The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth General => Topic started by: Bastl on December 24, 2019, 04:48:07 AM
-
hey Guys
So GPS obviously is working as we all can use it. How does this work on a flat earth?
-
Please use the forum's search function. This question has definitely been asked (and "answered") before.
I'm not even a flattie, but you need to step your game up.
-
FWIW, my father worked on the original design and implementation of the GPS. From what I remember, he believed the earth was spherical.
-
Why do you think GPS wouldn't work on a flat earth?
-
Q&A is not for debate.
-
Q&A is not for debate.
Sorry, I'm not debating. I'm trying to understand the question. I see no reason GPS wouldn't work perfectly well on a flat earth.
-
Why do you think GPS wouldn't work on a flat earth?
How do satellites orbit a flat earth? As GPS requires satellites to work.
-
Why do you think GPS wouldn't work on a flat earth?
How do satellites orbit a flat earth? As GPS requires satellites to work.
This question applies to both orbiting and geostationary satellites. Move to different forum?
-
Q&A is not for debate.
Sorry, I'm not debating. I'm trying to understand the question. I see no reason GPS wouldn't work perfectly well on a flat earth.
How does a geostationary satellite maintain its position on a flat earth and where can we find the elevation and azimuth for a particular satellite from a particular location?
-
Why do you think GPS wouldn't work on a flat earth?
How do satellites orbit a flat earth? As GPS requires satellites to work.
Why do you think a GPS would require satellites to work?
-
Why do you think GPS wouldn't work on a flat earth?
How do satellites orbit a flat earth? As GPS requires satellites to work.
Why do you think a GPS would require satellites to work?
Tell me then how GPS works without satellites?
-
Why do you think GPS wouldn't work on a flat earth?
How do satellites orbit a flat earth? As GPS requires satellites to work.
Why do you think a GPS would require satellites to work?
Tell me then how GPS works without satellites?
It uses very good clocks. Nothing about GPS necessitates satellites in any way shape or form. All you need is a transmitter that knows where it is. It works without satellites, because satellites are not necessary.
-
How does a geostationary satellite maintain its position on a flat earth and where can we find the elevation and azimuth for a particular satellite from a particular location?
GPS satellites are not geostationary.
-
Why do you think GPS wouldn't work on a flat earth?
Because, for example, land-based "satellites" won't be able to tell the altitude you are at. Besides, there would have to be quite a few of those fake satellites to cover the whole surface of the Earth, and I don't see how it can be hidden.
-
Why do you think GPS wouldn't work on a flat earth?
Because, for example, land-based "satellites" won't be able to tell the altitude you are at. Besides, there would have to be quite a few of those fake satellites to cover the whole surface of the Earth, and I don't see how it can be hidden.
Its odd to me that you think land-based transmitters won't tell you the altitude you are at. Why do you hold this quaint belief? It has nothing to do with the transmitters being in space. It has to do with how many there are.
-
Why do you think GPS wouldn't work on a flat earth?
Because, for example, land-based "satellites" won't be able to tell the altitude you are at. Besides, there would have to be quite a few of those fake satellites to cover the whole surface of the Earth, and I don't see how it can be hidden.
Its odd to me that you think land-based transmitters won't tell you the altitude you are at. Why do you hold this quaint belief? It has nothing to do with the transmitters being in space. It has to do with how many there are.
GPS tells the location from the distance to the satellites. If the distance to all the land-based satellites gets longer, how can a GPS possibly tell if it is because it has moved upward or downward? It can't tell that. On the other hand, if the satellites are in space (always above the GPS receiver), distance to all satellites in range getting shorter means it's climbing.
-
First off, your presumption seems to think each transmitter is at the same altitude, meaning not only a flat earth but one with no hills or valleys - oh my. Even given this absurdity, you are still wrong. They would still be able to determine the altitude.
Secondly, how can it do that? I don't know. How about you start by measuring the distance to each transmitter...
How exactly do you round earthers think GPS works? Is it just magic to you?
-
Why do you think GPS wouldn't work on a flat earth?
Because, for example, land-based "satellites" won't be able to tell the altitude you are at. Besides, there would have to be quite a few of those fake satellites to cover the whole surface of the Earth, and I don't see how it can be hidden.
Its odd to me that you think land-based transmitters won't tell you the altitude you are at. Why do you hold this quaint belief? It has nothing to do with the transmitters being in space. It has to do with how many there are.
GPS tells the location from the distance to the satellites. If the distance to all the land-based satellites gets longer, how can a GPS possibly tell if it is because it has moved upward or downward? It can't tell that. On the other hand, if the satellites are in space (always above the GPS receiver), distance to all satellites in range getting shorter means it's climbing.
Actually, all such location services work on the notion of intersecting spheres. Generally, you need 4 or more spheres (transmitters) to get a decent 3D position, but the more spheres you have, the better.
-
Why do you think GPS wouldn't work on a flat earth?
Because, for example, land-based "satellites" won't be able to tell the altitude you are at. Besides, there would have to be quite a few of those fake satellites to cover the whole surface of the Earth, and I don't see how it can be hidden.
Its odd to me that you think land-based transmitters won't tell you the altitude you are at. Why do you hold this quaint belief? It has nothing to do with the transmitters being in space. It has to do with how many there are.
GPS tells the location from the distance to the satellites. If the distance to all the land-based satellites gets longer, how can a GPS possibly tell if it is because it has moved upward or downward? It can't tell that. On the other hand, if the satellites are in space (always above the GPS receiver), distance to all satellites in range getting shorter means it's climbing.
Actually, all such location services work on the notion of intersecting spheres. Generally, you need 4 or more spheres (transmitters) to get a decent 3D position, but the more spheres you have, the better.
Yes, as Markjo points out the spheres are constructed by way of knowing the transmitter location, an accurate time, and the distance to the receiver.
None of these requirements unfortunately are satellites.
-
Secondly, how can it do that? I don't know. How about you start by measuring the distance to each transmitter...
You get the distance to the transmitters by knowing the speed of light and using those very accurate clocks to time how long the signal takes to get from the transmitter to the receiver.
But you already know that because it's pretty much the same way that FE GPS (A.K.A.: GSM positioning) works from cell phone towers. The main difference is that RE GPS assumes that the transmitters are moving in well defined orbits above the earth while FE's land based "GPS" assumes that the transmitters are in known stationary locations.
-
Who mentioned anything about FE GPS. I'm just curious about what would make it exclusive to a round earth. Supposedly that exclusivity is due to satellites. He is pointing out that there are usually two solutions with three transmitters - as you point out this is wrong because the addition of the fourth rules out the extraneous solution. Common sense can usually remove this fourth solution without an additional transmitter (knowledge of whether you are under ground and unable to use gps anyways.)
This is true on a flat earth or a round earth.
I'd like to know how he thinks it works on a round earth though, given his claim that there would be two solutions which would hold for a round earth or flat one.
-
Who mentioned anything about FE GPS. I'm just curious about what would make it exclusive to a round earth. Supposedly that exclusivity is due to satellites. He is pointing out that there are usually two solutions with three transmitters - as you point out this is wrong because the addition of the fourth rules out the extraneous solution. Common sense can usually remove this fourth solution without an additional transmitter (knowledge of whether you are under ground and unable to use gps anyways.)
This is true on a flat earth or a round earth.
I'd like to know how he thinks it works on a round earth though, given his claim that there would be two solutions which would hold for a round earth or flat one.
For God's sake, when you have the distance from 3 satellites, there are two solutions: one is down on Earth, below the satellites, the other is up in space, above the satellites. GPS can tell elevation you are at with three satellites because it can safely assume you are below the satellites. If, however, the satellites are actually on the land, it can't assume that, and it cannot tell the elevation. The fact that GPS can accurately tell the elevation with data from three satellites severely discredits the idea that GPS satellites are actually down on Earth.
Besides, how come do the GPS devices that assume the satellites are moving give such accurate results if they aren't actually moving?
-
Who mentioned anything about FE GPS.
The OP, when they asked how GPS works on a flat earth.
-
Who mentioned anything about FE GPS. I'm just curious about what would make it exclusive to a round earth. Supposedly that exclusivity is due to satellites. He is pointing out that there are usually two solutions with three transmitters - as you point out this is wrong because the addition of the fourth rules out the extraneous solution. Common sense can usually remove this fourth solution without an additional transmitter (knowledge of whether you are under ground and unable to use gps anyways.)
This is true on a flat earth or a round earth.
I'd like to know how he thinks it works on a round earth though, given his claim that there would be two solutions which would hold for a round earth or flat one.
For God's sake, when you have the distance from 3 satellites, there are two solutions: one is down on Earth, below the satellites, the other is up in space, above the satellites. GPS can tell elevation you are at with three satellites because it can safely assume you are below the satellites. If, however, the satellites are actually on the land, it can't assume that, and it cannot tell the elevation. The fact that GPS can accurately tell the elevation with data from three satellites severely discredits the idea that GPS satellites are actually down on Earth.
Besides, how come do the GPS devices that assume the satellites are moving give such accurate results if they aren't actually moving?
It's a good thing we don't only have three satellites, or we'd have an inaccurate position (on a round or a flat earth).
Can you back up your wild assertion that only three gps satellites exist? And that on both a round or a flat earth using three satellites does not lead to inaccurate results?
-
Why do you think GPS wouldn't work on a flat earth?
How do satellites orbit a flat earth? As GPS requires satellites to work.
Why do you think a GPS would require satellites to work?
Tell me then how GPS works without satellites?
It uses very good clocks. Nothing about GPS necessitates satellites in any way shape or form. All you need is a transmitter that knows where it is. It works without satellites because satellites are not necessary.
Wrong.
If we are going to approach this on a scientific basis then lets all stick to the known scientific facts. As of Aug 2019 there were 31 GPS satellites in operational orbit, with a total of 74 having been launched. That is one fact. Another fact is they are in orbit. Another fact is they can provide any user with a pretty accurate position of where they happen to be on the surface of the earth based on the earth being a sphere. They also operate taking relativity into account for the user's location.
I imagine when all those 74 satellites were all blasted off the engineers had a pretty good idea what kind of orbit they were going into, don't you agree John? As is always the case what is it about the functionality of GPS that leads you to believe the world is flat?
-
Why do you think GPS wouldn't work on a flat earth?
How do satellites orbit a flat earth? As GPS requires satellites to work.
Why do you think a GPS would require satellites to work?
Tell me then how GPS works without satellites?
It uses very good clocks. Nothing about GPS necessitates satellites in any way shape or form. All you need is a transmitter that knows where it is. It works without satellites because satellites are not necessary.
Wrong.
If we are going to approach this on a scientific basis then lets all stick to the known scientific facts. As of Aug 2019 there were 31 GPS satellites in operational orbit, with a total of 74 having been launched. That is one fact. Another fact is they are in orbit. Another fact is they can provide any user with a pretty accurate position of where they happen to be on the surface of the earth based on the earth being a sphere. They also operate taking relativity into account for the user's location.
I imagine when all those 74 satellites were all blasted off the engineers had a pretty good idea what kind of orbit they were going into, don't you agree John? As is always the case what is it about the functionality of GPS that leads you to believe the world is flat?
What about what I said is wrong?
-
Who mentioned anything about FE GPS. I'm just curious about what would make it exclusive to a round earth. Supposedly that exclusivity is due to satellites. He is pointing out that there are usually two solutions with three transmitters - as you point out this is wrong because the addition of the fourth rules out the extraneous solution. Common sense can usually remove this fourth solution without an additional transmitter (knowledge of whether you are under ground and unable to use gps anyways.)
This is true on a flat earth or a round earth.
I'd like to know how he thinks it works on a round earth though, given his claim that there would be two solutions which would hold for a round earth or flat one.
For God's sake, when you have the distance from 3 satellites, there are two solutions: one is down on Earth, below the satellites, the other is up in space, above the satellites. GPS can tell elevation you are at with three satellites because it can safely assume you are below the satellites. If, however, the satellites are actually on the land, it can't assume that, and it cannot tell the elevation. The fact that GPS can accurately tell the elevation with data from three satellites severely discredits the idea that GPS satellites are actually down on Earth.
Besides, how come do the GPS devices that assume the satellites are moving give such accurate results if they aren't actually moving?
It's a good thing we don't only have three satellites, or we'd have an inaccurate position (on a round or a flat earth).
Can you back up your wild assertion that only three gps satellites exist? And that on both a round or a flat earth using three satellites does not lead to inaccurate results?
When did I say only three GPS satellites exist? I pointed out to the fact that, if a GPS receives signal from only three satellites, it can determine the elevation with precision of around 20 meters. That's not super-precise, but it's hard to explain if we assume it has to guess between two very different solutions. Honestly, you seem to be trolling.
And that with elevation is not remotely the only problem with the incoherent hypothesis that GPS is land-based. How come do GPS devices, programmed with open-source software to assume the satellites are moving at specific orbits, give remotely correct results if the satellites aren't actually moving? How come do the GPS devices get more correct results if they assume the time on the satellites runs a bit slower than it does on Earth due to relativistic effects of gravity?
The theory that the Earth is round provides us with interesting, useful and easily falsifiable explanations. The incoherent model that the Earth is flat provides us with nonsense technobabble and is struggling to give any explanation for what the theory that the Earth is round gives useful explanations for.
-
I'm asking why GPS would require satellites (and more generally why GPS wouldn't work on a flat earth). So far you haven't given any reason except saying "satellites!"
Giving no coherent reason why GPS would necessary need satellites does not prove your point that satellites are supposedly necessary for GPS to function. Facts matter.
-
I'm asking why GPS would require satellites (and more generally why GPS wouldn't work on a flat earth). So far you haven't given any reason except saying "satellites!"
Giving no coherent reason why GPS would necessary need satellites does not prove your point that satellites are supposedly necessary for GPS to function. Facts matter.
How come do GPS devices, programmed with open-source software to assume the satellites are moving at specific orbits, give remotely correct results if the GPS is land-based and its "satellites" aren't actually moving (as you, as far as I understand you, claim)?
-
Where did I claim any such thing?
-
Why do you think GPS wouldn't work on a flat earth?
Because it's a GLOBAL positioning system. By definition, it works on a globe. To work on a flat earth, you'd need a Planar Positioning System.
-
Where did I claim any such thing?
Then where are, according to you, those atomic clocks that emit information about time and their own identity? How come are GPS devices, which assume they are satellites that move in specific orbits (depending on the identity information they emit), able to accurately tell their locations (and determine their own location from that)?
-
I would like to know why satellites are required for a GPS system. As of yet, I have heard nothing that backs up that ludicrous claim. Its not on me to disprove unsupported statements or claims. It was the claim that a GPS would not work on a flat earth and without satellites. Is it really too much to ask for this to be backed up?
I'd like to know what support is there for the ludicrous statement that GPS is impossible on a flat earth, or the one that satellites are required for gps. As of yet, there has been nothing compelling put toward that.
Even a cursory examination of the IEEE academic database brings up hundreds of solutions that work on a flat earth and without satellites. Why is it on me to disprove someone that says complete nonsense and refuses to support it?
-
I would like to know why satellites are required for a GPS system. As of yet, I have heard nothing that backs up that ludicrous claim. Its not on me to disprove unsupported statements or claims. It was the claim that a GPS would not work on a flat earth and without satellites. Is it really too much to ask for this to be backed up?
I'd like to know what support is there for the ludicrous statement that GPS is impossible on a flat earth, or the one that satellites are required for gps. As of yet, there has been nothing compelling put toward that.
Even a cursory examination of the IEEE academic database brings up hundreds of solutions that work on a flat earth and without satellites. Why is it on me to disprove someone that says complete nonsense and refuses to support it?
The GPS software you have on your phone, you can probably view the source for it, assumes it receives signals from satellites that move in specific orbits. If that weren't true, it wouldn't give correct results. In fact, it would give wildly wrong results, not just in terms of elevation.
-
I would like to know why satellites are required for a GPS system. As of yet, I have heard nothing that backs up that ludicrous claim. Its not on me to disprove unsupported statements or claims. It was the claim that a GPS would not work on a flat earth and without satellites. Is it really too much to ask for this to be backed up?
I'd like to know what support is there for the ludicrous statement that GPS is impossible on a flat earth, or the one that satellites are required for gps. As of yet, there has been nothing compelling put toward that.
Even a cursory examination of the IEEE academic database brings up hundreds of solutions that work on a flat earth and without satellites. Why is it on me to disprove someone that says complete nonsense and refuses to support it?
Depends exactly what you mean by “a GPS system”.
If you mean are satellites required for some kind of positioning system? Then no. Although accuracy and coverage would be limited due to shorter distances, distribution of transmitters, etc. Before GPS started being added to phones, some used the network towers for a rough positioning system, but it wasn’t very good and only really worked in built up areas.
However, if you mean does the actual GPS system require satellites? Then yes, it does. As others have said, the software relies on knowing the orbits of the satellites, and it’s open to anyone who wants to use it. There’s just no way of hiding that.
-
Why do you think GPS wouldn't work on a flat earth?
How do satellites orbit a flat earth? As GPS requires satellites to work.
Why do you think a GPS would require satellites to work?
Tell me then how GPS works without satellites?
It uses very good clocks. Nothing about GPS necessitates satellites in any way shape or form. All you need is a transmitter that knows where it is. It works without satellites because satellites are not necessary.
Wrong.
If we are going to approach this on a scientific basis then lets all stick to the known scientific facts. As of Aug 2019 there were 31 GPS satellites in operational orbit, with a total of 74 having been launched. That is one fact. Another fact is they are in orbit. Another fact is they can provide any user with a pretty accurate position of where they happen to be on the surface of the earth based on the earth being a sphere. They also operate taking relativity into account for the user's location.
I imagine when all those 74 satellites were all blasted off the engineers had a pretty good idea what kind of orbit they were going into, don't you agree John? As is always the case what is it about the functionality of GPS that leads you to believe the world is flat?
What about what I said is wrong?
You actually don't know. Think about it. Think about how the satellites actually orbit. In case you don't know. MEO at an altitude of 20,000Km or so.
-
I would like to know why satellites are required for a GPS system. As of yet, I have heard nothing that backs up that ludicrous claim. Its not on me to disprove unsupported statements or claims. It was the claim that a GPS would not work on a flat earth and without satellites. Is it really too much to ask for this to be backed up?
I'd like to know what support is there for the ludicrous statement that GPS is impossible on a flat earth, or the one that satellites are required for gps. As of yet, there has been nothing compelling put toward that.
Even a cursory examination of the IEEE academic database brings up hundreds of solutions that work on a flat earth and without satellites. Why is it on me to disprove someone that says complete nonsense and refuses to support it?
Tell us John how would satellites be launched and orbit on a flat world. I and the rest of the planet would love to know what would actually keep them up there.
-
No matter if satellites are needed or can be faked, this question leads down many FE rabbit holes. Given that GPS locates you in 3 space, better questions are:
Is GPS accurate, are you where it says you are?
If your answer is yes, then taking GPS locations in several places will establish points that must be on a sphere or plane.
If your answer is no, why isn't it obvious to ship and airplane captains and car drivers that the GPS location does not match up.
-
Its odd to me that you think land-based transmitters won't tell you the altitude you are at. Why do you hold this quaint belief? It has nothing to do with the transmitters being in space. It has to do with how many there are.
Due to the error involved, unless they are plastered all over the place.
A transmitter directly to your side will allow a small error in the distance to result in a very large error in the height.
Lets say it is 5 km away, but it thinks you are 5 km and 5 m away.
