Flight durations vs distances

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 27, 2015, 09:22:33 AM

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?

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 12:15:51 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 27, 2015, 09:22:33 AM

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?

You are the one making a claim. Why is it too much to ask that you justify it?
Why do those locations given have to be 100% accurate? How many times are you going to evade the questions?
Balloons. Planes. Helicopters. Maybe some towers, but not necessarily. Plenty of possible locations.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 27, 2015, 12:23:22 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 12:15:51 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 27, 2015, 09:22:33 AM

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?

You are the one making a claim. Why is it too much to ask that you justify it?
Why do those locations given have to be 100% accurate? How many times are you going to evade the questions?
Balloons. Planes. Helicopters. Maybe some towers, but not necessarily. Plenty of possible locations.

What sort of justification do you want?

Please provide any proof that something other than a GPS satellite from the US or Russia provides signals for GPS receivers.

The proof is the documentation available and the observed operation.  As in travelling along a narrow valley and still receiving GPS data.  Note a GPS receiver has to have 'line of sight' to a transmitter.

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 12:30:24 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 27, 2015, 12:23:22 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 12:15:51 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 27, 2015, 09:22:33 AM

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?

You are the one making a claim. Why is it too much to ask that you justify it?
Why do those locations given have to be 100% accurate? How many times are you going to evade the questions?
Balloons. Planes. Helicopters. Maybe some towers, but not necessarily. Plenty of possible locations.

What sort of justification do you want?

Please provide any proof that something other than a GPS satellite from the US or Russia provides signals for GPS receivers.

The proof is the documentation available and the observed operation.  As in travelling along a narrow valley and still receiving GPS data.  Note a GPS receiver has to have 'line of sight' to a transmitter.

I want you to explain why the GPS signals we observe can only possibly come from space. Seriously, do you have a reading problem? I have been asking this for a while. An explanation.

So, "Because they say so!" is all you've got? Are you fucking kidding me?
You are aware that balloons are in the sky, right? Also, if you've ever used a satnav, you'll know signals work just fine with some obstruction, otherwise we'd all be driving around in open-topped cars.

Because that is the only realistic method to give global coverage, and with that there is no need for other transmitters.  With its original purpose for military uses it would not be easy to set up ground transmitters in various countries...

They work with some obstruction but still need to receive from a minimum number of satellites.

No Russian balloons in the sky round here.

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 12:49:50 PM

Because that is the only realistic method to give global coverage, and with that there is no need for other transmitters.  With its original purpose for military uses it would not be easy to set up ground transmitters in various countries...

Not realistic if it's not possible. Still not showing the signals come from space. And what is your hard-on for ground based transmitters?!

Quote

They work with some obstruction but still need to receive from a minimum number of satellites.

No Russian balloons in the sky round here.

Baseless claim, baseless claim and straw man and bullshit. Next?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 27, 2015, 12:52:48 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 12:49:50 PM

Because that is the only realistic method to give global coverage, and with that there is no need for other transmitters.  With its original purpose for military uses it would not be easy to set up ground transmitters in various countries...

Not realistic if it's not possible. Still not showing the signals come from space. And what is your hard-on for ground based transmitters?!

Quote

They work with some obstruction but still need to receive from a minimum number of satellites.

No Russian balloons in the sky round here.

Baseless claim, baseless claim and straw man and bullshit. Next?

Read gps.gov.  All of it.

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 12:56:24 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 27, 2015, 12:52:48 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 12:49:50 PM

Because that is the only realistic method to give global coverage, and with that there is no need for other transmitters.  With its original purpose for military uses it would not be easy to set up ground transmitters in various countries...

Not realistic if it's not possible. Still not showing the signals come from space. And what is your hard-on for ground based transmitters?!

Quote

They work with some obstruction but still need to receive from a minimum number of satellites.

No Russian balloons in the sky round here.

Baseless claim, baseless claim and straw man and bullshit. Next?

Read gps.gov.  All of it.

