The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Theory => Topic started by: coffeebreak on December 08, 2014, 06:19:11 PM
-
Hello, I was just wondering if there is a theory on how my GPS could work if there are no sattelites to support the technology?
-
Sonar.
Sonar bounces off reflectors on weather balloons. This data is then processed and sent via cell towers. At least, that's my working theory.
-
Radio signals from terrestrial transmitters can also precisely triangulate your position.
-
Stratellites, or satellites within the atmosphere, function much in the same way satellites do in RET.
-
Hello, I was just wondering if there is a theory on how my GPS could work if there are no sattelites to support the technology?
There are satellites, just not at the altitudes most people think they are. GPS works as advertised thanks to them.
-
That is what I am talking about. 4 posters, 4 answers and not a single caveat.
-
That is what I am talking about.
I'm confused, this is your first post in this thread.
4 posters, 4 answers and not a single caveat.
There are 4 separate yet equally plausible answers here. ???
-
That is what I am talking about. 4 posters, 4 answers and not a single caveat.
Stop talking about it, and just stay out of the thread. Ty.
-
That is what I am talking about. 4 posters, 4 answers and not a single caveat.
What are you talking about? Spoon, Tintagel and Vauxy said basically the same thing.
-
That is what I am talking about. 4 posters, 4 answers and not a single caveat.
What are you talking about? Spoon, Tintagel and Vauxy said basically the same thing.
That's a fairly generous interpretation.
EDIT: Wanted to add a bit more since I posted in haste. I can concede that Spoon and Tintagel's responses are similar but to say that GPS operates using sonar is a radical shift the be sure. It is also eminently testable and would require GPS manufacturers as well as amateur tech enthusiasts who build their own GPS to be completely ignorant or in on itTM.
My original post was really made in the moment because within a short time of the OP being made 3 (or 4) different answers were posted, all phrased without a hint of uncertainty. It is that sort of phenomenon that created the cliche of "FEers can't agree on a single model lol!" And I thought it was funny.
-
That is what I am talking about. 4 posters, 4 answers and not a single caveat.
What are you talking about? Spoon, Tintagel and Vauxy said basically the same thing.
That's a fairly generous interpretation.
EDIT: Wanted to add a bit more since I posted in haste. I can concede that Spoon and Tintagel's responses are similar but to say that GPS operates using sonar is a radical shift the be sure. It is also eminently testable and would require GPS manufacturers as well as amateur tech enthusiasts who build their own GPS to be completely ignorant or in on itTM.
My original post was really made in the moment because within a short time of the OP being made 3 (or 4) different answers were posted, all phrased without a hint of uncertainty. It is that sort of phenomenon that created the cliche of "FEers can't agree on a single model lol!" And I thought it was funny.
You should know that FET is still evolving. We are discovering more and more everyday about the workings of the Flat Earth and the conspiracy behind it.
Are you trying to say that sonar can't be used for GPS? If so, please explain.
-
That is what I am talking about. 4 posters, 4 answers and not a single caveat.
What are you talking about? Spoon, Tintagel and Vauxy said basically the same thing.
That's a fairly generous interpretation.
EDIT: Wanted to add a bit more since I posted in haste. I can concede that Spoon and Tintagel's responses are similar but to say that GPS operates using sonar is a radical shift the be sure. It is also eminently testable and would require GPS manufacturers as well as amateur tech enthusiasts who build their own GPS to be completely ignorant or in on itTM.
My original post was really made in the moment because within a short time of the OP being made 3 (or 4) different answers were posted, all phrased without a hint of uncertainty. It is that sort of phenomenon that created the cliche of "FEers can't agree on a single model lol!" And I thought it was funny.
You should know that FET is still evolving. We are discovering more and more everyday about the workings of the Flat Earth and the conspiracy behind it.
I have no problem with competing theories but it strikes me as disingenuous when a theory that is still nascent is presented with the degree of confidence shown above.
Are you trying to say that sonar can't be used for GPS? If so, please explain.
I am not saying that it can't because I don't rightly know if it is possible or not. I meant what I said above: that using acoustic waves rather than EM waves is a radically different thing. It seems highly improbable, to the point of the idea being a non-starter, that no one in the world has noticed that they are using sonar rather than EM waves. If this is actually what you believe, you should endeavor to put a GPS receiver in a vacuum chamber and see if it still works.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LORAN
Most positioning systems admit they don't even connect to GPS satellites, and the ones that claim they do don't have latency consistent with an orbital device thousands of kilometers away.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LORAN
Most positioning systems admit they don't even connect to GPS satellites, and the ones that claim they do don't have latency consistent with an orbital device thousands of kilometers away.
