The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Community => Topic started by: panicp on July 27, 2018, 03:43:31 PM
-
The GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) can pinpoint the location of your car (with it's coordinates) within a couple of metres. Wherever you are in the world.
Are proponents of the flat earth theory able to reliably use or indeed believe this system is truthfully reporting their position on the earth?
If you are a flat earth proponent, I'd like to respectfully ask:
1) Do you think this system is simply a fabrication/elaborate ploy engineered by the US and various collaborative governments to dupe people into believing in a spherical earth model?
2) Do you believe the Chinese Beidou GPS satellite based navigation system is also a fabrication/elaborate ploy to dupe the chinese into believing in a spherical earth model?
3) Anyone, anywhere in the world can lie under the stars, and watch various satellites cross the sky at predicable times and in predictable ways. Are these visible objects placed there by governments as a distraction to further make people believe in a spherical earth model?
4) In consideration of the above questions, and if, indeed, the earth if flat, why would any person, body, government or other, try to hard to maintain the theory of a spherical earth and for what purpose would they do this?
Thank you for your replies.
-
4) In consideration of the above questions, and if, indeed, the earth if flat, why would any person, body, government or other, try to hard to maintain the theory of a spherical earth and for what purpose would they do this?
With regards to Q4, you may want to check out https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy (https://wiki.tfes.org/The_Conspiracy).
I'm not a FE'er, so I'll defer to others on Qs 1-3.
-
very high altitude, long range planes (possibly solar powered).
airplane flights all around the world are already very consistent. remove the need for cargo, passengers, pilots, etc and you can have flights with pinpoint accuracy. nasa even has photos of its high altitude planes on there website and even say they are used for "testing GPS equipment"
-
very high altitude, long range planes (possibly solar powered).
airplane flights all around the world are already very consistent. remove the need for cargo, passengers, pilots, etc and you can have flights with pinpoint accuracy. nasa even has photos of its high altitude planes on there website and even say they are used for "testing GPS equipment"
How high are these planes? How fast do they move? It seems like these are testable questions. If the OP's statement, "Anyone, anywhere in the world can lie under the stars, and watch various satellites cross the sky at predicable times and in predictable ways." is true, then we should be able to objectively test this stuff.
1) Can we see satellites cross the sky?
2) How fast do they move in angular speed?
3) Make a chart of ground-speed vs height to match those angular speeds... what does that tell us?
It doesn't seem all that hard to prove this one way or the other.
-
very high altitude, long range planes (possibly solar powered).
airplane flights all around the world are already very consistent. remove the need for cargo, passengers, pilots, etc and you can have flights with pinpoint accuracy. nasa even has photos of its high altitude planes on there website and even say they are used for "testing GPS equipment"
So you accept the accuracy of GPS?
-
very high altitude, long range planes (possibly solar powered).
airplane flights all around the world are already very consistent. remove the need for cargo, passengers, pilots, etc and you can have flights with pinpoint accuracy. nasa even has photos of its high altitude planes on there website and even say they are used for "testing GPS equipment"
You cannot have flights with pinpoint accuracy 100% of the time.
... but they don't say they're used for "providing a full GPS service", do they?
-
very high altitude, long range planes (possibly solar powered).
airplane flights all around the world are already very consistent. remove the need for cargo, passengers, pilots, etc and you can have flights with pinpoint accuracy. nasa even has photos of its high altitude planes on there website and even say they are used for "testing GPS equipment"
Do you have details of the design and operation?
-
Glad you agree. When I explained in other topic I'm a flat earther pilot and GPS is approved as primary means of navigation and planes land in between mountains night and day, in fact last year we had 4,000,000,000 commercial passengers with zero deaths. Another flat earther was not impressed (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9237.msg144567#msg144567) and did not believe what I said basically.
This is unsurprising, since if you accept that GPS works and as a pilot, you will have studied how it works, and therefore the sorts of errors all pilots need to be aware of:
I'm also a pilot and you would know that pilots in training initially navigate with maps and compasses and that the effect of weather can knock you off course considerably and quickly. Now consider the more usual situation of following a GPS (GNSS) signal which is linked to the autopilot. There are multiple factors which affect the accuracy of GNSS:
1) The ephemeris data (the actual "beamed" position of the satellite) can be up to 2 hours old meaning the the radio transmissions are not coming from where the satellite "says" it is. (Positional errors up to 3m)
2) Clock drift - satellite clock drift errors muck up the calculations of the receiver (can cause positional errors up to 3m)
3) Receiver interference (from other broadcasting stations) - errors of 1.5m
4) Ionospheric errors - (similar to light bending through water, water vapour in the ionosphere bends the radio signals). This can cause errors up to 10m
There are more but the point is, not only is GPS not 100% accurate (although agreed it is accurate enough to fly from one airport to another without too many problems), these satellites must be orbiting for the system to work.
4) ...why would any person, body, government or other, try to hard to maintain the theory of a spherical earth and for what purpose would they do this?
Not just any person. I think you underestimate the size of the conspirary (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=9475.msg147958#msg147958).
I did say "person, body, government or other" - but of more interest would be the other part of the question "for what purpose would they do this"? Do you have a theory as to why this is the case?
How high are these planes? How fast do they move? It seems like these are testable questions.
Everyone can find out position of gps planes now because it is sent out every gps radio signal. Called the "Almanac".
Simple copy of current Almanac here (https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/?pageName=currentAlmanac&format=yuma-txt).
How? Round Earth says satellites, Flat Earth says I don't know. But there are 31 sources in total.
From the accuracy (one can derive an extremely accurate timebase from just a few gps signals alone, to precision of 15nanoseconds from UTC easily), it follows that the published positions of the sources themselves must be extremely accurate AND be very predictable
"I don't know" is unacceptable from a pilot who uses the GPS system. You cannot just cherry pick the bits of science that work for you; this is analogous to someone disputing aerodynamics but still flies by following those same rules - without at least having a cogent alternate theory -which you admit you don't. It's also interesting to note that, as a pilot who presumably does accept the mathematics which takes his plane up into the air and back down again, that the very same mathematics also proves a spherical earth. Again - you cannot cherry pick. It's not surprising your FE colleague got a little suprised by your acceptance of the GPS system. I would too if I believed in a FE.
You simply cannot pick and choose the mathematics that you agree with and that with which you don't.
very high altitude, long range planes (possibly solar powered).
airplane flights all around the world are already very consistent. remove the need for cargo, passengers, pilots, etc and you can have flights with pinpoint accuracy. nasa even has photos of its high altitude planes on there website and even say they are used for "testing GPS equipment"
I'm not sure what your point is here? Are you able to offer an answer to the questions of my OP?
Do you believe that the GPS system exists and works as we are told? And do you use it, say, in your car?
(Also FYI, GPS is operated by the US Air Force strategic command. It is not run by NASA).
-
very high altitude, long range planes (possibly solar powered).
airplane flights all around the world are already very consistent. remove the need for cargo, passengers, pilots, etc and you can have flights with pinpoint accuracy. nasa even has photos of its high altitude planes on there website and even say they are used for "testing GPS equipment"
Do you have details of the design and operation?
Yes, of course, all design plans and calcs are readily available on the internet, you know how open source these guys are... Geez, come on.
-
very high altitude, long range planes (possibly solar powered).
airplane flights all around the world are already very consistent. remove the need for cargo, passengers, pilots, etc and you can have flights with pinpoint accuracy. nasa even has photos of its high altitude planes on there website and even say they are used for "testing GPS equipment"
I'm not sure what your point is here? Are you able to offer an answer to the questions of my OP?
Do you believe that the GPS system exists and works as we are told? And do you use it, say, in your car?
-
very high altitude, long range planes (possibly solar powered).
airplane flights all around the world are already very consistent. remove the need for cargo, passengers, pilots, etc and you can have flights with pinpoint accuracy. nasa even has photos of its high altitude planes on there website and even say they are used for "testing GPS equipment"
Do you have details of the design and operation?
Yes, of course, all design plans and calcs are readily available on the internet, you know how open source these guys are... Geez, come on.
Have you looked at gps.gov? Anything you have a problem with? Calculations have to be open source for receiver designers. There must be Chinese and Russian aircraft flying over the US if you are correct.
-
very high altitude, long range planes (possibly solar powered).
airplane flights all around the world are already very consistent. remove the need for cargo, passengers, pilots, etc and you can have flights with pinpoint accuracy. nasa even has photos of its high altitude planes on there website and even say they are used for "testing GPS equipment"
I'm not sure what your point is here? Are you able to offer an answer to the questions of my OP?
Do you believe that the GPS system exists and works as we are told? And do you use it, say, in your car?
Of course it works, but I disagree on the source of the signal
-
very high altitude, long range planes (possibly solar powered).
airplane flights all around the world are already very consistent. remove the need for cargo, passengers, pilots, etc and you can have flights with pinpoint accuracy. nasa even has photos of its high altitude planes on there website and even say they are used for "testing GPS equipment"
Do you have details of the design and operation?
Yes, of course, all design plans and calcs are readily available on the internet, you know how open source these guys are... Geez, come on.
Have you looked at gps.gov? Anything you have a problem with? Calculations have to be open source for receiver designers. There must be Chinese and Russian aircraft flying over the US if you are correct.
It was very obvious I was replying to the design of the aircraft, but the GPS system, but I think you know that. I believe all agencies and countries are involved in this plot, same as all space travel, moon, Mars, etc
-
very high altitude, long range planes (possibly solar powered).
airplane flights all around the world are already very consistent. remove the need for cargo, passengers, pilots, etc and you can have flights with pinpoint accuracy. nasa even has photos of its high altitude planes on there website and even say they are used for "testing GPS equipment"
Do you have details of the design and operation?
Yes, of course, all design plans and calcs are readily available on the internet, you know how open source these guys are... Geez, come on.
Have you looked at gps.gov? Anything you have a problem with? Calculations have to be open source for receiver designers. There must be Chinese and Russian aircraft flying over the US if you are correct.
It was very obvious I was replying to the design of the aircraft, but the GPS system, but I think you know that. I believe all agencies and countries are involved in this plot, same as all space travel, moon, Mars, etc
Why should GPS be a plot? Receivers give the location of the transmitters.
Do you understand satellite TV? Geosynchronous orbits.
-
very high altitude, long range planes (possibly solar powered).
airplane flights all around the world are already very consistent. remove the need for cargo, passengers, pilots, etc and you can have flights with pinpoint accuracy. nasa even has photos of its high altitude planes on there website and even say they are used for "testing GPS equipment"
Do you have details of the design and operation?
