Flight durations vs distances

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 24, 2015, 09:24:01 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 24, 2015, 08:56:21 AM

Just explain the path of the sun as seen from different places on earth through the day with a diagram and how GPS works and then we can move on.

GPS is answered under classical FET in an answer that carries. The path of the Sun is far too complicated to explain: you'd need to understand an underlying principle, the subsequent set-up of the Earth, and then it will fall neatly into place. If you're willing to dedicate some time and effort into actually learning DE theory, rather than snippets you can mock, PM me as my sig invites. I'm happy to explain it, but it's far too much to get into over a post.

Folks, you CAN'T argue the DE theory/model/map when one has not been presented. All you can do concerning the DE theory/model/map is believe that JR is correct and it explains everything. That is his argument.

Look at my comment on "PM me" in the "Amateur Astronomy - Equatorial Alignment" thread. You will see why he won't post it or discuss it here. It can be posted - a picture is worth a 1000 words - especially a 2D one.

You like the sound of your own voice. You plug your own post in multiple threads, because why? Do you hate what I'm saying so much?

There is a model, and it is very easy for those interested to find it. I'm happy to discuss it in a reasonable setting. Open season by the trolls on this site is far from reasonable. You'd end up with a tangled mess that's impossible to read or navigate. I'm trying to teach a model. I will happily discuss the theory, even in the forum, only among those that understand the model. Anything else would be ridiculous.

They cannot be earth based, particularly as noobody has identified transmitter sites. 

"I haven't seen them, therefore they don't exist."

Quote from: inquisitive on October 24, 2015, 10:38:36 AM

They cannot be earth based, particularly as noobody has identified transmitter sites. 

"I haven't seen them, therefore they don't exist."

Please provide details of some sites.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 24, 2015, 11:22:12 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 24, 2015, 10:38:36 AM

They cannot be earth based, particularly as noobody has identified transmitter sites. 

"I haven't seen them, therefore they don't exist."

Please provide details of some sites.

What details would you like?

Quote from: inquisitive on October 24, 2015, 11:49:42 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 24, 2015, 11:22:12 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 24, 2015, 10:38:36 AM

They cannot be earth based, particularly as noobody has identified transmitter sites. 

"I haven't seen them, therefore they don't exist."

Please provide details of some sites.

What details would you like?

Location and proof they are a GPS transmitter.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 24, 2015, 01:46:55 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 24, 2015, 11:49:42 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 24, 2015, 11:22:12 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 24, 2015, 10:38:36 AM

They cannot be earth based, particularly as noobody has identified transmitter sites. 

"I haven't seen them, therefore they don't exist."

Please provide details of some sites.

What details would you like?

Location and proof they are a GPS transmitter.

You struggle with the idea of a secret, I see.

Well, as always in a forum, this thread went to everything else but the actual topic :-)

However, I am new to this, still I love discussing everything calmly.

Lets see about that DE thing.

Well, as always in a forum, this thread went to everything else but the actual topic :-)

However, I am new to this, still I love discussing everything calmly.

Pls provide a link so I can take a look at this double earth thing.

Note my sig. I tried the forum post explanation before, it doesn't work. You're confronted with a wall of text that you either skim or ignore, and if you misunderstand any of it you go onto the later explanations and details and you'd understandably be lost quickly. Add into that the number of trolls on this forum, and you've got a perfect recipe for a mess.

Well, I just learned that this forum here is way more active than tfes.org, where I posted first, therefor I did not see the other flight duration threads.

You see, the difference between "science" before, lets say, 1800 and today is:

today you cant base a theory on things that arent even close to being proven, like "aether" or your teleporting idea, you need to find evidence for that first, which, of course, you didnt.
Furthermore, the DE thing is just "your" theory, it actually goes totally against what other FEers think (for example, what the sun does).

It is just too absurd.