'admit'? Millions of tablets and smart phones have GPS receivers and work exactly as specified. This idea of using cell towers is rubbish because GPS works without mobile coverage.
-
'admit'? Millions of tablets and smart phones have GPS receivers and work exactly as specified. This idea of using cell towers is rubbish because GPS works without mobile coverage.
The idea that the government pays for hundreds of satellites and allows anyone to freely connect to them for information data, and that these satellites have been in space since the 80's, is much more laughable than LORAN radio towers giving people location data.
If the government was so keen on providing useful free services, it seems like they'd pick something more interesting than just knowing where you are.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LORAN
Most positioning systems admit they don't even connect to GPS satellites, and the ones that claim they do don't have latency consistent with an orbital device thousands of kilometers away.
'admit'? Millions of tablets and smart phones have GPS receivers and work exactly as specified. This idea of using cell towers is rubbish because GPS works without mobile coverage.
Ever wonder why you can dial 911 from almost anywhere in the United States even without cellular signal?
-
'admit'? Millions of tablets and smart phones have GPS receivers and work exactly as specified. This idea of using cell towers is rubbish because GPS works without mobile coverage.
The idea that the government pays for hundreds of satellites and allows anyone to freely connect to them for information data, and that these satellites have been in space since the 80's, is much more laughable than LORAN radio towers giving people location data.
If the government was so keen on providing useful free services, it seems like they'd pick something more interesting than just knowing where you are.
Who says there are hundreds of US GPS satellites? Find out the main use.
-
'admit'? Millions of tablets and smart phones have GPS receivers and work exactly as specified. This idea of using cell towers is rubbish because GPS works without mobile coverage.
The idea that the government pays for hundreds of satellites and allows anyone to freely connect to them for information data, and that these satellites have been in space since the 80's, is much more laughable than LORAN radio towers giving people location data.
If the government was so keen on providing useful free services, it seems like they'd pick something more interesting than just knowing where you are.
GPS was and still is a military system that civilians are allowed to piggy back off of.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LORAN
Most positioning systems admit they don't even connect to GPS satellites, and the ones that claim they do don't have latency consistent with an orbital device thousands of kilometers away.
'admit'? Millions of tablets and smart phones have GPS receivers and work exactly as specified. This idea of using cell towers is rubbish because GPS works without mobile coverage.
Ever wonder why you can dial 911 from almost anywhere in the United States even without cellular signal?
You can within range of any networks cell tower but you must be within range of a cell tower.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LORAN
Most positioning systems admit they don't even connect to GPS satellites, and the ones that claim they do don't have latency consistent with an orbital device thousands of kilometers away.
'admit'? Millions of tablets and smart phones have GPS receivers and work exactly as specified. This idea of using cell towers is rubbish because GPS works without mobile coverage.
Ever wonder why you can dial 911 from almost anywhere in the United States even without cellular signal?
You can within range of any networks cell tower but you must be within range of a cell tower.
Incorrect.
I'll expand. This is a common misconception. You can actually dial 911 and speak with the operator without a cell signal. However, you do need a cell signal for them to triangulate your position. GPS is irrelevant. They do it with cell towers. This is just one example of cell towers being used akin to GPS.
Don't believe me? See:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPZv_8dABfU
-
As he says when you dial 112 the phone uses any available network. Nothing to do with GPS.
-
As he says when you dial 112 the phone uses any available network. Nothing to do with GPS.
Yes, but you don't need cell service.
GPS uses a similar technology. That's all I'm trying to demonstrate.
-
As he says when you dial 112 the phone uses any available network. Nothing to do with GPS.
Yes, but you don't need cell service.
GPS uses a similar technology. That's all I'm trying to demonstrate.
You do not need service from your cell service provider, just from any one. GPS is a totally different technology.
-
GPS is a totally different technology.
No it's really not.
-
GPS is a totally different technology.
No it's really not.
Please explain with some details and reference to technical specs.
For avoidance of doubt the existance of A does not prove the non existance of B.
-
GPS is a totally different technology.
No it's really not.
