[Tumeni]

I surmise that signal broadcasting positions are in much the same locations as cell phone towers.

Why do you "surmise" this, and why should we place any credence on your surmision?

If you surmise that there are different, additional towers for GPS as well as the cell towers, do you have any confirmed sightings?

[inquisitive]

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.

That's true, you didn't write that.

The point I wanted to make is that GPS was working well before cell phone location detection through cell towers was.
"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_modernization

Cell 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

Well, I haven't had the pleasure of knowing many soldiers who served in the Gulf War.

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.

Should be easy enough for you to find details of signal broadcasting positions.

[iCare]

Side note: How would Cell phone location detection work for US troops in the Gulf War?

Well, I haven't had the pleasure of knowing many soldiers who served in the Gulf War.
So I couldn't say.

While I haven't either, I have had the pleasure of talking to people who are experienced with GNSS, cell phone location detection and/or satellite communication.
So I can say: It wouldn't have worked.

Cell phone location detection is (to a large part) done on the network side, i.e. location data can easily be refused - quite likely if you don't have your own or at least a "friendly" network at your location.   
See my earlier post:

3. Being independent of ground installation (it was originally a military system - one usually neither relies on enemy cell towers nor does one get the chance to build own cell towers in enemy territory)

The same is true for any other type of signal - if you don't control the transmitter, you can be denied service.
This might change in the future, but so far (and even more so when the US set up GPS) satellites were safe in orbit.
And unlike any ground-based transmitter they can be used in hostile territory as they don't need to actually be there.
=> "Ground-based GPS" wouldn't have worked for US troops
Just as it wouldn't work for e.g. seagoing vessels, as there's simply is no ground to base anything on. 

I never wrote that GPS devices like Garmin, TomTom, or Magellan, require cell phone location devices to operate.

Indeed, as far as I recall, you didn't. However, if they don't ... what would they need to operate?
The OP's question was, after all:

if there is no satellite how GPS works?

There was a lot of - logically sound - explanation how it would work with satellite based GNSS.
GNSS is well documented and the math/physics would be the same for round or flat earth.
Pick a smartphone app like GPSTest. It's open source on github, so you can verify, that it's actually doing what's it claims it's doing.
It will list and graphically display the available GNSS signals and the corresponding location.
As it's performing the calculations based on satellite positions and signal characteristics, it can only get a correct location fix if the satellites are where they are reporting to be in orbit.
It provides correct locations => satellites, not ground-based transmitters.

Still im curious ... does anyone have a sound explanation how GPS would work without satellites?
(i.e. GPS as we actually experience it, not other positioning methods)

I surmise that signal broadcasting positions are in much the same locations as cell phone towers.

Do have any more information to substantiate your conjecture?

iC

[somerled]

Use of lighter than air craft and balloons . Nasa uses these , and probably others too

https://ravenaerostar.com/products/balloons-airships

[totallackey]

Do have any more information to substantiate your conjecture?

iC

I acted on the information I experienced when operating these devices in my daily travels.

Did not see the need to gain more information at the time and now strictly use the cellphone for navigation.

[Tumeni]

Use of lighter than air craft and balloons . Nasa uses these , and probably others too
https://ravenaerostar.com/products/balloons-airships

For clarity, is this "information to substantiate your conjecture", and/or "details of signal broadcasting positions" ?

Y/N?

[iCare]

Do have any more information to substantiate your conjecture?

iC

I acted on the information I experienced when operating these devices in my daily travels.

Did not see the need to gain more information at the time and now strictly use the cellphone for navigation.

I can see how you would come to those conclusions based on the daily experience you described.
My conclusions based on my experience and research are different and I'll stick with the satellite version for GPS/GNSS.

In any case, I hope cellphone navigation is getting you to where you need to be, regardless of how it's actually working.
Safe travels

iC

[TomInAustin]

Use of lighter than air craft and balloons . Nasa uses these , and probably others too

https://ravenaerostar.com/products/balloons-airships

But you can see GPS satellites with your own eyes and no balloon can cross the night sky that fast.  Right?

