Thork

Re: Satellites
« Reply #100 on: March 16, 2014, 10:56:00 PM »
GPS satellites orbit. Shows on receiver display.
An algorithm. GPS is a ground based location system similar to LORAN.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 4929
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites
« Reply #101 on: March 16, 2014, 11:05:09 PM »
Yes. CGI and photoshop haven't yet been invented. ::)

In other news the planet of Alderaan has been destroyed.

Sorry Thork but the Chewbacca defense is based on a logical fallacy.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Re: Satellites
« Reply #102 on: March 16, 2014, 11:30:21 PM »
GPS satellites orbit. Shows on receiver display.
An algorithm. GPS is a ground based location system similar to LORAN.
An algorithm does not explain new Russian satellites appearing.

The display typically shows 15 satellites, where are they when you are in a valley?

Thork

Re: Satellites
« Reply #103 on: March 16, 2014, 11:33:56 PM »
GPS satellites orbit. Shows on receiver display.
An algorithm. GPS is a ground based location system similar to LORAN.
An algorithm does not explain new Russian satellites appearing.

The display typically shows 15 satellites, where are they when you are in a valley?
Finding you via a skywave.


Re: Satellites
« Reply #104 on: March 16, 2014, 11:52:13 PM »
GPS satellites orbit. Shows on receiver display.
An algorithm. GPS is a ground based location system similar to LORAN.
An algorithm does not explain new Russian satellites appearing.

The display typically shows 15 satellites, where are they when you are in a valley?
Finding you via a skywave.


Wrong, has to be line of sight to calculate location.  Look up how it works.

*

Offline Rushy

  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 7270
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites
« Reply #105 on: March 17, 2014, 01:35:29 AM »
Wrong, has to be line of sight to calculate location.  Look up how it works.

How about explaining precisely why you think that it wouldn't work the way Thork pointed out. Then maybe someone will take you seriously.

*

Offline markjo

  • Purgatory
  • *
  • Posts: 4929
  • Zetetic Council runner-up
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites
« Reply #106 on: March 17, 2014, 01:42:28 AM »
Wrong, has to be line of sight to calculate location.  Look up how it works.

How about explaining precisely why you think that it wouldn't work the way Thork pointed out. Then maybe someone will take you seriously.
Hmmm...  Maybe it has something to do with timing.
Abandon hope all ye who press enter here.

Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.

If you can't demonstrate it, then you shouldn't believe it.

Offline Antonio

  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites
« Reply #107 on: March 17, 2014, 07:13:17 AM »
Thank you for your drawing PP, greatly appreciated.
The question is still standing :
Quote
Can you provide some rational explanations for this satellite path ?

Objects in orbit circle above the earth.  Plotting an actual satellite's path on the monopole map shows a path that is consistent with this.  A satellite's orbit around a spherical earth is circular, too, so it's hardly surprising that it should be the same over a planar one.  I'm not sure what's irrational here.

This implies that this projection is correct (the same projection on the bipolar map is quite.....weird) , and I see various issues there :

- the path is not really circular, indeed, unlike the stellar objects path,
- If you look carefully, you may notice the 5 minutes plots on the trajectory.  Look at the huge acceleration in the south part of the trip.
This may lead to two choices : either the satellite's speed is constant and the map is obviously invalid, or, as the trajectory seems to keep a near constant radius, some additional unknown and speed correlated forces are acting on the satellite, keeping it into the initial circular path while accelerating/decelerating it. 
 

That satellite orbits once every 24 hours? Much like the sun and the moon do? Its likely its caught up in the same dark energy forces that power those objects. Its making the same path in the same timeframe albeit at a lower altitude.


Thank you for this drawing Thork

According to this site http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/htmls/spac0119.htm, the orbits took 117 minutes to complete, which is consistent with low altitude objects orbit times. Clearly a lot faster than the sun. It also turns counter-clockwise, unlike the sun and the celestial objects. The orbit is clearly not north pole centered and finally, considering the point above, the orbit speed varies dramatically.
We can hardly say that the same forces are acting there.
 