Thank you for backing up your claim, but he did say exactly what i did. You must be within range of any cell tower not just the towers in your network. As for GPS being the same technology, all the evidence is contrary to your position unless you can show is something new.
-
As for GPS being the same technology, all the evidence is contrary to your position unless you can show is something new.
What evidence? Please elaborate.
-
As for GPS being the same technology, all the evidence is contrary to your position unless you can show is something new.
What evidence? Please elaborate.
You first.
-
As for GPS being the same technology, all the evidence is contrary to your position unless you can show is something new.
What evidence? Please elaborate.
Technical specs, manufacturers documentation.
eg. www.gps.gov
http://www.etsi.org/technologies-clusters/technologies/mobile/gsm
-
As for GPS being the same technology, all the evidence is contrary to your position unless you can show is something new.
This is a claim. Claims need to be substantiated. Please substantiate your claim of evidence, because I haven't seen any.
-
As for GPS being the same technology, all the evidence is contrary to your position unless you can show is something new.
This is a claim. Claims need to be substantiated. Please substantiate your claim of evidence, because I haven't seen any.
You are making the claim, where have you looked?
-
As for GPS being the same technology, all the evidence is contrary to your position unless you can show is something new.
This is a claim. Claims need to be substantiated. Please substantiate your claim of evidence, because I haven't seen any.
Not true at all, the onus for proof is on you for making a claim that goes against the vast majority of evidence available. Any claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
-
Technical specs, manufacturers documentation.
Here (http://www.wirelessestimator.com/t_content.cfm?pagename=US-Cell-Tower-Companies-Complete-List) is a list of cell tower manufacturers.
Here (http://towerpoint.com/cell-phone-tower-construction/) is a look at how to build a cell tower, including tech specs and instructions.
Not true at all, the onus for proof is on you for making a claim that goes against the vast majority of evidence available. Any claim without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
I haven't seen any of this evidence. Rama and inquistive made a claim that there was evidence that GPS worked via satellites. Where is this evidence? Isn't the burden of proof on you to produce this evidence for me? What am I arguing against if you haven't any evidence?
Ridiculous. ::)
-
Technical specs, manufacturers documentation.
Here (http://www.wirelessestimator.com/t_content.cfm?pagename=US-Cell-Tower-Companies-Complete-List) is a list of cell tower manufacturers.
Here (http://towerpoint.com/cell-phone-tower-construction/) is a look at how to build a cell tower, including tech specs and instructions.
That is nothing to do with services on a particular tower. See the 2 links above.
GPS works in the absence of cell phone coverage. Middle of oceans is one place.
-
Technical specs, manufacturers documentation.
Here (http://www.wirelessestimator.com/t_content.cfm?pagename=US-Cell-Tower-Companies-Complete-List) is a list of cell tower manufacturers.
Here (http://towerpoint.com/cell-phone-tower-construction/) is a look at how to build a cell tower, including tech specs and instructions.
That is nothing to do with services on a particular tower. See links above.
That's what you asked for. I don't know what else you want.
-
Technical specs, manufacturers documentation.
Here (http://www.wirelessestimator.com/t_content.cfm?pagename=US-Cell-Tower-Companies-Complete-List) is a list of cell tower manufacturers.
Here (http://towerpoint.com/cell-phone-tower-construction/) is a look at how to build a cell tower, including tech specs and instructions.
That is nothing to do with services on a particular tower. See links above.
That's what you asked for. I don't know what else you want.
Read the links about GPS and GSM. The US system is not the only GPS system.
-
I haven't seen any of this evidence. Rama and inquistive made a claim that there was evidence that GPS worked via satellites. Where is this evidence? Isn't the burden of proof on you to produce this evidence for me? What am I arguing against if you haven't any evidence?
Ridiculous. ::)
You have to agree that the vastly agreed upon way cell phones work is through radiowaves, satellites and the such. Not saying you agree with it, just that is what the majority of people believe. You are making the claim that they work by sonar, a claim against the greater evidence. You have presented no evidence to this, so we can on the side of the accepted model dismiss your claim without any need of backing evidence on our part.
It's called Hitchens's razor, check it out.
-
I haven't seen any of this evidence. Rama and inquistive made a claim that there was evidence that GPS worked via satellites. Where is this evidence? Isn't the burden of proof on you to produce this evidence for me? What am I arguing against if you haven't any evidence?