So argument from exhaustion and a crashed webpage, and still an inability to answer or explain given that I very much doubt there'll be a site dedicated to proving GPS signals come from space.
Is this really all you can do?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 27, 2015, 01:02:56 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 12:56:24 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 27, 2015, 12:52:48 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 12:49:50 PM

Because that is the only realistic method to give global coverage, and with that there is no need for other transmitters.  With its original purpose for military uses it would not be easy to set up ground transmitters in various countries...

Not realistic if it's not possible. Still not showing the signals come from space. And what is your hard-on for ground based transmitters?!

Quote

They work with some obstruction but still need to receive from a minimum number of satellites.

No Russian balloons in the sky round here.

Baseless claim, baseless claim and straw man and bullshit. Next?

Read gps.gov.  All of it.

So argument from exhaustion and a crashed webpage, and still an inability to answer or explain given that I very much doubt there'll be a site dedicated to proving GPS signals come from space.
Is this really all you can do?

Try http://www.gps.gov/

What would you accept as proof?  Do you accept satellite TV comes from satelites?

The big question therefore is 'What do all the dishes on the side of houses point at for receiving multichannel TV?'  Noting that they all point at an object in the sky over the equator.

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 02:38:25 PM

The big question therefore is 'What do all the dishes on the side of houses point at for receiving multichannel TV?'  Noting that they all point at an object in the sky over the equator.

Mm-hmm. You seem to be struggling with the difference between 'sky' and 'space.' It's a common problem of yours.

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 01:25:54 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 27, 2015, 01:02:56 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 12:56:24 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 27, 2015, 12:52:48 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 12:49:50 PM

Because that is the only realistic method to give global coverage, and with that there is no need for other transmitters.  With its original purpose for military uses it would not be easy to set up ground transmitters in various countries...

Not realistic if it's not possible. Still not showing the signals come from space. And what is your hard-on for ground based transmitters?!

Quote

They work with some obstruction but still need to receive from a minimum number of satellites.

No Russian balloons in the sky round here.

Baseless claim, baseless claim and straw man and bullshit. Next?

Read gps.gov.  All of it.

So argument from exhaustion and a crashed webpage, and still an inability to answer or explain given that I very much doubt there'll be a site dedicated to proving GPS signals come from space.
Is this really all you can do?

Try http://www.gps.gov/

What would you accept as proof?  Do you accept satellite TV comes from satelites?

I would accept any actual evidence. "Because I say so!" is not evidence, neither is linking to a site which is not meant to prove the signals come from satellites and if it does contain anything remotely relevant it's buried under a mountain of data. WHAT ARE YOU STRUGGLING WITH HERE?!
If all you're going to do is link, maybe you could do the smart thing and LINK TO THE PART OF THE SITE WHERE THE QUESTION IS ANSWERED
ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION YOU INCOMPETENT MORON

No. Satellites do not exist: space travel is impossible. Are you seriously still struggling with this?!

If you cannot even try to prove that the signals must come from space, stop wasting time.
[/quotehttp://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/space/

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 27, 2015, 03:43:14 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 02:38:25 PM

The big question therefore is 'What do all the dishes on the side of houses point at for receiving multichannel TV?'  Noting that they all point at an object in the sky over the equator.

Mm-hmm. You seem to be struggling with the difference between 'sky' and 'space.' It's a common problem of yours.

Please explain the difference, and about satellite tv.

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 04:19:06 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 27, 2015, 03:43:14 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 02:38:25 PM

The big question therefore is 'What do all the dishes on the side of houses point at for receiving multichannel TV?'  Noting that they all point at an object in the sky over the equator.

Mm-hmm. You seem to be struggling with the difference between 'sky' and 'space.' It's a common problem of yours.

Please explain the difference, and about satellite tv.