Yes, of course, all design plans and calcs are readily available on the internet, you know how open source these guys are... Geez, come on.
Have you looked at gps.gov? Anything you have a problem with? Calculations have to be open source for receiver designers. There must be Chinese and Russian aircraft flying over the US if you are correct.
It was very obvious I was replying to the design of the aircraft, but the GPS system, but I think you know that. I believe all agencies and countries are involved in this plot, same as all space travel, moon, Mars, etc
Why should GPS be a plot? Receivers give the location of the transmitters.
Do you understand satellite TV? Geosynchronous orbits.
As in my other posts elsewhere, I am not talking "stationary" satellites. Im only referring to gps/iridium orbiting type satellites.
And please don't try and belittle people with stupid posts asking if I understand satellite TV.
-
very high altitude, long range planes (possibly solar powered).
airplane flights all around the world are already very consistent. remove the need for cargo, passengers, pilots, etc and you can have flights with pinpoint accuracy. nasa even has photos of its high altitude planes on there website and even say they are used for "testing GPS equipment"
Do you have details of the design and operation?
Yes, of course, all design plans and calcs are readily available on the internet, you know how open source these guys are... Geez, come on.
Have you looked at gps.gov? Anything you have a problem with? Calculations have to be open source for receiver designers. There must be Chinese and Russian aircraft flying over the US if you are correct.
It was very obvious I was replying to the design of the aircraft, but the GPS system, but I think you know that. I believe all agencies and countries are involved in this plot, same as all space travel, moon, Mars, etc
Why should GPS be a plot? Receivers give the location of the transmitters.
Do you understand satellite TV? Geosynchronous orbits.
As in my other posts elsewhere, I am not talking "stationary" satellites. Im only referring to gps/iridium orbiting type satellites.
And please don't try and belittle people with stupid posts asking if I understand satellite TV.
The operation of GPS systems is well documented, proven and understood.
If you think there is some other way then provide some evidence. It must be a conspiracy is not evidence, just your thoughts.
-
Of course it works, but I disagree on the source of the signal
Do you agree though that from the accuracy of it, it follows that the published positions of the sources themselves must be extremely accurate AND be very predictable?
-
very high altitude, long range planes (possibly solar powered).
airplane flights all around the world are already very consistent. remove the need for cargo, passengers, pilots, etc and you can have flights with pinpoint accuracy. nasa even has photos of its high altitude planes on there website and even say they are used for "testing GPS equipment"
Do you have details of the design and operation?
Yes, of course, all design plans and calcs are readily available on the internet, you know how open source these guys are... Geez, come on.
Have you looked at gps.gov? Anything you have a problem with? Calculations have to be open source for receiver designers. There must be Chinese and Russian aircraft flying over the US if you are correct.
It was very obvious I was replying to the design of the aircraft, but the GPS system, but I think you know that. I believe all agencies and countries are involved in this plot, same as all space travel, moon, Mars, etc
Why should GPS be a plot? Receivers give the location of the transmitters.
Do you understand satellite TV? Geosynchronous orbits.
As in my other posts elsewhere, I am not talking "stationary" satellites. Im only referring to gps/iridium orbiting type satellites.
And please don't try and belittle people with stupid posts asking if I understand satellite TV.
The operation of GPS systems is well documented, proven and understood.
If you think there is some other way then provide some evidence. It must be a conspiracy is not evidence, just your thoughts.
In addition to this valid question, returning to the OP, why would governments/luminati/whoever around the world continue with this conspiracy? In whose interest is it? Clearly you believe the round earth is a conspiracy so what is your opinion as to why this is happening and what do the creators of this conspiracy gain from it?
-
In addition to this valid question, returning to the OP, why would governments/luminati/whoever around the world continue with this conspiracy? In whose interest is it? Clearly you believe the round earth is a conspiracy so what is your opinion as to why this is happening and what do the creators of this conspiracy gain from it?
It is worth questioning the why... because if a GPS-like service (but not reliant on orbiting satellites) was in use, why convince the wider public that satellites are needed to make it function? Why not simply describe this technology as is? The only rationale could be that this technology proves the earth to be flat so it had to be hidden behind a technology using a system reliant on a round-earth.
Seems unlikely to me, but I suppose that's the nature of conspiracies.
-
In addition to this valid question, returning to the OP, why would governments/luminati/whoever around the world continue with this conspiracy? In whose interest is it? Clearly you believe the round earth is a conspiracy so what is your opinion as to why this is happening and what do the creators of this conspiracy gain from it?
It is worth questioning the why... because if a GPS-like service (but not reliant on orbiting satellites) was in use, why convince the wider public that satellites are needed to make it function? Why not simply describe this technology as is? The only rationale could be that this technology proves the earth to be flat so it had to be hidden behind a technology using a system reliant on a round-earth.
Seems unlikely to me, but I suppose that's the nature of conspiracies.
Sound logic. I can't see why the countries that operate GNSS (US, Russia, China), if indeed they don't use orbiting satellites, why don't just say they are using lower altitude flying machines "possible solar powered" as ROUND EYES hypothesises.
I'm very interested in why FET believers think that the flat earth is being hidden behind the supposed myth of the RE?
It's a really important question in the debate because as much as we can argue about science and maths, in any conspiracy on this scale, there surely needs to be a self-serving motive?
So who would benefit from masking a flat earth from mainsteam science and society and why would they do it?
THanks for any replies.
-
why convince the wider public that satellites are needed to make it function? Why not simply describe this technology as is?
The most likely reason, to me, is that they'd have to go back on a past lie. Most space conspiracy theories revolve around the idea that space travel has been fabricated to trick the other side of the Iron Curtain that they're totally about to get blasted with an orbital space laser straight out of Star Wars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative#X-ray_laser). It would likely not be healthy for the organisations who already told that lie to suddenly go back on it. The aftermath of past exposed conspiracies has never been pretty, and I see no reason to believe that it would be any different in this case.
NASA's current approach, for example, is to fade into obscurity. With their funding systematically dropping and their activities becoming less and less public (and, indeed, less and less existent), they might soon have no need to fix their past mistakes. They'll be somebody else's problem.
-
why convince the wider public that satellites are needed to make it function? Why not simply describe this technology as is?
The most likely reason, to me, is that they'd have to go back on a past lie. Most space conspiracy theories revolve around the idea that space travel has been fabricated to trick the other side of the Iron Curtain that they're totally about to get blasted with an orbital space laser straight out of Star Wars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative#X-ray_laser). It would likely not be healthy for the organisations who already told that lie to suddenly go back on it. The aftermath of past exposed conspiracies has never been pretty, and I see no reason to believe that it would be any different in this case.
NASA's current approach, for example, is to fade into obscurity. With their funding systematically dropping and their activities becoming less and less public (and, indeed, less and less existent), they might soon have no need to fix their past mistakes. They'll be somebody else's problem.
Yet the US, Russia, European countries and China all tell us they have GPS satellites and so do the receiver manufacturers.
-
Most space conspiracy theories revolve around the idea that space travel has been fabricated to trick the other side of the Iron Curtain that they're totally about to get blasted with an orbital space laser straight out of Star Wars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative#X-ray_laser). It would likely not be healthy for the organisations who already told that lie to suddenly go back on it. The aftermath of past exposed conspiracies has never been pretty, and I see no reason to believe that it would be any different in this case.
NASA's current approach, for example, is to fade into obscurity. With their funding systematically dropping and their activities becoming less and less public (and, indeed, less and less existent), they might soon have no need to fix their past mistakes. They'll be somebody else's problem.
.. but some of the most active satellite launchers these days (India, say), weren't on any side of the Iron Curtain ... were they?
-
.. but some of the most active satellite launchers these days (India, say), weren't on any side of the Iron Curtain ... were they?
India was firmly committed to close ties with the Soviet Union, and only started supposedly launching satellites some 20 years after them, with assistance from Interkosmos.
They were also hardly "some of the most active satellite launchers".
-
.. but some of the most active satellite launchers these days (India, say)
They were also hardly "some of the most active satellite launchers".
India set a record for the most satellite launches on one mission a year or so ago. 104 deployed from that one mission. They launched 209 satellites for foreign interests, on a commercial basis, between 1999 and 2017 - that's an average of almost 1 per month.
Seems pretty active to me.
https://www.isro.gov.in/sites/default/files/flipping_book/SI-Jan-Jun2017/files/assets/common/downloads/Space%20India%20Jan-Jun%202017.pdf
-
India set a record for the most satellite launches on one mission a year or so ago.
Are you suggesting we were in the middle of the Cold War "a year or so ago"? Seems strange to me, given that the Soviet Union hasn't been around for a while.
Of course, this is also entirely irrelevant to your original assertion that they weren't on either side of the Iron Curtain. And even if you pursued the historically correct (if intellectually dishonest) approach of arguing that they weren't formally in the Eastern Bloc, you'd still have to deny that the first Indian launches were performed by Soviet craft.
-
why convince the wider public that satellites are needed to make it function? Why not simply describe this technology as is?
The most likely reason, to me, is that they'd have to go back on a past lie.
Sorry Pete I'm not following your logic. Which was the past lie you're referring to? I'm not sure of the timeline of attempted space travel, artificial satellites launched, started to lie about space travel to the public, GPS launched etc and why that would mean going back on a past lie.
-
India set a record for the most satellite launches on one mission a year or so ago.
Are you suggesting we were in the middle of the Cold War "a year or so ago"? Seems strange to me, given that the Soviet Union hasn't been around for a while.
Of course, this is also entirely irrelevant to your original assertion that they weren't on either side of the Iron Curtain. And even if you pursued the historically correct (if intellectually dishonest) approach of arguing that they weren't formally in the Eastern Bloc, you'd still have to deny that the first Indian launches were performed by Soviet craft.
What does this have to do with the functionality of satellites on flat Earth? I'd still like to see how gps works on flat Earth. This argument seems like a rather pointless one, your literally arguing over who launched satellites, which apparently don't exist. The original question was on the functionality of satellites and is like to hear a flat Earth opinion on that.
-
India set a record for the most satellite launches on one mission a year or so ago.
Are you suggesting we were in the middle of the Cold War "a year or so ago"? Seems strange to me, given that the Soviet Union hasn't been around for a while.