Ridiculous. ::)
You have to agree that the vastly agreed upon way cell phones work is through radiowaves, satellites and the such. Not saying you agree with it, just that is what the majority of people believe. You are making the claim that they work by sonar, a claim against the greater evidence. You have presented no evidence to this, so we can on the side of the accepted model dismiss your claim without any need of backing evidence.
It's called Hitchens's razor, check it out.
I'm familar with Hitchen's razor and it doesn't apply here.
What you're doing is pulling a argumentum ad populum and then dismissing my claim solely based on that without providing evidence that cellphones work via radio waves/satellites what have you. Your claim is just as ridiculous as mine. Sure, a few people might agree with you, but so what? My mom agrees that I am the best-looking person in the world, but what does that prove? Nothing.
Please provide evidence of your outlandish claims.
-
I haven't seen any of this evidence. Rama and inquistive made a claim that there was evidence that GPS worked via satellites. Where is this evidence? Isn't the burden of proof on you to produce this evidence for me? What am I arguing against if you haven't any evidence?
Ridiculous. ::)
You have to agree that the vastly agreed upon way cell phones work is through radiowaves, satellites and the such. Not saying you agree with it, just that is what the majority of people believe. You are making the claim that they work by sonar, a claim against the greater evidence. You have presented no evidence to this, so we can on the side of the accepted model dismiss your claim without any need of backing evidence.
It's called Hitchens's razor, check it out.
I'm familar with Hitchen's razor and it doesn't apply here.
What you're doing is pulling a argumentum ad populum and then dismissing my claim solely based on that without providing evidence that cellphones work via radio waves/satellites what have you. Your claim is just as ridiculous as mine. Sure, a few people might agree with you, but so what? My mom agrees that I am the best-looking person in the world, but what does that prove? Nothing.
Please provide evidence of your outlandish claims.
Read the 2 links and provide technical details of how you believe both systems work.
-
I haven't seen any of this evidence. Rama and inquistive made a claim that there was evidence that GPS worked via satellites. Where is this evidence? Isn't the burden of proof on you to produce this evidence for me? What am I arguing against if you haven't any evidence?
Ridiculous. ::)
You have to agree that the vastly agreed upon way cell phones work is through radiowaves, satellites and the such. Not saying you agree with it, just that is what the majority of people believe. You are making the claim that they work by sonar, a claim against the greater evidence. You have presented no evidence to this, so we can on the side of the accepted model dismiss your claim without any need of backing evidence.
It's called Hitchens's razor, check it out.
I'm familar with Hitchen's razor and it doesn't apply here.
What you're doing is pulling a argumentum ad populum and then dismissing my claim solely based on that without providing evidence that cellphones work via radio waves/satellites what have you. Your claim is just as ridiculous as mine. Sure, a few people might agree with you, but so what? My mom agrees that I am the best-looking person in the world, but what does that prove? Nothing.
Please provide evidence of your outlandish claims.
Read the 2 links and provide technical details of how you believe both systems work.
I don't need to. I understand how it works in your model. It's a commonly accepted theory, and it's spread by the goverment. Note .gov.
-
I haven't seen any of this evidence. Rama and inquistive made a claim that there was evidence that GPS worked via satellites. Where is this evidence? Isn't the burden of proof on you to produce this evidence for me? What am I arguing against if you haven't any evidence?
Ridiculous. ::)
You have to agree that the vastly agreed upon way cell phones work is through radiowaves, satellites and the such. Not saying you agree with it, just that is what the majority of people believe. You are making the claim that they work by sonar, a claim against the greater evidence. You have presented no evidence to this, so we can on the side of the accepted model dismiss your claim without any need of backing evidence.
It's called Hitchens's razor, check it out.
I'm familar with Hitchen's razor and it doesn't apply here.
What you're doing is pulling a argumentum ad populum and then dismissing my claim solely based on that without providing evidence that cellphones work via radio waves/satellites what have you. Your claim is just as ridiculous as mine. Sure, a few people might agree with you, but so what? My mom agrees that I am the best-looking person in the world, but what does that prove? Nothing.
Please provide evidence of your outlandish claims.
So you are saying only a "few" people think that cell phone towers communicate using RF? Do you actually believe that?
I just did a quick google search for how cell phone towers work, and every entry I can open and skim says RF.
When I do a quick google search for "do cell phones use sonar" I get nothing saying that is how they function.