Quote from: inquisitive on October 24, 2015, 07:59:32 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 24, 2015, 01:46:55 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 24, 2015, 11:49:42 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 24, 2015, 11:22:12 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 24, 2015, 10:38:36 AM

They cannot be earth based, particularly as noobody has identified transmitter sites. 

"I haven't seen them, therefore they don't exist."

Please provide details of some sites.

What details would you like?

Location and proof they are a GPS transmitter.

You struggle with the idea of a secret, I see.

GPS receivers show the direction of the transmitters and it is published information. Needed by users and manufacturers.

This is the must be a secret to maintain my lack of knowledge or understanding.

GPS receivers show the direction of the transmitters and it is published information. Needed by users and manufacturers.

This is the must be a secret to maintain my lack of knowledge or understanding.

So? Direction means little more than 'up!' Balloons, helicopters, planes.

Your second sentence is inexplicable. Do you believe a group who have faked space travel would happily publish the locations of sites used to simulate satellites?

today you cant base a theory on things that arent even close to being proven, like "aether" or your teleporting idea, you need to find evidence for that first, which, of course, you didnt.
Furthermore, the DE thing is just "your" theory, it actually goes totally against what other FEers think (for example, what the sun does).

It is just too absurd.

Yes, DE contradicts the uniplanar FE model. the uniplanar model has been refuted many times.
And you have just demonstrated the problem with trying to teach DET over bitty forum posts. What you have asserted is utter nonsense, and in ignorance of the model. There is no 'teleporting' whatsoever: that's a common RE lie from those who didn't take the time to reach the model, and decided they'd rather insult an incomplete understanding. There is a great deal of evidence, which would be explained as the theory was taught, and could be discussed in the forum, if anyone was willing to put in the effort to actually learn a FE model.

But no one wants to. Half of you don't even bother with the FAQ, and the rest seem to think "UA and ice wall, that's enough," despite the fact that view is held pretty much exclusively by the trolls. There's much more to FET, but none of you want to learn. That's your choice, but don't make such sweeping statements about things you have actively chosen to know nothing about.

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 04:55:26 AM

GPS receivers show the direction of the transmitters and it is published information. Needed by users and manufacturers.

This is the must be a secret to maintain my lack of knowledge or understanding.

So? Direction means little more than 'up!' Balloons, helicopters, planes.

Your second sentence is inexplicable. Do you believe a group who have faked space travel would happily publish the locations of sites used to simulate satellites?

Quote from: Somestranger on October 25, 2015, 04:50:00 AM

today you cant base a theory on things that arent even close to being proven, like "aether" or your teleporting idea, you need to find evidence for that first, which, of course, you didnt.
Furthermore, the DE thing is just "your" theory, it actually goes totally against what other FEers think (for example, what the sun does).

It is just too absurd.

Yes, DE contradicts the uniplanar FE model. the uniplanar model has been refuted many times.
And you have just demonstrated the problem with trying to teach DET over bitty forum posts. What you have asserted is utter nonsense, and in ignorance of the model. There is no 'teleporting' whatsoever: that's a common RE lie from those who didn't take the time to reach the model, and decided they'd rather insult an incomplete understanding. There is a great deal of evidence, which would be explained as the theory was taught, and could be discussed in the forum, if anyone was willing to put in the effort to actually learn a FE model.

But no one wants to. Half of you don't even bother with the FAQ, and the rest seem to think "UA and ice wall, that's enough," despite the fact that view is held pretty much exclusively by the trolls. There's much more to FET, but none of you want to learn. That's your choice, but don't make such sweeping statements about things you have actively chosen to know nothing about.

A GPS receiver shows the direction or angle of each US and Russian satellite it is receiving from.

A GPS receiver shows the direction or angle of each US and Russian satellite it is receiving from.

So?

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 07:42:10 AM

A GPS receiver shows the direction or angle of each US and Russian satellite it is receiving from.

So?