Of course, this is also entirely irrelevant to your original assertion that they weren't on either side of the Iron Curtain. And even if you pursued the historically correct (if intellectually dishonest) approach of arguing that they weren't formally in the Eastern Bloc, you'd still have to deny that the first Indian launches were performed by Soviet craft.
What does this have to do with the functionality of satellites on flat Earth? I'd still like to see how gps works on flat Earth. This argument seems like a rather pointless one, your literally arguing over who launched satellites, which apparently don't exist. The original question was on the functionality of satellites and is like to hear a flat Earth opinion on that.
if the GPS "satellites" are actually high altitude planes...how does it work any different than the RE explanation?
-
Sorry Pete I'm not following your logic. Which was the past lie you're referring to?
The feasibility of space travel, and our accomplishment thereof. Although I should clarify that I'm speaking hypothetically - I'm not completely sold on the space conspiracy, and it's not a hill I'm willing to die on.
-
if the GPS "satellites" are actually high altitude planes...how does it work any different than the RE explanation?
The detailed operation of the GPS system run and maintained by the USA is incompatible with the signal source being transmitters on high altitude planes.
As such high altitude planes would not work with the RE explanation.
-
India set a record for the most satellite launches on one mission a year or so ago.
Are you suggesting we were in the middle of the Cold War "a year or so ago"? Seems strange to me, given that the Soviet Union hasn't been around for a while.
Of course, this is also entirely irrelevant to your original assertion that they weren't on either side of the Iron Curtain. And even if you pursued the historically correct (if intellectually dishonest) approach of arguing that they weren't formally in the Eastern Bloc, you'd still have to deny that the first Indian launches were performed by Soviet craft.
What does this have to do with the functionality of satellites on flat Earth? I'd still like to see how gps works on flat Earth. This argument seems like a rather pointless one, your literally arguing over who launched satellites, which apparently don't exist. The original question was on the functionality of satellites and is like to hear a flat Earth opinion on that.
if the GPS "satellites" are actually high altitude planes...how does it work any different than the RE explanation?
Hi Round eyes,
Before now, I've setup my telescope to track the ISS (and various satellites) and seen them with my own eyes. Because the ISS is so big (108m wide) compared to TV broadcasting satellites only a few metres, the details are easily visible (1). This video shows very nicely how I was able to see of the ISS as it passed over brightly, then faded and disappeared over NNE while still maybe 40->30degs above the horizon (moving into the penumbra and umbra respectively) as its orbital path would predict (even thought I had to move quite quickly as the telescope panned!!). In terms of the distance of this object from earth, not only is it possible to estimate this from the apparent size given the magnification, but far more accurately, readily available equipment can measure the distance to within cm by the use doppler from the observing point on earth (2).
My question is this: if I invited you over to view the ISS through my 16" Dobonian reflector and you saw the detail of the ISS like this video (my scope is even clearer), AND be able to demonstrably measure it's distance with doppler radio measured instantaneously from a Tx/Rx attached to the scope, would you
a) agree the ISS exists and appears to look like what we are told it looks like? If not, what would be your interpretation of what you see?
b) That, given the relative known positions of the sun and ISS, its fade and disappearance are consistent with the exact mathematical predictions of its orbit (moving from its day->night)?
c) Assuming a measured doppler distance of 900,000 feet (about 290 miles), that it is not an aircraft? (The lack of air pressure at that altitude would make the lift from an aerofoil almost zero)
d) That you therefore conclude the force trying to drag it back to earth must be being opposed in another way (i.e. not aerodynamic lift) in order for it to remain up there for any length of time?
e) Where is that force being generated from?
As per my tags, I'm interested in the debate, and would be very interested in your interpretation of the these observations.
Thanks in advance for your reply.
1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsc80evqJ88
2) http://www.zarya.info/Tracking/Doppler.php (an example of how readily available equipment can be used to track and measure the orbits and distances of satellites).
-
India set a record for the most satellite launches on one mission a year or so ago.
Are you suggesting we were in the middle of the Cold War "a year or so ago"? Seems strange to me, given that the Soviet Union hasn't been around for a while.
Of course, this is also entirely irrelevant to your original assertion that they weren't on either side of the Iron Curtain. And even if you pursued the historically correct (if intellectually dishonest) approach of arguing that they weren't formally in the Eastern Bloc, you'd still have to deny that the first Indian launches were performed by Soviet craft.
What does this have to do with the functionality of satellites on flat Earth? I'd still like to see how gps works on flat Earth. This argument seems like a rather pointless one, your literally arguing over who launched satellites, which apparently don't exist. The original question was on the functionality of satellites and is like to hear a flat Earth opinion on that.
if the GPS "satellites" are actually high altitude planes...how does it work any different than the RE explanation?
Hi Round eyes,
Before now, I've setup my telescope to track the ISS (and various satellites) and seen them with my own eyes. Because the ISS is so big (108m wide) compared to TV broadcasting satellites only a few metres, the details are easily visible (1). This video shows very nicely how I was able to see of the ISS as it passed over brightly, then faded and disappeared over NNE while still maybe 40->30degs above the horizon (moving into the penumbra and umbra respectively) as its orbital path would predict (even thought I had to move quite quickly as the telescope panned!!). In terms of the distance of this object from earth, not only is it possible to estimate this from the apparent size given the magnification, but far more accurately, readily available equipment can measure the distance to within cm by the use doppler from the observing point on earth (2).
My question is this: if I invited you over to view the ISS through my 16" Dobonian reflector and you saw the detail of the ISS like this video (my scope is even clearer), AND be able to demonstrably measure it's distance with doppler radio measured instantaneously from a Tx/Rx attached to the scope, would you
a) agree the ISS exists and appears to look like what we are told it looks like? If not, what would be your interpretation of what you see?
b) That, given the relative known positions of the sun and ISS, its fade and disappearance are consistent with the exact mathematical predictions of its orbit (moving from its day->night)?
c) Assuming a measured doppler distance of 900,000 feet (about 290 miles), that it is not an aircraft? (The lack of air pressure at that altitude would make the lift from an aerofoil almost zero)
d) That you therefore conclude the force trying to drag it back to earth must be being opposed in another way (i.e. not aerodynamic lift) in order for it to remain up there for any length of time?
e) Where is that force being generated from?
As per my tags, I'm interested in the debate, and would be very interested in your interpretation of the these observations.
Thanks in advance for your reply.
1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsc80evqJ88
2) http://www.zarya.info/Tracking/Doppler.php (an example of how readily available equipment can be used to track and measure the orbits and distances of satellites).
what mount/drive do you have on a 16" dob that can track the ISS? i used to use a similar sized dob that required me to stand on a tall ladder to observe (longer f, i think a F8). just keeping a planet in the field of view was difficult to do the magnification being used and the speed the planets moved. tracking a satellite with significantly more speed would seem a bit tough.
answering your quesitons:
A - not disagreeing that is what it looks like, but i see no reason that couldnt be a plane either. of course it doesnt look like any plane you see at an airport, but somethign flying extremely high and most likely solar powered would look different.
B - why wouldnt a plane demonstrate the exact same thing?
C - have you ever done a measurement to verify the height? coordinating with another person at a different location to measure the precise location in the sky and then do the geometry to verify?
D - no, a solar or nuclear driven engine system would work just fine
E - see above
-
D - no, a solar or nuclear driven engine system would work just fine
Solar? C'mon give me a break. Solar doesn't have the capability to "work just fine". The Impulse Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Impulse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Impulse) was a wonderful and noble idea, but seriously that plane couldn't stay airborne for any real length of time. Courses were meticulous planned, weather conditions had to be analyzed over and over. That plane had to be grounded for weeks at a time, or months for repairs and recharging. And still it took over a year for that plane to circumnavigate the earth.
-
D - no, a solar or nuclear driven engine system would work just fine
Solar? C'mon give me a break. Solar doesn't have the capability to "work just fine". The Impulse Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Impulse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Impulse) was a wonderful and noble idea, but seriously that plane couldn't stay airborne for any real length of time. Courses were meticulous planned, weather conditions had to be analyzed over and over. That plane had to be grounded for weeks at a time, or months for repairs and recharging. And still it took over a year for that plane to circumnavigate the earth.
So your argument against the issue of solar in this case is to provide an example of one that was privately funded and operated at a much lower altitude, ignoring the fact governments have access to more advanced tech...
C'mon give us a break...
-
D - no, a solar or nuclear driven engine system would work just fine
Solar? C'mon give me a break. Solar doesn't have the capability to "work just fine". The Impulse Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Impulse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Impulse) was a wonderful and noble idea, but seriously that plane couldn't stay airborne for any real length of time. Courses were meticulous planned, weather conditions had to be analyzed over and over. That plane had to be grounded for weeks at a time, or months for repairs and recharging. And still it took over a year for that plane to circumnavigate the earth.
yeah, so those guys did a really bad job and failed. so? how many amateur's failed to make a rocket that could reach space? years and years of failures to win the prize...yet government allegedly had rockets that could do that 50-60 years ago. you are kind of proving my point it appears.
NOTE: example above to prove a point, not saying i believe rockets were launched into space
-
On the contrary, I'm providing evidence of the best use of solar energy that has ever been seen. They didn't fail, they did a phenomenal job. Fell way short of sustainable flight though.
Seems to me that Round Eyes is claiming the existence of perpetual solar powered aircraft without any evidence that such things can realistically exist. I can provide a known example of my claim that solar isn't technically able to sustain long term flight...Can you provide a documented example of yours?
D - no, a solar or nuclear driven engine system would work just fine
Solar? C'mon give me a break. Solar doesn't have the capability to "work just fine". The Impulse Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Impulse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Impulse) was a wonderful and noble idea, but seriously that plane couldn't stay airborne for any real length of time. Courses were meticulous planned, weather conditions had to be analyzed over and over. That plane had to be grounded for weeks at a time, or months for repairs and recharging. And still it took over a year for that plane to circumnavigate the earth.
So your argument against the issue of solar in this case is to provide an example of one that was privately funded and operated at a much lower altitude, ignoring the fact governments have access to more advanced tech...
C'mon give us a break...
-
On the contrary, I'm providing evidence of the best use of solar energy that has ever been seen. They didn't fail, they did a phenomenal job. Fell way short of sustainable flight though.