Now the question is, do you now require me to enumerate every person that thinks cell phone towers use RF, or will you just accept that Hitchens's razor does apply here because the vast majority of human beings that know the slightest thing about cell phone towers, believe they function via RF and not via sonar?
If I say they work via RF, and the vast majority of people also think that, and you think its via sonar and very few if any people think that, then the onus of proof is on you. Not us.
-
You're still dancing around an argumentum ad populum. Make a coherent argument that doesn't involve a fallacy and then we'll talk, until then you have nothing. You cannot even provide proof that cell-towers work via radio waves. Why is that?
Basically you're saying that if the majority jumps off a bridge you have no problem following along. Is that right or am I making an assumption here?
-
You're still dancing around an argumentum ad populum. Make a coherent argument that doesn't involve a fallacy and then we'll talk, until then you have nothing. You cannot even provide proof that cell-towers work via radio waves. Why is that?
Basically you're saying that if the majority jumps off a bridge you have no problem following along. Is that right or am I making an assumption here?
Read the GSM spec. Do you have engineering qualifications to understand it?
-
Do you have engineering qualifications to understand it?
Do you? ::)
-
Do you have engineering qualifications to understand it?
Do you? ::)
Yes. And do you?
-
You're still dancing around an argumentum ad populum. Make a coherent argument that doesn't involve a fallacy and then we'll talk, until then you have nothing. You cannot even provide proof that cell-towers work via radio waves. Why is that?
Basically you're saying that if the majority jumps off a bridge you have no problem following along. Is that right or am I making an assumption here?
sigh, and for someone that says they are familiar with Hitchens's razor, you sure are being dense about it.
Sure, thats what I am saying. If the vast majority of scientists and engineers and technicians all tell me that cellphone towers operate via RF, and the only people telling me they don't are the ones saying there is a global conspiracy about the shape of the planet... I'll believe the scientists, engineers and technicians.
If you gave me concrete proof that sonar was used in towers and not RF, then I would be on board, it's that simple.
Until then I will be happily jumping into the water from that bridge, because if you actually knew anything on the subject of import, you would be more than willing to share with me, instead of just say because it might be, it is.
-
You're still dancing around an argumentum ad populum. Make a coherent argument that doesn't involve a fallacy and then we'll talk, until then you have nothing. You cannot even provide proof that cell-towers work via radio waves. Why is that?
Basically you're saying that if the majority jumps off a bridge you have no problem following along. Is that right or am I making an assumption here?
sigh, and for someone that says they are familiar with Hitchens's razor, you sure are being dense about it.
Sure, thats what I am saying. If the vast majority of scientists and engineers and technicians all tell me that cellphone towers operate via RF, and the only people telling me they don't are the ones saying there is a global conspiracy about the shape of the planet... I'll believe the scientists, engineers and technicians.
If you gave me concrete proof that sonar was used in towers and not RF, then I would be on board, it's that simple.
Until then I will be happily jumping into the water from that bridge, because if you actually knew anything on the subject of import, you would be more than willing to share with me, instead of just say because it might be, it is.
If you choose to discard critical thinking, personal discovery, individuality, freewill, and what-have-you by being spoon fed your information by the majority then more power to you. With this mindset you're not going to get anything out of these discussions.
I don't think we have anything else to discuss here. You might as well change your username to "Lemmingwinks".
-
You're still dancing around an argumentum ad populum. Make a coherent argument that doesn't involve a fallacy and then we'll talk, until then you have nothing. You cannot even provide proof that cell-towers work via radio waves. Why is that?
Basically you're saying that if the majority jumps off a bridge you have no problem following along. Is that right or am I making an assumption here?
sigh, and for someone that says they are familiar with Hitchens's razor, you sure are being dense about it.
Sure, thats what I am saying. If the vast majority of scientists and engineers and technicians all tell me that cellphone towers operate via RF, and the only people telling me they don't are the ones saying there is a global conspiracy about the shape of the planet... I'll believe the scientists, engineers and technicians.
If you gave me concrete proof that sonar was used in towers and not RF, then I would be on board, it's that simple.
Until then I will be happily jumping into the water from that bridge, because if you actually knew anything on the subject of import, you would be more than willing to share with me, instead of just say because it might be, it is.
If you choose to discard critical thinking, personal discovery, individuality, freewill, and what-have-you by being spoon fed your information by the majority then more power to you. With this mindset you're not going to get anything out of these discussions.