That would be consistent with you being 224 m above a point 5 km away.
In order to provide accurate height data they would need to be very high (like in space) or there would need to be so many it isn't funny.
First off, your presumption seems to think each transmitter is at the same altitude, meaning not only a flat earth but one with no hills or valleys - oh my. Even given this absurdity, you are still wrong. They would still be able to determine the altitude.
No, in the case they are all at the same altitude and Earth was flat, how would you be able to tell if you were above them or below them?
The distance to each if you were 100 m above would be the same as the distance if you were 100 m below.
To show it even works with 4, lets assume there are 4 transmitters arranged in a square, with each side length 1 km.
You are 1 km from each transmitter. Are you above or below them?
The same situation occurs any time the transmitters you are detecting are coplanar.
And in fact, also happens in the general case when you have 1 fewer transmitters.
From a single transmitter, you have a hypershpere.
From 2, the intersection produces a sphere.
From 3, the intersection produces a circle.
From 4, the intersection produces 2 points.
From 5, the intersection produces 1 point and is overconstrained.
So until you get up to 5 transmitters you will have ambiguity in the position.
I'd like to know how he thinks it works on a round earth though, given his claim that there would be two solutions which would hold for a round earth or flat one.
If that happens with the RE, the point off in space is discarded.
The problem is with land based transmitters, unless they are all at ground level, which point should they discard?
If they are mounted 100 m high, should they discard the point at ground level or the point at 200 m?
There is no way to tell as you would want GPS to work for both.
With satellite based ones, should they discard the point at ground level, or should they discard the point potentially up to 40 000 km above the surface where the transmitters aren't even transmitting towards?
But ultimately, all of this is mute.
It doesn't matter if satellites are needed or not. What matters is the fact that they are used, and to calculate your position based upon the signals currently being transmitted you need to know the location of the satellites, which change.
There are open source GPS recievers and if you want you can just download the almanac/ephemeris from the satellites.
So you either need to have these satellites, or you need so many ground based recievers the Earth would be blanketted with them to fake the signals from the satellites for every location served by GPS.
-
I would like to know why satellites are required for a GPS system. As of yet, I have heard nothing that backs up that ludicrous claim. Its not on me to disprove unsupported statements or claims. It was the claim that a GPS would not work on a flat earth and without satellites. Is it really too much to ask for this to be backed up?
I'd like to know what support is there for the ludicrous statement that GPS is impossible on a flat earth, or the one that satellites are required for gps. As of yet, there has been nothing compelling put toward that.
Even a cursory examination of the IEEE academic database brings up hundreds of solutions that work on a flat earth and without satellites. Why is it on me to disprove someone that says complete nonsense and refuses to support it?
The GPS software you have on your phone, you can probably view the source for it, assumes it receives signals from satellites that move in specific orbits. If that weren't true, it wouldn't give correct results. In fact, it would give wildly wrong results, not just in terms of elevation.
Who is talking about the GPS software on my phone? The claim was that GPS can't work on a flat earth and that it can't work without satellites.
Nothing was said about any particular implementation of such a system.
I would like to know why satellites are required for a GPS system. As of yet, I have heard nothing that backs up that ludicrous claim. Its not on me to disprove unsupported statements or claims. It was the claim that a GPS would not work on a flat earth and without satellites. Is it really too much to ask for this to be backed up?
I'd like to know what support is there for the ludicrous statement that GPS is impossible on a flat earth, or the one that satellites are required for gps. As of yet, there has been nothing compelling put toward that.
Even a cursory examination of the IEEE academic database brings up hundreds of solutions that work on a flat earth and without satellites. Why is it on me to disprove someone that says complete nonsense and refuses to support it?
Tell us John how would satellites be launched and orbit on a flat world. I and the rest of the planet would love to know what would actually keep them up there.
Why would I defend something I never claimed? I mean, I can. Easily. The first time I tried you failed to understand it. The second time you broke the rules of our argument and SCG had to lock the thread.
If you mean are satellites required for some kind of positioning system? Then no.
Thank you. I'm glad you agree that GPS does not require satellites.
Accuracy and coverage can be increased, according to previously mentioned papers, by using non-satellite tools. That was their point - to show increased reliability, coverage, and accuracy without the use of satellites. GSM also exists as markjo previously mentioned and can also leverage these techniques.
-
Its odd to me that you think land-based transmitters won't tell you the altitude you are at. Why do you hold this quaint belief? It has nothing to do with the transmitters being in space. It has to do with how many there are.
Due to the error involved, unless they are plastered all over the place.
A transmitter directly to your side will allow a small error in the distance to result in a very large error in the height.
Lets say it is 5 km away, but it thinks you are 5 km and 5 m away.
That would be consistent with you being 224 m above a point 5 km away.
In order to provide accurate height data they would need to be very high (like in space) or there would need to be so many it isn't funny.
First off, your presumption seems to think each transmitter is at the same altitude, meaning not only a flat earth but one with no hills or valleys - oh my. Even given this absurdity, you are still wrong. They would still be able to determine the altitude.
No, in the case they are all at the same altitude and Earth was flat, how would you be able to tell if you were above them or below them?
The distance to each if you were 100 m above would be the same as the distance if you were 100 m below.
To show it even works with 4, lets assume there are 4 transmitters arranged in a square, with each side length 1 km.
You are 1 km from each transmitter. Are you above or below them?
The same situation occurs any time the transmitters you are detecting are coplanar.
And in fact, also happens in the general case when you have 1 fewer transmitters.
From a single transmitter, you have a hypershpere.
From 2, the intersection produces a sphere.
From 3, the intersection produces a circle.
From 4, the intersection produces 2 points.
From 5, the intersection produces 1 point and is overconstrained.
So until you get up to 5 transmitters you will have ambiguity in the position.
I'd like to know how he thinks it works on a round earth though, given his claim that there would be two solutions which would hold for a round earth or flat one.
If that happens with the RE, the point off in space is discarded.
The problem is with land based transmitters, unless they are all at ground level, which point should they discard?
If they are mounted 100 m high, should they discard the point at ground level or the point at 200 m?
There is no way to tell as you would want GPS to work for both.
With satellite based ones, should they discard the point at ground level, or should they discard the point potentially up to 40 000 km above the surface where the transmitters aren't even transmitting towards?
But ultimately, all of this is mute.
It doesn't matter if satellites are needed or not. What matters is the fact that they are used, and to calculate your position based upon the signals currently being transmitted you need to know the location of the satellites, which change.
There are open source GPS recievers and if you want you can just download the almanac/ephemeris from the satellites.
So you either need to have these satellites, or you need so many ground based recievers the Earth would be blanketted with them to fake the signals from the satellites for every location served by GPS.
I'm glad you agree that satellites aren't needed for GPS.
-
I'm glad you agree that satellites aren't needed for GPS.
For a hypothetical system not in use, no.
For the current implementation they most certainly are.
And without satellites or extremely high transmitters you would need 1 more transmitter to establish your position.
For the original question, I would say that is focusing on the current implemenation, not some hypothetical.
-
Jack, this was in response to this answer to my question:
Why do you think GPS wouldn't work on a flat earth?
How do satellites orbit a flat earth? As GPS requires satellites to work.
I think we can all agree that this point is settled. Except maybe timeisup.
-
Jack, this was in response to this answer to my question:
Why do you think GPS wouldn't work on a flat earth?
How do satellites orbit a flat earth? As GPS requires satellites to work.
I think we can all agree that this point is settled. Except maybe timeisup.
I think based upon the context, at least that is still discussing the current implementation.
Where it goes downhill is this comment:
Why do you think GPS wouldn't work on a flat earth?
Because, for example, land-based "satellites" won't be able to tell the altitude you are at. Besides, there would have to be quite a few of those fake satellites to cover the whole surface of the Earth, and I don't see how it can be hidden.
Which then goes more into the fundamentals of GPS operation rather than the current system.
But we can agree that the point of a hypothetical GPS working without satellites is setttled.
-
That's a fair enough opinion. I was trying to understand the context at the time. I'm still not convinced that MouseWalker had any point to make except that satellites were required for GPS. Otherwise satellites orbiting a flat earth would be irrelevant.
-
Having been here a decade, its a misconception that comes up a lot.
-
I would like to point out GPS works in the ocean, far away from land. So either the signal has to be very strong to reach the middle of the ocean, or the signal has to be transmitted from above the ground. I dont suppose this eliminates the possibility of GPS 'balloons', but I don't see any way the signal can be strong enough to reach the middle of the ocean from ground based transmitters.
-
If you mean are satellites required for some kind of positioning system? Then no.
Thank you. I'm glad you agree that GPS does not require satellites.
Accuracy and coverage can be increased, according to previously mentioned papers, by using non-satellite tools. That was their point - to show increased reliability, coverage, and accuracy without the use of satellites. GSM also exists as markjo previously mentioned and can also leverage these techniques.
That's not quite what I said. I said that a (more limited) positioning service could be made without satellites. But that's not GPS. GPS uses satellites, which can be confirmed by anyone who fancies digging around in the code.
-
I would like to point out GPS works in the ocean, far away from land. So either the signal has to be very strong to reach the middle of the ocean, or the signal has to be transmitted from above the ground. I dont suppose this eliminates the possibility of GPS 'balloons', but I don't see any way the signal can be strong enough to reach the middle of the ocean from ground based transmitters.
Good point. Or at least transmitters either below the ocean or above the ground. Of course, this doesn't rule out everything but satellites. Or really a great many other options.
Do you really think it is beyond our mathematicians to find two solutions for x,y,z? Or our self learning code?
What of our engineers that build drones that kill political figures from across the world?
If you mean are satellites required for some kind of positioning system? Then no.
Thank you. I'm glad you agree that GPS does not require satellites.
Accuracy and coverage can be increased, according to previously mentioned papers, by using non-satellite tools. That was their point - to show increased reliability, coverage, and accuracy without the use of satellites. GSM also exists as markjo previously mentioned and can also leverage these techniques.
That's not quite what I said. I said that a (more limited) positioning service could be made without satellites. But that's not GPS. GPS uses satellites, which can be confirmed by anyone who fancies digging around in the code.
GPS doesn't use satellites. An implementation of a GPS might. Mind sharing what 'code' you are talking about specifically?
-
Why do you think GPS wouldn't work on a flat earth?
Because it's a GLOBAL positioning system. By definition, it works on a globe. To work on a flat earth, you'd need a Planar Positioning System.
Best point in the thread. Clearly the OP and the post I was responding to was not talking about the literal implementation of GPS, as that would imply a globe earth - he must have been referring to a 'global positioning system' not a "Global positioning system."
-
GPS doesn't use satellites. An implementation of a GPS might. Mind sharing what 'code' you are talking about specifically?
Sorry, not “the” code, any code.
Even hobbyists can and do write their own code to make positioning apps using GPS data. Plenty of them post their codes and how they work on the interwebs. Here’s one I found for you, that uses Matlab:
http://www.telesens.co/2017/07/17/calculating-position-from-raw-gps-data/#1a_Code_for_Calculating_User_Position_and_Clock_Bias
Of course GPS uses satellites. They transmit the timestamp and their orbital position. A receiver picks up the transmission, and it just takes some calculations to get a position.
Even if you don’t want to go as far as trying to calculate your position, you could simply look at the incoming signals and see the numbers change.
Unless you want to explain how anyone can write a working GPS program that uses the position of stationary transmitters that give false and constantly changing readings of their location? The results would be garbage. How would no one have noticed?
-
So either the signal has to be very strong to reach the middle of the ocean
Stronger than it would need to be to be recieved from 20 000 km away?
-
So either the signal has to be very strong to reach the middle of the ocean
Stronger than it would need to be to be recieved from 20 000 km away?
Well, they would need to be strong enough that it would be easy to locate them by somebody who wants to prove the GPS is not actually satellite-based.
-
So either the signal has to be very strong to reach the middle of the ocean
Stronger than it would need to be received from 20 000 km away?
Possibly yes because most of those "20 000 km away" are through space with no attenuation other than the inverse square law.
GNSS frequency bands
GNSS frequency bands in the range of 1 to 2 GHz (known as L-band) are suitable for mobile satellite systems as they suffer from little rain loss and offer lower path losses. Thus, all GNSS use signals in the lower parts of L-band.
But in the 1 to 2 GHz range there is significant atmospheric attenuation even in clean air:
RF Cafe: Atmospheric Absorption (Specific Attenuation)
(https://www.rfcafe.com/references/electrical/images2/atmospheric-absorption-electromagnetic-energy.jpg)
Atmospheric Attenuation (Specific Absorption) Chart (https://www.rfcafe.com/references/electrical/atm-absorption.htm)
But it might be a "toss-up" and would depend on how close transmitters could be to the most remote areas.
Apart from this, I see no way that GNSS transmitters within a few kilometres of a flat-Earth could ever measure altitude.
-
Why do you think GPS wouldn't work on a flat earth?
Because, for example, land-based "satellites" won't be able to tell the altitude you are at. Besides, there would have to be quite a few of those fake satellites to cover the whole surface of the Earth, and I don't see how it can be hidden.
Its odd to me that you think land-based transmitters won't tell you the altitude you are at. Why do you hold this quaint belief? It has nothing to do with the transmitters being in space. It has to do with how many there are.
They would. But they would require a lot more of them to be installed (by someone) and supervised in the whole world (including very poor or unpopulated areas). The cost of maintenance would be absurdly high. But here are some other hard parts. GPSs works on the planes. Yes, even private ones, and i don't mean board gps, i mean civil gps'. They also works in the middle of forests, mountains, where often cell network is not available. Where do they mount these magical transmitters? On the trees? Are flatties really going to defend such absurds?
-
Discussing the Flat-Earth Theory with Flat-Earthers is like playing chess with a penguin: you can't do it because they won't obey the rules.
I think there are basically two kinds of Flat-Earthers:
1) Those who are new here, who don't have a background in anything related to the topic, and who think "Hmm... Maybe there is something to the Flat-Earth Theory, I am not sure that it's wrong.".
2) People who aren't sincere.
Once it comes to the topics such as GPS, you see that Flat-Earth Theory is fundamentally no different from the conspiracy theories such as that the Moon doesn't exist.
And I seriously doubt any one of them have studied computer science. I mean, I have written one research paper (https://github.com/FlatAssembler/ArithmeticExpressionCompiler/raw/master/seminar/PojednostavljeniSeminar.pdf) about computer science, and I already find such claims, that GPS doesn't prove the Earth is round, very insulting. And you don't even need to have studied computer science to understand why it's wrong and insulting.
-
My studies were in Computer Science, Computer Engineering and Mathematics. I work for a house hold name as an engineer.
-
Let's see if people who are remotely knowledgeable about computer science here can form a consensus:
1) While some GPS-like systems would be possible on a flat Earth, GPS, as is currently designed (both the emitters of the signal and the receivers) can only work if the Earth is round, and the fact that GPS devices give correct results proves the Earth is round.
2) Any GPS-like system that would work without satellites (and most Flat-Earthers appear to agree satellites are impossible if the Flat Earth Theory is correct) won't be able to tell elevation while receiving signal from only three emitters, as GPS devices we have obviously can.
I consider myself relatively knowledgeable about computer science because I've written a research paper (https://github.com/FlatAssembler/ArithmeticExpressionCompiler/raw/master/seminar/PojednostavljeniSeminar.pdf) about computer science which will get published in Osječki Matematički List.
-
Like I said multiple times, check the IEEE academic database.
-
Also your baseless attacks on our knowledge are pretty fucking silly when you can't even explain your own point.
-
Like I said multiple times, check the IEEE academic database.
The fact that there are published papers in the IEEE academic database about how GPS-like system could work without satellites doesn't invalidate the point that the current GPS system, based on satellites and the assumption that the Earth is round, works.
-
Also your baseless attacks on our knowledge are pretty fucking silly when you can't even explain your own point.
Watch your mouth little girl.
-
Also your baseless attacks on our knowledge are pretty fucking silly when you can't even explain your own point.
Watch your mouth little girl.
Please ban this sock puppet, personal attacks on a mod in the upper forums.
-
Also your baseless attacks on our knowledge are pretty fucking silly when you can't even explain your own point.
Watch your mouth little girl.
Please ban this sock puppet, personal attacks on a mod in the upper forums.
Please refrain from personal attacks by calling anybody you don't like the highly derogatory term "sock puppet".
-
I mean, the most ironic thing is that quite a few parts of the Flat Earth Theory are not compatible even with computer science, yet alone with sciences that deal more closely with the topics. Consider this:
The vanishing point, beyond which no man can see, is created when his perspective lines approach each other at a certain angle smaller than the eye can see. If you increase your height you are changing your perspective lines and thus can see further before all sight is lost to the vanishing point.
Usually it is taught in art schools that the vanishing point is an infinite distance away from the observer, as so:
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig71.jpg)
However, since man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations, the perspective lines are modified and placed a finite distance away from the observer as so:
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig75.jpg)The vanishing point acts as the liming point of all vision, as all bodies beyond it are too small and squished into the surface to see with the naked eye.
The same effect is found on a 3D video game which assumes a flat surface. When you increase your altitude you can see farther because you are so much higher than everything else. Your computer's resolution is better able to see something below you than off on the horizon where the pixels are linearly squished.
You guys here realize that's not remotely how 3D rendering works, right? 3D renderers, such as OpenGL, have no concept of perspective lines, yet alone of vanishing points somehow being at a finite distance to the observer.
And it obviously wouldn't provide a realistic effect. If...The vanishing point, beyond which no man can see, is created when his perspective lines approach each other at a certain angle smaller than the eye can see.
...were true, the horizon would appear closer to us as we climb, rather than farther. When you climb up a lighthouse, you are farther away from the ship, and thus you see it at a smaller angle. Computer games generally simply ignore the fact that the distance to the horizon changes with your elevation.
Have you ever even done the simplest 3D graphics without a game engine, if you don't understand this? I have done some, you can see it at the bottom of this (https://flatassembler.github.io/informatics.html) web-page?
-
GPS is a classic case outright denial by believers in the flat earth. If flat earth advocates were as open-minded as they claim all they should need to be convinced of the existence od GPS satellites is a clear night, a pair of binoculars and one of the many tracking apps that are available for one's smartphone.
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/satellite-tracker-by-star-walk/id1248172706
-
GPS is a classic case outright denial by believers in the flat earth. If flat earth advocates were as open-minded as they claim all they should need to be convinced of the existence od GPS satellites is a clear night, a pair of binoculars and one of the many tracking apps that are available for one's smartphone.
https://apps.apple.com/us/app/satellite-tracker-by-star-walk/id1248172706
Yeah! I wonder why they stop at claiming the Earth is flat? Why not claim that, for example, airplanes don't exist? What do you think about the parody of Flat-Earthers (and conspiracy theorists in general) I linked to in my signature?
-
GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory. On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't. I am reminded of Shaw when he said
"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."
-
Interesting claim that GPS transmitters are land based.
We understand the speed of each transmitter needed for the current values of the Doppler Shift.
Now try to describe the way of simulating the Doppler Shift using land based transmitters.
Simultaneously for so many receivers, all at different locations? :)
-
GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory. On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't. I am reminded of Shaw when he said
"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."
Yes, I noticed you haven’t backed up your claim that GPS doesn’t use satellites.
I however provided a link as requested by you. Did you bother to look at it?
-
GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory.