[iCare]

Use of lighter than air craft and balloons .

Solution to limited operating time, severe weather, wreckage, ...?
Stratosphere is roughly between 10 km /12 mi an 50 km / 31 mi  whereas GNSS satellites operate at about 20000 km / 12,550 mi.
=> The points I made concerning ground based transmitters still apply to a large extend.
Additionally a fleet of such aircraft / balloons would require - among other things frequent starts/landings and serious logistics; those could hardly go unnoticed. 

Nasa uses these , and probably others too

I would think so ... so what? NASA also uses satellites (and multiple other platforms) and surely others too, just not this way.

https://ravenaerostar.com/products/balloons-airships

There it says: "Filling the capability gap between aircraft and satellites, our stratospheric balloon platforms and airships offer critical advantages to a wide range of missions."
There are certainly application cases for such platforms. But like ground based transmitters they couldn't fake GNSS/GPS satellites .

iC

[totallackey]

But you can see GPS satellites with your own eyes and no balloon can cross the night sky that fast.  Right?

I scoured the internet for images of a GPS satellite and I found no photographs of a GPS satellite.

There is no possible way you can see a GPS satellite at a reported height of 22,000 miles above the earth.

[Tumeni]

But you can see GPS satellites with your own eyes and no balloon can cross the night sky that fast.  Right?

I scoured the internet for images of a GPS satellite and I found no photographs of a GPS satellite.

There is no possible way you can see a GPS satellite at a reported height of 22,000 miles above the earth.

1. Why would you expect to find one? In order to get a photo of one in orbit, one would need to fly a camera-carrying craft within camera range. I don't know if you realise it, but the safe way to operate spacecraft is to keep them away from each other, not fly them close.

Also, when you do cost/benefit on the exercise of photographing a GPS satellite, what IS the benefit?

2. You can see the reflected light from it, far beyond the range at which you can discern the object itself. The principles behind the Heliograph, wherein reflected light from a mirror can be seen far further than the mirror itself, is well known

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliograph

Here's a picture of a 2018 GPS 3 sat, at 30s and beyond

[totallackey]

But you can see GPS satellites with your own eyes and no balloon can cross the night sky that fast.  Right?

I scoured the internet for images of a GPS satellite and I found no photographs of a GPS satellite.

There is no possible way you can see a GPS satellite at a reported height of 22,000 miles above the earth.

1. Why would you expect to find one? In order to get a photo of one in orbit, one would need to fly a camera-carrying craft within camera range. I don't know if you realise it, but the safe way to operate spacecraft is to keep them away from each other, not fly them close.

Also, when you do cost/benefit on the exercise of photographing a GPS satellite, what IS the benefit?

2. You can see the reflected light from it, far beyond the range at which you can discern the object itself. The principles behind the Heliograph, wherein reflected light from a mirror can be seen far further than the mirror itself, is well known

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliograph

Here's a picture of a 2018 GPS 3 sat, at 30s and beyond

If you read the post I quoted, TomInAustin makes the false claim you can see a GPS satellite in orbit.

Because the reality is you cannot see a GPS satellite in orbit.

Further, all that is available on Google when a search is performed ("images of a GPS satellite in orbit") are artist renderings.

I have no idea what your video is about or if it is even meant to address about the validity of my response to TomInAustin.

Regardless, the truth remains and that truth is you cannot see a GPS satellite in orbit while standing on the surface of the earth.

[Tumeni]

the reality is you cannot see a GPS satellite in orbit.

Yes, you can. Here's two examples of astrophotographers capturing a selection of geostationary satellites. All that would need to be done is point the camera at the correct area of sky for a particular GPS satellite to get a similar result.

Further, all that is available on Google when a search is performed ("images of a GPS satellite in orbit") are artist renderings.

So what? It's nobody's fault but your own that you did a simple google search, then gave up.