I don't think we have anything else to discuss here. You might as well change your username to "Lemmingwinks".
As I said, if you knew anything of import, you'd share, instead you go to personal insults. /shrug
-
Sonar.
Sonar bounces off reflectors on weather balloons. This data is then processed and sent via cell towers. At least, that's my working theory.
We have established you have no idea about this.
-
We have established you have no idea about this.
Please refrain from personal attacks and posts which do not contribute to the subject.
-
We have established you have no idea about this.
Please refrain from personal attacks and posts which do not contribute to the subject.
OK. Replace with 'We have established that that idea has no merit'.
Merry Christmas!
-
Hello, I was just wondering if there is a theory on how my GPS could work if there are no sattelites to support the technology?
There are satellites, just not at the altitudes most people think they are. GPS works as advertised thanks to them.
So GPS manufacturers must be FEers, then? If they do work as advertised, and if FET is true, then the programs developped by GPS manufacturers must be based on FET.
-
There would be no major location based changes on land since in FET the continents are of the same size. The issues come in when RET oceans are used versus FET oceans. Because RET oceanography is still in wide use, many ships still go missing at sea each year. I'm sure if the rescue team for that lost Malaysian Airlines flight had the right maps, they could have found the lost flight, rather than have it remain lost. RET costs lives.
-
There would be no major location based changes on land since in FET the continents are of the same size. The issues come in when RET oceans are used versus FET oceans. Because RET oceanography is still in wide use, many ships still go missing at sea each year. I'm sure if the rescue team for that lost Malaysian Airlines flight had the right maps, they could have found the lost flight, rather than have it remain lost. RET costs lives.
It's really very tragic. The leaders of the world are perfectly aware of the shape of the Earth, yet they still let flights go out using faulty maps. Something really needs to be done about this. The body count attributed to RET is enormous and, frankly, it's an outrage.
-
There would be no major location based changes on land since in FET the continents are of the same size. The issues come in when RET oceans are used versus FET oceans. Because RET oceanography is still in wide use, many ships still go missing at sea each year. I'm sure if the rescue team for that lost Malaysian Airlines flight had the right maps, they could have found the lost flight, rather than have it remain lost. RET costs lives.
It's really very tragic. The leaders of the world are perfectly aware of the shape of the Earth, yet they still let flights go out using faulty maps. Something really needs to be done about this. The body count attributed to RET is enormous and, frankly, it's an outrage.
So then why hasnt the FES done more to stop it? You are either with them or against them.
-
There would be no major location based changes on land since in FET the continents are of the same size.
Not according to FE "maps". Or are you saying that Australia really is bigger than North America or South America is bigger than Asia?
(http://wiki.tfes.org/images/4/43/Map.png)
-
So then why hasnt the FES done more to stop it? You are either with them or against them.
We constantly engage on this forum, Twitter, Facebook, and have rallies (usually consisting of a single person). The question isn't why we aren't trying to stop it, it's why you're trying to stop us from stopping it.
Not according to FE "maps". Or are you saying that Australia really is bigger than North America or South America is bigger than Asia?
Do you not know how to read map projections?
-
Not according to FE "maps". Or are you saying that Australia really is bigger than North America or South America is bigger than Asia?
Do you not know how to read map projections?
Do you not know that a map of a flat earth does not require a projection? If that map is a projection, please do tell us how to "read" it.
-
Do you not know that a map of a flat earth does not require a projection? If that map is a projection, please do tell us how to "read" it.
Sounds like you need to go bother some other kind of society (http://www.cartogis.org/).
-
Do you not know that a map of a flat earth does not require a projection? If that map is a projection, please do tell us how to "read" it.
Sounds like you need to go bother some other kind of society (http://www.cartogis.org/).
So you can't tell us how it's a projection. Gotcha. I suspected as much. Thanks.
-
So then why hasnt the FES done more to stop it? You are either with them or against them.
We constantly engage on this forum, Twitter, Facebook, and have rallies (usually consisting of a single person). The question isn't why we aren't trying to stop it, it's why you're trying to stop us from stopping it.
Oh, you are raising awareness (http://www.insufferableintolerance.com/raising-awareness-a-k-a-the-lazy-persons-feel-good/), my bad.