No, it's not. How can GPS devices be fooled into thinking there are satellites they expect if they don't exist? Even more, how can they be fooled into giving correct coordinates despite the satellites they expect not actually existing?
On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't.
They are backed up by basic common sense and geometry (the elevation problem, for instance).
"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."
Well, the burden of proof is defined relatively to the scientific consensus, not relatively to the ignorant people. Besides, the "Ships disappear bottom first even when there are no waves." (which I think many people would give you) is a relatively good reason. In fact, it's an excellent reason, and I've yet to hear a reasonable response to that.
-
GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory. On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't. I am reminded of Shaw when he said
"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."
Yes, I noticed you haven’t backed up your claim that GPS doesn’t use satellites.
I however provided a link as requested by you. Did you bother to look at it?
Where did I make any such claim?
GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory.
No, it's not. How can GPS devices be fooled into thinking there are satellites they expect if they don't exist?
Because they exist.
-
GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory.
Yes, it is "coherent" with your non-flat Earth theory.
But we are talking about a FE, such as the commonly presented disk model. Not a RE theory where the surface of Earth has just been redefined as flat.
-
GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory. On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't. I am reminded of Shaw when he said
"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."
Yes, I noticed you haven’t backed up your claim that GPS doesn’t use satellites.
I however provided a link as requested by you. Did you bother to look at it?
Where did I make any such claim?
GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory.
No, it's not. How can GPS devices be fooled into thinking there are satellites they expect if they don't exist?
Because they exist.
Agreed but why is it that you seem to be the only flat Earther who admits that satellites exist.
-
GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory. On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't. I am reminded of Shaw when he said
"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."
Yes, I noticed you haven’t backed up your claim that GPS doesn’t use satellites.
I however provided a link as requested by you. Did you bother to look at it?
Where did I make any such claim?
GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory.
No, it's not. How can GPS devices be fooled into thinking there are satellites they expect if they don't exist?
Because they exist.
You appear to have self invented a class of vehicles or objects that work in a way unknown to science. Satellites, those responsible for GPS, on the other hand work in a way known to science in that they orbit the earth in a predefined way as designed to by the engineers and those who constructed the launch vehicles that placed them in their precise orbits.
I’m not actually sure what you are arguing for nor I think do you.
-
You appear to have self invented a class of vehicles or objects that work in a way unknown to science.
You should really try reading more.
The satellites his model has orbit Earth, just like the ones in the RE model.
The only difference between the RE model and his model is he redefines flat to match the surface of Earth.
That is why you didn't stand a chance at debating him, because you weren't paying attention to what he had said and instead were just treating it as a FE model based upon the known definitions.
-
GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory. On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't. I am reminded of Shaw when he said
"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."
Yes, I noticed you haven’t backed up your claim that GPS doesn’t use satellites.
I however provided a link as requested by you. Did you bother to look at it?
Where did I make any such claim?
Here:
GPS doesn't use satellites.
-
GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory. On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't. I am reminded of Shaw when he said
"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."
Yes, I noticed you haven’t backed up your claim that GPS doesn’t use satellites.
I however provided a link as requested by you. Did you bother to look at it?
Where did I make any such claim?
Here:
GPS doesn't use satellites.
And for those not being tools:
GPS doesn't use satellites. An implementation of a GPS might. Mind sharing what 'code' you are talking about specifically?
-
GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory. On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't. I am reminded of Shaw when he said
"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."
Yes, I noticed you haven’t backed up your claim that GPS doesn’t use satellites.
I however provided a link as requested by you. Did you bother to look at it?
Where did I make any such claim?
Here:
GPS doesn't use satellites.
And for those not being tools:
GPS doesn't use satellites. An implementation of a GPS might. Mind sharing what 'code' you are talking about specifically?
All GPS devices we have today, unless you are going to assert a truly massive conspiracy, involving anybody who has ever successfully compiled the GPS software, rely on an algorithm that presupposes the emitters of the signal it receives are satellites 20'000 kilometers above the ground. Some GPS devices use GSM (or 3G, or 4G, or WiFi...) signal to increase their accuracy in the event the signal they receive from satellites is low, but a signal from 3 or more satellites always provides a more accurate position than does GSM (or 3G, or 4G or WiFi...) signal. And not all GPS devices do that, unless you are going to claim they somehow do that and are able to keep that hidden.
But I guess that, when you are a conspiracy theorist, normal reasoning seems like laziness or even as an attack to you. You know, like when Caesar asked Cicero to let the other side of the story about the Catiline conspiracy be heard, some people in the senate accused him of being a part of the conspiracy, rather than listening to his arguments.
-
GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory. On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't. I am reminded of Shaw when he said
"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."
Yes, I noticed you haven’t backed up your claim that GPS doesn’t use satellites.
I however provided a link as requested by you. Did you bother to look at it?
Where did I make any such claim?
Here:
GPS doesn't use satellites.
And for those not being tools:
GPS doesn't use satellites. An implementation of a GPS might. Mind sharing what 'code' you are talking about specifically?
Right. So my quote of your claim “GPS doesn’t use satellites” was accurate, not misrepresentation or paraphrased. Both times.
It’s a clear statement, with zero room for ambiguity. And it’s not changed by the following speculative sentence “An implementation of a GPS might”.
It’s not my fault if you make claims you feel you have to deny shortly after. Maybe you should be more careful about what you write if you want to accuse others of not backing up what they say?
PS. Did you look at my link where I gave you an example of code as requested?
-
GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory. On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't. I am reminded of Shaw when he said
"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."
Yes, I noticed you haven’t backed up your claim that GPS doesn’t use satellites.
I however provided a link as requested by you. Did you bother to look at it?
Where did I make any such claim?
Here:
GPS doesn't use satellites.
And for those not being tools:
GPS doesn't use satellites. An implementation of a GPS might. Mind sharing what 'code' you are talking about specifically?
Right. So my quote of your claim “GPS doesn’t use satellites” was accurate, not misrepresentation or paraphrased. Both times.
It’s a clear statement, with zero room for ambiguity. And it’s not changed by the following speculative sentence “An implementation of a GPS might”.
It’s not my fault if you make claims you feel you have to deny shortly after. Maybe you should be more careful about what you write if you want to accuse others of not backing up what they say?
PS. Did you look at my link where I gave you an example of code as requested?
This was in response to the unsupported claim that GPS uses satellites. It does not. An implementation of a GPS might. This is not unsupported. It is self inherent. It was not a claim but a dismissal of an unsupported claim.
I must have missed your link. However, as shown, it is irrelevant.
-
GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory. On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't. I am reminded of Shaw when he said
"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."
Yes, I noticed you haven’t backed up your claim that GPS doesn’t use satellites.
I however provided a link as requested by you. Did you bother to look at it?
Where did I make any such claim?
Here:
GPS doesn't use satellites.
And for those not being tools:
GPS doesn't use satellites. An implementation of a GPS might. Mind sharing what 'code' you are talking about specifically?
Right. So my quote of your claim “GPS doesn’t use satellites” was accurate, not misrepresentation or paraphrased. Both times.
It’s a clear statement, with zero room for ambiguity. And it’s not changed by the following speculative sentence “An implementation of a GPS might”.
It’s not my fault if you make claims you feel you have to deny shortly after. Maybe you should be more careful about what you write if you want to accuse others of not backing up what they say?
PS. Did you look at my link where I gave you an example of code as requested?
You know, when I was supporting ridiculous conspiracy theories on the TextKit forum, a guy with the user name Barry Hofstetter told me:
Si onera probendi ordinaria non accipis tibi auxilium sufficere non possum. Mihi huius collocutionis satis est, sed gratias tibi pro colloquendo Latine.
"If you don't accept ordinary evidence, there is nothing I can do to help you. I am tired of this conversation, but congratulations for being able to speak Latin!".
That may be the appropriate attitude to have here towards people like John Davis. Except that we aren't speaking Latin, so there is nothing to congratulate John Davis for.
-
I mean, the most ironic thing is that quite a few parts of the Flat Earth Theory are not compatible even with computer science, yet alone with sciences that deal more closely with the topics. Consider this:
The vanishing point, beyond which no man can see, is created when his perspective lines approach each other at a certain angle smaller than the eye can see. If you increase your height you are changing your perspective lines and thus can see further before all sight is lost to the vanishing point.
Usually it is taught in art schools that the vanishing point is an infinite distance away from the observer, as so:
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig71.jpg)
However, since man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations, the perspective lines are modified and placed a finite distance away from the observer as so:
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig75.jpg)The vanishing point acts as the liming point of all vision, as all bodies beyond it are too small and squished into the surface to see with the naked eye.
The same effect is found on a 3D video game which assumes a flat surface. When you increase your altitude you can see farther because you are so much higher than everything else. Your computer's resolution is better able to see something below you than off on the horizon where the pixels are linearly squished.
You guys here realize that's not remotely how 3D rendering works, right? 3D renderers, such as OpenGL, have no concept of perspective lines, yet alone of vanishing points somehow being at a finite distance to the observer.
And it obviously wouldn't provide a realistic effect. If...The vanishing point, beyond which no man can see, is created when his perspective lines approach each other at a certain angle smaller than the eye can see.
...were true, the horizon would appear closer to us as we climb, rather than farther. When you climb up a lighthouse, you are farther away from the ship, and thus you see it at a smaller angle. Computer games generally simply ignore the fact that the distance to the horizon changes with your elevation.
Have you ever even done the simplest 3D graphics without a game engine, if you don't understand this? I have done some, you can see it at the bottom of this (https://flatassembler.github.io/informatics.html) web-page?
I'm actually quite familiar with how OpenGL works. I used it extensively when working on Bungies Myth 2 and Take Two's Myth III tools. It's irrelevant how a graphics engine implements their rendering as this says nothing to reality.
-
GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory. On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't. I am reminded of Shaw when he said
"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."
Yes, I noticed you haven’t backed up your claim that GPS doesn’t use satellites.
I however provided a link as requested by you. Did you bother to look at it?
Where did I make any such claim?
Here:
GPS doesn't use satellites.
And for those not being tools:
GPS doesn't use satellites. An implementation of a GPS might. Mind sharing what 'code' you are talking about specifically?
Right. So my quote of your claim “GPS doesn’t use satellites” was accurate, not misrepresentation or paraphrased. Both times.
It’s a clear statement, with zero room for ambiguity. And it’s not changed by the following speculative sentence “An implementation of a GPS might”.
It’s not my fault if you make claims you feel you have to deny shortly after. Maybe you should be more careful about what you write if you want to accuse others of not backing up what they say?
PS. Did you look at my link where I gave you an example of code as requested?
This was in response to the unsupported claim that GPS uses satellites. It does not. An implementation of a GPS might. This is not unsupported. It is self inherent. It was not a claim but a dismissal of an unsupported claim.
I must have missed your link. However, as shown, it is irrelevant.
It's not unsupported, it's supported by many pieces of evidence we gave you here. The source code of the open-source GPS software perhaps being the most convincing one. Other than that, it's possible to prove the emitters of the GPS signal are moving fast because of the Doppler Effect. How would you explain that if they are land-based? Also, a GPS system that doesn't use satellites wouldn't be able to accurately tell your 3D position with signal from just three emitters, there would be ambiguity, mostly in height. GPS devices we have obviously can do that.
-
GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory. On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't. I am reminded of Shaw when he said
"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."
Yes, I noticed you haven’t backed up your claim that GPS doesn’t use satellites.
I however provided a link as requested by you. Did you bother to look at it?
Where did I make any such claim?
Here:
GPS doesn't use satellites.
And for those not being tools:
GPS doesn't use satellites. An implementation of a GPS might. Mind sharing what 'code' you are talking about specifically?
All GPS devices we have today, unless you are going to assert a truly massive conspiracy, involving anybody who has ever successfully compiled the GPS software, rely on an algorithm that presupposes the emitters of the signal it receives are satellites 20'000 kilometers above the ground. Some GPS devices use GSM (or 3G, or 4G, or WiFi...) signal to increase their accuracy in the event the signal they receive from satellites is low, but a signal from 3 or more satellites always provides a more accurate position than does GSM (or 3G, or 4G or WiFi...) signal. And not all GPS devices do that, unless you are going to claim they somehow do that and are able to keep that hidden.
But I guess that, when you are a conspiracy theorist, normal reasoning seems like laziness or even as an attack to you. You know, like when Caesar asked Cicero to let the other side of the story about the Catiline conspiracy be heard, some people in the senate accused him of being a part of the conspiracy, rather than listening to his arguments.
Please support your claim that ALL GPS devices we have today use satellites.
-
GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory. On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't. I am reminded of Shaw when he said
"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."
Yes, I noticed you haven’t backed up your claim that GPS doesn’t use satellites.
I however provided a link as requested by you. Did you bother to look at it?
Where did I make any such claim?
Here:
GPS doesn't use satellites.
And for those not being tools:
GPS doesn't use satellites. An implementation of a GPS might. Mind sharing what 'code' you are talking about specifically?
Right. So my quote of your claim “GPS doesn’t use satellites” was accurate, not misrepresentation or paraphrased. Both times.
It’s a clear statement, with zero room for ambiguity. And it’s not changed by the following speculative sentence “An implementation of a GPS might”.
It’s not my fault if you make claims you feel you have to deny shortly after. Maybe you should be more careful about what you write if you want to accuse others of not backing up what they say?
PS. Did you look at my link where I gave you an example of code as requested?
This was in response to the unsupported claim that GPS uses satellites. It does not. An implementation of a GPS might. This is not unsupported. It is self inherent. It was not a claim but a dismissal of an unsupported claim.
I must have missed your link. However, as shown, it is irrelevant.
It's not unsupported, it's supported by many pieces of evidence we gave you here. The source code of the open-source GPS software perhaps being the most convincing one. Other than that, it's possible to prove the emitters of the GPS signal are moving fast because of the Doppler Effect. How would you explain that if they are land-based? Also, a GPS system that doesn't use satellites wouldn't be able to accurately tell your 3D position with signal from just three emitters, there would be ambiguity, mostly in height. GPS devices we have obviously can do that.
Great, so you agree "an implementation of GPS might use satellites." You have yet to show that satellites are required. Because they are not.
-
I mean, the most ironic thing is that quite a few parts of the Flat Earth Theory are not compatible even with computer science, yet alone with sciences that deal more closely with the topics. Consider this:
The vanishing point, beyond which no man can see, is created when his perspective lines approach each other at a certain angle smaller than the eye can see. If you increase your height you are changing your perspective lines and thus can see further before all sight is lost to the vanishing point.
Usually it is taught in art schools that the vanishing point is an infinite distance away from the observer, as so:
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig71.jpg)
However, since man cannot perceive infinity due to human limitations, the perspective lines are modified and placed a finite distance away from the observer as so:
(http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/img/fig75.jpg)The vanishing point acts as the liming point of all vision, as all bodies beyond it are too small and squished into the surface to see with the naked eye.
The same effect is found on a 3D video game which assumes a flat surface. When you increase your altitude you can see farther because you are so much higher than everything else. Your computer's resolution is better able to see something below you than off on the horizon where the pixels are linearly squished.
You guys here realize that's not remotely how 3D rendering works, right? 3D renderers, such as OpenGL, have no concept of perspective lines, yet alone of vanishing points somehow being at a finite distance to the observer.
And it obviously wouldn't provide a realistic effect. If...The vanishing point, beyond which no man can see, is created when his perspective lines approach each other at a certain angle smaller than the eye can see.
...were true, the horizon would appear closer to us as we climb, rather than farther. When you climb up a lighthouse, you are farther away from the ship, and thus you see it at a smaller angle. Computer games generally simply ignore the fact that the distance to the horizon changes with your elevation.
Have you ever even done the simplest 3D graphics without a game engine, if you don't understand this? I have done some, you can see it at the bottom of this (https://flatassembler.github.io/informatics.html) web-page?
I'm actually quite familiar with how OpenGL works. I used it extensively when working on Bungies Myth 2 and Take Two's Myth III tools. It's irrelevant how a graphics engine implements their rendering as this says nothing to reality.
What do you mean it says nothing to reality? A rendering engine that made those assumptions about perspective that the Flat Earth Theory makes wouldn't give realistic results.
-
GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory. On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't. I am reminded of Shaw when he said
"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."
Yes, I noticed you haven’t backed up your claim that GPS doesn’t use satellites.
I however provided a link as requested by you. Did you bother to look at it?
Where did I make any such claim?
Here:
GPS doesn't use satellites.
And for those not being tools:
GPS doesn't use satellites. An implementation of a GPS might. Mind sharing what 'code' you are talking about specifically?
Right. So my quote of your claim “GPS doesn’t use satellites” was accurate, not misrepresentation or paraphrased. Both times.
It’s a clear statement, with zero room for ambiguity. And it’s not changed by the following speculative sentence “An implementation of a GPS might”.
It’s not my fault if you make claims you feel you have to deny shortly after. Maybe you should be more careful about what you write if you want to accuse others of not backing up what they say?
PS. Did you look at my link where I gave you an example of code as requested?
This was in response to the unsupported claim that GPS uses satellites. It does not. An implementation of a GPS might. This is not unsupported. It is self inherent. It was not a claim but a dismissal of an unsupported claim.
I must have missed your link. However, as shown, it is irrelevant.
It's not unsupported, it's supported by many pieces of evidence we gave you here. The source code of the open-source GPS software perhaps being the most convincing one. Other than that, it's possible to prove the emitters of the GPS signal are moving fast because of the Doppler Effect. How would you explain that if they are land-based? Also, a GPS system that doesn't use satellites wouldn't be able to accurately tell your 3D position with signal from just three emitters, there would be ambiguity, mostly in height. GPS devices we have obviously can do that.
Great, so you agree "an implementation of GPS might use satellites." You have yet to show that satellites are required. Because they are not.
For some hypothetical GPS system they aren't. For the GPS system that works remotely like one we have today, they are required. The GPS devices assume the signal they receive is from satellites that are 20'000 kilometers high in the sky and follow certain orbits. And even if all the GPS software was somehow secretly modified by those that know the GPS emitters are actually land-based rather than satellites, you would still have the problem explaining how can they possibly determine your altitude with signal from just three receivers, as GPS devices we have can.
-
GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory. On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't. I am reminded of Shaw when he said
"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."
Yes, I noticed you haven’t backed up your claim that GPS doesn’t use satellites.
I however provided a link as requested by you. Did you bother to look at it?
Where did I make any such claim?
Here:
GPS doesn't use satellites.
And for those not being tools:
GPS doesn't use satellites. An implementation of a GPS might. Mind sharing what 'code' you are talking about specifically?
Right. So my quote of your claim “GPS doesn’t use satellites” was accurate, not misrepresentation or paraphrased. Both times.
It’s a clear statement, with zero room for ambiguity. And it’s not changed by the following speculative sentence “An implementation of a GPS might”.
It’s not my fault if you make claims you feel you have to deny shortly after. Maybe you should be more careful about what you write if you want to accuse others of not backing up what they say?
PS. Did you look at my link where I gave you an example of code as requested?
This was in response to the unsupported claim that GPS uses satellites. It does not. An implementation of a GPS might. This is not unsupported. It is self inherent. It was not a claim but a dismissal of an unsupported claim.
I must have missed your link. However, as shown, it is irrelevant.
So now you’re back onto claiming that GPS doesn’t use satellites? Make up your mind!
And this is claim! It doesn’t matter who you are responding to or whether their argument is supported or not. You are making a statement about reality, it’s either correct or it isn’t.