Seems to me that Round Eyes is claiming the existence of perpetual solar powered aircraft without any evidence that such things can realistically exist. I can provide a known example of my claim that solar isn't technically able to sustain long term flight...Can you provide a documented example of yours?
that was over 3 years ago and did almost 5 days. that was a relatively low altitude plane as well. interesting that the pictures look kind of like a type of ISS. solar power in general on the private sector has made leaps in the past 5 years alone...and the government's solar capabilities are unknown but i can guarantee light years ahead of commercial applications. They also have access to lighter/stronger materials than was used on the plane that did 5 days.
-
On the contrary, I'm providing evidence of the best use of solar energy that has ever been seen. They didn't fail, they did a phenomenal job. Fell way short of sustainable flight though.
Seems to me that Round Eyes is claiming the existence of perpetual solar powered aircraft without any evidence that such things can realistically exist. I can provide a known example of my claim that solar isn't technically able to sustain long term flight...Can you provide a documented example of yours?
that was over 3 years ago and did almost 5 days. that was a relatively low altitude plane as well. interesting that the pictures look kind of like a type of ISS. solar power in general on the private sector has made leaps in the past 5 years alone...and the government's solar capabilities are unknown but i can guarantee light years ahead of commercial applications. They also have access to lighter/stronger materials than was used on the plane that did 5 days.
Let's say all that is true, its irrelevant. You are still unable to provide any evidence of your claim.
And, the ISS was in orbit years before the Impulse flight project. The technological breakthroughs in solar over the past 5 years are also irrelevant.
-
On the contrary, I'm providing evidence of the best use of solar energy that has ever been seen. They didn't fail, they did a phenomenal job. Fell way short of sustainable flight though.
Seems to me that Round Eyes is claiming the existence of perpetual solar powered aircraft without any evidence that such things can realistically exist. I can provide a known example of my claim that solar isn't technically able to sustain long term flight...Can you provide a documented example of yours?
that was over 3 years ago and did almost 5 days. that was a relatively low altitude plane as well. interesting that the pictures look kind of like a type of ISS. solar power in general on the private sector has made leaps in the past 5 years alone...and the government's solar capabilities are unknown but i can guarantee light years ahead of commercial applications. They also have access to lighter/stronger materials than was used on the plane that did 5 days.
Let's say all that is true, its irrelevant. You are still unable to provide any evidence of your claim.
And, the ISS was in orbit years before the Impulse flight project. The technological breakthroughs in solar over the past 5 years are also irrelevant.
you also missed my question on what mount you had on your telescope.
this might be interesting to you....right from NASA themselves: https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS-034-DFRC.html
they discuss solar powered planes dating back to 1995...interesting coincidence that was 3 years before the ISS "launched"
They also disclose they were working on CLASSIFIED government program in the early 1980s to develop a "high altitude, long endurance aircraft"
in 1998 (same year as ISS launch BTW), they talk about the Pathfinder Plus solar plane that tested and reached an elevation of 80,000 feet.
later the Centurion/Helios prototype hit 100,000 feet. check out the photos. MANY similarities to the ISS images you see.
Oh wait there is more! the ERAST project which says 100,000 feet elevations and would be able to fly continously for weeks or MONTHs at a time with the assistance of a fuel cell. Wow. kind of what i have been saying. crazy. and all this straight from NASA.
now do you think there is a small chance that NASA doesnt disclose all there technology and what they really have is far more advanced? thats not some wacky conspiracy theory....that would be a classified government program, like all these other ones we found out about well after the fact.
-
in 1998 (same year as ISS launch BTW), they talk about the Pathfinder Plus solar plane that tested and reached an elevation of 80,000 feet.
later the Centurion/Helios prototype hit 100,000 feet. check out the photos. MANY similarities to the ISS images you see.
Oh wait there is more! the ERAST project which says 100,000 feet elevations and would be able to fly continously for weeks or MONTHs at a time with the assistance of a fuel cell. Wow. kind of what i have been saying. crazy. and all this straight from NASA.
now do you think there is a small chance that NASA doesnt disclose all there technology and what they really have is far more advanced? thats not some wacky conspiracy theory....that would be a classified government program, like all these other ones we found out about well after the fact.
Way to go make my point for me. You've found the best of the best when it comes to solar powered craft, armed with a dismal airspeed of around 20mph and inability to sustain flight for extended periods (though the altitude numbers are impressive). Absolutely incapable of following the predictable flight path of the ISS.
-
in 1998 (same year as ISS launch BTW), they talk about the Pathfinder Plus solar plane that tested and reached an elevation of 80,000 feet.
later the Centurion/Helios prototype hit 100,000 feet. check out the photos. MANY similarities to the ISS images you see.
Oh wait there is more! the ERAST project which says 100,000 feet elevations and would be able to fly continously for weeks or MONTHs at a time with the assistance of a fuel cell. Wow. kind of what i have been saying. crazy. and all this straight from NASA.
now do you think there is a small chance that NASA doesnt disclose all there technology and what they really have is far more advanced? thats not some wacky conspiracy theory....that would be a classified government program, like all these other ones we found out about well after the fact.
Way to go make my point for me. You've found the best of the best when it comes to solar powered craft, armed with a dismal airspeed of around 20mph and inability to sustain flight for extended periods (though the altitude numbers are impressive). Absolutely incapable of following the predictable flight path of the ISS.
referring to the published info from over 20 years ago? no technological advancement in that time , well outside of the limits of reason? you asked for example and i provided solid information, and from nasa at that.
how about the mount on that 16" dob? which one are you using again? you havent responded on that.
Or would you like to disclose that you did not in fact track the ISS with a 16" dobsonian? its hard enough to hold on a planet that appears motionless in the sky by naked eye without it going out of the eyepiece's view for more than 15 seconds or so, but you are able to maneuver a very large telescope and keep it on a object travelling across the sky at that rate of angular speed.
-
here is another one, straight from airbus...they even call the plane a damn satellite! the Zephyr, capable of flying for months at a time: https://www.airbus.com/defence/uav/zephyr.html
first line on the website: "Zephyr is a High Altitude Pseudo-Satellite (HAPS) that fills a capability gap between satellites and UAVs" LOL.
this plane flys in the stratosphere, yeah. Above the weather (their words).
from that website, geez, sounds like a satelitte to me:
Uniquely designed for both military and commercial purposes, Zephyr can deliver numerous payload capabilities across two platforms. Zephyr S with its ability to carry payloads, offering voice, data communications both line of sight and beyond the line of sight, and line of sight high resolution optical imagery. Zephyr T carrying larger payloads offers the ability to bring more active payloads to the fore; for example, widespread, persistent internet coverage to remote areas of the globe, and active RADAR. Together they enable real-time mapping, internet and a number of surveillance opportunities to meet a broad range of requirements.
-
how about the mount on that 16" dob? which one are you using again? you havent responded on that.
Or would you like to disclose that you did not in fact track the ISS with a 16" dobsonian? its hard enough to hold on a planet that appears motionless in the sky by naked eye without it going out of the eyepiece's view for more than 15 seconds or so, but you are able to maneuver a very large telescope and keep it on a object travelling across the sky at that rate of angular speed.
Calm down Round Eyes. I haven't responded for a very good reason, you are mixing me up with someone else in this thread. Go talk to panicp from Thread reply 31.
-
how about the mount on that 16" dob? which one are you using again? you havent responded on that.
Or would you like to disclose that you did not in fact track the ISS with a 16" dobsonian? its hard enough to hold on a planet that appears motionless in the sky by naked eye without it going out of the eyepiece's view for more than 15 seconds or so, but you are able to maneuver a very large telescope and keep it on a object travelling across the sky at that rate of angular speed.
Calm down Round Eyes. I haven't responded for a very good reason, you are mixing me up with someone else in this thread. Go talk to panicp from Thread reply 31.
My bad. But on a positive note, you're finally correct :)
Thoughts on my follow up posts though??
-
how about the mount on that 16" dob? which one are you using again? you havent responded on that.
Or would you like to disclose that you did not in fact track the ISS with a 16" dobsonian? its hard enough to hold on a planet that appears motionless in the sky by naked eye without it going out of the eyepiece's view for more than 15 seconds or so, but you are able to maneuver a very large telescope and keep it on a object travelling across the sky at that rate of angular speed.
Calm down Round Eyes. I haven't responded for a very good reason, you are mixing me up with someone else in this thread. Go talk to panicp from Thread reply 31.
Planes at 20,200km high?
My bad. But on a positive note, you're finally correct :)
Thoughts on my follow up posts though??
-
how about the mount on that 16" dob? which one are you using again? you havent responded on that.
Or would you like to disclose that you did not in fact track the ISS with a 16" dobsonian? its hard enough to hold on a planet that appears motionless in the sky by naked eye without it going out of the eyepiece's view for more than 15 seconds or so, but you are able to maneuver a very large telescope and keep it on a object travelling across the sky at that rate of angular speed.
Calm down Round Eyes. I haven't responded for a very good reason, you are mixing me up with someone else in this thread. Go talk to panicp from Thread reply 31.
Planes at 20,200km high?
My bad. But on a positive note, you're finally correct :)
Thoughts on my follow up posts though??
20,200 km high? no. obviously not. very apparent from my argument that i do not believe the height/elevations that are noted for satellites are correct. but i think you already know that.
and before you say you can verify the height based on geometry by observing the angle from two locations and then calculating the height....my question would be...have you?
with all you round earthers on this forum, you would think a few of you would team up for a fun exercise to do this...but nothing.
-
These chaps verify the height of various orbital satellites by bouncing lasers off them. Do you have any reason to disbelieve them?
http://sgf.rgo.ac.uk/
They might not be doing this for the GPS satellites, possibly, but they've accumulated a shedload of data on others.
"with all you round earthers on this forum, you would think a few of you would team up for a fun exercise to do this...but nothing."
And do ... what?
-
how about the mount on that 16" dob? which one are you using again? you havent responded on that.
Or would you like to disclose that you did not in fact track the ISS with a 16" dobsonian? its hard enough to hold on a planet that appears motionless in the sky by naked eye without it going out of the eyepiece's view for more than 15 seconds or so, but you are able to maneuver a very large telescope and keep it on a object travelling across the sky at that rate of angular speed.
Calm down Round Eyes. I haven't responded for a very good reason, you are mixing me up with someone else in this thread. Go talk to panicp from Thread reply 31.
Planes at 20,200km high?
My bad. But on a positive note, you're finally correct :)
Thoughts on my follow up posts though??