-
Oh, you are raising awareness (http://www.insufferableintolerance.com/raising-awareness-a-k-a-the-lazy-persons-feel-good/), my bad.
Feel free to make other suggestions.
-
Oh, you are raising awareness (http://www.insufferableintolerance.com/raising-awareness-a-k-a-the-lazy-persons-feel-good/), my bad.
Feel free to make other suggestions.
Document a rigorous scientific experiment that falsifies a RE and submit it for peer review.
Edit: Typo fixed
-
Document a rigorous scientific experiment that falsified a FE and submit it for peer review.
Care to read this over again? From what I reading, that is not an improvement.
-
Document a rigorous scientific experiment that falsified a FE and submit it for peer review.
Care to read this over again? From what I reading, that is not an improvement.
Ohoho! Got me on a typo! Nice one buddy!
-
So GPS work as advertized. Of course, the calculations for tracking positions in FET or RET should be quite different. RET-based tracking calculations wouldn't work at all if the earth was flat.
Should we conclude from that that GPS programs actually use FET-based calculations?
-
So GPS work as advertized. Of course, the calculations for tracking positions in FET or RET should be quite different. RET-based tracking calculations wouldn't work at all if the earth was flat.
Should we conclude from that that GPS programs actually use FET-based calculations?
Distances on a flat Earth are identical to distances on a round one. You are assuming that the Earth is a perfect circle, which is wrong.
-
So GPS work as advertized. Of course, the calculations for tracking positions in FET or RET should be quite different. RET-based tracking calculations wouldn't work at all if the earth was flat.
Should we conclude from that that GPS programs actually use FET-based calculations?
Distances on a flat Earth are identical to distances on a round one. You are assuming that the Earth is a perfect circle, which is wrong.
But distances to satellites are vastly different.
-
From what?
-
From what?
The GPS tracker.
-
From what?
The GPS tracker.
No it's not.
-
4 pages and no one mentions the G word?
Perhaps there's a pocket of zero gravity at the top of the dome.
Look how many layers there are to the Earth, all the entire thing is from underground upwards is thin layers. There's not much of just one element.
Is it really impossible for the "sky" to be comprised of part gravity and part non-gravity? This could explain every last thing in the FET as far as how do they have satellites and how do they have NASA footage from 1969 showing them floating around in a craft.
Excuse me if all of this was covered already somewhere, tsk.
-
From what?
The GPS tracker.
No it's not.
Is it not? I thought that the altitude of satellites was much smaller in FET. How high are they?
-
Skywave propogation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skywave
-
From what?
The GPS tracker.
No it's not.
Is it not? I thought that the altitude of satellites was much smaller in FET. How high are they?
About 2500 miles above the surface of the Earth. Approximately, of course.
-
So GPS work as advertized. Of course, the calculations for tracking positions in FET or RET should be quite different. RET-based tracking calculations wouldn't work at all if the earth was flat.
Should we conclude from that that GPS programs actually use FET-based calculations?
Distances on a flat Earth are identical to distances on a round one. You are assuming that the Earth is a perfect circle, which is wrong.
Impossible. Distances only work on a round earth. As you know.
-
So GPS work as advertized. Of course, the calculations for tracking positions in FET or RET should be quite different. RET-based tracking calculations wouldn't work at all if the earth was flat.
Should we conclude from that that GPS programs actually use FET-based calculations?
Distances on a flat Earth are identical to distances on a round one. You are assuming that the Earth is a perfect circle, which is wrong.
Impossible. Distances only work on a round earth. As you know.
I don't know. I don't think you do either.
Next time you post a rebuttal give some reasoning for it.
-
That is what I am talking about. 4 posters, 4 answers and not a single caveat.
What are you talking about? Spoon, Tintagel and Vauxy said basically the same thing.
That's a fairly generous interpretation.
Having served, and used Night Vision Goggles, which see EM waves on a much greater scale than the naked eye, I can confidently say that I personally know they aren't acoustic waves. We had a lot of time on our hands on exercises, and tend to spend a lot of it on our phones. Whenever someone looked at their phone at night, I could see it through my NVGs as it would light up like a Christmas tree. It's really neat to see actually. If you ever get a hold of a pair, have a look and see. Not sure how the sonar hypothesis could account for visibly seeing the waves emitted from gps and cellphone devices.