My link clearly demonstrates that GPS works by calculating your position based on the transmitted location of orbiting satellites. That seems pretty relevant to the topic to me.
Certainly more relevant than your twisting and turning.
-
GPS is completely coherent with my flat earth theory. On the other hand, the claims made in this thread have not only not been backed up, for the large part they can't. I am reminded of Shaw when he said
"The average man can advance not a single reason for thinking that the Earth is round."
Yes, I noticed you haven’t backed up your claim that GPS doesn’t use satellites.
I however provided a link as requested by you. Did you bother to look at it?
Where did I make any such claim?
Here:
GPS doesn't use satellites.
And for those not being tools:
GPS doesn't use satellites. An implementation of a GPS might. Mind sharing what 'code' you are talking about specifically?
Right. So my quote of your claim “GPS doesn’t use satellites” was accurate, not misrepresentation or paraphrased. Both times.
It’s a clear statement, with zero room for ambiguity. And it’s not changed by the following speculative sentence “An implementation of a GPS might”.
It’s not my fault if you make claims you feel you have to deny shortly after. Maybe you should be more careful about what you write if you want to accuse others of not backing up what they say?
PS. Did you look at my link where I gave you an example of code as requested?
This was in response to the unsupported claim that GPS uses satellites. It does not. An implementation of a GPS might. This is not unsupported. It is self inherent. It was not a claim but a dismissal of an unsupported claim.
I must have missed your link. However, as shown, it is irrelevant.
So now you’re back onto claiming that GPS doesn’t use satellites? Make up your mind!
And this is claim! It doesn’t matter who you are responding to or whether their argument is supported or not. You are making a statement about reality, it’s either correct or it isn’t.
My link clearly demonstrates that GPS works by calculating your position based on the transmitted location of orbiting satellites. That seems pretty relevant to the topic to me.
Certainly more relevant than your twisting and turning.
Your link gives an example of an implementation of GPS that uses satellites. It says nothing to whether any GPS is required to use satellites.
Satellites are not required for GPS. Showing an example of a GPS that uses satellites doesn't address this in any way shape or form.
-
This was in response to the unsupported claim that GPS uses satellites. It does not. An implementation of a GPS might. This is not unsupported. It is self inherent. It was not a claim but a dismissal of an unsupported claim.
No, GPS (as in the system in use today and how it was designed) does use satellites. A hypothetical implementation of a system to determine your position on the globe might not, and it can be supplemented by ground based transmitters, but currently GPS does use satellites.
GPS isn't some broad class of things, it is a particular system in use today.
Just like GLONASS.
It would be like saying the flat earth society forums don't use php and that just an implementation of it might. It is blatantly false. That does use php but it is hypothetically possible to use other things like python or asp.
Also note: "Not required" and "does not use" are 2 vastly different claims.
But all of that just to avoid the real issue, how does a FE explain these satellites?, and no I don't mean your "flat" earth which is just the round Earth. I mean a flat Earth model where Earth is actually flat.
a GPS system that doesn't use satellites wouldn't be able to accurately tell your 3D position with signal from just three emitters
GPS needs 4.
It is solving a 4D problem, not a 3D problem. Time is also a variable.
-
GPS needs 4.
It is solving a 4D problem, not a 3D problem. Time is also a variable.
Do I have this right?
Satellites have (multiple) atomic clocks, which are accurate, but receivers don’t. If we used properly set atomic clocks on receivers we could get locations just on the intersections of spheres of the transmission as follows:
2 satellites in line of sight gives 4 possible locations, 2 above and 2 below the satellites. So 2 possible locations (assuming you aren’t in space).
3 satellites gives 2 possible locations, 1 above and 1 below. So really only one possible location.
However, since the receiver clock is not accurate, a 4th satellite is needed to remove clock bias. And presumably additional satellites increase accuracy.
What I’m not sure about is whether 2 satellites to give position, plus 1 to remove clock bias would work, assuming you knew what country you were in? Or whether 4 is actually the minimum to remove bias?
It seems to me that removing timing error is probably more important than removing a hypothetical location thousands of miles from where you really are.
-
GPS needs 4.
It is solving a 4D problem, not a 3D problem. Time is also a variable.
Do I have this right?
Satellites have (multiple) atomic clocks, which are accurate, but receivers don’t. If we used properly set atomic clocks on receivers we could get locations just on the intersections of spheres of the transmission as follows:
2 satellites in line of sight gives 4 possible locations, 2 above and 2 below the satellites. So 2 possible locations (assuming you aren’t in space).
3 satellites gives 2 possible locations, 1 above and 1 below. So really only one possible location.
However, since the receiver clock is not accurate, a 4th satellite is needed to remove clock bias. And presumably additional satellites increase accuracy.
What I’m not sure about is whether 2 satellites to give position, plus 1 to remove clock bias would work, assuming you knew what country you were in? Or whether 4 is actually the minimum to remove bias?
It seems to me that removing timing error is probably more important than removing a hypothetical location thousands of miles from where you really are.
Almost.
Assuming you have the atomic clock, then 2 satellites will produce the intersection of 2 spherical shells (i.e. the surface of a sphere).
This gives an entire ring of locations.
You can get an approximate 2D fix based upon you being on the surface of Earth which would give 2 points.
Assuming the satellites are far enough away from directly overhead and you are close to the surface, the position on Earth would be quite accurate.
However the height would be completely unknown. You could be standing on the surface or in a plane at 35 000 ft.
Likewise, if you just had one, you would have the entire spherical shell which could be simplified to a ring on Earth's surface.
But then yes 3 satellites would then give 2 locations, one point below the satellite, one point off in space, allowing a 3D fix.
With the extra satellite for a clock correction, you are better off than the corresponding case without the extra satellite, the easiest way is to treat it like the previous case and think about what happens as the time changes.
With just 1 satellite, you have nothing, you must exist somewhere in space, presumably on Earth.
With 2 satellites, you first treat it as the 2 satellites. This technically gives you a ring, which is simplified to 2 points. But allowing it to span time will give you a kind of bowl shape, which would be a line on Earth (arguable better or just as bad).
But with 3 satellites, you first treat it as 3, giving you a point (as the one off in space is discarded). You then let the clock play out until that point hits Earth. That gives you a 2D fix.
Hypothetically you do still get 2 points, one on each side of Earth. The one on the far side of Earth can be discarded by noting that the satellites wouldn't be visible there.
So it can actually be used to get a 2D fix. But again, that is based upon you being close to Earth's surface and the satellite not being close to overhead.
Your altitude would still be unknown as a small variation in time would move your point off Earth's surface (or below it).
In order to get a 3D fix, without clock bias, you need 4 satellites.
To get a 2D fix, you can think of it as treating the centre of Earth as a transmitter with a known distance to it.
-
Your altitude would still be unknown as a small variation in time would move your point off Earth's surface (or below it).
In order to get a 3D fix, without clock bias, you need 4 satellites.
To get a 2D fix, you can think of it as treating the centre of Earth as a transmitter with a known distance to it.
And to get an accurate altitude (small VDOP - Vertical Dilution of Precision) at least one satellite must have an elevation angle as close to 90°.
The best 4-satellite configuration is 3 spaced at 120° close to the horizon (5° to 15° above) and one directly overhead.
This is why John Davis's non-satellite-based GPS cannot accurately measure altitude.
-
Incorrect. Pseudolites can do this job. Other methods can as well.
-
Almost.
Assuming you have the atomic clock, then 2 satellites will produce the intersection of 2 spherical shells (i.e. the surface of a sphere).
This gives an entire ring of locations.
You can get an approximate 2D fix based upon you being on the surface of Earth which would give 2 points.
Yep, yep. Should have put a few more seconds thought into it.
Oops.
And cheers.
-
Incorrect. Pseudolites can do this job. Other methods can as well.
What does "pseudolite" mean, according to you? Look, I (and I guess everybody in this thread) think that you are trolling. If you are going to pretend to believe the Earth is flat, at least put some effort. Say something like "Well, maybe they are throwing satellites up to the sky every day and making them fall down to Antarctica." or "Maybe they attached the transmitters to some natural celestial body to which the Universal Acceleration applies." or something else that would seem like a plausible response by somebody who believed the Earth was flat. What you are doing right now is very insulting.
-
Incorrect. Pseudolites can do this job. Other methods can as well.
Please show your calculations for the Vertical Dilution of Precision (VDOP) for your supposed constellation of pseudolites.
And why haven't there been numerous sitings of these tens of thousands of pseudolites?
-
Incorrect. Pseudolites can do this job. Other methods can as well.
Please show your calculations for the Vertical Dilution of Precision (VDOP) for your supposed constellation of pseudolites.
And why haven't there been numerous sitings of these tens of thousands of pseudolites?
Such arguments probably aren't convincing to people who don't understand advanced mathematics, don't you think?
Could you derive a formula for the distance between two places on Earth with given coordinates, assuming the Earth is a perfect sphere? I think I couldn't do that. How do you even calculate the Euclidean distance between two points in a spherical coordinate system? And then, how do you calculate the distance if you can't go through that sphere, if you have to go on the surface on that sphere? Can you somehow (I suppose using trigonometry) calculate the length of a circle arc if you know the length of the chord and the radius of a circle? How do you prove that formula is correct?
I think that, to Flat-Earthers, such arguments seem to be missing the point.
Nevertheless, maybe this argument will provoke some thinking in Flat-Earthers, how come do GPS devices seem to estimate that the emitters of the GPS signal are 20'000 kilometers away from them? According to the Flat-Earth Theory, that's farther away from us than the stars are, and about as far away from us as the Ice Wall is, right?
-
Incorrect. Pseudolites can do this job. Other methods can as well.
Please show your calculations for the Vertical Dilution of Precision (VDOP) for your supposed constellation of pseudolites.
And why haven't there been numerous sitings of these tens of thousands of pseudolites?
Such arguments probably aren't convincing to people who don't understand advanced mathematics, don't you think?
Could you derive a formula for the distance between two places on Earth with given coordinates, assuming the Earth is a perfect sphere?
You would use the Haversine formula:
Δφ = φ1 - φ2; Δλ = λ1 - λ2;
a = sin2(Δφ/2) + cos φ1 ⋅ cos φ2 ⋅ sin2(Δλ/2)
c = 2 ⋅ atan2( √a, √(1−a) )
d = R ⋅ c
where: φ is latitude, λ is longitude, R is earth’s radius (mean radius = 6,371km) and
d is the distance between the two points at Lat Long φ1, λ1 and φ2, λ2.
note that angles need to be in radians to pass to trig functions!
I didn't derive derive the Haversine formula it's described in Calculate distance, bearing and more between Latitude/Longitude points (https://www.movable-type.co.uk/scripts/latlong.html).
I would expect John Davis to derive the Vertical Dilution of Precision (VDOP) either because there are a number of papers written on it with results that could be applied to his "pseudolites".
I think I couldn't do that. How do you even calculate the Euclidean distance between two points in a spherical coordinate system?
Find the angle between the radii joining the points to the centre and the distance is the length chord of that angle.
And that's how that Haversine formula starts anyway.
And then, how do you calculate the distance if you can't go through that sphere, if you have to go on the surface on that sphere? Can you somehow (I suppose using trigonometry) calculate the length of a circle arc if you know the length of the chord and the radius of a circle? How do you prove that formula is correct?
Just as you say and that's what the Haversine formula does. Calculate the length of a circle arc from the angle between the radii is just simple 2-D math.
I don't know about "proving that formula is correct" but you can check it for obvious distances along meridians etc and also compare the answer with "Google Earth". They won't be identical because that allows even for the deviation from an ellipsoid.
I think that, to Flat-Earthers, such arguments seem to be missing the point.
Nevertheless, maybe this argument will provoke some thinking in Flat-Earthers, how come do GPS devices seem to estimate that the emitters of the GPS signal are 20'000 kilometers away from them? According to the Flat-Earth Theory, that's farther away from us than the stars are, and about as far away from us as the Ice Wall is, right?
-
Incorrect. Pseudolites can do this job. Other methods can as well.
Pseudolites! who manufactures these flights of fancy you have created? Who launches them? who controls them John?
The problem here is your anti-science ideas are all based on there being a conspiracy of which you have presented no evidence, it's just what you happen to believe.
What we do know is GPS works and that is a fact
We know companies all over the world manufacture components for Satellites
We know companies and organizations who launch satellites
We know companies who are developing GPS systems
https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/gps_ocx
Thre are no know companies who design or manufacture components for John's Mythical Pseudolites
There are no known companies who develop any kind of system for John's Mythical Pseudolites
There are no records of any of John's Mythical Pseudolites being launched
-
Balloons and psuedolites have around for years.
-
Find the angle between the radii joining the points to the centre
Hmmm... It's not at all obvious how to do that. It's probably easier to convert spherical coordinates to Cartesian coordinates and then calculate the chord length by the Pythagorean Theorem. The formula for converting from spherical coordinates to Cartesian coordinates look relatively simple, though I am also not sure if I could derive them. The formulae for converting from Cartesian coordinates to spherical ones are a lot easier to understand.
(https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/077ab5a9774e05d20497a377bd846f7da9ae95bb)
I haven't studied it, though, that was just a quick example to illustrate my point that arguments that involve relatively complicated mathematics are unlikely to be convincing.
I haven't even heard of the Haversine formula, thanks for informing me about that.
I think that the arguments that the Round Earth Theory correctly predicts the distance to the horizon, or the angle at which the horizon is seen from an airplane at certain height (and thus the time it elapses between the moments people on the ground see the sunset and the moment people in an airplane see the horizon), that those arguments are a lot more likely to be convincing, since they involve a lot less math to understand. Also, the horizon is obviously there, it behaves exactly as we would expect if the Earth is round, and Flat-Earth theories fail miserably to explain what it even is. And there are many arguments about GPS that require little or no math to be understood.
I don't know about "proving that formula is correct" but you can check it for obvious distances along meridians etc and also compare the answer with "Google Earth".
Induction is not an acceptable way of reasoning in mathematics.
Balloons and psuedolites have around for years.
You realize that, every time a GPS device estimates the distance to the emitter of the GPS signal, it estimates the distance to it to be around 20'000 kilometers? And it uses that estimate to estimate your location, in such a way that, if that estimate was slightly wrong, the location it estimates would be very wrong.
Balloons can't go 20'000 kilometers up in the sky. Not even airplanes can. They can only go up to more than 1000 times less height.
-
To everyone that thinks you can't have ground based GPS, and that GPS refers to a particular system, what exactly are they claiming to do here?
https://web.stanford.edu/group/arl/projects/mars-rover-navigation-using-gps-self-calibrating-pseudolite-arrays
It is possible to use GPS in a local area using small ground-based GPS transmitters called pseudolites (pseudo-satellites).
Wow. I guess GPS isn't one particular system, and I guess it is possible to implement it on the ground.
-
But good job guys arguing against something that I wasn't even claiming for 3 pages now, and doing so against the facts. It's almost like you guys have no idea what you are talking about and are just arguing against me because I'm a flat earther.
-
To everyone that thinks you can't have ground based GPS, and that GPS refers to a particular system, what exactly are they claiming to do here?
https://web.stanford.edu/group/arl/projects/mars-rover-navigation-using-gps-self-calibrating-pseudolite-arrays
It is possible to use GPS in a local area using small ground-based GPS transmitters called pseudolites (pseudo-satellites).
Wow. I guess GPS isn't one particular system, and I guess it is possible to implement it on the ground.
Yes, but the computers inside those rovers know they aren't receiving signals from real satellites and are calibrating for that. If you put some of your GPS-capable devices into that area, with a GPS receiver that doesn't know about those pseudolites (and assumes it's receiving signals from the satellites it's programmed to use signals from), it wouldn't give correct (or, most likely, any) results.
-
To everyone that thinks you can't have ground based GPS, and that GPS refers to a particular system, what exactly are they claiming to do here?
https://web.stanford.edu/group/arl/projects/mars-rover-navigation-using-gps-self-calibrating-pseudolite-arrays
It is possible to use GPS in a local area using small ground-based GPS transmitters called pseudolites (pseudo-satellites).
Wow. I guess GPS isn't one particular system, and I guess it is possible to implement it on the ground.
GPS is the US operated global satellite navigation system.
-
To everyone that thinks you can't have ground based GPS, and that GPS refers to a particular system, what exactly are they claiming to do here?
https://web.stanford.edu/group/arl/projects/mars-rover-navigation-using-gps-self-calibrating-pseudolite-arrays
It is possible to use GPS in a local area using small ground-based GPS transmitters called pseudolites (pseudo-satellites).
Wow. I guess GPS isn't one particular system, and I guess it is possible to implement it on the ground.
Yes, but the computers inside those rovers know they aren't receiving signals from real satellites and are calibrating for that. If you put some of your GPS-capable devices into that area, with a GPS receiver that doesn't know about those pseudolites (and assumes it's receiving signals from the satellites it's programmed to use signals from), it wouldn't give correct (or, most likely, any) results.
Nobody has said otherwise.
-
To everyone that thinks you can't have ground based GPS, and that GPS refers to a particular system, what exactly are they claiming to do here?
https://web.stanford.edu/group/arl/projects/mars-rover-navigation-using-gps-self-calibrating-pseudolite-arrays
It is possible to use GPS in a local area using small ground-based GPS transmitters called pseudolites (pseudo-satellites).
Wow. I guess GPS isn't one particular system, and I guess it is possible to implement it on the ground.
Whatever you care to say or think GPS is not ground-based. Go ask the people who make it and launch it. Why do you insist on thinking otherwise?
-
Yeah, you are right. Stanford clearly has a lot of reasons to lie about GPS not requiring satellites. Are you guys almost done attacking your straw men?
-
To everyone that thinks you can't have ground based GPS, and that GPS refers to a particular system, what exactly are they claiming to do here?
https://web.stanford.edu/group/arl/projects/mars-rover-navigation-using-gps-self-calibrating-pseudolite-arrays
It is possible to use GPS in a local area using small ground-based GPS transmitters called pseudolites (pseudo-satellites).
Wow. I guess GPS isn't one particular system, and I guess it is possible to implement it on the ground.
Yes, but the computers inside those rovers know they aren't receiving signals from real satellites and are calibrating for that. If you put some of your GPS-capable devices into that area, with a GPS receiver that doesn't know about those pseudolites (and assumes it's receiving signals from the satellites it's programmed to use signals from), it wouldn't give correct (or, most likely, any) results.
Nobody has said otherwise.
OK, then, explain how you think the GPS devices you have give correct results, when they are programmed to expect that the GPS signals they receive are from satellites that are 20'000 kilometers up in the sky? Where are those emitters of the GPS signals actually? Up in the sky or somewhere on the ground? If they are somewhere on the ground, how come do they appear to move (Doppler effect, as well as the information they emit about their orbits)? If they are up in the sky, how do they stay up there? Either way, how do they fool the devices into thinking they are more than 20'000 kilometers away (which is incompatible with the Flat-Earth theory, unless you assume they collide with the stars or are situated somewhere behind the Ice Wall)? How do they, in spite of that discrepancy between where GPS devices think they are and where they actually are, make the devices give correct results?
-
When did I say that commonly available GPS devices are not talking to satellites 20,000 km in the sky?
I simply said GPS does not require satellites. And it doesn't. Presenting straw-men to knock down does nothing but make yourself look even more foolish than you lot already do.
-
When did I say that commonly available GPS devices are not talking to satellites 20,000 km in the sky?