They point to transmitters. These transmitters are at a certain altitude. You are aware that just because something is at an altitude, it is not in space? Otherwise I went to space on my last plane journey.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 28, 2015, 06:18:01 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 04:19:06 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 27, 2015, 03:43:14 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 02:38:25 PM

The big question therefore is 'What do all the dishes on the side of houses point at for receiving multichannel TV?'  Noting that they all point at an object in the sky over the equator.

Mm-hmm. You seem to be struggling with the difference between 'sky' and 'space.' It's a common problem of yours.

Please explain the difference, and about satellite tv.

They point to transmitters. These transmitters are at a certain altitude. You are aware that just because something is at an altitude, it is not in space? Otherwise I went to space on my last plane journey.

The altitude is 36000km above the equator.

Quote from: inquisitive on October 28, 2015, 08:54:54 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 28, 2015, 06:18:01 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 04:19:06 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 27, 2015, 03:43:14 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 02:38:25 PM

The big question therefore is 'What do all the dishes on the side of houses point at for receiving multichannel TV?'  Noting that they all point at an object in the sky over the equator.

Mm-hmm. You seem to be struggling with the difference between 'sky' and 'space.' It's a common problem of yours.

Please explain the difference, and about satellite tv.

They point to transmitters. These transmitters are at a certain altitude. You are aware that just because something is at an altitude, it is not in space? Otherwise I went to space on my last plane journey.

The altitude is 36000km above the equator.

Do you have a religious objection to justifying your claims?

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 28, 2015, 09:06:02 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 28, 2015, 08:54:54 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 28, 2015, 06:18:01 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 04:19:06 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 27, 2015, 03:43:14 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 02:38:25 PM

The big question therefore is 'What do all the dishes on the side of houses point at for receiving multichannel TV?'  Noting that they all point at an object in the sky over the equator.

Mm-hmm. You seem to be struggling with the difference between 'sky' and 'space.' It's a common problem of yours.

Please explain the difference, and about satellite tv.

They point to transmitters. These transmitters are at a certain altitude. You are aware that just because something is at an altitude, it is not in space? Otherwise I went to space on my last plane journey.

The altitude is 36000km above the equator.

Do you have a religious objection to justifying your claims?

Not claims, but facts.  You would benefit with a face to face discussion with a local physics teacher instead of here.

Look up geosynchronous orbit.

Quote from: inquisitive on October 28, 2015, 12:49:31 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 28, 2015, 09:06:02 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 28, 2015, 08:54:54 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 28, 2015, 06:18:01 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 04:19:06 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 27, 2015, 03:43:14 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 02:38:25 PM

The big question therefore is 'What do all the dishes on the side of houses point at for receiving multichannel TV?'  Noting that they all point at an object in the sky over the equator.

Mm-hmm. You seem to be struggling with the difference between 'sky' and 'space.' It's a common problem of yours.

Please explain the difference, and about satellite tv.

They point to transmitters. These transmitters are at a certain altitude. You are aware that just because something is at an altitude, it is not in space? Otherwise I went to space on my last plane journey.

The altitude is 36000km above the equator.

Do you have a religious objection to justifying your claims?

Not claims, but facts.  You would benefit with a face to face discussion with a local physics teacher instead of here.

Look up geosynchronous orbit.

I am fully aware of geosynchronous orbit. How about you try and explain FOR ONCE how we know satellites are in space?

Quote from: inquisitive on October 28, 2015, 12:49:31 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 28, 2015, 09:06:02 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 28, 2015, 08:54:54 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 28, 2015, 06:18:01 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 04:19:06 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 27, 2015, 03:43:14 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 02:38:25 PM

The big question therefore is 'What do all the dishes on the side of houses point at for receiving multichannel TV?'  Noting that they all point at an object in the sky over the equator.

Mm-hmm. You seem to be struggling with the difference between 'sky' and 'space.' It's a common problem of yours.

Please explain the difference, and about satellite tv.

They point to transmitters. These transmitters are at a certain altitude. You are aware that just because something is at an altitude, it is not in space? Otherwise I went to space on my last plane journey.

The altitude is 36000km above the equator.