EDIT: Wanted to add a bit more since I posted in haste. I can concede that Spoon and Tintagel's responses are similar but to say that GPS operates using sonar is a radical shift the be sure. It is also eminently testable and would require GPS manufacturers as well as amateur tech enthusiasts who build their own GPS to be completely ignorant or in on itTM.
My original post was really made in the moment because within a short time of the OP being made 3 (or 4) different answers were posted, all phrased without a hint of uncertainty. It is that sort of phenomenon that created the cliche of "FEers can't agree on a single model lol!" And I thought it was funny.
You should know that FET is still evolving. We are discovering more and more everyday about the workings of the Flat Earth and the conspiracy behind it.
I have no problem with competing theories but it strikes me as disingenuous when a theory that is still nascent is presented with the degree of confidence shown above.
Are you trying to say that sonar can't be used for GPS? If so, please explain.
I am not saying that it can't because I don't rightly know if it is possible or not. I meant what I said above: that using acoustic waves rather than EM waves is a radically different thing. It seems highly improbable, to the point of the idea being a non-starter, that no one in the world has noticed that they are using sonar rather than EM waves. If this is actually what you believe, you should endeavor to put a GPS receiver in a vacuum chamber and see if it still works.
-
What was this thread about? GPS? Would not work without accounting for effects of General Relativity...
Ask me for details!
-
don't have latency consistent with an orbital device thousands of kilometers away.
The speed of electromagnetic radiation is 300000 km per second. There is no latency.
Stratellites, or satellites within the atmosphere, function much in the same way satellites do in RET.
What are these stratellites made out of? How high are they? And what is their velocity?
-
I agree with dog. The speed of electromagnetic radiation in vacuum is abour 300000km (299 792 458 m/s to be exactly).
And I also wonder about those stratellites. There are thousands of satellites (or 'stratellites'), so at least about 10000 people involved in building those stratellites, developing the techniques and electronics, developing rockets, handling down/uplink for communication etc must know the 'truth'. Is that estimate about correct?
-
don't have latency consistent with an orbital device thousands of kilometers away.
The speed of electromagnetic radiation is 300000 km per second. There is no latency.
Stratellites, or satellites within the atmosphere, function much in the same way satellites do in RET.
What are these stratellites made out of? How high are they? And what is their velocity?
Semiconductors do not switch states at the speed of like, therefore, latency. ::)
-
Semiconductors do not switch states at the speed of like, therefore, latency. ::)
You know what I meant. Not enough latency to justify Irushwithscvs's claim.
GPS satellites orbit in MEO at about 20,200 km. A round trip for electromagnetic radiation moving at about 300,000 km/s would take about 1/10 of a second.
-
GPS operates by ground based towers.
-
GPS operates by ground based towers.
If the gps reciever can calculate its position with the signal of multiple transmitters,
this also means that multiple recievers can triangulate the position of one transmitter.
If this is true and GPS is operated by ground based towers, anyone could prove this,
yet no one ever did.
-
When I lived in Vermont it was, and still is common knowledge that GPS is very unreliable throughout the state.
And yet it's possible to get cell phone coverage in many areas.
If GPS relied on satellites, then GPS would work wherever you can pick up a cell phone signal. But that's just not the way it works.
GPS relies on towers, and if there aren't enough towers where you live (as there aren't many overall in Vermont), it does't matter how many THOUSANDS of satellites they claim to have in space, you're not going to get a signal.
If GPS really relied on satellites, there would always be a satellite above you no matter where you are, and it would be relayed to your phone.
GPS relies on triangulation, and that's all.
http://alternativephysics.org/book/GPSmythology.htm
—
-
If GPS relied on satellites, then GPS would work wherever you can pick up a cell phone signal. But that's just not the way it works.
That's right, because GPS works in areas where you can't get cell phone signals. Perhaps you're just to young to remember a time when cell phones didn't have GPS location services.
GPS relies on towers, and if there aren't enough towers where you live (as there aren't many overall in Vermont), it does't matter how many THOUSANDS of satellites they claim to have in space, you're not going to get a signal.
Actually, GPS claims to have 30 operational satellites currently operational.
If GPS really relied on satellites, there would always be a satellite above you no matter where you are, and it would be relayed to your phone.
I think that you're confusing satellite phones and cell phones, neither of which rely GPS satellites for making phone calls.
GPS relies on triangulation, and that's all.
Technically, GPS uses multilateration which is based on signal timing, not measured angles.