Well, I am quite sure that's how most people would understand you when you said this (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84343.msg2239759#msg2239759).
So, how do those satellites stay up in the sky, above the Sun, the Moon and the stars (when the Flat Earth Theory says stars are 3'000 kilometers up in the sky, and the Sun and the Moon are even lower)? Why aren't they eclipsed by the Sun and the Moon, if not the stars? More importantly, how do they keep flying, when they can't use centrifugal force to keep flying if the Earth is flat?
-
When did I say that commonly available GPS devices are not talking to satellites 20,000 km in the sky?
Well, I am quite sure that's how most people would understand you when you said this (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84343.msg2239759#msg2239759).
So, how do those satellites stay up in the sky, above the Sun, the Moon and the stars (when the Flat Earth Theory says stars are 3'000 kilometers up in the sky, and the Sun and the Moon are even lower)? Why aren't they eclipsed by the Sun and the Moon, if not the stars? More importantly, how do they keep flying, when they can't use centrifugal force to keep flying if the Earth is flat?
How does asking a question about why he believes GPS requires satellites (when I have shown it doesn't and Stanford agrees with me) have anything to do with making the claim that satellites are not 20,000km in the sky and used by some common GPS devices?
There is no possible way to connect those two without just putting the words in my mouth. It's not my fault round earthers apparently are unable to read.
-
Incorrect. Pseudolites can do this job. Other methods can as well.
Please answer the following direct questions with no wishy-washy claims like "Pseudolites can do this job".
- Can pseudolites provide adequate vertical precision?
The Dilution of Precision depends on the angular separation of the transmitters and with all transmitters
- How many pseudolites would be needed for worldwide coverage?
- Why are pseudolites not see or detected?
- Are pseudolites used in the current GNSS, GPS (USA), GLONASS (Russia), Galileo (European GNSS) BeiDou (China)?
-
When did I say that commonly available GPS devices are not talking to satellites 20,000 km in the sky?
I simply said GPS does not require satellites. And it doesn't. Presenting straw-men to knock down does nothing but make yourself look even more foolish than you lot already do.
What are you trying to prove John? GPS works. It's delivered by a system of orbiting satellites regardless of what you happen to say. I'm not sure why you are even having this discussion.
-
To everyone that thinks you can't have ground based GPS, and that GPS refers to a particular system, what exactly are they claiming to do here?
A very poor article.
They even use things like GPS system, which when expanded would be Global Positioning System System.
They aren't even trying to make a global system, completely ignoring what the G in GPS stands for.
It is so wrong it isn't funny.
But it was probably written for "common folk" that don't understand the difference between GPS, GLONASS and other similar systems used for position determination, and instead just use GPS for it all, probably even Google's wifi based positioning system.
But good job guys arguing against something that I wasn't even claiming for 3 pages now, and doing so against the facts. It's almost like you guys have no idea what you are talking about and are just arguing against me because I'm a flat earther.
No, it is more that you are trying to play semantics (and failing).
GPS does use satellites. But rather than try to address that argument you instead want to discuss hypothetical systems that could work without satellites.
When did I say that commonly available GPS devices are not talking to satellites 20,000 km in the sky?
When you said GPS does not use satellites.
Again, that isn't just saying it doesn't require it. You said DOES NOT USE.
If you want to play a game of semantics, make sure you use the correct wording.
Also, that statement is incorrect as well. Commonly available GPS devices do not talk to satellites. They just listen to them.
As for your claims of attacking a strawman, that sure seems to be what you are doing. Rather than attacking the actual argument discussing the system in use today you repeatedly want to go off to some hypothetical system which doesn't use satellites.
-
Incorrect. Pseudolites can do this job. Other methods can as well.
Please answer the following direct questions with no wishy-washy claims like "Pseudolites can do this job".
- Can pseudolites provide adequate vertical precision?
The Dilution of Precision depends on the angular separation of the transmitters and with all transmitters
Yes
- How many pseudolites would be needed for worldwide coverage?
Irrelevant.
- Why are pseudolites not see or detected?
Irrelevant
- Are pseudolites used in the current GNSS, GPS (USA), GLONASS (Russia), Galileo (European GNSS) BeiDou (China)?
Irrelevant
-
When did I say that commonly available GPS devices are not talking to satellites 20,000 km in the sky?
I simply said GPS does not require satellites. And it doesn't. Presenting straw-men to knock down does nothing but make yourself look even more foolish than you lot already do.
What are you trying to prove John? GPS works. It's delivered by a system of orbiting satellites regardless of what you happen to say. I'm not sure why you are even having this discussion.
It is hard to believe that you don't know what I'm trying to argue. I am arguing that GPS does not require satellites. Because it doesn't.
-
Incorrect. Pseudolites can do this job. Other methods can as well.
Please answer the following direct questions with no wishy-washy claims like "Pseudolites can do this job".
- Can pseudolites provide adequate vertical precision?
The Dilution of Precision depends on the angular separation of the transmitters and with all transmitters
Yes
- How many pseudolites would be needed for worldwide coverage?
Irrelevant.
- Why are pseudolites not see or detected?
Irrelevant
- Are pseudolites used in the current GNSS, GPS (USA), GLONASS (Russia), Galileo (European GNSS) BeiDou (China)?
Irrelevant
Inadequate
-
To everyone that thinks you can't have ground based GPS, and that GPS refers to a particular system, what exactly are they claiming to do here?
A very poor article.
They even use things like GPS system, which when expanded would be Global Positioning System System.
They aren't even trying to make a global system, completely ignoring what the G in GPS stands for.
It is so wrong it isn't funny.
But it was probably written for "common folk" that don't understand the difference between GPS, GLONASS and other similar systems used for position determination, and instead just use GPS for it all, probably even Google's wifi based positioning system.
GNSS is the system that uses satellites explicitly. Not GPS.
But good job guys arguing against something that I wasn't even claiming for 3 pages now, and doing so against the facts. It's almost like you guys have no idea what you are talking about and are just arguing against me because I'm a flat earther.
No, it is more that you are trying to play semantics (and failing).
GPS does use satellites. But rather than try to address that argument you instead want to discuss hypothetical systems that could work without satellites.
GPS does not require satellites. Some GPSs might.
When did I say that commonly available GPS devices are not talking to satellites 20,000 km in the sky?
When you said GPS does not use satellites.
Again, that isn't just saying it doesn't require it. You said DOES NOT USE.
I have been pretty clear about the argument I'm making and what I'm trying to understand about the OP. It's pretty ballsy for you to play semantics and then accuse me of playing semantics when I am doing no such thing.
If you want to play a game of semantics, make sure you use the correct wording.
...
As for your claims of attacking a strawman, that sure seems to be what you are doing. Rather than attacking the actual argument discussing the system in use today you repeatedly want to go off to some hypothetical system which doesn't use satellites.
I am simply trying to understand why the OP would think satellites are required for GPS. Can you guys really be this dense?
-
Incorrect. Pseudolites can do this job. Other methods can as well.
Please answer the following direct questions with no wishy-washy claims like "Pseudolites can do this job".
- Can pseudolites provide adequate vertical precision?
The Dilution of Precision depends on the angular separation of the transmitters and with all transmitters
Yes
- How many pseudolites would be needed for worldwide coverage?
Irrelevant.
- Why are pseudolites not see or detected?
Irrelevant
- Are pseudolites used in the current GNSS, GPS (USA), GLONASS (Russia), Galileo (European GNSS) BeiDou (China)?
Irrelevant
Inadequate
Ask me relevant questions and I'll give you adequate answers.
-
To everyone that thinks you can't have ground based GPS, and that GPS refers to a particular system, what exactly are they claiming to do here?
A very poor article.
They even use things like GPS system, which when expanded would be Global Positioning System System.
They aren't even trying to make a global system, completely ignoring what the G in GPS stands for.
It is so wrong it isn't funny.
But it was probably written for "common folk" that don't understand the difference between GPS, GLONASS and other similar systems used for position determination, and instead just use GPS for it all, probably even Google's wifi based positioning system.
GNSS is the system that uses satellites explicitly. Not GPS.
But good job guys arguing against something that I wasn't even claiming for 3 pages now, and doing so against the facts. It's almost like you guys have no idea what you are talking about and are just arguing against me because I'm a flat earther.
No, it is more that you are trying to play semantics (and failing).
GPS does use satellites. But rather than try to address that argument you instead want to discuss hypothetical systems that could work without satellites.
GPS does not require satellites. Some GPSs might.
When did I say that commonly available GPS devices are not talking to satellites 20,000 km in the sky?
When you said GPS does not use satellites.
Again, that isn't just saying it doesn't require it. You said DOES NOT USE.
I have been pretty clear about the argument I'm making and what I'm trying to understand about the OP. It's pretty ballsy for you to play semantics and then accuse me of playing semantics when I am doing no such thing.
If you want to play a game of semantics, make sure you use the correct wording.
...
As for your claims of attacking a strawman, that sure seems to be what you are doing. Rather than attacking the actual argument discussing the system in use today you repeatedly want to go off to some hypothetical system which doesn't use satellites.
I am simply trying to understand why the OP would think satellites are required for GPS. Can you guys really be this dense?
GPS is the US owned GNSS.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System
If you are using GPS like someone might say Teflon, band aid, or Velcro just say so. We will all accept you meant either GNSS or a generic positioning system.
-
Incorrect. Pseudolites can do this job. Other methods can as well.
Please answer the following direct questions with no wishy-washy claims like "Pseudolites can do this job".
- Can pseudolites provide adequate vertical precision?
The Dilution of Precision depends on the angular separation of the transmitters and with all transmitters
Yes
- How many pseudolites would be needed for worldwide coverage?
Irrelevant.
- Why are pseudolites not see or detected?
Irrelevant
- Are pseudolites used in the current GNSS, GPS (USA), GLONASS (Russia), Galileo (European GNSS) BeiDou (China)?
Irrelevant
Inadequate
Ask me relevant questions and I'll give you adequate answers.
I did. The topic is "GPS", Global Positioning System" and the OP is:
hey Guys
So GPS obviously is working as we all can use it. How does this work on a flat earth?
Since "Global" doesn't a flat Earth it could be interpreted as "Worldwide".
You claim that GPS doesn't need satellites but could uses pseudolites so I fail to see why any of the questions are irrelevant.
But, if you insist, please answer at least this: Are pseudolites used in the current GNSS implementations, GPS (USA), GLONASS (Russia), Galileo (European GNSS) BeiDou (China)?
Right here and now my tablet locks onto GPS, GLONASS, BeiDou plus a couple of Japanese local clock enhancement transmitters.
-
Please use the forum's search function. This question has definitely been asked (and "answered") before.
I'm not even a flattie, but you need to step your game up.
Why do you think GPS wouldn't work on a flat earth?
How do satellites orbit a flat earth? As GPS requires satellites to work.
Two other relevant posts in this thread.
-
GNSS is the system that uses satellites explicitly. Not GPS.
Again, notice how you skip basically everything that is said and then bring up a completley irrelavent point.
GPS is a specific positioning system which uses satellites to determine your position on the globe, which can be supplemented by ground based transmitters.
GNSS is a class of positioning/navigation systems which use satellites.
GPS and GLONASS are 2 examples of a GNSS.
GPS does not require satellites. Some GPSs might.
Again, you ignore what is said. In the comment you are quoting i said GPS USES satellites. Do you understand the difference between uses and requires?
And again, you are wrong, GPS is a specific system, not a type of system. GPS does use satellites. You can have a different positioning system which does not, but it would be quite difficult to get global coverage.
I have been pretty clear about the argument I'm making and what I'm trying to understand about the OP. It's pretty ballsy for you to play semantics and then accuse me of playing semantics when I am doing no such thing.
Yes, you have been pretty clear about the strawman you are making.
You are playing semantics.
It is quite easily understood that the current GPS system uses satellites. Rather than focus on this you want to play semantics about what GPS means and what uses/requires means to set up a straw-man about if a hypothetical positioning system would need to use satellites or not.
I am simply trying to understand why the OP would think satellites are required for GPS. Can you guys really be this dense?
It is quite simple.
The receivers are receiving data from transmitters allegedly on satellites, with their position at the time of transmission determined from their orbital parameters, with those positions and the time taken used to determine the location of the receiver.
How would this be achieved without satellites?
Again, you are playing semantics, trying to ignore the fact that GPS is a system which currently exists and is open to the public to use and understand and instead pretending it means any old positioning system which could cover the globe.
So how can GPS, a system currently in use which relies upon satellites, work without satellites?
How does it provide the global coverage from transmitters pretending to be satellites?
How does it provide an accurate elevation?
-
GNSS is the system that uses satellites explicitly. Not GPS.
GNSS is simply the generic for all Global navigation systems, the first of which was the Navigation System with Timing and Ranging (NAVSTAR GPS) satellite launched in 1978.
The name Global Positioning System does not explicitly contain "Satellite" but its implementation with global coverage would by near enough to impossible without satellites.
If you disagree, please explanation how a Global system would be feasible without satellites.
No one disagrees that local enhancements with pseudolites or some such are possible.
The European Galileo system has this included in the specification to allow seamless integration near airports and shipping channels.
-
GNSS is the system that uses satellites explicitly. Not GPS.
So you admit that "GNSS is the system that uses satellites explicitly".
But GPS is one of the GNSS implementations so if "GNSS is the system that uses satellites explicitly" then GPS uses satellites.
You might read:
esa navipedia Receiver Types (https://gssc.esa.int/navipedia/index.php/Receiver_Types)
Multi-constellation
With the emergence of multiple satellite navigation systems (both regional and global), multi-constellation receivers are becoming widely available. This has been encouraged at system design level by working towards interoperability and compatibility among all systems, allowing for seamless combination of the different signal spectra and processing chains into a single, multi-constellation GNSS solution. This approach reflects on the four global GNSS receiver implementations:
- Galileo Receivers
- GPS Receivers
- GLONASS Receivers
- BeiDou Receivers
From the receiver perspective, multi-constellation brings a key added value on solution availability, especially in urban environments: with the increased number of constellations available, the number of satellites visible to the user is bound to increase. This allows several algorithm implementations to be further refined, and the final solution can be computed with higher accuracy and availability (for instance, see the improvements due to higher availability in Dilution of Precision (DOP)).
-
To everyone that thinks you can't have ground based GPS, and that GPS refers to a particular system, what exactly are they claiming to do here?
A very poor article.
They even use things like GPS system, which when expanded would be Global Positioning System System.
They aren't even trying to make a global system, completely ignoring what the G in GPS stands for.
It is so wrong it isn't funny.
But it was probably written for "common folk" that don't understand the difference between GPS, GLONASS and other similar systems used for position determination, and instead just use GPS for it all, probably even Google's wifi based positioning system.
GNSS is the system that uses satellites explicitly. Not GPS.
But good job guys arguing against something that I wasn't even claiming for 3 pages now, and doing so against the facts. It's almost like you guys have no idea what you are talking about and are just arguing against me because I'm a flat earther.
No, it is more that you are trying to play semantics (and failing).
GPS does use satellites. But rather than try to address that argument you instead want to discuss hypothetical systems that could work without satellites.
GPS does not require satellites. Some GPSs might.
When did I say that commonly available GPS devices are not talking to satellites 20,000 km in the sky?
When you said GPS does not use satellites.
Again, that isn't just saying it doesn't require it. You said DOES NOT USE.
I have been pretty clear about the argument I'm making and what I'm trying to understand about the OP. It's pretty ballsy for you to play semantics and then accuse me of playing semantics when I am doing no such thing.
If you want to play a game of semantics, make sure you use the correct wording.
...
As for your claims of attacking a strawman, that sure seems to be what you are doing. Rather than attacking the actual argument discussing the system in use today you repeatedly want to go off to some hypothetical system which doesn't use satellites.
I am simply trying to understand why the OP would think satellites are required for GPS. Can you guys really be this dense?
Your thinking John goes something like this.
I believe the world is flat, therefore there can be no such thing as satellites that orbit a spherical earth.
GPS does work, billions of people use it, therefore it must come from a system that is ground-based...
John then looks up to see if there are any references to the possibility of such a system, which of course there are as but it's for a situation like Mars exploration. Putting a satellite-based GPS system into operation around Mars would be very expensive hence the ground-based approach. The problem is, however, there is no such system in operation on earth no matter how much John wishes there were. There is no evidence of such a system and such a system would by virtue of it being ground-based would not work at sea. Ask any mariner about GPS which is an integral part of the navigation system of every seagoing vessel.
The reference John posted:
https://web.stanford.edu/group/arl/projects/mars-rover-navigation-using-gps-self-calibrating-pseudolite-arrays
Really had me in stitches as it referenced a system for use in an interplanetary situation such as on Mars. I thought John didn't believe in space travel or trust the scientists at Stanford? I wonder how many of the scientists who work on the system John referenced would agree with him?
If John trusts the scientists only at Stanford then he must agree with one of their other projects:
https://web.stanford.edu/group/arl/projects/nano-satellite-attitude-determination
This is another interesting project for spacecraft navigation.
The problem flat earth believers have is referencing any scientific research to support their arguments just don't hold any water. Here is a link to a quarterly magazine that deals with new developments in GPS. Look through them and you will find nothing on John's earthbound mythical Pseudo- sats
https://link.springer.com/journal/10291/24/2
This one makes for interesting reading John. What do you think?
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10291-020-0967-3
-
I think that what John Davis believes, correct me if I am wrong, is that the Earth is an infinite plane and that we are living in some non-Euclidean space. And that that non-Euclidean space has properties so that it basically appears to us that the Earth is a sphere (ships disappearing bottom first, the distances on Earth being more-or-less the same as we would except if the Earth was a sphere), except that it somehow won't appear round if looked from a very high altitude (I don't know what he thinks a non-fake image from space would look like). And that the satellites staying above the Earth at 20'000 kilometers height are possible thanks to the non-Euclidean nature of space we live in. John Davis, I think, doesn't believe that the Moon, the Sun, the planets and the stars are 3'000 kilometers up in the sky, that they are very far away and that they, for some reason (maybe he can explain), can't be reached.
The Occam's Razor clearly favors the hypothesis that the Earth is round, and a reasonable person wouldn't even consider such ridiculous hypotheses.
-
Your thinking John goes something like this.
I believe the world is flat, therefore there can be no such thing as satellites that orbit a spherical earth.
GPS does work, billions of people use it, therefore it must come from a system that is ground-based...
When arguing with John you have to remember that he doesn't use the more traditional disc or flat plane models. He supports a non-Euclidean flat earth that behaves an awful lot like a globe, so satellites may be possible in his model.
-
I think that what John Davis believes, correct me if I am wrong, is that the Earth is an infinite plane and that we are living in some non-Euclidean space.
Not quite. He believes the surface of Earth (at the large scale) is congruent to that of a roughly spherical object, but falsely appeals to relativity and non-Euclidean geometry to pretend it is flat.
His model is the RE model, with the surface of Earth just falsely called flat.
-
Your thinking John goes something like this.
I believe the world is flat, therefore there can be no such thing as satellites that orbit a spherical earth.
GPS does work, billions of people use it, therefore it must come from a system that is ground-based...
When arguing with John you have to remember that he doesn't use the more traditional disc or flat plane models. He supports a non-Euclidean flat earth that behaves an awful lot like a globe, so satellites may be possible in his model.
Non euc model is a globe using fancy math to translate the globe into flatness.