« Last Edit: March 17, 2014, 07:15:04 AM by Antonio »

Re: Satellites
« Reply #108 on: March 17, 2014, 08:54:40 AM »
Wrong, has to be line of sight to calculate location.  Look up how it works.

How about explaining precisely why you think that it wouldn't work the way Thork pointed out. Then maybe someone will take you seriously.
Because it uses accurate timing and location from a minimum of 4 satellites.  Bouncing off the sky would not give that.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12427
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Satellites
« Reply #109 on: March 17, 2014, 09:23:45 AM »
Bouncing off the sky would not give that.
Why do you think that?
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Satellites
« Reply #110 on: March 17, 2014, 09:29:34 AM »
Bouncing off the sky would not give that.
Why do you think that?
Variable distance.  Relies on precise location of each satellite.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12427
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Satellites
« Reply #111 on: March 17, 2014, 11:26:53 AM »
Variable distance.
Use you words, inquisitive. Say what you mean, no one's gonna waste time trying to guess.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Satellites
« Reply #112 on: March 17, 2014, 12:09:16 PM »
Variable distance.
Use you words, inquisitive. Say what you mean, no one's gonna waste time trying to guess.
What do you mean?  How GPS works is well documented and used by millions of people and systems.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12427
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Satellites
« Reply #113 on: March 17, 2014, 12:42:57 PM »
What do you mean?
I mean that if you have a specific objection, you need to voice it. Otherwise, no one will take you seriously, and you're unlikely to see any replies that involve actual effort.

People aren't going to guess what you mean by saying "Nope, this won't work because variable distance lol". If you have something to say, just say it.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

Re: Satellites
« Reply #114 on: March 17, 2014, 01:41:01 PM »
What do you mean?
I mean that if you have a specific objection, you need to voice it. Otherwise, no one will take you seriously, and you're unlikely to see any replies that involve actual effort.

People aren't going to guess what you mean by saying "Nope, this won't work because variable distance lol". If you have something to say, just say it.
Thork needs to explain how it would work via skywaves, in detail.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12427
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Satellites
« Reply #115 on: March 17, 2014, 02:51:53 PM »
Thork needs to explain how it would work via skywaves, in detail.
That may well be so, but that does not mean you can carry on not explaining your own views. Hold yourself to your own standards first.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 7221
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites
« Reply #116 on: March 17, 2014, 03:11:08 PM »
Thork needs to explain how it would work via skywaves, in detail.
That may well be so, but that does not mean you can carry on not explaining your own views. Hold yourself to your own standards first.

Perhaps you should as well?

Flat earth distances must be different to round earth ones.
Nope.
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

*

Offline Pete Svarrior

  • e
  • Planar Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 12427
  • (>^_^)> it's propaganda time (◕‿◕✿)
    • View Profile
    • The Flat Earth Society
Re: Satellites
« Reply #117 on: March 17, 2014, 03:16:36 PM »
I'm glad that you noticed my mockery of him. Too bad you skipped out on the context and my previous remarks.
Read the FAQ before asking your question - chances are we already addressed it.
Follow the Flat Earth Society on Twitter and Facebook!

<Parsifal> I like looking at Chinese Wikipedia with Noto installed
<Parsifal> I don't understand any of it but the symbols look nice

*

Offline Rama Set

  • *
  • Posts: 7221
  • Round and round...
    • View Profile
Re: Satellites
« Reply #118 on: March 17, 2014, 03:40:02 PM »
I'm glad that you noticed my mockery of him. Too bad you skipped out on the context and my previous remarks.

I did not miss any context. 
Th*rk is the worst person on this website.

Re: Satellites
« Reply #119 on: March 17, 2014, 04:47:53 PM »
Thork needs to explain how it would work via skywaves, in detail.
That may well be so, but that does not mean you can carry on not explaining your own views. Hold yourself to your own standards first.
My view is the published design information.  That is clear about how GPS works and not disputed by anyone.

GPS uses a known distance from the satellite, the ionisphere would not allow this as it is a variable height.
« Last Edit: March 17, 2014, 06:24:56 PM by inquisitive »