Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
You can believe that, but you are wrong. Clearly you have no details of an alternative explanation. 'are at play' is not enough.I have no private discussions in the forum.I was discussing visibility with another poster.This being a public forum, I thought joining a discussion and adding to it was the very idea of it?
I don't think that really bothers you, does it?
Did I miss a "this is a private dialogue" flag? If so - sincere apologies.
You were simply categorizing my reply to the OP and another member as somehow not contributing to the discussion which you wanted to have.
Keep having your discussion.
If you believe my contributions are not actually contributions to the topic, then you should use the "report," feature and have a moderator address it.I joined this discussion, because I'm curious how GPS could work without satellites.Already did, in several spots.
Can you provide any insight on that issue?
iC
Overall, I stated I believe transliteration and triangulation are at play, but not at the altitudes claimed for satellites.
The lack of an explanation would seem to confirm how GNSS operates, in line with the documentation.I was discussing visibility with another poster.This being a public forum, I thought joining a discussion and adding to it was the very idea of it?
I don't think that really bothers you, does it?
Did I miss a "this is a private dialogue" flag? If so - sincere apologies.
I joined this discussion, because I'm curious how GPS could work without satellites.
Can you provide any insight on that issue?
iC
GNSS satellites orbit well above the Earth’s atmosphere. GPS and GLONASS satellites orbit at altitudes close to 20,000 km. BeiDou and Galileo satellites orbit a bit higher, around 21,500 km for BeiDou and 23,000 km for Galileo. GNSS orbits, which are more or less circular, and highly stable and predictable, fall into the category of MEO, for medium earth orbit.GPS satellites orbit at an altitude of 12,500 miles. Not 22,000Depends on what system you choose...
The altitudes claimed range from 11,000 to 24,000 miles.
The OP referred to Pakistan and it happens that the altitude claimed for the system in India is 22,000.
That is why I introduced the figure of 22,000.
Should be easy enough for you to find details of signal broadcasting positions.That's true, you didn't write that.It looks like your information is false still.
Again, GPS wasn't commercially available until 1999.
Well, I provided one (maybe not the best) of many references, confirming the information I posted is correct, while you simply keep repeating your claim.
Humor me ... where do you get your information from and how can we confirm its validity.
Regardless, I never claimed that GPS was commercially available at the time, just that it was in place and working.GPS has been in place and working long before cell towers were able to provide adequate positioning services for end users.The point I wanted to make is that GPS was working well before cell phone location detection through cell towers was.Well, I haven't had the pleasure of knowing many soldiers who served in the Gulf War.
"The Gulf War from 1990 to 1991 was the first conflict in which the military widely used GPS." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Timeline_and_modernizationCell phone location detection was introduced in 1996.1991 is before 1996 => The correlation you suspect between GPS and cellular network signals cannot not exist; at least not in the sense, that GPS somehow requires cell phone location detection.
Side note: How would Cell phone location detection work for US troops in the Gulf War?
iC
So I couldn't say.
I never wrote that GPS devices like Garmin, TomTom, or Magellan, require cell phone location devices to operate.
I surmise that signal broadcasting positions are in much the same locations as cell phone towers.
How do you explain that a GPNSS receiver typically shows reception from up to 20 transmitters from US, Russia, Europe and China?Let me clarify.My commutes take place on county roads, city streets, state and US highways and Interstates.
My commutes requiring the use of Google Maps and Garmin and TomTom involve an automobile.
What personal evidence do you have that GPS works in the middle of oceans?
These days it's sometimes difficult to differentiate between different "methods", in this case "GPS" and "mobile data".
Modern devices, esp. smartphones, will draw on any available data for positioning.
As you don't go into any detail of your setup, this doesn't prove/disprove anything.
Why would your commute require "Google Maps and Garmin and TomTom", if that's what you meant?
Either one should - if used correctly - be sufficient.
My personal experience with several devices (some of them pure GPS devices) is, that they work globally - even with no data service.
iC
I have used each of the services and devices at varying times.
I have had a cell phone (of one type or another) since 1999.
What I have found is the GPS and the cell phone lost signal at roughly the same time.
While correlation =/= causation, I find it highly suspect and tend to side with the idea it is indeed more likely that GPS tracking and cellular service is occurring at roughly the same altitude (i.e., the height of the average cell phone tower).
Yes, it says that the flat earth maps have an ellipsoid datum.Flat earth maps, as in a map on a flat surface that is a projection of part of the spherical shape of the earth, as you know.QuoteUTM NAD83 is a projected coordinate system that represents physical locations abstracted to a flat, cartesian coordinate system. The UTM NAD83 projection uses the GRS80 ellipsoid and a center-of-the-earth anchor point as its datum
It's used to connect and align to systems which have a 3D spherical coordinate system.