20,200 km high? no. obviously not. very apparent from my argument that i do not believe the height/elevations that are noted for satellites are correct. but i think you already know that.
and before you say you can verify the height based on geometry by observing the angle from two locations and then calculating the height....my question would be...have you?
with all you round earthers on this forum, you would think a few of you would team up for a fun exercise to do this...but nothing.
That is your opinion. Anyone agree with you?
-
Thoughts on my follow up posts though??
Round Eyes, I'll give you one on the Zephyr. I did not know anything like that existed, you demonstrated otherwise. I'll still say its a big leap to say that the ISS is some sort of solar powered Zephyr-esk craft. But I'll concede that there does exist a solar powered craft that appears to be able to sustain flight for extended periods of time.
Matt
-
why convince the wider public that satellites are needed to make it function? Why not simply describe this technology as is?
The most likely reason, to me, is that they'd have to go back on a past lie. Most space conspiracy theories revolve around the idea that space travel has been fabricated to trick the other side of the Iron Curtain that they're totally about to get blasted with an orbital space laser straight out of Star Wars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defense_Initiative#X-ray_laser). It would likely not be healthy for the organisations who already told that lie to suddenly go back on it. The aftermath of past exposed conspiracies has never been pretty, and I see no reason to believe that it would be any different in this case.
NASA's current approach, for example, is to fade into obscurity. With their funding systematically dropping and their activities becoming less and less public (and, indeed, less and less existent), they might soon have no need to fix their past mistakes. They'll be somebody else's problem.
Very well thought out response. I'm curious to know what you think about satellites that you can locate and are exactly where they are supposed to be, moving where they are supposed to move?
Starwalk for iPad is a killer app that allows you to locate any satellite that is publicly listed.
https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/star-walk-explore-the-sky/id295430577?mt=8
-
Thoughts on my follow up posts though??
Round Eyes, I'll give you one on the Zephyr. I did not know anything like that existed, you demonstrated otherwise. I'll still say its a big leap to say that the ISS is some sort of solar powered Zephyr-esk craft. But I'll concede that there does exist a solar powered craft that appears to be able to sustain flight for extended periods of time.
Matt
High flying planes to bounce a signal off of is very interesting. "This unmanned aircraft provides local satellite-like services". Local service sure. But a solar-powered aircraft at the speeds needed to simulate a GPS (or any other LEO) satellite is ridiculous at best. You can go outside and see satellites moving across the sky.
-
Thoughts on my follow up posts though??
Round Eyes, I'll give you one on the Zephyr. I did not know anything like that existed, you demonstrated otherwise. I'll still say its a big leap to say that the ISS is some sort of solar powered Zephyr-esk craft. But I'll concede that there does exist a solar powered craft that appears to be able to sustain flight for extended periods of time.
Matt
High flying planes to bounce a signal off of is very interesting. "This unmanned aircraft provides local satellite-like services". Local service sure. But a solar-powered aircraft at the speeds needed to simulate a GPS (or any other LEO) satellite is ridiculous at best. You can go outside and see satellites moving across the sky.
A GPS satellite has to be geosynchronous to function properly (its location in the sky does not change). You would never see one moving across the night sky, as not only would this require your eyes to be telescopes, it would also mean you're looking at something that's not a GPS satellite in the first place.
GPS satellites are more than likely to be stationary objects, like stratospheric blimps. NASA and other organizations devoted a lot of time and money to the creation and deployment of those structures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_platform_station
-
Thoughts on my follow up posts though??
Round Eyes, I'll give you one on the Zephyr. I did not know anything like that existed, you demonstrated otherwise. I'll still say its a big leap to say that the ISS is some sort of solar powered Zephyr-esk craft. But I'll concede that there does exist a solar powered craft that appears to be able to sustain flight for extended periods of time.
Matt
High flying planes to bounce a signal off of is very interesting. "This unmanned aircraft provides local satellite-like services". Local service sure. But a solar-powered aircraft at the speeds needed to simulate a GPS (or any other LEO) satellite is ridiculous at best. You can go outside and see satellites moving across the sky.
A GPS satellite has to be geosynchronous to function properly (its location in the sky does not change). You would never see one moving across the night sky, as not only would this require your eyes to be telescopes, it would also mean you're looking at something that's not a GPS satellite in the first place.
GPS satellites are more than likely to be stationary objects, like stratospheric blimps. NASA and other organizations devoted a lot of time and money to the creation and deployment of those structures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_platform_station
GPS satellites have to orbit to give full coverage, see the documentation. Receivers show they orbit.
-
Thoughts on my follow up posts though??
Round Eyes, I'll give you one on the Zephyr. I did not know anything like that existed, you demonstrated otherwise. I'll still say its a big leap to say that the ISS is some sort of solar powered Zephyr-esk craft. But I'll concede that there does exist a solar powered craft that appears to be able to sustain flight for extended periods of time.
Matt
High flying planes to bounce a signal off of is very interesting. "This unmanned aircraft provides local satellite-like services". Local service sure. But a solar-powered aircraft at the speeds needed to simulate a GPS (or any other LEO) satellite is ridiculous at best. You can go outside and see satellites moving across the sky.
A GPS satellite has to be geosynchronous to function properly (its location in the sky does not change). You would never see one moving across the night sky, as not only would this require your eyes to be telescopes, it would also mean you're looking at something that's not a GPS satellite in the first place.
GPS satellites are more than likely to be stationary objects, like stratospheric blimps. NASA and other organizations devoted a lot of time and money to the creation and deployment of those structures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_platform_station
GPS satellites are not geosynchronous. Try again
-
GPS satellites have to orbit to give full coverage, see the documentation. Receivers show they orbit.
A GPS satellite has to be geosynchronous to function properly (its location in the sky does not change). You would never see one moving across the night sky, as not only would this require your eyes to be telescopes, it would also mean you're looking at something that's not a GPS satellite in the first place.
GPS satellites are more than likely to be stationary objects, like stratospheric blimps. NASA and other organizations devoted a lot of time and money to the creation and deployment of those structures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_platform_station
GPS satellites are not geosynchronous. Try again
They also don't exist. Hence why I said "function properly" and not "this is what they do."
-
A GPS satellite has to be geosynchronous to function properly (its location in the sky does not change).
A constellation of geosynchronous navigation/positional satellites would not provide global coverage.
GPS (and Russia's GLONASS, China's BeiDou-2, and eventually the EU's Galileo systems) puts satellites in non-synchronous medium earth orbit, lower than geosynchronous and at various inclinations. Geosynchronous orbit can only be achieved over the equator which incurs limitations. For a global positioning system to "function properly" the satellites can't all be in geosynchronous orbit.
They also don't exist. Hence why I said "function properly" and not "this is what they do."
But even if they were not to exist, geosynchronous is not where they'd have to be to function properly. That's incorrect.
-
GPS satellites have to orbit to give full coverage, see the documentation. Receivers show they orbit.
A GPS satellite has to be geosynchronous to function properly (its location in the sky does not change). You would never see one moving across the night sky, as not only would this require your eyes to be telescopes, it would also mean you're looking at something that's not a GPS satellite in the first place.
GPS satellites are more than likely to be stationary objects, like stratospheric blimps. NASA and other organizations devoted a lot of time and money to the creation and deployment of those structures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_platform_station
GPS satellites are not geosynchronous. Try again
They also don't exist. Hence why I said "function properly" and not "this is what they do."
So if I use an app like star walk to point me to a GPS satellite and I see it moving across the sky in the same path the app shows.... what am I seeing?
-
A constellation of geosynchronous navigation/positional satellites would not provide global coverage.
Would you care to explain why?
GPS (and Russia's GLONASS, China's BeiDou-2, and eventually the EU's Galileo systems) puts satellites in non-synchronous medium earth orbit, lower than geosynchronous and at various inclinations. Geosynchronous orbit can only be achieved over the equator which incurs limitations. For a global positioning system to "function properly" the satellites can't all be in geosynchronous orbit.
This is incorrect, and just a misunderstanding of what GPS is. You should use NASA's reasoning, that geosynchronous orbits would be too expensive, not the reasoning you made up just now. I understand all of your GPS knowledge came from a Wikipedia article, so it makes since that you're confused on the actual functions of it.
So if I use an app like star walk to point me to a GPS satellite and I see it moving across the sky in the same path the app shows.... what am I seeing?
Likely some form of aircraft.
-
Would you care to explain why?
Loss of coverage at the higher latitudes, for one.
This is incorrect, and just a misunderstanding of what GPS is. You should use NASA's reasoning, that geosynchronous orbits would be too expensive, not the reasoning you made up just now. I understand all of your GPS knowledge came from a Wikipedia article, so it makes since that you're confused on the actual functions of it.
I am correct. You are incorrect to presume my knowledge comes from Wikipedia. Don't be defensive. Your statement "A GPS satellite has to be geosynchronous to function properly" is flat out wrong. You cannot get global coverage if all of your satellites are in geosynchronous orbit. Can't work.
-
Loss of coverage at the higher latitudes, for one.
This is incorrect.
I am correct. You are incorrect to presume my knowledge comes from Wikipedia. Don't be defensive. Your statement "A GPS satellite has to be geosynchronous to function properly" is flat out wrong. You cannot get global coverage if all of your satellites are in geosynchronous orbit. Can't work.
Your knowledge did come from Wikipedia and it can in fact work. I'm not sure why you call any of this "defensive", it is merely statements of fact.
-
A GPS satellite has to be geosynchronous to function properly (its location in the sky does not change).
Incorrect. If you have detailed orbital data, then you can calculate the position of the GPS satellite.
Calculation of Satellite Position from Ephemeris Data (https://ascelibrary.org/doi/pdf/10.1061/9780784411506.ap03)
-
Loss of coverage at the higher latitudes, for one.
I *AM* incorrect. But what about what I said is incorrect?
My mistake was instigated by your incorrect assertion: "A GPS satellite has to be geosynchronous to function properly (its location in the sky does not change."
A geosynchronous constellation for global positioning WOULD be technically possible, including coverage at polar regions. However, unlike you're mistaken claim, it isn't required. In fact, it wouldn't be practical. GPS satellites are at MEO for several reasons. Polar coverage is one of them. That doesn't contradict the statement I made that was technically incorrect.
Why?
-
A GPS satellite has to be geosynchronous to function properly (its location in the sky does not change).
That's not true. I don't know if a geostationary system would work.
But the problem with it would be, that all satellites would be in the same orbital plane. Partly signals would come from a similar direction, which gives glancing intersection of the measured spheres. This could degrade accuracy significantly.