I have no idea what your video is about or if it is even meant to address about the validity of my response to TomInAustin.

You asked for photos of GPS satellites without specifying the context in your request (yes, it was in the quote), so I showed you some photos. Yes, they are of satellites under construction, but again - why would anyone construct one if there was no possibility of launching and operating it?

[iCare]

There is no possible way you can see a GPS satellite at a reported height of 22,000 miles above the earth.

And that is because of what proof, reference or reasoning?

Fun fact: It is true insofar as GPS satellites are orbiting at a height of approx. 12,500 miles (other GNSS have different but similar orbits), see e.g. https://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/space/.

However, there is an abundance of people doing exactly what you claim to be impossible, try https://www.google.com/search?q=satellite+watching
This includes satellites in geosynchronous orbit (which actually  is at approx. 22,000 miles).

You might not be able to see details of the satellites (depending on equipment, weather, ...), but you can see them.

iC

[wajeehleo]

Sorry I mentioned my previous comment wrong name of my mobile model I mentioned C220 but it was actually Samsung R220 I dont remember exact year but it was probably 2002/2003.

I still wonder few of people here on threads are keep forcing on satellite and NASA GPS theories. For them I have few questions:

How in 60s BBC Radio signals working in Pakistan?

How in late 80s and 90s My Dish receiving Indian TV channels signals in Pakistan?

These two questions are the actually answers for those people who still believing in round earth.

And just imagine if the earth is flat is this difficult to cover whole world with one satellite or is it difficult to send signals from 36,000 km far from earth by satellite?

[totallackey]

the reality is you cannot see a GPS satellite in orbit.

Yes, you can. Here's two examples of astrophotographers capturing a selection of geostationary satellites. All that would need to be done is point the camera at the correct area of sky for a particular GPS satellite to get a similar result.

Further, all that is available on Google when a search is performed ("images of a GPS satellite in orbit") are artist renderings.

So what? It's nobody's fault but your own that you did a simple google search, then gave up.

I have no idea what your video is about or if it is even meant to address about the validity of my response to TomInAustin.

You asked for photos of GPS satellites without specifying the context in your request (yes, it was in the quote), so I showed you some photos. Yes, they are of satellites under construction, but again - why would anyone construct one if there was no possibility of launching and operating it?

A geostationary satellite =/= a GPS satellite.

[Tumeni]

A geostationary satellite =/= a GPS satellite.

Define the inequality, please.

Also, do you accept that the photographers above have actually captured photos of geostationary satellites, since you're now trying to say that they are not the same as GPS?

If you protest that A does not equal B, isn't that tacit acceptance that A and B actually exist?

[totallackey]

A geostationary satellite =/= a GPS satellite.

Define the inequality, please.

Also, do you accept that the photographers above have actually captured photos of geostationary satellites, since you're now trying to say that they are not the same as GPS?

If you protest that A does not equal B, isn't that tacit acceptance that A and B actually exist?

I wrote you cannot see a GPS satellite at 22k miles above the earth (it is not like I believe they are that high anyway, but that is another thread).

You posted a video of a geostationary satellite.

GPS satellites are not geostationary.

[AATW]

Weirdly, lackey is actually right on this one. I did find this video where a dude shows GPS satellites



But correct, they aren't geostationary.

And they certainly can't be seen with the naked eye.

[Tumeni]

A geostationary satellite =/= a GPS satellite.

Define the inequality, please.

Also, do you accept that the photographers above have actually captured photos of geostationary satellites, since you're now trying to say that they are not the same as GPS?

If you protest that A does not equal B, isn't that tacit acceptance that A and B actually exist?

I wrote you cannot see a GPS satellite at 22k miles above the earth (it is not like I believe they are that high anyway, but that is another thread).

You posted a video of a geostationary satellite.

GPS satellites are not geostationary.

OK, I accept they are not geostationary.

How can you argue they are not, whilst also claiming they do not exist? They must exist in order to have an orbital attribute, do they not?