Re: South Pole
« Reply #40 on: June 07, 2015, 01:56:06 AM »
True, but stationary as far as the ground receiving point is concerned.  So I have chosen a bad wording there then.  But my point is that a blimp, balloon, helicopter, etc. cannot maintain an absolutely stationary position relative to the ground for a very long time, especially from a very high altitude with no GPS to help you maintain the position.  But hey GPS must be all towers too according to the logic here.  I guess none of them have ever been out far away from cell towers in say a desert, or pretty far out into the ocean.  I guess GPS doesn't work there... wait a minute, how the hell did my little Garmin know where I was during those times.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: South Pole
« Reply #41 on: June 07, 2015, 12:38:10 PM »
Not relatively stationary, absolutely stationary (which kills off your entire list other than towers).  Triangulate the signals from different sources.  Understand how those signals travel and bounce off the reflector.  All shows that they come from high above the atmosphere, in what we like to call orbit(which kills off the towers).  Next explanation, those do not work.
Nothing is absolutely stationary. I would love to hear how you expect that to work. I have already asked this. Is an answer forthcoming?

Quote
Since you ran away from the other forum because you refused to answer questions and then claimed people were illiterate, why do you come to spew on this board now?  Because there are less people here to ask questions that you will not answer?  I think so. 
I left that forum because, like you and Inquisitive are doing here, you refuse to respond to any of my questions when I answer all of yours, and you claim victory when you have no ground to stand on. When people are more interested in insulting than discussing, I leave.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

Re: South Pole
« Reply #42 on: June 07, 2015, 12:48:50 PM »
Not relatively stationary, absolutely stationary (which kills off your entire list other than towers).  Triangulate the signals from different sources.  Understand how those signals travel and bounce off the reflector.  All shows that they come from high above the atmosphere, in what we like to call orbit(which kills off the towers).  Next explanation, those do not work.
Nothing is absolutely stationary. I would love to hear how you expect that to work. I have already asked this. Is an answer forthcoming?

Quote
Since you ran away from the other forum because you refused to answer questions and then claimed people were illiterate, why do you come to spew on this board now?  Because there are less people here to ask questions that you will not answer?  I think so. 
I left that forum because, like you and Inquisitive are doing here, you refuse to respond to any of my questions when I answer all of yours, and you claim victory when you have no ground to stand on. When people are more interested in insulting than discussing, I leave.
The operation of geostationary satellites is well documented.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: South Pole
« Reply #43 on: June 07, 2015, 01:20:54 PM »
Not relatively stationary, absolutely stationary (which kills off your entire list other than towers).  Triangulate the signals from different sources.  Understand how those signals travel and bounce off the reflector.  All shows that they come from high above the atmosphere, in what we like to call orbit(which kills off the towers).  Next explanation, those do not work.
Nothing is absolutely stationary. I would love to hear how you expect that to work. I have already asked this. Is an answer forthcoming?

Quote
Since you ran away from the other forum because you refused to answer questions and then claimed people were illiterate, why do you come to spew on this board now?  Because there are less people here to ask questions that you will not answer?  I think so. 
I left that forum because, like you and Inquisitive are doing here, you refuse to respond to any of my questions when I answer all of yours, and you claim victory when you have no ground to stand on. When people are more interested in insulting than discussing, I leave.
The operation of geostationary satellites is well documented.

If you cannot answer my questions just admit it.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

Re: South Pole
« Reply #44 on: June 07, 2015, 02:20:04 PM »
Not relatively stationary, absolutely stationary (which kills off your entire list other than towers).  Triangulate the signals from different sources.  Understand how those signals travel and bounce off the reflector.  All shows that they come from high above the atmosphere, in what we like to call orbit(which kills off the towers).  Next explanation, those do not work.
Nothing is absolutely stationary. I would love to hear how you expect that to work. I have already asked this. Is an answer forthcoming?

Quote
Since you ran away from the other forum because you refused to answer questions and then claimed people were illiterate, why do you come to spew on this board now?  Because there are less people here to ask questions that you will not answer?  I think so. 
I left that forum because, like you and Inquisitive are doing here, you refuse to respond to any of my questions when I answer all of yours, and you claim victory when you have no ground to stand on. When people are more interested in insulting than discussing, I leave.
The operation of geostationary satellites is well documented.