Best results are obtained, if satellites, used for getting an actual position, are very well distributed across all the sky.
-
Geostationary orbits are geosynchronous, but geosynchronous need not be geostationary.
Though he used the term geosynchronous, rushy must mean geostationary if he is talking about satellite that does not change location in the sky. Only geostationary (equatorial) satellites satisfy that characteristic. And a global system cannot be based on geostationary vehicles. Not possible.
It becomes possible if you include geostationary satellites in inclined orbit, but those will move, tracking an analemma pattern in the sky.
A constellation of geosynchronous satellites some with inclined or polar orbits could provide global navigational coverage, but would be inferior and more cost prohibitive to one with medium earth orbit vehicles.
Geostationary only? Can only provide partial globe coverage and is not the only functional orbit. MEO not only works but has significant advantages.
-
So if I use an app like star walk to point me to a GPS satellite and I see it moving across the sky in the same path the app shows.... what am I seeing?
Likely some form of aircraft.
This question was attempted answered in otherthread recently that I've lost track of. I guess you should define what you mean by "see it", otherwise we keep going around in circles (which isn't bad necessarily)
-
I am a licensed commercial pilot and now also a retired Merchant Marine officer. GPS is used in both venues for navigation. You probably could use airplanes to transmit GPS information, but it probably wouldn't be practical. While operating in the middle of the Pacific ocean it is not unusual to not see another vessel for a couple of days on the transit between China and California. Usually we can receive signals from 3 to 5 GPS transmitters. The expense and logistics for using airplanes for such a project would be excessive. All this expense just to provide location information for a handful of ships doesn't make much sense. Satellites would be much cheaper, and more reliable. Of course, if there's a dome over the ocean, then satellites wouldn't be possible. In any event the position data we get is very good. Even the position info I get using my iPhone matches what I see on the regular ship's GPS receivers. We usually follow a great circle route, weather permitting, while on the 7000 mile trip. This kind of a route makes no sense on anything but a global earth.
-
I am a licensed commercial pilot and now also a retired Merchant Marine officer. GPS is used in both venues for navigation. You probably could use airplanes to transmit GPS information, but it probably wouldn't be practical. While operating in the middle of the Pacific ocean it is not unusual to not see another vessel for a couple of days on the transit between China and California. Usually we can receive signals from 3 to 5 GPS transmitters. The expense and logistics for using airplanes for such a project would be excessive. All this expense just to provide location information for a handful of ships doesn't make much sense. Satellites would be much cheaper, and more reliable. Of course, if there's a dome over the ocean, then satellites wouldn't be possible. In any event the position data we get is very good. Even the position info I get using my iPhone matches what I see on the regular ship's GPS receivers. We usually follow a great circle route, weather permitting, while on the 7000 mile trip. This kind of a route makes no sense on anything but a global earth.
Only 3 to 5? My phone picks up 15.
-
Your phone could be capable of receiving 15 different sats, but you probably wouldn't be receiving usable signals from all of them simultaneously. The GPS 'birds' are in continuous low earth orbit and cover the whole earth. Only a certain combination would be visible to your phone and in use at any given time. On a large ship we usually have the antennas mounted on a railing just above the bridge. This makes them easy to get at in case of a failure. Because of this, some of the antennas could be blocked in certain directions by the stack or the radar towers. We have to be careful because the microwave radiation from the radars can interfere with the GPS signals in certain circumstances. In any event, we usually receive usable signals anywhere in the world and even use differential GPS while near land for additional accuracy.
-
The GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) can pinpoint the location of your car (with it's coordinates) within a couple of metres. Wherever you are in the world.
That is only possible because of the missing orbital Sagnac effect and of the missing solar gravitational potential effect.
GPS functions because the satellites DO NOT register the orbital Sagnac effect, and only record the Coriolis effect upon the e/m signals.
The precision of the signal would be degraded significantly had the satellites recorded the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT, which is 60 times greater than the Coriolis effect.
That is why mainstream relativists are abandoning Einstein's version of relativity, and are embracing Lorentz' local-aether model to save the situation.
http://qem.ee.nthu.edu.tw/f1b.pdf
This is an IOP article.
-
Interesting you provide a link to a paper which references the rotating earth.
Cherry-picking, much?
-
You cannot have a rotating earth if the orbital Sagnac effect is missing.
GPS technology changed everything for the relativists: now they have to deal with the missing solar gravitational potential effect and with the missing orbital Sagnac effect.
To save the situation, they have begun to accept the local-aether model (Lorentz relativity), that is why the author of the IOP article still uses the term "rotating earth".
What is the local-aether model?
(https://image.ibb.co/mio417/ether1.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/mcsa8n/ether1b.jpg)
The aether/ether is translational but not rotational. That is, the Earth rotates around the Sun with its ether field attached to it, which is fixed (not rotating around the Earth's axis); the ether field is being translated along with the orbit of the Earth.
This artifice permits the relativists, at first sight, to have their cake and eat it too.
Now, they can claim that the local-aether model absorbs the missing orbital Sagnac effect.
Believe it or not, this is the last stand of the relativists: a rotating Earth with a fixed local-aether field surrounding the Earth, the Modified Lorentz Ether Theory (MLET).
In order to make things even easier, the local-aether field becomes the gravitational field of the Earth which also is fixed and does not rotate around the Earth's axis.
"A Gravity-based Theory
There is, however, another theory that does not rely on the concept of an aether, but is very closely aligned with the aether theories discussed thus far. The late Emeritus Professor of Electrical Engineering Petr Beckmann proposed that the outdated term "aether" could be replaced with the more modern term "gravity." Clearly, a gravitational field would have characteristics very similar to a partially entrained aether. Both would cause the bending of light rays. Gravity would be strongest near the surface of the planet where the partially entrained aether was most dense. Light would still behave in the same manner, if the speed of light is constant with respect to the source of the dominant gravitational field. This would square with all of the known experimental data because in nearly every case, the observer has always been tied to the Earth-bound frame of reference—so we substitute the word "gravity" for the word "aether." Obviously gravity exists and we know that, although gravity is "emitted" by the Earth, it does not rotate with it. So this is a very plausible replacement for a partially entrained aether. It also stands to reason if we speculate that light is actually a disturbance in the gravitational field.
Dr. William Cantrell"
The local aether model (potential) thus becomes also the gravitational potential for the rotating spherical Earth.
However, this aether (potential) envelope is stationary: that is, the Earth rotates within this spherical shell of aether/ether.
But now comes the huge invalidation of this fixed local-aether model.
The magnetic field of the Earth has been proven to have BOTH NORTH-SOUTH AND SOUTH-NORTH streams of particles.
(http://images.slideplayer.com/19/5795021/slides/slide_4.jpg)
Until recently, it was thought that the streams travelled ONLY in the south to north direction.
(https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width_feature/public/images/607968main_geomagnetic-field-orig_full.jpg)
The lines of force issue forth from the south pole, arc through space, and re-enter at the other end, the north pole.
The magnetic field of the Earth HAS TO rotate together with the Earth:
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/127766/does-the-geomagnetic-field-rotate
The gravitational field of the Earth does not rotate with the Earth:
The phenomenal work done by SPINTRONICS proved that there are TWO STREAMS OF PARTICLES, south-north AND north-south:
SPINTRONICS, secret world of magnets, the most thorough work on the double helix theory of the magnetic field (double helix of the telluric currents):
https://freeenergycommunity.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/the-secret-world-of-magnets-spintronics-2006-howard-johnson.pdf
(https://image.ibb.co/dzvKmJ/ma2_zps4ijijfcw.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/diVr0d/ma3_zpsyg7asb12.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/mQxM0d/ma1_zpstnoewm3f.jpg)
This mysterious SECOND STREAM/FLUX OF PARTICLES was already described in 1903 and 1904 by E.T. Whittaker: it is the gravitational string of the electrogravitational field of the Earth.
The electrogravitational field has magnetic waves AND ALSO gravitational waves.
This is the missing part of the unified field theory.
E.T. Whittaker proved mathematically the existence of the electrogravitational potential, the bidirectional longitudinal waves.
They travel/propagate in double torsion fashion.
No physicist to date has observed this crucial fact: the magnetic wave and the gravitational wave form a single structure, the electrogravitational field. The gravitational potential consists of bosons which flow through dextrorotatory subquarks (electrons), and the electromagnetic potential is made up of bosons which propagate through laevorotatory subquarks (positrons).
This fact then allows us to immediately state that the Earth does not and could not rotate around its own axis: it is stationary.
Since the electrogravitational field is comprised of the two waves in a double torsion form (the gravitational + the electromagnetic waves) THEY HAVE TO ROTATE TOGETHER AT THE SAME RATE, in order for its effects to be observed/recorded.
One (the gravitational field) cannot be stationary, while the other (the magnetic field) rotates at a certain rate: the bidirectional waves which comprise this lattice would be decoupled in an instant.
THEY HAVE TO ROTATE TOGETHER. In the case of heliocentrism, one of them HAS TO BE STATIONARY, WHILE THE OTHER ONE ROTATES.
(http://www.sciencebuddies.org/Files/3719/12/earth-magnetic-field.jpg)
But these constitute only HALF of the field lines of a magnet.
(https://image.ibb.co/dEuUmJ/spintro1.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/cRSFRJ/spintro2.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/cN4qty/spintro3.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/iRouLd/spintro4.jpg)
There two flows of subquarks/magnetic monopoles: South-Center-North AND North-Center-South.
The modern study of the magnetic field/electromagnetism ONLY includes the South to North flow.
Yet, there are TWO continuous streams of different particles.
What, then, is the nature of the SECOND flux of particles?
https://web.archive.org/web/20160203121514/http://www.electricitybook.com/magnetricity/hojo-leed.jpg
"Magnetic current is the same as electric current is a wrong expression. Really it is not one current they are two currents, one current is composed of North Pole individual magnets in concentrated streams, and the other is composed of South Pole magnets in concentrated streams, and they are running one stream against the other stream in whirling, screw like fashion, and with high speed."
Modern science only studies one of these streams.
Whittaker proved that the potential consists of pairs of bidirectional longitudinal scalar waves, and that the same equation governs both gravity and magnetism.
The second flow/stream of particles IS THE GRAVITATIONAL WAVE, which has a dextrorotatory spin. Both flows/streams form the ELECTROGRAVITATIONAL FIELD.
The spherical orbiting Earth has a STATIC gravitational field and a ROTATING magnetic field.