Do you have a religious objection to justifying your claims?

Not claims, but facts.  You would benefit with a face to face discussion with a local physics teacher instead of here.

Look up geosynchronous orbit.

I am fully aware of geosynchronous orbit. How about you try and explain FOR ONCE how we know satellites are in space?

• Perigee: 35,779.9 km
• Apogee: 35,807.4 km
• Period: 1,436.1 minutes
• Semi major axis: 42164 km
• Launch date: May 4, 2007

• Latitude: 39.7392°
• Longitude: -104.9903°
• They point the dish at 41.8° Dish angle
• Distance: 37,649 km

• Latitude: 31.7776°
• Longitude: -106.4425°
• They point the dish at 49.4° Dish angle
• Distance: 37,122 km

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 29, 2015, 11:22:56 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 28, 2015, 12:49:31 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 28, 2015, 09:06:02 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 28, 2015, 08:54:54 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 28, 2015, 06:18:01 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 04:19:06 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 27, 2015, 03:43:14 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 02:38:25 PM

The big question therefore is 'What do all the dishes on the side of houses point at for receiving multichannel TV?'  Noting that they all point at an object in the sky over the equator.

Mm-hmm. You seem to be struggling with the difference between 'sky' and 'space.' It's a common problem of yours.

Please explain the difference, and about satellite tv.

They point to transmitters. These transmitters are at a certain altitude. You are aware that just because something is at an altitude, it is not in space? Otherwise I went to space on my last plane journey.

The altitude is 36000km above the equator.

Do you have a religious objection to justifying your claims?

Not claims, but facts.  You would benefit with a face to face discussion with a local physics teacher instead of here.

Look up geosynchronous orbit.

I am fully aware of geosynchronous orbit. How about you try and explain FOR ONCE how we know satellites are in space?

We point TV Dishes at geosynchronous satellites....
35,000+ km is OUTER SPACE and by HELL OF A LOT!

Quote from: Jadyyn on October 29, 2015, 03:17:40 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 29, 2015, 11:22:56 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 28, 2015, 12:49:31 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 28, 2015, 09:06:02 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 28, 2015, 08:54:54 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 28, 2015, 06:18:01 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 04:19:06 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 27, 2015, 03:43:14 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 02:38:25 PM

The big question therefore is 'What do all the dishes on the side of houses point at for receiving multichannel TV?'  Noting that they all point at an object in the sky over the equator.

Mm-hmm. You seem to be struggling with the difference between 'sky' and 'space.' It's a common problem of yours.

Please explain the difference, and about satellite tv.

They point to transmitters. These transmitters are at a certain altitude. You are aware that just because something is at an altitude, it is not in space? Otherwise I went to space on my last plane journey.

The altitude is 36000km above the equator.

Do you have a religious objection to justifying your claims?

Not claims, but facts.  You would benefit with a face to face discussion with a local physics teacher instead of here.

Look up geosynchronous orbit.

I am fully aware of geosynchronous orbit. How about you try and explain FOR ONCE how we know satellites are in space?

We point TV Dishes at geosynchronous satellites....
35,000+ km is OUTER SPACE and by HELL OF A LOT!

You still need to prove those distances are accurate you blithering idiot.

Quote from: Jadyyn on October 29, 2015, 03:17:40 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 29, 2015, 11:22:56 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 28, 2015, 12:49:31 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 28, 2015, 09:06:02 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 28, 2015, 08:54:54 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 28, 2015, 06:18:01 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 04:19:06 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 27, 2015, 03:43:14 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 02:38:25 PM

The big question therefore is 'What do all the dishes on the side of houses point at for receiving multichannel TV?'  Noting that they all point at an object in the sky over the equator.

Mm-hmm. You seem to be struggling with the difference between 'sky' and 'space.' It's a common problem of yours.

Please explain the difference, and about satellite tv.

They point to transmitters. These transmitters are at a certain altitude. You are aware that just because something is at an altitude, it is not in space? Otherwise I went to space on my last plane journey.