The azimuth and elevation for each one shows they are in the sky.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 25, 2015, 07:45:26 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 07:42:10 AM

A GPS receiver shows the direction or angle of each US and Russian satellite it is receiving from.

So?

The azimuth and elevation for each one shows they are in the sky.

Again, so?

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 07:54:42 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 25, 2015, 07:45:26 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 07:42:10 AM

A GPS receiver shows the direction or angle of each US and Russian satellite it is receiving from.

So?

The azimuth and elevation for each one shows they are in the sky.

Again, so?

Which shows they are not on the ground and orbiting a round earth.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 25, 2015, 08:35:00 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 07:54:42 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 25, 2015, 07:45:26 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 07:42:10 AM

A GPS receiver shows the direction or angle of each US and Russian satellite it is receiving from.

So?

The azimuth and elevation for each one shows they are in the sky.

Again, so?

Which shows they are not on the ground and orbiting a round earth.

So, if something is not on the ground, it must be in space?

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 10:40:03 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 25, 2015, 08:35:00 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 07:54:42 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 25, 2015, 07:45:26 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 07:42:10 AM

A GPS receiver shows the direction or angle of each US and Russian satellite it is receiving from.

So?

The azimuth and elevation for each one shows they are in the sky.

Again, so?

Which shows they are not on the ground and orbiting a round earth.

So, if something is not on the ground, it must be in space?

Yes, if it is a GPS transmitter as shown by the directions from various locations.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 25, 2015, 10:57:54 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 10:40:03 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 25, 2015, 08:35:00 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 07:54:42 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 25, 2015, 07:45:26 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 07:42:10 AM

A GPS receiver shows the direction or angle of each US and Russian satellite it is receiving from.

So?

The azimuth and elevation for each one shows they are in the sky.

Again, so?

Which shows they are not on the ground and orbiting a round earth.

So, if something is not on the ground, it must be in space?

Yes, if it is a GPS transmitter as shown by the directions from various locations.

Why? There's an awful lot of middle ground.

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 12:49:04 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 25, 2015, 10:57:54 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 10:40:03 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 25, 2015, 08:35:00 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 07:54:42 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 25, 2015, 07:45:26 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 07:42:10 AM

A GPS receiver shows the direction or angle of each US and Russian satellite it is receiving from.

So?

The azimuth and elevation for each one shows they are in the sky.

Again, so?

Which shows they are not on the ground and orbiting a round earth.

So, if something is not on the ground, it must be in space?

Yes, if it is a GPS transmitter as shown by the directions from various locations.

Why? There's an awful lot of middle ground.

Please provide any proof that GPS does not come from satellite as in www.gps.gov

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 25, 2015, 01:25:37 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 12:49:04 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 25, 2015, 10:57:54 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 10:40:03 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 25, 2015, 08:35:00 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 07:54:42 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 25, 2015, 07:45:26 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 07:42:10 AM

A GPS receiver shows the direction or angle of each US and Russian satellite it is receiving from.

So?

The azimuth and elevation for each one shows they are in the sky.

Again, so?

Which shows they are not on the ground and orbiting a round earth.

So, if something is not on the ground, it must be in space?

Yes, if it is a GPS transmitter as shown by the directions from various locations.

Why? There's an awful lot of middle ground.

Please provide any proof that GPS does not come from satellite as in www.gps.gov

Still not how it works. Your positive claim, your job to provide evidence. "Because I say so," is not evidence.

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 02:31:12 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 25, 2015, 01:25:37 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 12:49:04 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 25, 2015, 10:57:54 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 10:40:03 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 25, 2015, 08:35:00 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 07:54:42 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 25, 2015, 07:45:26 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 07:42:10 AM

A GPS receiver shows the direction or angle of each US and Russian satellite it is receiving from.

So?

The azimuth and elevation for each one shows they are in the sky.

Again, so?

Which shows they are not on the ground and orbiting a round earth.