But in reality BOTH have to be rotating.
That is why the local-aether model cannot be true.
-
The GNSS (Global Navigation Satellite System) can pinpoint the location of your car (with it's coordinates) within a couple of metres. Wherever you are in the world.
That is only possible because of the missing orbital Sagnac effect and of the missing solar gravitational potential effect.
GPS functions because the satellites DO NOT register the orbital Sagnac effect, and only record the Coriolis effect upon the e/m signals.
The precision of the signal would be degraded significantly had the satellites recorded the missing ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT, which is 60 times greater than the Coriolis effect.
Actually, the Sagnac effect, as well as other relativistic effects, are considered in GPS calculations.
The Sagnac Effect in the Global Positioning System
Abstract
In the Global Positioning System (GPS) the reference frame used for navigation is an earth-centered, earth-fixed rotating frame, the WGS-84 frame. The time reference is defined in an underlying earth-centered locally inertial frame, freely falling with the earth but non-rotating, with a time unit determined by atomic clocks at rest on earth’s rotating geoid. Therefore GPS receivers must apply significant Sagnac or Sagnac-like corrections, depending on how information is processed by the receiver. These corrections can be described either from the point of view of the local inertial frame, in which light travels with uniform speed c in all directions, or from the point of view of an earth-centered rotating frame, in which the Sagnac effect is described by terms in the fundamental scalar invariant that couple space and time. Such corrections are very important for comparing time standards world-wide.
-
I would agree that a GPS system could be constructed using a whole bunch of aircraft, but it wouldn't be practical. The logistics of operating the fleet of aircraft necessary for good coverage of the earth would be substantial. Additionally, they would have to have a place to takeoff and land. Multiple countries now have GPS systems and I have personally used the American and Russian ones in the middle of all the earth's major oceans. Multiple airports, world wide, would be necessary and they would also have to be kept a completely secret as to their location. Pilots would know of their presents because sooner or later they would have to be given vectors for avoidance purposes when the GPS 'aircraft' had to return to land for service. Additionally GPS orbits are published and the speeds necessary to complete those published orbits are way beyond any known aircraft types. There's just too many 'facts' about the system that I've seen with my own eyes to believe that the system is not composed of satellites. For someone that only uses the GPS in a car or to do a little geocaching, or Pokemon hunting I could see where it really wouldn't matter much. As for me we depended on accurate GPS position data for our very lives while at sea. We took the operation and maintenance of our GPS receivers seriously.
-
Actually, the Sagnac effect, as well as other relativistic effects, are considered in GPS calculations.
Let us see the formula which N. Ashby puts forth in front of his readers:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.615.3798&rep=rep1&type=pdf (page 10)
(https://image.ibb.co/cCb2Tp/area.jpg)
But this is the Coriolis effect formula: area x angular velocity.
You haven't done your homework on this one either.
In fact, Ashby himself accepts the fact that the correction is caused by the Coriolis effect:
"In the rotating frame of reference the effect appears to arise from a Coriolis-like term in the fundamental scalar invariant." (page 19 from the paper).
(https://image.ibb.co/geRwSo/kel11.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/fkfHYT/kel10.jpg)
It is not the ROTATIONAL SAGNAC EFFECT they are measuring, in fact it is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
No rotational Sagnac effect is being observed/recorded.
No orbital Sagnac effect is being registered at all.
That is why the relativists are accepting the local-aether model.
-
(https://image.ibb.co/geRwSo/kel11.jpg)
(https://image.ibb.co/fkfHYT/kel10.jpg)
It is not the ROTATIONAL SAGNAC EFFECT they are measuring, in fact it is the CORIOLIS EFFECT formula.
No rotational Sagnac effect is being observed/recorded.
No orbital Sagnac effect is being registered at all.
Your own source says that Sagnac-like corrections are unavoidable so the corrections are applied by the GPS receiving unit. GNSS even takes this, and other relativistic effects, into account in the engineering requierments.
Another relevant phenomena is the so-called Sagnac effect which concerns the propagation of electromagnetic signals in rotating reference frames. For the case of the GNSS, the Sagnac effect can amount to about 100 nanoseconds, corresponding approximately to 30 meters. Thus, satellite positioning systems provides the means to test the current theory of relativity. GPS has already been used to test the isotropy of the speed of light with a great precision and with the expected clocks improvement in the GNSS System it is expected to improve the test of the violation of the Local Positioning Invariance (LPI).
-
You haven't studied the subject.
The "Sagnac" effect is not needed at all if light anisotropy is assumed:
https://web.archive.org/web/20170426170819/http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/apr/article/viewFile/30130/17851
But the correction mentioned by Ashby is NOT the rotational Sagnac effect: it is, in fact, the Coriolis effect of the ether drift upon the e/m signal.
-
But the correction mentioned by Ashby is NOT the rotational Sagnac effect: it is, in fact, the Coriolis effect of the ether drift upon the e/m signal.
Coriolis effects only occur above surfaces that are:
A- Visible
B- Rotating.
If the surface of your earth is visible, but not rotating, there will be NO Coriolis effect above that surface.
If your drifting ether is rotating, but not visible, it will NOT create a Coriolis effect.
When a drifting ether exert a force on moving objects and e/m waves, then this force should not be confused with the Coriolis force.
In case of a real Coriolis effect the moving object or electromagnetic waves travels in a straight line, and therefore both (mass & wave) can be subject of the same Coriolis effect.
Physical objects have mass and that mass gives them "inertia". To overcome inertia and change the trajectory of a physical object we can use a real force
Electromagnetic waves have no mass, so no inertia, and are not sensitive to forces that can change the kinetic energy of physical objects with mass.
Example:
To change the velocity and trajectory of a football, we can kick it with our foot.
But we cannot change the velocity and trajectory of an Electromagnetic wave by kicking, pushing or pulling it. That won't work, that wave will go on moving with the same speed and in the same direction, no matter how hard we kick it.
The experiments you are referring only talk about a change in "velocity of the propagation path" as a result of propagation through an ether field, not about a change from a linear to a curved propagation path, that is theoretically impossible, because waves always move in a straight line trough a medium.
And here falls your theory apart: When the Coriolis effect on earth is observed to have the same effect on electromagnetic waves as it has on objects with mass, then this can only be explained with a rotating earth (bcs here both keep moving in a straight line), not with ether drift. Because a medium like ether can change the velocity of an electromagnetic wave, but that will not change its trajectory from "straight" into "curved". And forces that can curve the path of a physical object do not influence propagation of electromagnetic waves.
Bottom line: A medium like ether can change the velocity of an electromagnetic wave, but can not make that wave follow a curved trajectory. That's why the researchers you are using to legitimise your ether-drift theory will never abandon their spinning earth as the sole explanation for the observed Coriolis effect.
-
Because a medium like ether can change the velocity of an electromagnetic wave, but that will not change its trajectory from "straight" into "curved".
You must be dreaming.
Dr. Ludwik Silberstein calculated the PRECISE deflection due to the Coriolis effect on a light beam:
dt = 4ωA/c^2
It is a physical effect.
Only the Sagnac effect will cause the modification of the velocity of the light beams.
You are most forgetful.
Michelson and Gale recorded ONLY the Coriolis effect, and not the rotational Sagnac effect.
That is, the Earth does not rotate: only the Coriolis effect of the ether drift was registered by the fringe shifts of the interferometer.
If your drifting ether is rotating, but not visible, it will NOT create a Coriolis effect.
But it will: you need to understand the hydrodynamic ether equation.
“This implies an important conclusion: bodies of different volumes that are in the same gradient medium acquire the same acceleration.
Note that if we keep watch on the fall of bodies of different masses and volumes in the Earth’s gravitation field under conditions when the effect of the air resistance is minimized (or excluded), the bodies acquire the same acceleration. Galileo was the first to establish this fact. The most vivid experiment corroborating the fact of equal acceleration for bodies of different masses is a fall of a lead pellet and bird feather in the deaerated glass tube. Imagine we start dividing one of the falling bodies into some parts and watching on the fall of these parts in the vacuum. Quite apparently, both large and small parts will fall down with the same acceleration in the Earth’s gravitation field. If we continue this division down to atoms we can obtain the same result. Hence it follows that the gravitation field is applied to every element that has a mass and constitutes a physical body. This field will equally accelerate large and small bodies only if it is gradient and acts on every elementary particle of the bodies. But a gradient gravitation field can act on bodies if there is a medium in which the bodies are immersed. Such a medium is the ether medium. The ether medium has a gradient effect not on the outer sheath of a body (a bird feather or lead pellet), but directly on the nuclei and electrons constituting the bodies. That is why bodies of different densities acquire equal acceleration.
Equal acceleration of the bodies of different volumes and masses in the gravitation field also indicates such an interesting fact that it does not matter what external volume the body has and what its density is. Only the ether medium volume that is forced out by the total amount of elementary particles (atomic nuclei, electrons etc.) matters. If gravitation forces acted on the outer sheath of the bodies then the bodies of a lower density would accelerate in the gravitation field faster than those of a higher density.
The examples discussed above allow clarifying the action mechanism of the gravitation force of physical bodies on each other. Newton was the first to presume that there is a certain relation between the gravitation mechanism and Archimedean principle. The medium exerting pressure on a gravitating body is the ether.”
Now, an unbelievable fact.
HERE IS THE GPS USER NAVIGATION INTERFACE MANUAL:
http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200H.pdf
NO SAGNAC EFFECT IS MENTIONED AT ALL.
The only term which looks like a correction is found on page 97:
-2RV/c2, where R is the position vector of the SV (space vehicle), and V is the velocity of the SV.
NO ANGULAR VELOCITY OF THE EARTH IS INVOLVED.
That is, the user manual treats the entire system AS IF the Earth is stationary.
The e/m signal from the satellite will encounter the ether drift: both a physical effect (Coriolis) and an electromagnetic Sagnac effect (density of ether at different altitudes) on the linear/translational/uniform light path.
A medium like ether can change the velocity of an electromagnetic wave, but can not make that wave follow a curved trajectory.
Your lack of knowledge is what is preventing you from reaching the correct conclusions.
Dr. Silberstein revealed the error committed by M. von Laue in the paper published in 1911:
"Laue seems, by the way, to be under the misapprehension that the light rays relative to the rotating table are straight lines, which they are not."
In 1921, Dr. Silberstein proposed that the Sagnac effect, as it relates to the rotation of the Earth or to the effect of the ether drift, must be explained in terms of the Coriolis effect: the direct action of Coriolis forces on counterpropagating waves.