If you cannot answer my questions just admit it.
Why do you always want someone to answer here rather than looking yourself for an explanation of eg. geostationary satellites?

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: South Pole
« Reply #45 on: June 07, 2015, 02:34:47 PM »
Not relatively stationary, absolutely stationary (which kills off your entire list other than towers).  Triangulate the signals from different sources.  Understand how those signals travel and bounce off the reflector.  All shows that they come from high above the atmosphere, in what we like to call orbit(which kills off the towers).  Next explanation, those do not work.
Nothing is absolutely stationary. I would love to hear how you expect that to work. I have already asked this. Is an answer forthcoming?

Quote
Since you ran away from the other forum because you refused to answer questions and then claimed people were illiterate, why do you come to spew on this board now?  Because there are less people here to ask questions that you will not answer?  I think so. 
I left that forum because, like you and Inquisitive are doing here, you refuse to respond to any of my questions when I answer all of yours, and you claim victory when you have no ground to stand on. When people are more interested in insulting than discussing, I leave.
The operation of geostationary satellites is well documented.

If you cannot answer my questions just admit it.
Why do you always want someone to answer here rather than looking yourself for an explanation of eg. geostationary satellites?
The explanations I've seen are ludicrous: hence why I am asking the question. If, as you insist, it's so easy to find a good answer to my questions, why are you incapable of providing one?
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

Re: South Pole
« Reply #46 on: June 07, 2015, 05:19:48 PM »
Not relatively stationary, absolutely stationary (which kills off your entire list other than towers).  Triangulate the signals from different sources.  Understand how those signals travel and bounce off the reflector.  All shows that they come from high above the atmosphere, in what we like to call orbit(which kills off the towers).  Next explanation, those do not work.
Nothing is absolutely stationary. I would love to hear how you expect that to work. I have already asked this. Is an answer forthcoming?

Quote
Since you ran away from the other forum because you refused to answer questions and then claimed people were illiterate, why do you come to spew on this board now?  Because there are less people here to ask questions that you will not answer?  I think so. 
I left that forum because, like you and Inquisitive are doing here, you refuse to respond to any of my questions when I answer all of yours, and you claim victory when you have no ground to stand on. When people are more interested in insulting than discussing, I leave.
The operation of geostationary satellites is well documented.

If you cannot answer my questions just admit it.
Why do you always want someone to answer here rather than looking yourself for an explanation of eg. geostationary satellites?
The explanations I've seen are ludicrous: hence why I am asking the question. If, as you insist, it's so easy to find a good answer to my questions, why are you incapable of providing one?
Which ones don't you like?
« Last Edit: June 07, 2015, 08:40:20 PM by inquisitive »

Re: South Pole
« Reply #47 on: June 07, 2015, 06:33:25 PM »
Not relatively stationary, absolutely stationary (which kills off your entire list other than towers).  Triangulate the signals from different sources.  Understand how those signals travel and bounce off the reflector.  All shows that they come from high above the atmosphere, in what we like to call orbit(which kills off the towers).  Next explanation, those do not work.
Nothing is absolutely stationary. I would love to hear how you expect that to work. I have already asked this. Is an answer forthcoming?

Quote
Since you ran away from the other forum because you refused to answer questions and then claimed people were illiterate, why do you come to spew on this board now?  Because there are less people here to ask questions that you will not answer?  I think so. 
I left that forum because, like you and Inquisitive are doing here, you refuse to respond to any of my questions when I answer all of yours, and you claim victory when you have no ground to stand on. When people are more interested in insulting than discussing, I leave.
You obviously didn't read my post correcting the poor choice of phrasing there.
Also people answered you all the time, you just flew off the handle when anyone disagreed with you, or showed your failed logic.  You just do not get what a discussion is do you.  You can not agree and still be responding to a claim.  You just never back up any claims you make, we ask you for clarification and you start insulting people's ability to read.

Re: South Pole
« Reply #48 on: June 07, 2015, 06:36:29 PM »
Not relatively stationary, absolutely stationary (which kills off your entire list other than towers).  Triangulate the signals from different sources.  Understand how those signals travel and bounce off the reflector.  All shows that they come from high above the atmosphere, in what we like to call orbit(which kills off the towers).  Next explanation, those do not work.
Nothing is absolutely stationary. I would love to hear how you expect that to work. I have already asked this. Is an answer forthcoming?