The altitude is 36000km above the equator.

Do you have a religious objection to justifying your claims?

Not claims, but facts.  You would benefit with a face to face discussion with a local physics teacher instead of here.

Look up geosynchronous orbit.

I am fully aware of geosynchronous orbit. How about you try and explain FOR ONCE how we know satellites are in space?

We point TV Dishes at geosynchronous satellites....
35,000+ km is OUTER SPACE and by HELL OF A LOT!

You still need to prove those distances are accurate you blithering idiot.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 30, 2015, 01:24:01 AM

Quote from: Jadyyn on October 29, 2015, 03:17:40 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 29, 2015, 11:22:56 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 28, 2015, 12:49:31 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 28, 2015, 09:06:02 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 28, 2015, 08:54:54 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 28, 2015, 06:18:01 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 04:19:06 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 27, 2015, 03:43:14 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 02:38:25 PM

The big question therefore is 'What do all the dishes on the side of houses point at for receiving multichannel TV?'  Noting that they all point at an object in the sky over the equator.

Mm-hmm. You seem to be struggling with the difference between 'sky' and 'space.' It's a common problem of yours.

Please explain the difference, and about satellite tv.

They point to transmitters. These transmitters are at a certain altitude. You are aware that just because something is at an altitude, it is not in space? Otherwise I went to space on my last plane journey.

The altitude is 36000km above the equator.

Do you have a religious objection to justifying your claims?

Not claims, but facts.  You would benefit with a face to face discussion with a local physics teacher instead of here.

Look up geosynchronous orbit.

I am fully aware of geosynchronous orbit. How about you try and explain FOR ONCE how we know satellites are in space?

We point TV Dishes at geosynchronous satellites....
35,000+ km is OUTER SPACE and by HELL OF A LOT!

You still need to prove those distances are accurate you blithering idiot.

Fairly basic science, look it up on the internet for an explanation.  No need for the detail here when its published elsewhere.

If you find information you do not agree with or understand post the link here for further discussion.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 30, 2015, 01:24:01 AM

Quote from: Jadyyn on October 29, 2015, 03:17:40 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 29, 2015, 11:22:56 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 28, 2015, 12:49:31 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 28, 2015, 09:06:02 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 28, 2015, 08:54:54 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 28, 2015, 06:18:01 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 04:19:06 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 27, 2015, 03:43:14 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 02:38:25 PM

The big question therefore is 'What do all the dishes on the side of houses point at for receiving multichannel TV?'  Noting that they all point at an object in the sky over the equator.

Mm-hmm. You seem to be struggling with the difference between 'sky' and 'space.' It's a common problem of yours.

Please explain the difference, and about satellite tv.

They point to transmitters. These transmitters are at a certain altitude. You are aware that just because something is at an altitude, it is not in space? Otherwise I went to space on my last plane journey.

The altitude is 36000km above the equator.

Do you have a religious objection to justifying your claims?

Not claims, but facts.  You would benefit with a face to face discussion with a local physics teacher instead of here.

Look up geosynchronous orbit.

I am fully aware of geosynchronous orbit. How about you try and explain FOR ONCE how we know satellites are in space?

We point TV Dishes at geosynchronous satellites....
35,000+ km is OUTER SPACE and by HELL OF A LOT!

You still need to prove those distances are accurate you blithering idiot.

Name calling again... Proves you are right.

These are REAL people setting up REAL dishes for millions of people. Pointing those dishes at those angles means the satellites are 10,000's of km up. Math proves it - you should learn some.

Quote from: Jadyyn on October 30, 2015, 07:16:51 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 30, 2015, 01:24:01 AM

Quote from: Jadyyn on October 29, 2015, 03:17:40 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 29, 2015, 11:22:56 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 28, 2015, 12:49:31 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 28, 2015, 09:06:02 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 28, 2015, 08:54:54 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 28, 2015, 06:18:01 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 04:19:06 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 27, 2015, 03:43:14 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 02:38:25 PM

The big question therefore is 'What do all the dishes on the side of houses point at for receiving multichannel TV?'  Noting that they all point at an object in the sky over the equator.

