remind me to never read your silly ideas again.   As for sonic booms, they are still very noticeable, it's why Concord was not allowed to fly supersonic over land.  Get your facts straight or stay out of debates.    GPS aircraft indeed... LOL

Right, of course.  You get schooled on facts so you decide to change what we were talking about.  OK, great debate tactic.  Everything I have said was based on facts and have provided backup as requested, you are the one guessing at things which I then correct you on.  Research what you say before posting to avoid these embarrassing exchanges.

[inquisitive]

A network of solar planes travelling at 14,000km/h? If you believe they're NOT travelling at 14,000km/h (i.e the speed of GPS satellites), it's exactly same argument as above: impossible to spoof.

Besides, it's NOT simpler to run solar plane fleet than orbiting satellites... Orbits are very predicable: atmosphere is not. Planes are mechanical, satellites are not. Mechanical things fail, especially those constantly adjusting for weather conditions. If you're saying they fly "above weather" the amount of additional power required to stay airborne on very thin air would be significant. If it were easy to run a fleet of solar planes, there would also be fleets of commercial/passenger solar planes. Planes fall out of the sky all the time: do you think solar planes never would? Do we keep that quiet somehow?

Adjusting GPS for time dilation, although extremely awesome and surprising, is also pretty trivial to calculate. Giant chunks of metal orbiting around a globe at 14,000km/h is extremely awesome, but reasonably simple. Don't confuse "awesome" for "complicated"

Way off, that speed is needed to orbit earth in 12 hours at the supposed altitude of 12,000 miles above earth.  If the planes are traveling approx 15 miles about earth, that works out to around 2,200 mph, or Mach 3....based on round earth math.  Reasonable, try again

LOL Mach 3 is reasonable for a solar-powered aircraft?  Now that is funny!   Where are the sonic booms we would hear with every pass?

Might want to do some research on that before making yourself look silly

i know enough about aviation ot not have to look anything up.  I stick by what I said.   The one who looks silly is the one that thinks solar-powered airplanes are the GPS platform.

So you know that sonic boom drastically decreases as altitude increases and the impact once you go past 1.3 Mach is neglible?  That kind of aviation knowledge?  Remind me to never get on an airplane with you, co-pilot

You round earthers will say anything without any knowledge or research

I was referring to the silly idea that a solar-powered aircraft that could achieve supersonic flight.  Remind me to never read your silly ideas again.   As for sonic booms, they are still very noticeable, it's why Concord was not allowed to fly supersonic over land.  Get your facts straight or stay out of debates.    GPS aircraft indeed... LOL

Right, of course.  You get schooled on facts so you decide to change what we were talking about.  OK, great debate tactic.  Everything I have said was based on facts and have provided backup as requested, you are the one guessing at things which I then correct you on.  Research what you say before posting to avoid these embarrassing exchanges.

Do some research and the facts will show GPS uses satellites.

[SiDawg]

Can we stop quoting everyone's entire post?

But thinking further on this "they're not satellites, they're planes" idea... The same problem occurs as in original post: you can not spoof a time stamp and have it work for every observer.

If you're saying planes fly around somewhere close to 15 miles high... GPS is 12000 miles high. So when a receiver gets a signal from ANY GPS, it's going to be at least 12000 miles worth of distance right? (i.e. if it's directly over head, it's 12,000 miles away). The original post was all about the horizontal positioning, but the vertical position is just as important. If you think planes are 15 miles high, 5 miles high, 100 miles high... they will have to "spoof" their time stamp to make an observer think they're 12,000 miles above the exact location that the "plane" is transmitting. If they spoof their time stamp as being earlier than it really is, then an observer in a second location is going to have the completely wrong distance. You can not spoof a time stamp for an individual location without affecting other observers: you can not provide a spoofed signal for every seperate observer, unless you're proposing there's some sort of "tailored highly directional radio signal" being generated for all individual users? 

As for your comment that you were using RE understand to calculate the speed of the planes... just get you and a friend or two to take logs of GPS signals over a 5 minute period, then see if you can come up with an alternate explanation for the information it tells you. The signals will be able to tell you the effective ground speed of GPS. Start with an assumption the world is flat by all means: good luck with that!

Effectively what i'm proposing, is to use GPS in the opposite manner: you can use the same signals to tell you the location, height, and speed of GPS satellites if you have three or more ground based observers/loggers. When your calculations show they're 12,000 miles high and travelling at 8,700mph, try to come up with a possible method that ground or plane based antennas can fake that information.

[MeMyselfAndI]

Fine, here is the map for iridium satellites and outages then :  http://downdetector.com/status/iridium/map/

Interesting they used a flat earth map with Antarctica shown as an ice wall.... 

But feel free to keep clutching for straws

I don’t know what map you’re looking at, but that link goes to the typical representation of Earth when a globe is inconvenient for 2D screens.

[Round Eyes]

Fine, here is the map for iridium satellites and outages then :  http://downdetector.com/status/iridium/map/

Interesting they used a flat earth map with Antarctica shown as an ice wall.... 

But feel free to keep clutching for straws

I don’t know what map you’re looking at, but that link goes to the typical representation of Earth when a globe is inconvenient for 2D screens.

by typical representation of earth when a glob is inconvenient....yeah a flat earth map.  it shows antartica huge and going around the entire south part of the map.   interesting, google earth works fine on my 2D screen

[andiwd]

Fine, here is the map for iridium satellites and outages then :  http://downdetector.com/status/iridium/map/

Interesting they used a flat earth map with Antarctica shown as an ice wall.... 

