*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9901
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: GPS
« Reply #60 on: January 18, 2015, 02:48:11 AM »
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, my bad.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8293
    • View Profile
Re: GPS
« Reply #61 on: January 18, 2015, 04:58:49 AM »
Oh, you are raising awareness, my bad.

Feel free to make other suggestions.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9901
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: GPS
« Reply #62 on: January 18, 2015, 01:59:57 PM »
Oh, you are raising awareness, 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
« Last Edit: January 18, 2015, 06:14:23 PM by Rama Set »
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8293
    • View Profile
Re: GPS
« Reply #63 on: January 18, 2015, 04:06:11 PM »
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.

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 9901
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: GPS
« Reply #64 on: January 18, 2015, 06:13:47 PM »
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!
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Re: GPS
« Reply #65 on: March 29, 2015, 09:15:06 PM »
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?

Ghost of V

Re: GPS
« Reply #66 on: March 29, 2015, 10:18:41 PM »
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.

Re: GPS
« Reply #67 on: March 30, 2015, 08:07:16 AM »
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.

Ghost of V

Re: GPS
« Reply #68 on: March 30, 2015, 08:26:57 AM »
From what?

Re: GPS
« Reply #69 on: March 30, 2015, 10:50:15 AM »

Ghost of V

Re: GPS
« Reply #70 on: March 30, 2015, 05:04:47 PM »

*

Offline Theorist

  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Prove FE Wrong!
    • View Profile
Re: GPS
« Reply #71 on: March 31, 2015, 12:26:04 AM »
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.


Re: GPS
« Reply #72 on: March 31, 2015, 09:12:33 PM »
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?

*

Offline magic

  • *
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
Re: GPS
« Reply #73 on: May 17, 2015, 04:25:38 AM »

Ghost of V

Re: GPS
« Reply #74 on: May 18, 2015, 05:27:14 AM »
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.

Re: GPS
« Reply #75 on: May 18, 2015, 07:44:57 AM »
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.

Ghost of V

Re: GPS
« Reply #76 on: May 18, 2015, 04:02:03 PM »
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.

Offline Wes

  • *
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: GPS
« Reply #77 on: May 21, 2015, 03:49:47 AM »
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.

Quote
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.

*

Offline alex

  • *
  • Posts: 83
  • Always Curious
    • View Profile
Re: GPS
« Reply #78 on: May 21, 2015, 06:30:50 AM »
What was this thread about? GPS? Would not work without accounting for effects of General Relativity...

Ask me for details!

Offline Dog

  • *
  • Posts: 30
    • View Profile
Re: GPS
« Reply #79 on: May 21, 2015, 06:45:49 AM »
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?