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Silberstein.pdf
The propagation of light in rotating systems, Journal of the Optical Society of America, vol. V, number 4, 1921
Dr. Silberstein developed the formula published by A. Michelson using very precise details, not to be found anywhere else.
He uses the expression kω for the angular velocity, where k is the aether drag factor.
He proves that the formula for the Coriolis effect on the light beams is:
dt = 2ωσ/c^2
Then, Dr. Silberstein analyzes the area σ and proves that it is actually a SUM of two other areas (page 300 of the paper, page 10 of the pdf document).
The effect of the Coriolis force upon the interferometer will be to create a convex and a concave shape of the areas: σ1 and σ2.
The sum of these two areas is replaced by 2A and this is how the final formula achieves its final form:
dt = 4ωA/c^2
A = σ1 + σ2
That is, the CORIOLIS EFFECT upon the light beams is totally related to the closed contour area.
In 1922, Dr. Silberstein published a second paper on the subject, where he generalizes the nature of the rays arriving from the collimator:
http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Historical%20Papers-Mechanics%20/%20Electrodynamics/Download/2645
In 1924, one year before the Michelson-Gale experiment, Dr. Silberstein published a third paper, where he again explicitly links the Coriolis effect to the counterpropagating light beams in the interferometer:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14786442408634503
-
Your phone could be capable of receiving 15 different sats, but you probably wouldn't be receiving usable signals from all of them simultaneously. The GPS 'birds' are in continuous low earth orbit and cover the whole earth. Only a certain combination would be visible to your phone and in use at any given time. On a large ship we usually have the antennas mounted on a railing just above the bridge. This makes them easy to get at in case of a failure. Because of this, some of the antennas could be blocked in certain directions by the stack or the radar towers. We have to be careful because the microwave radiation from the radars can interfere with the GPS signals in certain circumstances. In any event, we usually receive usable signals anywhere in the world and even use differential GPS while near land for additional accuracy.
In view 17 in use 14.
-
Because a medium like ether can change the velocity of an electromagnetic wave, but that will not change its trajectory from "straight" into "curved".
You must be dreaming.
You must be sleeping.
Dr. Ludwik Silberstein calculated the PRECISE deflection due to the Coriolis effect on a light beam:
dt = 4ωA/c^2
Yes, but they all explain that Coriolis effect on a light beam as the result of a spinning earth, not a spinning ether, because spinning ethers can not create Coriolis effects. Impossible. And Dr. Ludwik Silberstein knows that, because he knows what a Coriolis effect is.
It is a physical effect.
No. The Coriolis effect is NOT a physical effect, it is an OPTICAL EFFECT: a straight line observed as curved because the frame of reference of the observer (Including the observer himself) is rotating. When the observer leaves the rotating reference frame to a fixed non-rotating point of observation, he will see the light beam as a straight, not curved line above a rotating surface.
And if the earth is stationary, we the observers are not rotating with a rotating reference frame, and for that reason we will not see any Coriolis effects above a stationary earth.
The fatal flaws in your theory are:
1- The observer has to be rotating with his rotating reference frame; a rotating ether does not rotate the observer, so no Coriolis effect to be observed above a stationary earth.
2- The ether is invisible, and therefore completely useless to explain optical effects, like the Coriolis effect.
3- The ether is a medium, and electromagnetic waves travel in a straight line through media, not in a curved line.
4- If a spinning medium like ether would "drag" electromagnetic waves, it would only do so in one direction, not in two opposite directions simultaneously like the Coriolis effect does:
(https://docs.google.com/drawings/d/e/2PACX-1vTThsuW2t4MYdwqB6kFPft3t3iwfdq90QsHN-txHJ6SdRbiLBrC7-8wJumHvVSAb4aWpRp68KhLMnVe/pub?w=256&h=365)
Therefore a spinning earth as explanation for the Coriolis effect can not be replaced by an invisible spinning ether, and none of the researchers you are linking to is doing so.
-
Not only are you dreaming, you haven't even bothered to read Dr. Silberstein's paper.
Yes, but they all explain that Coriolis effect on a light beam as the result of a spinning earth, not a spinning ether, because spinning ethers can not create Coriolis effects. Impossible. And Dr. Ludwik Silberstein knows that, because he knows what a Coriolis effect is.
http://www.conspiracyoflight.com/Michelson-Gale/Silberstein.pdf
Dr. Silberstein, right on the first page:
TO BEGIN WITH THE AETHER-THEORY TREATMENT...
THEN HE INTRODUCES THE ROTATION AETHER DRAGGING FACTOR:
κω
Even the main formula (12) takes into account the aether drag factor.
If a spinning medium like ether would "drag" electromagnetic waves, it would only do so in one direction, not in two opposite directions simultaneously like the Coriolis effect does
The ether drift is LATITUDE DEPENDENT, just like the globe earth Coriolis effect.
The Coriolis effect is NOT a physical effect, it is an OPTICAL EFFECT: a straight line observed as curved because the frame of reference of the observer (Including the observer himself) is rotating.
Not anymore.
HERE IS THE CORRECT ROTATIONAL SAGNAC FORMULA:
(https://image.ibb.co/dbZ7Kd/gsac2.jpg)
EXPERIMENTAL PROOF PROVIDED BY PROFESSOR P. YEH:
(https://image.ibb.co/mtGWny/mgrot6.jpg)
The most ingenious experiment performed by Professor Yeh: light from a laser is split into two separate fibers, F1 and F2 which are coiled such that light travels clockwise in F1 and counterclockwise in F2.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/26797550_Self-pumped_phase-conjugate_fiber-optic_gyro
Self-pumped phase-conjugate fiber-optic gyro, I. McMichael, P. Yeh, Optics Letters 11(10):686-8 · November 1986
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170203.pdf (appendix 5.1)
The first phase-conjugate Sagnac experiment on a segment light path with a self-pumped configuration.
The Sagnac phase shift for the first fiber F1:
+2πR1L1Ω/λc
The Sagnac phase shift for the second fiber F2:
-2πR2L2Ω/λc
These are two separate Sagnac effects, each valid for the two fibers, F1 and F2.
The use of the phase conjugate mirror permits the revealing of the final formula, the total phase difference:
φ = -2(φ2 - φ1) = 4π(R1L1 + R2L2)Ω/λc
To obtain the correct Sagnac effect for two separate segments (which feature different lengths and different speeds) of an interferometer which is located away from the center of rotation, one has to add (not substract) the two distinct components.
Please wake up!
Michelson published this formula, proven to be the Coriolis effect formula:
4AΩ/c^2
He emphasized that this is the Sagnac effect formula, which it is not.
Can you understand these basic things?
MICHELSON RECORDED/REGISTERED ONLY THE CORIOLIS EFFECT AND NOT THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC EFFECT.
This means that the Earth is completely stationary.
Had the Earth been rotating around its own axis, BOTH EFFECTS would have been recorded.
The fringe shifts recorded ONLY the Coriolis effect of the ether drift: a physical effect upon the light beams, a simple deflection, just as proven by Dr. Silberstein.
No Sagnac effect was detected, which is an electromagnetic effect on the velocity of the light beams, an effect thousands of times greater than the Coriolis effect.
A total invalidation of your half-baked ideas.
Please do your homework before posting nonsense.
-
Now, let us compare the two formulas, Coriolis vs. Sagnac, using the latitude, for the Michelson-Gale experiment.
The turning of the MGX area at the hypothetical rotational speed of the Earth takes place a distance of some 4,250 km from the center of the Earth (latitude 41°46').
FULL CORIOLIS EFFECT FOR THE MGX:
4AΩsinΦ/c2
FULL SAGNAC EFFECT FOR THE MGX:
4Lv(cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/c2
Sagnac effect/Coriolis effect ratio:
R((cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2)/hsinΦ
R = 4,250 km
h = 0.33924 km
The rotational Sagnac effect is much greater than the Coriolis effect for the MGX.
Φ1 = Φ = 41°46' = 41.76667°
Φ2 = 41°45' = 41.75°
R((cos2Φ1 + cos2Φ2) = 4729.885
hsinΦ = 0.225967
4729.885/0.225967 = 20,931.72
THE ROTATIONAL SAGNAC EFFECT IS 21,000 TIMES GREATER THAN THE CORIOLIS EFFECT.
Michelson and Gale recorded ONLY the Coriolis effect, and not the rotational Sagnac effect.
Case closed.
-
Michelson and Gale recorded ONLY the Coriolis effect, and not the rotational Sagnac effect.
Case closed.
If Michelson and Gale recorded the Coriolis effect (with or without the Sagnac effect), then they were standing on a rotating floor.
And if this rotating floor was fixed to the earth, they proved the earth is rotating.
Because Coriolis effects only can be recorded if the recorder is rotating, and ether does not rotate Michelson and Gale.
Case closed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcPs_OdQOYU
-
If Michelson and Gale recorded the Coriolis effect (with or without the Sagnac effect), then they were standing on a rotating floor.
And if this rotating floor was fixed to the earth, they proved the earth is rotating.
Had the rotational Sagnac effect been recorded, then and only then you'd be able to claim MGX were standing on a rotating floor.
Unfortunately for the RE, Michelson's interferometer in Clearing, Illinois, registered ONLY the Coriolis effect of the ether drift. Not the rotational Sagnac effect, which is thousands of times greater than the Coriolis effect.
Two different formulas: one is proportional to the area of the interferometer (Coriolis effect), the other one is proportional to the velocity (radius of the earth x angular velocity) (Sagnac effect), a huge difference.
I have the formulas, you have nothing.
I win.
-
When the experiments were done on a stationary earth, not only the rotational Sagnac effect, but also the Coriolis effect should not be recorded.
And since the Coriolis effect is an optical effect, you always need a visible rotating surface to create it.
Invisible media, like the ether, can not be used to create & explain an optical effect.
If that is too hard for you to understand, then you've a serious problem understanding what the Coriolis effect is.
I have the formulas, you have nothing.
I win.
You have formulas, but you don't know how to use them. And those who know how to use those formulas, know they need a spinning globe to make them work.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and formulas only can prove a theory when they are used, but to copy/paste formulas you don't know how to use is not the same thing as using them. Pasting formulas does not prove theories.
So no victory for you yet, until you have figured out & demonstrated how those formulas based on spinning globes can be used to prove a stationary earth.