-
Why is it people try and give some idea of what John thinks? Why not let him do that for himself. The problem as I see it no one really knows exactly what John thinks as he is pretty vague on some things and is in a minority of one. Possibly when he brings his book out his position will be made clear. He said it was already to hit the streets in 2016, so I’m assuming he must almost be there.
GPS has been around a long time, over 50 years, as has satellite TV. It’s clear beyond any doubt that both system have at their core networks of satellites in orbit. The internet is looking to be the next technology that will have a portion of its connectivity not in the cloud, but way beyond in low earth orbit. The numbers of satellites are causing astronomers great concern and there have been quite a few articles laying out their concerns.
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2020/1/7/21003272/space-x-starlink-astronomy-light-pollution
-
Why is it people try and give some idea of what John thinks? Why not let him do that for himself.
Because John is one of those people who likes to give technically correct but completely useless answers to even the simplest of questions.
-
Why is it people try and give some idea of what John thinks?
Good question. Why did you try and give a completely incorrect idea of what John thinks?
Perhaps others say what John has indicated to correct that misinformation and try to paint a more accurate point of view of what he thinks?
It would be great if he just laid it out all nice and clearly, but obfuscation seems to be his main game.
-
I stopped reading a long way back, but this is just silly.
Triangulation and this thing called line of sight.
It's really simple.
Take a cellphone and powered off GPS device into the bottom of a deep mountain valley where there is no cellular signal. Turn on the GPS device. GPS will know exactly where you are. Yet you will not have cellular signal. Explain why you have no cell signal but the GPS still works.
There is only one explanation and it doesn't involve the earth being flat.
-
It would be great if he just laid it out all nice and clearly, but obfuscation seems to be his main game.
It's the only game he's got. He dare not reveal . . . . . . . . .
Maybe Leo Ferrari handled it better but he was Australian and had more resources and time to devote to his outrageously humorous treatment of the idea of a flat earth.
Have a look at Flat Earth General / Re: WHY? « Message by rabinoz on February 15, 2020, 07:31:27 AM » (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=84800.msg2235575;topicseen#msg2235575)
Eric Dubay ;D, that famous Flat Earth Guru ::) claims in The Flat Earth Society is Controlled Opposition!, The Atlantean Conspiracy (http://www.atlanteanconspiracy.com/2015/03/flat-earth-society-controlled-op.html) that The Flat Earth Society is a controlled opposition group that mixes truth with lies and satire to discredit genuine flat Earth research, a job they have been doing for a long time now. Founded in 1970 by Leo Ferrari, a suspected Freemason and philosophy professor at St. Thomas' University, Leo spent his life making a mockery of the legitimate subject of our flat Earth. Though he passed away in 2010, his Flat Earth Society still exists today online as a website/forum which, still true to form, purports several false flat-Earth arguments and treats the entire subject as a dead-pan joke.
This Leo Ferrari ;)
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/gehieizwd2wizp6/20160702%20-%20Leo%20Ferrari%20-%20PlanoTerrestrialist.png?dl=1)
And would Eric Dubay lie ????. (Is the Pope Catholic ::)?) You've gotta be careful of us Aussies!
-
I stopped reading a long way back, but this is just silly.
Triangulation and this thing called line of sight.
It's really simple.
Actually, it's multilateration because the receiver doesn't know the angle to any given transmitter. Not simple, especially when the transmitters and receiver are moving.
-
To everyone that thinks you can't have ground based GPS, and that GPS refers to a particular system, what exactly are they claiming to do here?
https://web.stanford.edu/group/arl/projects/mars-rover-navigation-using-gps-self-calibrating-pseudolite-arrays
It is possible to use GPS in a local area using small ground-based GPS transmitters called pseudolites (pseudo-satellites).
Wow. I guess GPS isn't one particular system, and I guess it is possible to implement it on the ground.
What about those who don't consider the systems to be mutually exclusive?
For the submarines in the middle of, say, South Atlantic, or Pacific they still use satellites as more practical solution.
There are no pseudolites there and cost of installing them and keeping them in position would be much higher.
-
To everyone that thinks you can't have ground based GPS, and that GPS refers to a particular system, what exactly are they claiming to do here?
https://web.stanford.edu/group/arl/projects/mars-rover-navigation-using-gps-self-calibrating-pseudolite-arrays
It is possible to use GPS in a local area using small ground-based GPS transmitters called pseudolites (pseudo-satellites).
Wow. I guess GPS isn't one particular system, and I guess it is possible to implement it on the ground.
Don't you mean ", and I guess It is possible to use GPS in a local area using small ground-based GPS transmitters called pseudolites (pseudo-satellites)."
You omitted a vital part!
And it might have been better still if you quoted a little more.Self-Calibrating Pseudolite Arrays
There are currently no plans by NASA to place a full GPS system around Mars. It is possible to use GPS in a local area using small ground-based GPS transmitters called pseudolites (pseudo-satellites). A disadvantage with this approach is that all previous work with pseudolites required that the pseudolite locations be known to centimeter-level accuracy. This is unlikely when placing the devices on another planet.
Please explain how pseudolites could be positioned "to centimeter-level accuracy" over the ocean or were you ignoring ships at sea, submarines and international aircraft?
-
At this point in the discussion with no answers from Mr Davis, I think we can safely conclude, he has no answers.
-
Your thinking John goes something like this.
I believe the world is flat, therefore there can be no such thing as satellites that orbit a spherical earth.
GPS does work, billions of people use it, therefore it must come from a system that is ground-based...
When arguing with John you have to remember that he doesn't use the more traditional disc or flat plane models. He supports a non-Euclidean flat earth that behaves an awful lot like a globe, so satellites may be possible in his model.
Sometimes, in science, there are indeed competing theories that are about as likely, given what we see, all of them asking us to accept weird things and it's up to us to find one which we are the most comfortable with. Various interpretations of quantum mechanics is one example. But the John Davis'es Flat-Earth and Round Earth theory really aren't the same. The idea that gravity doesn't exist, but that we are living in a non-Euclidean space (obviously contradicting the theory of relativity) is significantly more complicated than the idea that we are living on a sphere. And it doesn't even properly explain the same observations. You can't derive the formula for the distance to the horizon or the angle at which you see the horizon from the John Davis'es theory, it makes no predictions as clear as that. Round-Earth theory, on the other hand, explains these things perfectly. Also, it fails to explain some observations at all. If there is no gravity and the reason things fall down is that the Earth is constantly accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s^2, how it is that, if you climb on a mountain, the force you are being pulled down with is measurably lower? The John Davis'es Flat-Earth theory is obviously more complicated than the theory that the Earth is round, and it doesn't explain the things we see equally well, and any reasonable person would reject it.
-
I stopped reading a long way back, but this is just silly.
Triangulation and this thing called line of sight.
It's really simple.
Actually, it's multilateration because the receiver doesn't know the angle to any given transmitter. Not simple, especially when the transmitters and receiver are moving.
Ok. Yes, "tri/multilateration" doesn't use angles but the concept is similar. And it's complexity is not within its concept, but it's implementation.
-
Your thinking John goes something like this.
I believe the world is flat, therefore there can be no such thing as satellites that orbit a spherical earth.
GPS does work, billions of people use it, therefore it must come from a system that is ground-based...
When arguing with John you have to remember that he doesn't use the more traditional disc or flat plane models. He supports a non-Euclidean flat earth that behaves an awful lot like a globe, so satellites may be possible in his model.
Sometimes, in science, there are indeed competing theories that are about as likely, given what we see, all of them asking us to accept weird things and it's up to us to find one which we are the most comfortable with. Various interpretations of quantum mechanics is one example. But the John Davis'es Flat-Earth and Round Earth theory really aren't the same. The idea that gravity doesn't exist, but that we are living in a non-Euclidean space (obviously contradicting the theory of relativity) is significantly more complicated than the idea that we are living on a sphere. And it doesn't even properly explain the same observations. You can't derive the formula for the distance to the horizon or the angle at which you see the horizon from the John Davis'es theory, it makes no predictions as clear as that. Round-Earth theory, on the other hand, explains these things perfectly. Also, it fails to explain some observations at all. If there is no gravity and the reason things fall down is that the Earth is constantly accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s^2, how it is that, if you climb on a mountain, the force you are being pulled down with is measurably lower? The John Davis'es Flat-Earth theory is obviously more complicated than the theory that the Earth is round, and it doesn't explain the things we see equally well, and any reasonable person would reject it.
Firstly you can not put what John Davis thinks on the same level as any theory conventional science may have. The scientific understanding we have has come through a pretty tortuous route of discovery. The ideas that formed it produced by many talented and gifted scientists. To put Davis in that company I think would be not just a great disservice but an abomination to the men and women who have brought our level of understanding to where we are now. As far as I can see Davis has contributed less than nothing as far as scientific endeavor is concerned, that is unless you think claiming moonlight is dangerous, dinosaurs don't exist, or that we live on an infinite plane or penguins were produced by rouge Nazi scientists. Though he does have the option of proving me wrong by listing his proven scientific achievements.
-
How would a Pseudolite work in remote locations or out to sea and still support multi-constellation/multi-frequency GPS units? This would imply the multi-constellation pseudolite system transceivers would exist side by side.
While a pseudolite system might be technically feasible the number of transceivers needed to cover the entire surface of the earth, maintain line of sight, work at sea, and support multi-constellation/multi-frequency GPS units seems to be highly improbable from financial, infrastructure, and technical support point of view.
Mike
-
One also has to remember that there is a lot more to the GPS signal than just the signal. There is quite a lot of data contained within those signals that contain information like a unique identifier for each satellite, ephemeris data that describes the rest of the satellite constellation, and more. I don't see how all of this data describing a constellation of 24-36 satellites can be simulated by countless pseudolites.
http://www.gisresources.com/fundamentals-of-gps-signal-and-data_2/
-
This thread: I dOn'T wAnT tO aDmIt ThE sImPlE fAcT tHaT GpS dOeS nOt ReQuIrE SaTeLiTes.
I don't really see any need to address your strawmen. It has been well established at this point. You can take that knowledge or not. If you want to see more discussion on the matter, there are a ton of threads you can pursue using search or via google.
-
A generic global positioning system is currently not feasible without the use of satellites.
-
Now, that's just bad engineering sokarul.
36000000 would be the yearly price tag, and who knows for initial setup; and one can engineer within that price to a certain accuracy. I find it hard to believe you can make such a statement without a lot of work.
It is also interesting to know that since satellites don't transmit their actual positions, their accuracy is questionable and has to be adjusted using ground based transmitters anyways if a certain level of accuracy is desired.
-
This thread: I dOn'T wAnT tO aDmIt ThE sImPlE fAcT tHaT GpS dOeS nOt ReQuIrE SaTeLiTes.
John, I will freely admit that geolocation services in general do not require satellites. However, if you want global coverage (as in GPS) in even the most remote locations, then there really is no viable alternative to using satellites.
-
This thread: I dOn'T wAnT tO aDmIt ThE sImPlE fAcT tHaT GpS dOeS nOt ReQuIrE SaTeLiTes.
John, I will freely admit that geolocation services in general do not require satellites. However, if you want global coverage (as in GPS) in even the most remote locations, then there really is no viable alternative to using satellites.
Yes there is.
You have no idea as to what is located in any "remote," location.
-
Now, that's just bad engineering sokarul.
I didn’t say anything about engineering. Although it would be a great engineering feat to get global coverage when nothing else non satellite based covers the globe.
36000000 would be the yearly price tag, and who knows for initial setup; and one can engineer within that price to a certain accuracy. I find it hard to believe you can make such a statement without a lot of work.
That number is made up. The top secret generic gps faking tower service techs and engineers’ salaries would be more than that.
Initial cost would be unimaginable.
Anyways I think you are ignoring the global part. North Korea and Iran are not going to let some company just put up thousands of towers let alone launch thousands of balloons.
It is also interesting to know that since satellites don't transmit their actual positions, their accuracy is questionable and has to be adjusted using ground based transmitters anyways if a certain level of accuracy is desired.
While orbits are predictable there are still ways to introduce error which needs to be corrected.
-
This thread: I dOn'T wAnT tO aDmIt ThE sImPlE fAcT tHaT GpS dOeS nOt ReQuIrE SaTeLiTes.
John, I will freely admit that geolocation services in general do not require satellites. However, if you want global coverage (as in GPS) in even the most remote locations, then there really is no viable alternative to using satellites.
Yes there is.
You have no idea as to what is located in any "remote," location.
Tanks
Troops
Ships
Remote missile launchers
Secret bunkers...
Because it was created by the military.
-
Your thinking John goes something like this.
I believe the world is flat, therefore there can be no such thing as satellites that orbit a spherical earth.
GPS does work, billions of people use it, therefore it must come from a system that is ground-based...
When arguing with John you have to remember that he doesn't use the more traditional disc or flat plane models. He supports a non-Euclidean flat earth that behaves an awful lot like a globe, so satellites may be possible in his model.
Sometimes, in science, there are indeed competing theories that are about as likely, given what we see, all of them asking us to accept weird things and it's up to us to find one which we are the most comfortable with. Various interpretations of quantum mechanics is one example. But the John Davis'es Flat-Earth and Round Earth theory really aren't the same. The idea that gravity doesn't exist, but that we are living in a non-Euclidean space (obviously contradicting the theory of relativity) is significantly more complicated than the idea that we are living on a sphere. And it doesn't even properly explain the same observations. You can't derive the formula for the distance to the horizon or the angle at which you see the horizon from the John Davis'es theory, it makes no predictions as clear as that. Round-Earth theory, on the other hand, explains these things perfectly. Also, it fails to explain some observations at all. If there is no gravity and the reason things fall down is that the Earth is constantly accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s^2, how it is that, if you climb on a mountain, the force you are being pulled down with is measurably lower? The John Davis'es Flat-Earth theory is obviously more complicated than the theory that the Earth is round, and it doesn't explain the things we see equally well, and any reasonable person would reject it.
Firstly you can not put what John Davis thinks on the same level as any theory conventional science may have. The scientific understanding we have has come through a pretty tortuous route of discovery. The ideas that formed it produced by many talented and gifted scientists. To put Davis in that company I think would be not just a great disservice but an abomination to the men and women who have brought our level of understanding to where we are now. As far as I can see Davis has contributed less than nothing as far as scientific endeavor is concerned, that is unless you think claiming moonlight is dangerous, dinosaurs don't exist, or that we live on an infinite plane or penguins were produced by rouge Nazi scientists. Though he does have the option of proving me wrong by listing his proven scientific achievements.
Yes. And even if John Davis did have some scientific achievements (which is itself unlikely), that would only prove it's possible for an educated person to be duped into believing those things. Claims need to be analyzed independently. A person who is educated in the relevant fields of science, or even just the scientific method, is unlikely to be very mistaken about matters of hard science, but such things do happen.
Flat-Earthers probably think scientists are rejecting their ideas only because Flat-Earthers themselves aren't a part of academia. No, that's not the primary reason scientists reject those ideas, the primary reason they reject those ideas is because they defy the scientific method and the principles of logic (Occam's Razor...). And it's presumably because Flat-Earthers are uneducated, it's not the other way around.
-
This thread: I dOn'T wAnT tO aDmIt ThE sImPlE fAcT tHaT GpS dOeS nOt ReQuIrE SaTeLiTes.
I don't really see any need to address your strawmen. It has been well established at this point. You can take that knowledge or not. If you want to see more discussion on the matter, there are a ton of threads you can pursue using search or via google.
For the GPS devices you have (embedded into your phone, the GPS device in your car) to operate properly, satellites that are 20'000 kilometers up in the sky are needed. And there are multiple lines of evidence of that, including the fact that they can tell the elevation you are at with signal from 3 emitters and the fact that many of them have open-source software which obviously relies on receiving signal from emitters that follow the orbit which is 20'000 kilometers up in the sky. I thought we agree on that.
Assuming we agree on that, what's holding the satellites up in the sky? If the Earth is flat, it's not the centrifugal force. Do you think the non-Euclidean nature of the space we supposedly live in enables them to? Do you have some mathematical model which predicts that? The mathematical model, if we assume Round Earth, is rather simple. How is your model better than the Round Earth model? Can you make some falsifiable prediction based on your model that's different from what Round Earth predicts?
-
This thread: I dOn'T wAnT tO aDmIt ThE sImPlE fAcT tHaT GpS dOeS nOt ReQuIrE SaTeLiTes.
I don't really see any need to address your strawmen. It has been well established at this point. You can take that knowledge or not. If you want to see more discussion on the matter, there are a ton of threads you can pursue using search or via google.
It has been shown that a 'GPS' type system is being developed for use on Mars, or so it says in the link you provided. It did not say it was to be used on planet Earth. would you not agree? The satellite based system we currently used works pretty well would you not agree?
-
This thread: I dOn'T wAnT tO aDmIt ThE sImPlE fAcT tHaT GpS dOeS nOt ReQuIrE SaTeLiTes.
I don't really see any need to address your strawmen. It has been well established at this point. You can take that knowledge or not. If you want to see more discussion on the matter, there are a ton of threads you can pursue using search or via google.
For the GPS devices you have (embedded into your phone, the GPS device in your car) to operate properly, satellites that are 20'000 kilometers up in the sky are needed. And there are multiple lines of evidence of that, including the fact that they can tell the elevation you are at with signal from 3 emitters and the fact that many of them have open-source software which obviously relies on receiving signal from emitters that follow the orbit which is 20'000 kilometers up in the sky. I thought we agree on that.
Assuming we agree on that, what's holding the satellites up in the sky? If the Earth is flat, it's not the centrifugal force. Do you think the non-Euclidean nature of the space we supposedly live in enables them to? Do you have some mathematical model which predicts that? The mathematical model, if we assume Round Earth, is rather simple. How is your model better than the Round Earth model? Can you make some falsifiable prediction based on your model that's different from what Round Earth predicts?
Yes, the satellites are traveling their inertial paths in straight lines. Rather simple I'd say.
-
Now, that's just bad engineering sokarul.
36000000 would be the yearly price tag, and who knows for initial setup; and one can engineer within that price to a certain accuracy. I find it hard to believe you can make such a statement without a lot of work.
It is also interesting to know that since satellites don't transmit their actual positions, their accuracy is questionable and has to be adjusted using ground based transmitters anyways if a certain level of accuracy is desired.
The satellite GPS system we all know and love is accurate to around 16ft I would say that's far from questionable. Is that not accurate enough to find your way from A to B? No one is forcing you to use it, John.
-
This thread: I dOn'T wAnT tO aDmIt ThE sImPlE fAcT tHaT GpS dOeS nOt ReQuIrE SaTeLiTes.
I don't really see any need to address your strawmen. It has been well established at this point. You can take that knowledge or not. If you want to see more discussion on the matter, there are a ton of threads you can pursue using search or via google.
For the GPS devices you have (embedded into your phone, the GPS device in your car) to operate properly, satellites that are 20'000 kilometers up in the sky are needed. And there are multiple lines of evidence of that, including the fact that they can tell the elevation you are at with signal from 3 emitters and the fact that many of them have open-source software which obviously relies on receiving signal from emitters that follow the orbit which is 20'000 kilometers up in the sky. I thought we agree on that.
Assuming we agree on that, what's holding the satellites up in the sky? If the Earth is flat, it's not the centrifugal force. Do you think the non-Euclidean nature of the space we supposedly live in enables them to? Do you have some mathematical model which predicts that? The mathematical model, if we assume Round Earth, is rather simple. How is your model better than the Round Earth model? Can you make some falsifiable prediction based on your model that's different from what Round Earth predicts?