Quote
Since you ran away from the other forum because you refused to answer questions and then claimed people were illiterate, why do you come to spew on this board now?  Because there are less people here to ask questions that you will not answer?  I think so. 
I left that forum because, like you and Inquisitive are doing here, you refuse to respond to any of my questions when I answer all of yours, and you claim victory when you have no ground to stand on. When people are more interested in insulting than discussing, I leave.
The operation of geostationary satellites is well documented.

If you cannot answer my questions just admit it.
Why do you always want someone to answer here rather than looking yourself for an explanation of eg. geostationary satellites?
The explanations I've seen are ludicrous: hence why I am asking the question. If, as you insist, it's so easy to find a good answer to my questions, why are you incapable of providing one?
What makes you think they are ludicrous?  I guess you do not accept anything that doesn't involve air not being real, or fairies being a hoax, or clouds being a projection.  Unless everything has to do with aether, you do not accept it.  I know you say the aether talks to you, sort of, but voices in your head do not count as evidence.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: South Pole
« Reply #49 on: June 07, 2015, 09:07:04 PM »
Quote
Which ones don't you like?
I have explained my reasons in this thread. I am not going to repeat myself for you.

Quote
You obviously didn't read my post correcting the poor choice of phrasing there.
I understand frames of references The absurdity with being absolutely sttaionary remains, as I have explained.

Quote
we ask you for clarification and you start insulting people's ability to read.
When I have already given the justification, then yes, I will criticize your ability to read: especially if, as often happened, the answer to the questions people were asking was in the very post they were quoting. The fact is, many of you are not remotely interested in FET. You reject what we say on principle, you skim our posts, don't take any of it in, don't consider it, don't think, and either resort to an insult or a stock response in open ignorance of what's been said. So, yes, I did lose my temper quite a bit.
Can we please stop discussing this? It is not relevant and it's clear you've already made up your mind no matter what I (the only person who knows what's happening in my head) say.

Quote
What makes you think they are ludicrous?
And this is a perfect example of why I criticize your ability to read.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

Re: South Pole
« Reply #50 on: June 07, 2015, 09:44:20 PM »
'geostationary satellites are stationary relative to the rotation of the earth.'  Enough such that any movement does not affect reception.

Why do you not want to tell us information from a broadcaster regarding the location of their transmitter on an airship, plane etc. and the channels broadcast that we assume come from a satellite?

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: South Pole
« Reply #51 on: June 07, 2015, 09:55:24 PM »
'geostationary satellites are stationary relative to the rotation of the earth.'  Enough such that any movement does not affect reception.

Why do you not want to tell us information from a broadcaster regarding the location of their transmitter on an airship, plane etc. and the channels broadcast that we assume come from a satellite?
and i have explained, at length, why it is absurd to suppose they can be stationary with respect to anything. Yet again I must ask you to actually pay attention and read.

What information are you looking for? They're not going to make it public knowledge where the balloons etc they claim are satellites really are, are they? If you want me to calculate it, why? I don't have access to the angles of two dishes from sufficiently far away. If it's easy to find out that information, why don't you do so and do the calculations? If the answer is so useful to you, then find it and report back, otherwise you're openly just wasting time.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

Rama Set

Re: South Pole
« Reply #52 on: June 07, 2015, 10:07:28 PM »
'geostationary satellites are stationary relative to the rotation of the earth.'  Enough such that any movement does not affect reception.

Why do you not want to tell us information from a broadcaster regarding the location of their transmitter on an airship, plane etc. and the channels broadcast that we assume come from a satellite?
and i have explained, at length, why it is absurd to suppose they can be stationary with respect to anything. Yet again I must ask you to actually pay attention and read.

What information are you looking for? They're not going to make it public knowledge where the balloons etc they claim are satellites really are, are they? If you want me to calculate it, why? I don't have access to the angles of two dishes from sufficiently far away. If it's easy to find out that information, why don't you do so and do the calculations? If the answer is so useful to you, then find it and report back, otherwise you're openly just wasting time.

Your error bars that you mentioned can easily be corrected though. Please do not mistake difficulty with impossibility.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: South Pole
« Reply #53 on: June 07, 2015, 10:14:18 PM »
'geostationary satellites are stationary relative to the rotation of the earth.'  Enough such that any movement does not affect reception.