Mm-hmm. You seem to be struggling with the difference between 'sky' and 'space.' It's a common problem of yours.

Please explain the difference, and about satellite tv.

They point to transmitters. These transmitters are at a certain altitude. You are aware that just because something is at an altitude, it is not in space? Otherwise I went to space on my last plane journey.

The altitude is 36000km above the equator.

Do you have a religious objection to justifying your claims?

Not claims, but facts.  You would benefit with a face to face discussion with a local physics teacher instead of here.

Look up geosynchronous orbit.

I am fully aware of geosynchronous orbit. How about you try and explain FOR ONCE how we know satellites are in space?

We point TV Dishes at geosynchronous satellites....
35,000+ km is OUTER SPACE and by HELL OF A LOT!

You still need to prove those distances are accurate you blithering idiot.

Name calling again... Proves you are right.

These are REAL people setting up REAL dishes for millions of people. Pointing those dishes at those angles means the satellites are 10,000's of km up. Math proves it - you should learn some.

When a discussion has spanned several pages of me asking one simple question and Inquisitive adamantly refusing to even try to answer, then yes, I will call him names. Where is this magical math which somehow proves that dishes pointed along a line must be pointed at an object a set distance along that line? I've been waiting for ages for Inquisitive to answer this, please read the thread. Or are you just resorting to your standard "You're a FEer, you're wrong and I'm going to ignore everything you say?"
Do you have anything more substatntial than "ooh, you said a naughty word!"
Childish.

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 30, 2015, 07:52:30 AM

Quote from: Jadyyn on October 30, 2015, 07:16:51 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 30, 2015, 01:24:01 AM

Quote from: Jadyyn on October 29, 2015, 03:17:40 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 29, 2015, 11:22:56 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 28, 2015, 12:49:31 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 28, 2015, 09:06:02 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 28, 2015, 08:54:54 AM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 28, 2015, 06:18:01 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 04:19:06 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on October 27, 2015, 03:43:14 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on October 27, 2015, 02:38:25 PM

The big question therefore is 'What do all the dishes on the side of houses point at for receiving multichannel TV?'  Noting that they all point at an object in the sky over the equator.

Mm-hmm. You seem to be struggling with the difference between 'sky' and 'space.' It's a common problem of yours.

Please explain the difference, and about satellite tv.

They point to transmitters. These transmitters are at a certain altitude. You are aware that just because something is at an altitude, it is not in space? Otherwise I went to space on my last plane journey.

The altitude is 36000km above the equator.

Do you have a religious objection to justifying your claims?

Not claims, but facts.  You would benefit with a face to face discussion with a local physics teacher instead of here.

Look up geosynchronous orbit.

I am fully aware of geosynchronous orbit. How about you try and explain FOR ONCE how we know satellites are in space?

We point TV Dishes at geosynchronous satellites....
35,000+ km is OUTER SPACE and by HELL OF A LOT!

You still need to prove those distances are accurate you blithering idiot.

Name calling again... Proves you are right.

These are REAL people setting up REAL dishes for millions of people. Pointing those dishes at those angles means the satellites are 10,000's of km up. Math proves it - you should learn some.

When a discussion has spanned several pages of me asking one simple question and Inquisitive adamantly refusing to even try to answer, then yes, I will call him names. Where is this magical math which somehow proves that dishes pointed along a line must be pointed at an object a set distance along that line? I've been waiting for ages for Inquisitive to answer this, please read the thread. Or are you just resorting to your standard "You're a FEer, you're wrong and I'm going to ignore everything you say?"
Do you have anything more substatntial than "ooh, you said a naughty word!"
Childish.

Why do you need an explanation from me when the information is easily available on the internet, libraries, teachers etc.?  You could even discuss with a satellite TV installer.

at the same object