Yes, the satellites are traveling their inertial paths in straight lines. Rather simple I'd say.
How do you know this John?
-
This thread: I dOn'T wAnT tO aDmIt ThE sImPlE fAcT tHaT GpS dOeS nOt ReQuIrE SaTeLiTes.
I don't really see any need to address your strawmen. It has been well established at this point. You can take that knowledge or not. If you want to see more discussion on the matter, there are a ton of threads you can pursue using search or via google.
For the GPS devices you have (embedded into your phone, the GPS device in your car) to operate properly, satellites that are 20'000 kilometers up in the sky are needed. And there are multiple lines of evidence of that, including the fact that they can tell the elevation you are at with signal from 3 emitters and the fact that many of them have open-source software which obviously relies on receiving signal from emitters that follow the orbit which is 20'000 kilometers up in the sky. I thought we agree on that.
Assuming we agree on that, what's holding the satellites up in the sky? If the Earth is flat, it's not the centrifugal force. Do you think the non-Euclidean nature of the space we supposedly live in enables them to? Do you have some mathematical model which predicts that? The mathematical model, if we assume Round Earth, is rather simple. How is your model better than the Round Earth model? Can you make some falsifiable prediction based on your model that's different from what Round Earth predicts?
Yes, the satellites are traveling their inertial paths in straight lines. Rather simple I'd say.
Apparently you like the research from Stanford Univerity John. If that's the case then anything you would like to know can be found here.
https://gps.stanford.edu
Thet say it is all satellite-based John. and I thought you trusted them? After all Stanford has been widely considered the world’s leading academic institution performing PNT, GPS and GNSS research.
https://scpnt.stanford.edu
-
This thread: I dOn'T wAnT tO aDmIt ThE sImPlE fAcT tHaT GpS dOeS nOt ReQuIrE SaTeLiTes.
I don't really see any need to address your strawmen. It has been well established at this point. You can take that knowledge or not. If you want to see more discussion on the matter, there are a ton of threads you can pursue using search or via google.
For the GPS devices you have (embedded into your phone, the GPS device in your car) to operate properly, satellites that are 20'000 kilometers up in the sky are needed. And there are multiple lines of evidence of that, including the fact that they can tell the elevation you are at with signal from 3 emitters and the fact that many of them have open-source software which obviously relies on receiving signal from emitters that follow the orbit which is 20'000 kilometers up in the sky. I thought we agree on that.
Assuming we agree on that, what's holding the satellites up in the sky? If the Earth is flat, it's not the centrifugal force. Do you think the non-Euclidean nature of the space we supposedly live in enables them to? Do you have some mathematical model which predicts that? The mathematical model, if we assume Round Earth, is rather simple. How is your model better than the Round Earth model? Can you make some falsifiable prediction based on your model that's different from what Round Earth predicts?
Yes, the satellites are traveling their inertial paths in straight lines. Rather simple I'd say.
How do you know this John?
I wouldn't say I know anything, that pointedly. I suspect it for the same reason people suspect Einstein was right.
-
This thread: I dOn'T wAnT tO aDmIt ThE sImPlE fAcT tHaT GpS dOeS nOt ReQuIrE SaTeLiTes.
John, I will freely admit that geolocation services in general do not require satellites. However, if you want global coverage (as in GPS) in even the most remote locations, then there really is no viable alternative to using satellites.
Yes there is.
You have no idea as to what is located in any "remote," location.
I know one thing that isn't located in many remote locations: radio towers. There are many cell phone dead zones located throughout the US and the rest of the world.
https://www.deadcellzones.com/cell-towers.html
-
This thread: I dOn'T wAnT tO aDmIt ThE sImPlE fAcT tHaT GpS dOeS nOt ReQuIrE SaTeLiTes.
I don't really see any need to address your strawmen. It has been well established at this point. You can take that knowledge or not. If you want to see more discussion on the matter, there are a ton of threads you can pursue using search or via google.
For the GPS devices you have (embedded into your phone, the GPS device in your car) to operate properly, satellites that are 20'000 kilometers up in the sky are needed. And there are multiple lines of evidence of that, including the fact that they can tell the elevation you are at with signal from 3 emitters and the fact that many of them have open-source software which obviously relies on receiving signal from emitters that follow the orbit which is 20'000 kilometers up in the sky. I thought we agree on that.
Assuming we agree on that, what's holding the satellites up in the sky? If the Earth is flat, it's not the centrifugal force. Do you think the non-Euclidean nature of the space we supposedly live in enables them to? Do you have some mathematical model which predicts that? The mathematical model, if we assume Round Earth, is rather simple. How is your model better than the Round Earth model? Can you make some falsifiable prediction based on your model that's different from what Round Earth predicts?
Yes, the satellites are traveling their inertial paths in straight lines. Rather simple I'd say.
How do you know this John?
I wouldn't say I know anything, that pointedly. I suspect it for the same reason people suspect Einstein was right.
You are correct Einstien was right in many of the many things he said, a real genius. The Hafele–Keating experiment was a good example that proved he was correct in regard to relativity both special and general, which leads us neatly back to GPS which takes account of these relativistic effects in its calculations. The other funny thing is the only reason why these relativistic effects need to be taken into account is.......you guessed it because of the satellites orbiting 20000 Km above the surface of the globe.
-
This thread: I dOn'T wAnT tO aDmIt ThE sImPlE fAcT tHaT GpS dOeS nOt ReQuIrE SaTeLiTes.
I think you mean this thread:
I DON"T WANT TO ADMIT THAT GPS USES SATELLITES WHICH FE CAN"T EXPLAIN!!! :'( :'( :'(
Instead I'll just fail at playing semantics, avoiding the issue of the real GPS in use today which uses satellites which can also provide accurate height data and instead focus on a hypothetical ground based system, and play with semantics pretending GPS isn't the name of a particular system.
The point of this thread, which you seem to intentionally miss, is that GPS uses satellites. How does FE explain this?
It is also interesting to know that since satellites don't transmit their actual positions, their accuracy is questionable and has to be adjusted using ground based transmitters anyways if a certain level of accuracy is desired.
Because transmitting their position with each transmission would take up too much data and require it to be continually updated as it moves in its orbit.
Instead they transmit their orbital parameters which allows you to determine the position.
But their accuracy isn't really questionable. It is fairly well known. If you want to know your position more accurately than GPS alone provides you need to use more transmitters, such as ground based ones.
36000000 would be the yearly price tag, and who knows for initial setup; and one can engineer within that price to a certain accuracy. I find it hard to believe you can make such a statement without a lot of work.
And where did you pull that from?
Do you think the non-Euclidean nature of the space we supposedly live in enables them to? Do you have some mathematical model which predicts that?
It's called general relativity.
It has the round Earth distort spacetime such that satellites fly in a geodesic.
John like pretending that that magically means Earth is flat.
-
This thread: I dOn'T wAnT tO aDmIt ThE sImPlE fAcT tHaT GpS dOeS nOt ReQuIrE SaTeLiTes.
I don't really see any need to address your strawmen. It has been well established at this point. You can take that knowledge or not. If you want to see more discussion on the matter, there are a ton of threads you can pursue using search or via google.
For the GPS devices you have (embedded into your phone, the GPS device in your car) to operate properly, satellites that are 20'000 kilometers up in the sky are needed. And there are multiple lines of evidence of that, including the fact that they can tell the elevation you are at with signal from 3 emitters and the fact that many of them have open-source software which obviously relies on receiving signal from emitters that follow the orbit which is 20'000 kilometers up in the sky. I thought we agree on that.
Assuming we agree on that, what's holding the satellites up in the sky? If the Earth is flat, it's not the centrifugal force. Do you think the non-Euclidean nature of the space we supposedly live in enables them to? Do you have some mathematical model which predicts that? The mathematical model, if we assume Round Earth, is rather simple. How is your model better than the Round Earth model? Can you make some falsifiable prediction based on your model that's different from what Round Earth predicts?
Yes, the satellites are traveling their inertial paths in straight lines. Rather simple I'd say.
How do you know this John?
I wouldn't say I know anything, that pointedly. I suspect it for the same reason people suspect Einstein was right.
You are correct Einstien was right in many of the many things he said, a real genius. The Hafele–Keating experiment was a good example that proved he was correct in regard to relativity both special and general, which leads us neatly back to GPS which takes account of these relativistic effects in its calculations. The other funny thing is the only reason why these relativistic effects need to be taken into account is.......you guessed it because of the satellites orbiting 20000 Km above the surface of the globe.
I did guess it. So let's say you are on one of those satellites. Do you think you'd feel acceleration?
-
Yes, the satellites are traveling their inertial paths in straight lines. Rather simple I'd say.
But are those satellites "traveling their inertial paths in straight lines" in 3-D Euclidean space?
-
This thread: I dOn'T wAnT tO aDmIt ThE sImPlE fAcT tHaT GpS dOeS nOt ReQuIrE SaTeLiTes.
I don't really see any need to address your strawmen. It has been well established at this point. You can take that knowledge or not. If you want to see more discussion on the matter, there are a ton of threads you can pursue using search or via google.
For the GPS devices you have (embedded into your phone, the GPS device in your car) to operate properly, satellites that are 20'000 kilometers up in the sky are needed. And there are multiple lines of evidence of that, including the fact that they can tell the elevation you are at with signal from 3 emitters and the fact that many of them have open-source software which obviously relies on receiving signal from emitters that follow the orbit which is 20'000 kilometers up in the sky. I thought we agree on that.
Assuming we agree on that, what's holding the satellites up in the sky? If the Earth is flat, it's not the centrifugal force. Do you think the non-Euclidean nature of the space we supposedly live in enables them to? Do you have some mathematical model which predicts that? The mathematical model, if we assume Round Earth, is rather simple. How is your model better than the Round Earth model? Can you make some falsifiable prediction based on your model that's different from what Round Earth predicts?
Yes, the satellites are traveling their inertial paths in straight lines. Rather simple I'd say.
Simple? Jesus Christ, I am having trouble believing you are serious. Why is the first cosmic speed finite if the Earth is flat? On a round Earth, the concept of the first cosmic speed makes perfect sense, it’s the speed at which the centrifugal force caused by you going around the Earth at certain speed matches the gravitational force. But on a flat Earth? How does it make any sense that, if you move horizontally at certain speed, you start accelerating upwards at the same rate as the Earth? It doesn’t. Show me the math that predicts that!
And that’s just the beginning. How it is that satellites that go faster end up flying higher? If the Earth is round, and there is gravity, that makes perfect sense, the gravity offsets the centrifugal force of a body moving at a certain speed at different heights, for gravity is weaker up in the sky. How does even the concept of gravity being weaker when you climb on a mountain make any sense if “gravity” is caused by the flat Earth accelerating upwards? It doesn’t. That fact significantly undermines that claim.
And you can test the fact that gravitational acceleration changes with height yourself, quite a few mobile phones today come with an accelerometer that’s precise enough that it can measure the difference in gravity on a high mountain and on the sea level. Or you can buy a more precise accelerometer and you don’t even have to climb a mountain, just climb a building to see that effect.
No, I mean, Flat-Earth Theory is obviously just a bunch of ad-hoc hypotheses. If you assume the Earth is round and things fall because of gravity, the fact that satellites are possible makes perfect sense, and the fact that gravity is weaker when you are at a higher elevation makes perfect sense. It follows from the Earth being round, if you assume the Newton’s laws are correct or approximately correct, as they obviously are. If you assume the Earth is flat, nothing makes sense, you need to add layers upon layers of ad-hoc hypotheses. And you end up with a “theory” that makes no clear predictions.
Similarly with the horizon, the Earth being round predicts there will be a horizon which will be visible from certain heights and at certain angles (that it will be significantly below your eye-level when you are on an airplane) that can be calculated using basic trigonometry. Flat-Earth theory doesn’t predict that, in order to explain those observations, you need to add layers upon layers of ad-hoc hypotheses, and again you can’t make any clear predictions.
Sorry, but any reasonable person would reject Flat-Earth theory because of that.
-
Yes, the satellites are traveling their inertial paths in straight lines. Rather simple I'd say.
But are those satellites "traveling their inertial paths in straight lines" in 3-D Euclidean space?
I've never seen any such thing as a Euclidean space in real life. Working. Will reply to other messages in a bit.
-
This thread: I dOn'T wAnT tO aDmIt ThE sImPlE fAcT tHaT GpS dOeS nOt ReQuIrE SaTeLiTes.
I don't really see any need to address your strawmen. It has been well established at this point. You can take that knowledge or not. If you want to see more discussion on the matter, there are a ton of threads you can pursue using search or via google.
For the GPS devices you have (embedded into your phone, the GPS device in your car) to operate properly, satellites that are 20'000 kilometers up in the sky are needed. And there are multiple lines of evidence of that, including the fact that they can tell the elevation you are at with signal from 3 emitters and the fact that many of them have open-source software which obviously relies on receiving signal from emitters that follow the orbit which is 20'000 kilometers up in the sky. I thought we agree on that.
Assuming we agree on that, what's holding the satellites up in the sky? If the Earth is flat, it's not the centrifugal force. Do you think the non-Euclidean nature of the space we supposedly live in enables them to? Do you have some mathematical model which predicts that? The mathematical model, if we assume Round Earth, is rather simple. How is your model better than the Round Earth model? Can you make some falsifiable prediction based on your model that's different from what Round Earth predicts?
Yes, the satellites are traveling their inertial paths in straight lines. Rather simple I'd say.
Simple? Jesus Christ, I am having trouble believing you are serious. Why is the first cosmic speed finite if the Earth is flat?
On a round Earth, the concept of the first cosmic speed makes perfect sense, it’s the speed at which the centrifugal force caused by you going around the Earth at certain speed matches the gravitational force. But on a flat Earth? How does it make any sense that, if you move horizontally at certain speed, you start accelerating upwards at the same rate as the Earth? It doesn’t. Show me the math that predicts that!
Incorrect. There is no such thing as a gravitational force. Gravity is not a force.
And that’s just the beginning. How it is that satellites that go faster end up flying higher? If the Earth is round, and there is gravity, that makes perfect sense, the gravity offsets the centrifugal force of a body moving at a certain speed at different heights, for gravity is weaker up in the sky. How does even the concept of gravity being weaker when you climb on a mountain make any sense if “gravity” is caused by the flat Earth accelerating upwards? It doesn’t. That fact significantly undermines that claim.
And you can test the fact that gravitational acceleration changes with height yourself, quite a few mobile phones today come with an accelerometer that’s precise enough that it can measure the difference in gravity on a high mountain and on the sea level. Or you can buy a more precise accelerometer and you don’t even have to climb a mountain, just climb a building to see that effect.
No, I mean, Flat-Earth Theory is obviously just a bunch of ad-hoc hypotheses. If you assume the Earth is round and things fall because of gravity, the fact that satellites are possible makes perfect sense, and the fact that gravity is weaker when you are at a higher elevation makes perfect sense. It follows from the Earth being round, if you assume the Newton’s laws are correct or approximately correct, as they obviously are. If you assume the Earth is flat, nothing makes sense, you need to add layers upon layers of ad-hoc hypotheses. And you end up with a “theory” that makes no clear predictions.
Similarly with the horizon, the Earth being round predicts there will be a horizon which will be visible from certain heights and at certain angles (that it will be significantly below your eye-level when you are on an airplane) that can be calculated using basic trigonometry. Flat-Earth theory doesn’t predict that, in order to explain those observations, you need to add layers upon layers of ad-hoc hypotheses, and again you can’t make any clear predictions.
Sorry, but any reasonable person would reject Flat-Earth theory because of that.
I can explain these to you with ease.
So let's say you are on one of those satellites. Do you think you'd feel acceleration?
-
Simple? Jesus Christ, I am having trouble believing you are serious.
The model John Davis is supporting is the RE model, he just falsely claims it is flat, falsely appealing to non-Euclidean space as if that magically makes it correct.
He appeals to general relativity which has gravity not as a force, but as a distortion of spacetime, making spacetime non-Euclidean (i.e. non-flat).
Satellites follow a geodesic in spacetime (which he calls a straight line, as it is the non-Euclidean equivalent to a straight line). This causes them to orbit Earth in space.
The speed is based upon the distortion of spacetime by Earth.
-
Incorrect. There is no such thing as a gravitational force. Gravity is not a force.
Sure "Gravity is not a force".
I would, however, disagree with "There being no such thing as a gravitational force" if "gravitational force" can be interpreted as a force caused by gravitation.
Mass causes spacetime to curve and preventing an object from following its natural "curve" in spacetime, a geodesic, causes an inertial force.
So stopping an object, like you, falling through the floor causes a force to be applied to your feet.
There is nothing wrong with calling that inertial force a "gravitational force".
So gravity might not be a force but gravitation certainly can cause a force.
I can explain these to you with ease.
OK, explain away.
So let's say you are on one of those satellites. Do you think you'd feel acceleration?
No, if the satellite is in a circular orbit it's simply because the acceleration due to gravitation is exactly cancelled by the centripetal acceleration.
-
Yes, the satellites are traveling their inertial paths in straight lines. Rather simple I'd say.
But are those satellites "traveling their inertial paths in straight lines" in 3-D Euclidean space?
I've never seen any such thing as a Euclidean space in real life. Working. Will reply to other messages in a bit.
But how much does the 3-D space we live in deviate from being a 3-D Euclidean space? Enough to even measure?
-
Simple? Jesus Christ, I am having trouble believing you are serious.
The model John Davis is supporting is the RE model, he just falsely claims it is flat, falsely appealing to non-Euclidean space as if that magically makes it correct.
He appeals to general relativity which has gravity not as a force, but as a distortion of spacetime, making spacetime non-Euclidean (i.e. non-flat).
Satellites follow a geodesic in spacetime (which he calls a straight line, as it is the non-Euclidean equivalent to a straight line). This causes them to orbit Earth in space.
The speed is based upon the distortion of spacetime by Earth.
This is patently incorrect. I am not falsely claiming it is flat. However, you just can't help but trying to poison folks against our ideas. Sometimes I wonder if you two would argue against me if I said the sky was blue.
-
This is patently incorrect. I am not falsely claiming it is flat.
How does your non-Euclidean flat earth fundamentally differ from a globe (also non-Euclidean) earth?
-
However, you just can't help but trying to poison folks against our ideas.
Only when you try to push ideas with no supporting evidence.
Sometimes I wonder if you two would argue against me if I said the sky was blue.
I don't know who "you two" are but if you make a ridiculous claim like the Earth's being flat it's no holds barred.
-
This is patently incorrect.
I gave you the opportunity to explain just what is incorrect about it and you seemed to have just ignored the opportunity.
An honest, rational assesment of your idea of the "non-Euclidean flat Earth modle", including based upon the blog on this website, is that it is the RE model where relativity and axioms of Euclidean geometry are being flasely applied to pretend Earth is flat.
It seems the only difference between the RE model in non-Euclidean spacetime and your model is that you define Earth to be flat, based upon falsely applying axioms of Euclidean geometry in non-Euclidean spacetime and conflating space and spacetime.
It is a quite simple fact that the surface of Earth does NOT follow a geodesic in spacetime and thus a line on it cannot be considered to be "straight" in spacetime.
If you wish to disagree then stop just saying I am wrong or ignoring me and actually justify your claims.
Unlike Timeisup I wont argue against common FE models and instead I will go right for your conflation of spacetime and space and your use of axioms of Euclidean geometry in non-Euclidean spacetime. Is that why you didn't take me up on your chance to explain where you think I was wrong?