Why do you not want to tell us information from a broadcaster regarding the location of their transmitter on an airship, plane etc. and the channels broadcast that we assume come from a satellite?
and i have explained, at length, why it is absurd to suppose they can be stationary with respect to anything. Yet again I must ask you to actually pay attention and read.

What information are you looking for? They're not going to make it public knowledge where the balloons etc they claim are satellites really are, are they? If you want me to calculate it, why? I don't have access to the angles of two dishes from sufficiently far away. If it's easy to find out that information, why don't you do so and do the calculations? If the answer is so useful to you, then find it and report back, otherwise you're openly just wasting time.

Your error bars that you mentioned can easily be corrected though. Please do not mistake difficulty with impossibility.

I said: "Now, would you care to explain how a satellite counts as stationary? By definition it needs to be moving around the earth at ungodly speeds. You'd need to get it to the altitude where it's going at exactly the speed of the earth (impossible: the errors bars on ascent, altitude, resistance would add up), and keep it there, and prevent it slowing at all, given how quickly any change would add up. It seems far more realistic to suppose a more manageable system. Even if satellites were a valid option (hint: they're not) they'd be far too unwieldy to use like you're supposing."

Error bars were only one reason: also, by definition, they cannot be corrected for: that's what error bars are, the distance from the expected result. The only way to correct for them constantly would be a near infinite amount of fuel on the satellite.

And the fact is, even if satellites were possible, they wouldn't be used for this: the difficulty in doing so is absurd, for very little gain.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

Rama Set

Re: South Pole
« Reply #54 on: June 07, 2015, 11:50:16 PM »
Sorry all of that is just hand waving. Details are important in these types of maneuvers and you generalize them to the point of saying nothing meaningful.

Here is a link to a laypersons description of the maneuver:

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/20140116-how-to-get-a-satellite-to-gto.html

Feel free to discuss details from this. In the meantime, I am going to hunt down a document from the technical standpoint.

Re: South Pole
« Reply #55 on: June 08, 2015, 02:14:14 AM »
'geostationary satellites are stationary relative to the rotation of the earth.'  Enough such that any movement does not affect reception.

Why do you not want to tell us information from a broadcaster regarding the location of their transmitter on an airship, plane etc. and the channels broadcast that we assume come from a satellite?
and i have explained, at length, why it is absurd to suppose they can be stationary with respect to anything. Yet again I must ask you to actually pay attention and read.

What information are you looking for? They're not going to make it public knowledge where the balloons etc they claim are satellites really are, are they? If you want me to calculate it, why? I don't have access to the angles of two dishes from sufficiently far away. If it's easy to find out that information, why don't you do so and do the calculations? If the answer is so useful to you, then find it and report back, otherwise you're openly just wasting time.

Your error bars that you mentioned can easily be corrected though. Please do not mistake difficulty with impossibility.

I said: "Now, would you care to explain how a satellite counts as stationary? By definition it needs to be moving around the earth at ungodly speeds. You'd need to get it to the altitude where it's going at exactly the speed of the earth (impossible: the errors bars on ascent, altitude, resistance would add up), and keep it there, and prevent it slowing at all, given how quickly any change would add up. It seems far more realistic to suppose a more manageable system. Even if satellites were a valid option (hint: they're not) they'd be far too unwieldy to use like you're supposing."

Error bars were only one reason: also, by definition, they cannot be corrected for: that's what error bars are, the distance from the expected result. The only way to correct for them constantly would be a near infinite amount of fuel on the satellite.

And the fact is, even if satellites were possible, they wouldn't be used for this: the difficulty in doing so is absurd, for very little gain.
Your hint is incorrect, as they are being used and as for now you cannot give a valid alternative for them.  Geostationary orbits have been explained to you before, yet you do not understand them, we get that.  They are outside of the atmosphere, hence little or no friction to slow them, they are moving at a speed that matches the Earths spin, how does this work you say, well if it is moving fast enough in one direction with pretty much zero friction then it will continue to move at that speed.  It is also being pulled towards the Earth by gravity, but with the speed it is traveling somewhat perpendicular to the Earth, it basically falls around the Earth.  It is only achievable above the equator since it is orbiting in the same direction as the Earth is spinning (geostationary that is). 
I would love to see your reasons why this is not achievable without hokey pokey reasoning like the aether will not allow it.  Since I have shown you several times how towers/stratellites/balloons won't work for it.  I have explained how the signal works since also, showing how it is a line of sight signal, meaning it travels relatively straight with little  dispersal. 
So please, since I have put the effort into explaining how it works for satellites, show me your vast knowledge about satellite transmissions and how they come from somewhere else.