So, if something is not on the ground, it must be in space?

Yes, if it is a GPS transmitter as shown by the directions from various locations.

Why? There's an awful lot of middle ground.

Please provide any proof that GPS does not come from satellite as in www.gps.gov

Still not how it works. Your positive claim, your job to provide evidence. "Because I say so," is not evidence.

The evidence is from users, manufacturers, designers.  What else do you want?  You should contact the US Air Force for proof.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 26, 2015, 12:25:19 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 02:31:12 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 25, 2015, 01:25:37 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 12:49:04 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 25, 2015, 10:57:54 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 10:40:03 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 25, 2015, 08:35:00 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 07:54:42 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 25, 2015, 07:45:26 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 07:42:10 AM

A GPS receiver shows the direction or angle of each US and Russian satellite it is receiving from.

So?

The azimuth and elevation for each one shows they are in the sky.

Again, so?

Which shows they are not on the ground and orbiting a round earth.

So, if something is not on the ground, it must be in space?

Yes, if it is a GPS transmitter as shown by the directions from various locations.

Why? There's an awful lot of middle ground.

Please provide any proof that GPS does not come from satellite as in www.gps.gov

Still not how it works. Your positive claim, your job to provide evidence. "Because I say so," is not evidence.

The evidence is from users, manufacturers, designers.  What else do you want?  You should contact the US Air Force for proof.

I'd like you to actually give this evidence. Why is that so hard?

Quote from: inquisitive on October 26, 2015, 12:37:07 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 26, 2015, 12:25:19 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 02:31:12 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 25, 2015, 01:25:37 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 12:49:04 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 25, 2015, 10:57:54 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 10:40:03 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 25, 2015, 08:35:00 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 07:54:42 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 25, 2015, 07:45:26 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 07:42:10 AM

A GPS receiver shows the direction or angle of each US and Russian satellite it is receiving from.

So?

The azimuth and elevation for each one shows they are in the sky.

Again, so?

Which shows they are not on the ground and orbiting a round earth.

So, if something is not on the ground, it must be in space?

Yes, if it is a GPS transmitter as shown by the directions from various locations.

Why? There's an awful lot of middle ground.

Please provide any proof that GPS does not come from satellite as in www.gps.gov

Still not how it works. Your positive claim, your job to provide evidence. "Because I say so," is not evidence.

The evidence is from users, manufacturers, designers.  What else do you want?  You should contact the US Air Force for proof.

I'd like you to actually give this evidence. Why is that so hard?

Why from me when you can find out from many sources?  This sounds like point scoring rather than a genuine interest.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 26, 2015, 12:43:08 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 26, 2015, 12:37:07 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 26, 2015, 12:25:19 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 02:31:12 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 25, 2015, 01:25:37 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 12:49:04 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 25, 2015, 10:57:54 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 10:40:03 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 25, 2015, 08:35:00 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 07:54:42 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 25, 2015, 07:45:26 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 25, 2015, 07:42:10 AM

A GPS receiver shows the direction or angle of each US and Russian satellite it is receiving from.

So?

The azimuth and elevation for each one shows they are in the sky.

Again, so?

Which shows they are not on the ground and orbiting a round earth.

So, if something is not on the ground, it must be in space?

Yes, if it is a GPS transmitter as shown by the directions from various locations.

Why? There's an awful lot of middle ground.

Please provide any proof that GPS does not come from satellite as in www.gps.gov

Still not how it works. Your positive claim, your job to provide evidence. "Because I say so," is not evidence.

The evidence is from users, manufacturers, designers.  What else do you want?  You should contact the US Air Force for proof.

I'd like you to actually give this evidence. Why is that so hard?

Why from me when you can find out from many sources?  This sounds like point scoring rather than a genuine interest.

And this sounds like evasion to me. If it's so simple and commonplace, it should be easy for you to explain why GPS signals can only come from space. Still waiting.