But feel free to keep clutching for straws

I don’t know what map you’re looking at, but that link goes to the typical representation of Earth when a globe is inconvenient for 2D screens.

by typical representation of earth when a glob is inconvenient....yeah a flat earth map.  it shows antartica huge and going around the entire south part of the map.   interesting, google earth works fine on my 2D screen

Not sure why your making a mountain out of this but I'll bite. Yes this is a standard type of map when shown on a 2d screen. In fact all the info you need is available right there. In the bottom right of the map is the info of who provides the map, which in this case OpenStreetMap.org. In their wiki they go into detail about the type of projection used on the map which in this case is EPSG:3857 or "web-Mercator. They are completely upfront and detail the errors that can originate by using this map as well as the latitudes it's available for.

Google itself uses two systems, a 2d or a 3d map. The 2d map is the one shown above.

[SiDawg]

Just because there are occasional GPS outages, what does that prove? Someone said something like "if they're 12,000 miles above earth, how come there are outages?"... I mean. what?? Hunks of metal travelling 12,000 miles above earth at thousands of miles an hour... i'm surprised there are only OCCASIONAL outages. Probably your strongest argument against GPS is that it's so remarkably reliable, not that it's slightly unreliable??

But going back to the original post... to my mind there is no way you can spoof GPS information unless there is "something else" travelling at 8000 miles an hour 12,000 miles above a flat earth. And even if that's so, you can't spoof the "shape" of the earth for the same reason: if magic spoofing planes are giving accurate location information, then we can use that information to accurately measure points between the earth. Once you start mapping that out, you realise the world is a globe. It's the same argument: you can't spoof GPS information to pretend that some bits of land are longer or shorter than other parts, without destroying the accuracy for "other" observers using the same satellites...

[rabinoz]

by typical representation of earth when a glob is inconvenient....yeah a flat earth map.

No, it is not "a flat earth map" but a projection on a 2-D surface (your flat screen) of a 3-D object (the Globe).
So it's "a flat map" representing the Globe and map-makers for over 1000 years have recognised that and the distortion it causes..

it shows antartica huge and going around the entire south part of the map.

And it shows the arctic huge and going around the entire north part of the map, that's what the Mercator projection does.

interesting, google earth works fine on my 2D screen

and it's interesting that Google Earth does not "show antartica huge and going around the entire south part of the map", why?

It's a different projection. This time it's a sterographic projection that shows how the Globe would look from the stated "eye-height".
Look a how Antarctica look from a 25,000 km eye height:

And Greenland from a 25,000 km eye height:

And do you notice something?
Google Earth can never show more than half the earth, which explains why Mercator or a similar projection is used to display the whole earth when needed.
This is at the expense of severe distortion of sizes, directions and/or shapes.

[SiDawg]

Kind of astounding to entertain the notion the world is flat isn't it. I mean what, the globe model just "happens" to consistently fit with an endless amount of observations? If the world was actually flat, just think of the endless procession of scientists, pilots, ships captains raising hell to everyone who would listen "hey! these globe coordinates make no sense?? i'm in a completely different location than where i think i am!" or "none of my scientific conclusions work with a globe, they only work if the world is flat!". It would be constantly in the news. Private companies would've spent millions proving the world was flat. Impossible to hide.

You kinda have to stop and think about the ridiculousness of this flat earth theory now and again. You could probably estimate it with maths. Take the probability of a global conspiracy, multiplied by the probability that no significant number of scientific experiments ever made someone think "hmmm, maybe this thing is flat??", multiplied by the probability the sun magically rotates around the flat earth when no other observable object does, multiplied by the odds no one in the global conspiracy ever sold their story to the media... etc...

Let's see.... .01 * .01 * .01 * .01 (and that's being extremely generous)... Odds about 1 in 100 Million? Still sounds high. I mean come on... there are literally photos taken of half the globe every 10 minutes lol (Disclaimer: some statistics may have been completely pulled out of my, er, globe)

[nickrulercreator]

also, why is it that areas have random times of no satelitte coverage?  i mean, supposedly these things are hundreds/thousands of miles up:   http://www.nstb.tc.faa.gov/24Hr_RAIM.htm

Look at the map. The outage area seems to follow a pattern over the equator. The longest period of outage repeats 4 times, one over the Pacific to the West of South America, one in the Atlantic between S. America and Africa, one in the Indian Ocean just East of Africa, and one in the Pacific just East of Indonesia and North of Papua New Guinea. It is highly likely that this is due to the orbits of the satellites not crossing over those parts, or less satellites crossing over those parts than normal. It also seems planned that the outages occur where they do, because it's over water. Why would planes just avoid those four, regular, repeating areas? Why not cover those areas with the planes?

In the map you can also see the center two dropout areas (one between S. America and Africa, one East of Africa) have two perturbations. The left one has two going South. The right one has two going North. This seems more evident that it is simply something to do with the orbits of the satellites. Why would planes be making these patterns?

There are still more patterns on the map. Up at the top of the map a pattern repeats twice. There are five blobs in each pattern. The first section has blobs over the Southern area of Alaska, the Easternmost part of Alaska, a very large blob over very-North Canada, a blob over western Greenland, and a straighter blob between Greenland and Iceland. This exact pattern, with the shapes nearly perfect, repeats over Russia (East-West it goes Baltic Sea, Finland, biggest blob over central-north Russia (south of the Kara sea), one just south of the Laptev Sea, and the straight blob just south of the East Siberian Sea).

In the South are patterns as well. For this one I'll use the longitude and lattitude markers as a guide to wear to look. At -80S, -150W is a blob that repeats again at -80S, 25E. A blob at -70S,-100W repeats around -70S,75E. A blob that stretches from -80S to -60S and -25W to 0 (it's two that connect at a small area) repeats again at -80S to -60S and 150E-200E. There's one blob around -40S, -125W repeats at -40S, 50E.

Nearly every outage blob repeats somewhere on the map on the exact other side (180^o) of the Earth.

No way is this a fleet of planes.