Re: South Pole
« Reply #56 on: June 08, 2015, 02:16:06 AM »
Also further explain your errors bars please.  don't just say you have explained them, you have just said it isn't possible.  Show me that you know what the hell you are talking about, because right now you are still showing me how stupid you are.

Re: South Pole
« Reply #57 on: June 08, 2015, 06:36:00 AM »
'geostationary satellites are stationary relative to the rotation of the earth.'  Enough such that any movement does not affect reception.

Why do you not want to tell us information from a broadcaster regarding the location of their transmitter on an airship, plane etc. and the channels broadcast that we assume come from a satellite?
and i have explained, at length, why it is absurd to suppose they can be stationary with respect to anything. Yet again I must ask you to actually pay attention and read.

What information are you looking for? They're not going to make it public knowledge where the balloons etc they claim are satellites really are, are they? If you want me to calculate it, why? I don't have access to the angles of two dishes from sufficiently far away. If it's easy to find out that information, why don't you do so and do the calculations? If the answer is so useful to you, then find it and report back, otherwise you're openly just wasting time.
Why are 'they' not going to publish information that people in the industry need?  If the transmitters were anywhere other than the stated satellite positions many people would have found them by measuring the angles.

Clearly accepting the existance of satellites puts an end to the whole flat earth idea, hence the resistance to the fact.

*

Offline JRowe

  • *
  • Posts: 641
  • Slowly being driven insane by RE nonsense
    • View Profile
    • Dual Earth Theory
Re: South Pole
« Reply #58 on: June 08, 2015, 12:22:00 PM »
Quote
Your hint is incorrect, as they are being used and as for now you cannot give a valid alternative for them.
I have given a valid alterative. Until you can explain what's wrong with more than assertion, you cannot reject them.

Quote
well if it is moving fast enough in one direction with pretty much zero friction then it will continue to move at that speed.
Do you understand what 'pretty much' means? There is friction, there are external force (such as gravity), and there's the matter of even getting them to the exact altitude at the exact speed: which is going to be impossible to predict from earth because you won't know the details of air currents. If you're off a fraction of a degree, a long-term orbit can't be achieved.
Plus if you really want to go a no friction route, then the satellite should still be ascending upwards, with no friction to stop it: there's no way they could predict the exact speed of the satellite at that exact point enough to give off the exact thrust in the exact opposite direction to prevent that. You rely on the external force of the earth's gravity to somehow do so: which would have a completely different effect depending on the satellite's relative location and velocity. It can't be predicted.

Quote
Since I have shown you several times how towers/stratellites/balloons won't work for it
No, you haven't. You apparently don't think balloons can control their altitude or position, that towers can't emit any form of signal (especially given we know signals can bounce off part of the atmosphere, to a tower could provide a signal that seems to come form above), that airships are constantly buffeted by the thinner air at high altitudes enough to knock them completely off course...

Quote
Why are 'they' not going to publish information that people in the industry need? 
When did I ever say that? They do give off readings that will serve the same purpose. Put it like this: one satellite and two houses. The satellite gives a signal in a straight line to those two houses; that's your model. Now, take those lines, and place, say, a balloon where that line passes through a certain altitude: there you go, done.
My DE model explained here.
Open to questions, but if you're curious start there rather than expecting me to explain it all from scratch every time.

Re: South Pole
« Reply #59 on: June 08, 2015, 08:18:06 PM »

Quote
Why are 'they' not going to publish information that people in the industry need? 
When did I ever say that? They do give off readings that will serve the same purpose. Put it like this: one satellite and two houses. The satellite gives a signal in a straight line to those two houses; that's your model. Now, take those lines, and place, say, a balloon where that line passes through a certain altitude: there you go, done.
That's a good idea.  To make it more accurate use 4 locations more than 500 miles apart from each other.

You may just find the angles fit a round earth with a geostationary satellite, as shown by various calculators, and used by everyone in the industry.

How high would a balloon have to be to cover all of the USA?  http://www.satbeams.com/footprints?position=287