The only word.  Can only come from space.  It is just that the system we use is transmitted from orbiting satellites.  Maybe there could be a land based system requiring millions of transmitters, with many based in the oceans.

As stated before a receiver shows the location of the 10 or more transmitters it can 'see'.  I'm not aware of Russia building transmitters on US land.

The only word.  Can only come from space.  It is just that the system we use is transmitted from orbiting satellites.  Maybe there could be a land based system requiring millions of transmitters, with many based in the oceans.

As stated before a receiver shows the location of the 10 or more transmitters it can 'see'.  I'm not aware of Russia building transmitters on US land.

Two things you have yet to provide any evidence for:

• Why a GPS system is either on land, or in space, with no in between
• Why the GPS signals we observe can only come from space

 

Quote from: inquisitive on October 26, 2015, 03:05:50 PM

The only word.  Can only come from space.  It is just that the system we use is transmitted from orbiting satellites.  Maybe there could be a land based system requiring millions of transmitters, with many based in the oceans.

As stated before a receiver shows the location of the 10 or more transmitters it can 'see'.  I'm not aware of Russia building transmitters on US land.

Two things you have yet to provide any evidence for:

• Why a GPS system is either on land, or in space, with no in between
• Why the GPS signals we observe can only come from space

What matters is how the system we all use works.  All the documentation and operation refers to satellite transmitters.  Please give links to any you believe to be incorrect.

Could there be a system based on land transmitters?  How many would be needed to give cm. accuracy and the G in GPS is 'global' so how would this work over the sea?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 27, 2015, 02:15:22 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 26, 2015, 03:05:50 PM

The only word.  Can only come from space.  It is just that the system we use is transmitted from orbiting satellites.  Maybe there could be a land based system requiring millions of transmitters, with many based in the oceans.

As stated before a receiver shows the location of the 10 or more transmitters it can 'see'.  I'm not aware of Russia building transmitters on US land.

Two things you have yet to provide any evidence for:

• Why a GPS system is either on land, or in space, with no in between
• Why the GPS signals we observe can only come from space

What matters is how the system we all use works.  All the documentation and operation refers to satellite transmitters.  Please give links to any you believe to be incorrect.

Could there be a system based on land transmitters?  How many would be needed to give cm. accuracy and the G in GPS is 'global' so how would this work over the sea?

Did you miss the 'we observe?'
I believe the documentation that refers to transmitters in space are incorrect. Easier than a link: a general rule you can obey.

Once more, explain rather than just repeating:

• Why a GPS system is either on land, or in space, with no in between
• Why the GPS signals we observe can only come from space

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 08:14:38 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 27, 2015, 02:15:22 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 26, 2015, 03:05:50 PM

The only word.  Can only come from space.  It is just that the system we use is transmitted from orbiting satellites.  Maybe there could be a land based system requiring millions of transmitters, with many based in the oceans.

As stated before a receiver shows the location of the 10 or more transmitters it can 'see'.  I'm not aware of Russia building transmitters on US land.

Two things you have yet to provide any evidence for:

• Why a GPS system is either on land, or in space, with no in between
• Why the GPS signals we observe can only come from space

What matters is how the system we all use works.  All the documentation and operation refers to satellite transmitters.  Please give links to any you believe to be incorrect.

Could there be a system based on land transmitters?  How many would be needed to give cm. accuracy and the G in GPS is 'global' so how would this work over the sea?

Did you miss the 'we observe?'
I believe the documentation that refers to transmitters in space are incorrect. Easier than a link: a general rule you can obey.

Once more, explain rather than just repeating:

• Why a GPS system is either on land, or in space, with no in between
• Why the GPS signals we observe can only come from space

Why do you want to know from posters here and why not look elsewhere?

GPS receivers show the transmitter locations, you should check on your smart phone or tablet.  Thousands of people develop GPS systems and applications and know where the signals come from.

Where do you think the transmitters are?