It says that Flat Earth assumptions can become inaccurate at long distances.The WGS84 does not use flat maps. It defines the size and shape of the earth in 3 dimensions. You should understand projections.
Such statements are only based on "theory," however. If you think that the earth is a sphere, that would be true. Yet the widely used WGS84 system uses flat maps.
http://www.boshamlife.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/PrimeMeridian.pdfQuoteBy 1911, the Greenwich meridian had been accepted as the prime meridian for the whole world. However, relating the maps of an individual country or region to a standard system of latitude and longitude is not only difficult, it is nearly impossible. The earth is approximately spherical, but maps are flat. They are fitted as closely as possible to the surface of the earth in one region, but when fitting them to a standard system of latitude and longitude, there are bound to be slight discrepancies. The differences between the coordinate systems used by different maps really didn’t matter until recently. When the GPS system was introduced in the 1980s, it was realised that having dozens of ‘local’ systems of latitude and longitude for different countries wasn’t going to work. A single coordinate system had to be devised, which would give the best results for every part of the world. It is known as WGS 84 (World Geodetic System 1984).
The correct Australia is probably the one which was mapped with the standard method of plane surveying.And the next paragraph says?
http://www.vermessungsseiten.de/englisch/vermtech/plane.htmQuoteDepartment of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Geodetic Science
Geodetic and Geoinformation Science Section
GS/CE400.01 Introduction to Surveying
GS601 Introduction to Mapping and Photogrammetry
Friday, 21st September, 2001.
The Flat Earth Society Strikes Again!
Plane surveying, which assumes that the Earth is flat, is the most commonly practised form of surveying. It consists primarily of locating the positions of features on the ground (or fairly close to it). This is achieved, in the first instance, by a combination of angular and linear measurement. Linear measurement is therefore at the foundation of surveying, which is at the foundation of the geomatics and geodetic science disciplines. It is this process of measuring things on the ground which is fundamental to later, fancier measurement systems. All of photogrammetry comes to nothing unless we can ascertain its results with respect to what is really on the ground. GPS is worthless if the base stations' locations are not known and receivers can't be tested against ground values. Mapping and GIS require the ability to check data in the database against what's on the ground.
A fallacy in all of this may be assuming that the Antarctica depicted in the first picture is a "globe australia." Since surveyors use plane surveying methods, that's the Flat Earth Australia.I was asking which was the accurate correct map of Australia. Distances measured across the earth confirm the size and shape.
The discussion is mostly on the nature, dimensions, and layout of the oceans, which are not mapped out with plane surveying methods (no land features on the ocean), and assume an RE.
Depends on the local value of g.However, I do know that it would be something less than 9.8 m/s2 (if it wasn’t the distance would never decrease). So, let’s say the relative acceleration of the sphere is half of 9.8 m/s2. in FE…4.9 m/s2.Drag force is not a constant, buddy. The whole point of terminal velocity is that eventually it will be equal 9.8m/s2
You've been given plenty of chances. This is your last. Behave or begone.
There is a map gallery showing slightly different versions of Australia at https://wiki.tfes.org/Flat_Earth_MapsWhich version has the correct distances?
Sorry, they're not wrong. As I explained before, you're confusing yourself by choosing a FoR you don't find intuitive. Solve it relative to the Earth and it becomes quite simple.Agree?
The earth has only one shape so any discussion can only be about what it is.I appreciate the statement you have written for its clarity and its decided unambiguous nature.But if you would, humor me...AATW stated that very thing in his post.I literally said the opposite. You just cut that part of the sentence out when you quoted me...
He very much stated FET belief = dangerous.
And I have made it clear in more than one post now what I think of as dangerous.
Please type the following, just to be clear:
FET Belief poses no danger to myself and others.
FET Belief poses no danger to myself and others.
BUT, it is a belief which comes from a certain mindset. Other beliefs which come from that mindset can be a danger to people.
Which now calls for discussion about the actual topic presented here.
Could we discuss the amount of RE adherents here and what they actually bring to the discussion of flat earth?
I believe that would be in keeping with the OP.
Do you have measurements of air density as it varies for a skydiver. I suggest it does not significantly vary.In order to reach a "maximum speed", something has to be moving. In the FE model, things aren't moving as the earth is accelerating up to meet an object. There is no wind resistance.Well, yes, if you want to look at it from that frame of reference, the skydiver isn't moving until the air pushes him up ever so gently. As that air becomes denser, the force of the air pushing the skydiver becomes greater. The difference between the upward acceleration of the Earth and the upward acceleration of the skydiver will therefore diminish, and eventually reach zero.
However, you are being willingly obtuse by not picking a FoR you would find more intuitive. Simply taking a non-inertial FoR in which the Earth is stationary and the skydiver is falling will eliminate your confusion.