Sometimes I wonder if you two would argue against me if I said the sky was blue.
I have shown quite clearly that that is almost certainly not the case, such as when I argued against Timeisup and I defended the fact that a hypothetical infinite plane is stable under gravity.
-
This thread: I dOn'T wAnT tO aDmIt ThE sImPlE fAcT tHaT GpS dOeS nOt ReQuIrE SaTeLiTes.
John, I will freely admit that geolocation services in general do not require satellites. However, if you want global coverage (as in GPS) in even the most remote locations, then there really is no viable alternative to using satellites.
Yes there is.
You have no idea as to what is located in any "remote," location.
How about at sea...in the middle of the ocean.
Mike
-
This thread: I dOn'T wAnT tO aDmIt ThE sImPlE fAcT tHaT GpS dOeS nOt ReQuIrE SaTeLiTes.
John, I will freely admit that geolocation services in general do not require satellites. However, if you want global coverage (as in GPS) in even the most remote locations, then there really is no viable alternative to using satellites.
Yes there is.
You have no idea as to what is located in any "remote," location.
How about at sea...in the middle of the ocean.
Mike
Mahbe lackless thinks "remote" is impossible - govt spies are everywhere.
The conspiracy covers everything
-
This thread: I dOn'T wAnT tO aDmIt ThE sImPlE fAcT tHaT GpS dOeS nOt ReQuIrE SaTeLiTes.
John, I will freely admit that geolocation services in general do not require satellites. However, if you want global coverage (as in GPS) in even the most remote locations, then there really is no viable alternative to using satellites.
Yes there is.
You have no idea as to what is located in any "remote," location.
I know one thing that isn't located in many remote locations: radio towers. There are many cell phone dead zones located throughout the US and the rest of the world.
https://www.deadcellzones.com/cell-towers.html
I like how this is overlooked. I said something identical. A GPS will work in areas where there is no cellular reception.
-
This thread: I dOn'T wAnT tO aDmIt ThE sImPlE fAcT tHaT GpS dOeS nOt ReQuIrE SaTeLiTes.
John, I will freely admit that geolocation services in general do not require satellites. However, if you want global coverage (as in GPS) in even the most remote locations, then there really is no viable alternative to using satellites.
Yes there is.
Why keep it a secret? Do tell us exactly what that "viable alternative to using satellites" is.
And it must be viable all the way across the large oceans and across remotes deserts where there are no cell-phone towers nor any other transmitters.
I have used GPS across the desert regions of Australia (no towers within cooie) and across parts of the Indian and Pacific Oceans.
Just remember that the location of all of these transmitters must be known to centimetre precision because surveyors are able to achieve that measurement accuracy fro the enhanced GNSS stations.ICSM: Surveying Using GPS and Conclusion (https://www.icsm.gov.au/education/fundamentals-mapping/surveying-mapping/surveying-using-gps-and-conclusion)
The accuracy obtained from this method depends on the duration of the observations, but is typically about 1 part per million (1 millimetre per kilometre) so a difference in position can be measured over 30 kilometres with an uncertainty of about 30 mm, or about 100 mm over 100 kilometres. Because the GPS satellites are in a very high orbit (20,000 km) the ends of the GPS baseline can be hundreds, or even thousands of kilometres apart and still observe the same satellites.
You have no idea as to what is located in any "remote," location.
Really, and YOU do?
-
This thread: I dOn'T wAnT tO aDmIt ThE sImPlE fAcT tHaT GpS dOeS nOt ReQuIrE SaTeLiTes.
Irrelevant.
GPS uses them, and their number, locations and trajectories are known.
-
If it can't reach remote locations, why are pseudolites being considered to increase current GPS coverage?
-
If it can't reach remote locations, why are pseudolites being considered to increase current GPS coverage?
Who says that they are? I know that ground based augmentation (WAAS) is a thing to help with accuracy, but I haven't heard about pseudolites being used to increase coverage.
-
If it can't reach remote locations, why are pseudolites being considered to increase current GPS coverage?
Coverage or accuracy? They are quite different and previously your claim was accuracy.
Or are you claiming putting them on Mars is increasing coverage?
The main locations were pseudolites could improve (not increase) coverage would be inside deep valleys where coverage may be spotty due to the walls of the valley blocking signals to satellites.
The locations where they could increase coverage is underground.
-
If it can't reach remote locations, why are pseudolites being considered to increase current GPS coverage?
I would think your question answers itself.
If GPS cannot reliably reach some locations, the South or North Poles come to mind, why wouldn't pseudolites be considered to increase current GPS coverage.
But note that pseudolites are not in general balloons but ground-based stations of quite limited coverage.
The Limits of Satellite Navigation: GPS Challenges in the Arctic[/b]]The Limits of Satellite Navigation: GPS Challenges in the Arctic (http://[b)
More human activity is expected in the Arctic region in the coming decades. However, satellite navigation remains inaccurate and difficult in this region.
More human activity is expected in the Arctic region in the coming decades. However, satellite navigation remains inaccurate and difficult in this region.
Note: This article was updated on August 7th to correct some inaccuracies and better characterize the reliability of GPS navigation in the Arctic.
Wherever you are likely reading this from, you can probably take for granted that you can use the Global Positioning System (GPS), probably even on your phone, to map out directions to a nearby destination.
However, GPS is not quite as global as its name suggests—the technology is unreliable in the Arctic, an area on Earth that is slowly seeing more human activity due to tourism, research, and industry. As the ice recedes in the Arctic, the region may also become a more common passageway for ships. Accurate navigation is important in the Arctic for all of these situations, made especially crucial by the negative impacts accidents could have on the environment and the difficulty of rescue missions in the case of emergencies.
And then: Army pseudolites: What, why and how? (https://www.gpsworld.com/army-pseudolites-what-why-and-how/)
But more commonly pseudolites are used along busy shipping channels or near the approaches of busy airports to improve positioning accuracy.
-
If it can't reach remote locations, why are pseudolites being considered to increase current GPS coverage?
Like many of the statements you make this is not supported by any facts.
-
If it can't reach remote locations...
Can't reach?
Submarines in the middle of the Arctic Sea, or in the middle of Indian Ocean rutinely receive signals from GPS satellites to determine own locations.
Not remote enough? :)
-
If it can't reach remote locations, why are pseudolites being considered to increase current GPS coverage?
Like other threads you are involved in John we need some clarification on what you actually believe as you can at times be rather vague. Do you believe that orbiting satellites actually exist and provide the GPS network ......OR.... do you believe that GPS is delivered through some kind of ground-based system?
-
Oh boy this will be a fun one. Off the the boxes of notebooks. They most certainly are.
-
Oh boy this will be a fun one. Off the the boxes of notebooks. They most certainly are.
So where are all these ground based GPS transmitters across the ocean?
-
Oh boy this will be a fun one. Off the the boxes of notebooks. They most certainly are.
If you really do like the facts John it’s very easy to check how GPS is delivered rather than just making stuff up. Go examine the companies that make them, it’s no secret unless you subscribe to some gps lizard tin foil hat conspiracy.
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/gps.html
-
All roads lead to conspiracy
-
Oh boy this will be a fun one. Off the the boxes of notebooks. They most certainly are.
So where are all these ground based GPS transmitters across the ocean?
I never made any such claim.
-
All roads lead to conspiracy
Odd, I'm not sure where I mentioned conspiracy in regards to GPS. Or is this just the normal bigotry that flat earthers should be used to? Reducing our entire world view into "dur hur conspiracy."
-
As far as evidence for pseudolites being able to increase coverage, here is one of many papers on the subject. Again, a simple look into the IEEE database should provide plenty from over the last 15 years.
https://web.stanford.edu/group/scpnt/gpslab/pubs/papers/Stone_IONNTM_1999_GPS_PL_apps.pdf
ABSTRACT
There are an increasing number of applications requiring precise relative position and clock offset information.
The Global Positioning System has demonstrated precise and drift free position and timing information using Code- Division-Multiple-Access (CDMA) spread spectrum technology. This technology is widely used and relatively inexpensive, making it attractive in applications beyond the scope of typical satellite based GPS.
J. David Powell, Prof. Stephen Rock, Stanford University
In situations with limited or no visibility of the GPS satellites, ground transmitters that emulate the signal structure of the GPS satellites (pseudolites) can be used as additional or replacement signal sources.
Transceivers (which transmit and receive GPS signals) can be used to improve standard pseudolite positioning systems. If their locations are known, transceivers can be used to remove the need for the reference antenna typically necessary in standard differential systems. By using either the GPS satellite signals or other transceiver signals, a self-surveying transmitter array can be implemented, eliminating the need for a priori knowledge of pseudolite locations. In addition, transceivers mounted on vehicles can allow continuous inter-vehicle positioning without the presence of signals from GPS satellites.
This paper provides an overview of the issues associated with GPS transceiver systems. This includes transceiver architectures, capabilities, and limitations. This paper also discusses several transceiver applications being studied at Stanford University including open pit mining, Mars exploration, and multiple-vehicle space-based interferometry.
One should also note that the previous arguments that what I posted from Standford were pointed towards an uneducated audience and therefore misused GPS are debunked as well.
This technology is widely used and relatively inexpensive, making it attractive in applications beyond the scope of typical satellite based GPS.
Typical satellite based GPS? As opposed to what?
-
As far as evidence for pseudolites being able to increase coverage
No, what we wanted evidence for was that GPS is not available in remote locations.
What your paper indicates is in mines, and not on Earth.
One should also note that the previous arguments that what I posted from Standford were pointed towards an uneducated audience and therefore misused GPS are debunked as well.
Really? Where?
Typical satellite based GPS? As opposed to what?
How about as opposed to non-satellite based LORAN?
Or other CDMA based positioning systems that don't use satellites?
For example, one such system would be Self-Calibrating Pseudolite Array, such as the one discussed here:
https://www.ion.org/publications/abstract.cfm?articleID=3134
https://web.stanford.edu/group/scpnt/gpslab/pubs/papers/LeMaster_IONGPS_1998.pdf
Notice how they don't say they are bringing GPS to Mars, and instead are developing a new system.
Yes, that system will use GPS signals and GPS transcievers, but it wont be GPS.
-
As far as evidence for pseudolites being able to increase coverage, here is one of many papers on the subject.
John, that paper is talking about improving accuracy, not increasing coverage.
It does also talk about areas not currently covered, like Mars.
-
As far as evidence for pseudolites being able to increase coverage, here is one of many papers on the subject.
John, that paper is talking about improving accuracy, not increasing coverage.
It does also talk about areas not currently covered, like Mars.
I believe it mentoned other areas not covered; such as on earth using ad hoc positioning via pseudolites attached to moving vehicles.
Aside from this, there are plenty of papers I've cited in the past around it improving coverage. Honestly, all I have to show is that there is a place that is not covered on earth; we all know this is the case. Okay, add a pseudolite (air or land based or otherwise) and that area now has coverage.
-
Aside from this, there are plenty of papers I've cited in the past around it improving coverage. Honestly, all I have to show is that there is a place that is not covered on earth; we all know this is the case. Okay, add a pseudolite (air or land based or otherwise) and that area now has coverage.
So what? No one denies that pseudolites can be used to "fill in" regions with poor coverage or give better accuracy in critical situations such as airfield approaches and busy ports.
But none of this is even slightly relevant to the question of whether the main Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) do or do not use satellites.
If GNSS does not use satellites then there must be a massive global conspiracy involving USA (GPS), Europe (Galileo), Russia (GLONASS), China (Biedou), Japan (QZSS) and India (IRNSS).
I find that very hard to believe but for flat Earthers, I guess it's no problem: (https://www.dropbox.com/s/0r01klnpv81evvl/Sometimes%20I%27ve%20believed%20as%20many%20as%206%20IMPOSSIBLE%20Things%20before%20breakfast.jpg?dl=1)
-
Aside from this, there are plenty of papers I've cited in the past around it improving coverage. Honestly, all I have to show is that there is a place that is not covered on earth; we all know this is the case. Okay, add a pseudolite (air or land based or otherwise) and that area now has coverage.
So what? No one denies that pseudolites can be used to "fill in" regions with poor coverage
I don't know man. I have to be honest. That's seems to have been the argument so far. Aside from a misunderstanding of what GPS stands for - the S is not satellites folks.
So I have to ask the OG - what is your point; that we can track things using triangulation? Or if being semantic trilateralation? Z
There is nothing impossible about tracking your location on a flat earth vs. a round one. If anything the solution space is smaller and it would be easier to find second solutions to any particular instance.
-
For fun, let's all google "gps coverage map". Then let's ignore that the whole fucking earth is mountains and valleys.
-
Aside from this, there are plenty of papers I've cited in the past around it improving coverage. Honestly, all I have to show is that there is a place that is not covered on earth; we all know this is the case. Okay, add a pseudolite (air or land based or otherwise) and that area now has coverage.
So what? No one denies that pseudolites can be used to "fill in" regions with poor coverage
I don't know man. I have to be honest. That's seems to have been the argument so far. Aside from a misunderstanding of what GPS stands for - the S is not satellites folks.
So I have to ask the OG - what is your point; that we can track things using triangulation? Or if being semantic trilateralation?
There is nothing impossible about tracking your location on a flat earth vs. a round one. If anything the solution space is smaller and it would be easier to find second solutions to any particular instance.
Why may I ask did you omit this?But none of this is even slightly relevant to the question of whether the main Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) do or do not use satellites.
If GNSS does not use satellites then there must be a massive global conspiracy involving USA (GPS), Europe (Galileo), Russia (GLONASS), China (Biedou), Japan (QZSS) and India (IRNSS).
The generic name GNSS or Global Navigation Satellite Systems does explicitly refer to Satellite Systems.
So wouldn't you care to respond to "If GNSS does not use satellites then there must be a massive global conspiracy involving USA (GPS), Europe (Galileo), Russia (GLONASS), China (Biedou), Japan (QZSS) and India (IRNSS)."
Or are you more intent on showing the deficiencies in the OP?hey Guys
So GPS obviously is working as we all can use it. How does this work on a flat earth?
-
For fun, let's all google "gps coverage map". Then let's ignore that the whole fucking earth is mountains and valleys.
Mountains and valleys?
But Lackless told us earth was flat because it looks flat.
-
As far as evidence for pseudolites being able to increase coverage, here is one of many papers on the subject. Again, a simple look into the IEEE database should provide plenty from over the last 15 years.
https://web.stanford.edu/group/scpnt/gpslab/pubs/papers/Stone_IONNTM_1999_GPS_PL_apps.pdf
ABSTRACT
There are an increasing number of applications requiring precise relative position and clock offset information.
The Global Positioning System has demonstrated precise and drift free position and timing information using Code- Division-Multiple-Access (CDMA) spread spectrum technology. This technology is widely used and relatively inexpensive, making it attractive in applications beyond the scope of typical satellite based GPS.
J. David Powell, Prof. Stephen Rock, Stanford University
In situations with limited or no visibility of the GPS satellites, ground transmitters that emulate the signal structure of the GPS satellites (pseudolites) can be used as additional or replacement signal sources.
Transceivers (which transmit and receive GPS signals) can be used to improve standard pseudolite positioning systems. If their locations are known, transceivers can be used to remove the need for the reference antenna typically necessary in standard differential systems. By using either the GPS satellite signals or other transceiver signals, a self-surveying transmitter array can be implemented, eliminating the need for a priori knowledge of pseudolite locations. In addition, transceivers mounted on vehicles can allow continuous inter-vehicle positioning without the presence of signals from GPS satellites.
This paper provides an overview of the issues associated with GPS transceiver systems. This includes transceiver architectures, capabilities, and limitations. This paper also discusses several transceiver applications being studied at Stanford University including open pit mining, Mars exploration, and multiple-vehicle space-based interferometry.
One should also note that the previous arguments that what I posted from Standford were pointed towards an uneducated audience and therefore misused GPS are debunked as well.
This technology is widely used and relatively inexpensive, making it attractive in applications beyond the scope of typical satellite based GPS.
Typical satellite based GPS? As opposed to what?
Yes John it’s a great system but only if you wanted to find your way around Mars or a strip mine! a fact that has already been pointed out to you. Go read the paper that points out many facts about the satellite based GPS system currently in use. Or is it John, you ignore those parts of the paper you don’t like? What actually is it you are trying to prove?
You love to cherry pick John throwing up an irrelevant Martian smokescreen while ignoring all the facts. I’m beginning to doubt you like facts John, I'm starting to think you have some kind of aversion to them.
You appear to ignore the Lockheed Martin link, the company that actually makes ‘the nuts and bolts’ of the system, along with all the other GPS output from Stanford.
Here let me remind you:
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/gps.html
https://gps.stanford.edu/
I think the establish facts are from the paper you linked to:
The earth currently has a satellite GPS system
A ground based GPS system is possible for certain specialised applications and locations, like Mars, strip mining and for formation flying spacecraft and NOT for a complete global coverage. These are the facts of the matter according to the paper you elected to present. Do you dispute them?
Going back to your alleged love of facts, I think it’s more like your love of ignoring them. Here are two quotes that just about sum you up.
As Hume saw it, the real basis of human belief is not reason, but custom or habit. We are hard-wired by nature to trust, say, our memories or inductive reasoning, and no skeptical arguments, however powerful, can dislodge those beliefs.
In the sciences, denialism is the rejection of basic facts and concepts that are undisputed, well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a subject, in favor of radical and controversial ideas.
-
I believe it mentoned other areas not covered; such as on earth using ad hoc positioning via pseudolites attached to moving vehicles.
No, it talked about improving accuracy.
Honestly, all I have to show is that there is a place that is not covered on earth
This latest bit started due to your implication that it cannot reach remote locations.
So it isn't just a case of some place on Earth, like in a mine or inside a building you need to show it for, you need to show that it would be remote and should be covered by the satellites.
But I suppose the real issue is if they were already using pseudolites, why would it be increasing coverage using pseudolites?
-
I'm asking why GPS would require satellites (and more generally why GPS wouldn't work on a flat earth). So far you haven't given any reason except saying "satellites!"
Giving no coherent reason why GPS would necessary need satellites does not prove your point that satellites are supposedly necessary for GPS to function. Facts matter.
Going back to one of your earlier statements. Of course, we could have constructed a very limited ground-based GPS system that would have covered a tiny part of the world. But we didn't do that instead we opted for a satellite-based system that gives almost global coverage. People obviously thought a ground-based system on a world with 2/3 of its surface covered in water created a bit of a problem.
Face it John the current GPS system you may use in your boat or car or light aircraft is Satelite based. As you said facts matter and those are facts.
-
"Why do you think GPS wouldn't work on a flat earth?"
Since this astronomer and satellite observer has seen many GPS and GLONASS satellites, right where predicted, in his large scope, they are in space.
And I have verified in two ways, that the GPS radio signals are coming from them in the sky, not elsewhere.
-
www.newsweek.com/flat-earthers-quarantined-wrong-route-trying-find-end-world-1528943
Might they have been more successful had they used used GPS?
-
www.newsweek.com/flat-earthers-quarantined-wrong-route-trying-find-end-world-1528943
Might they have been more successful had they used used GPS?
Using their brains would have been an even better option. :)
-
This is the ONLY way I was able to make sense of flat earth and only reason I joined this forum, what JackBlack said - is to redefine the spherical model to a flat model, without destroying orbiting satellites. A very, perhaps super benign explanation of why there are orbiting satellites is because I have yet to see GPS work indoors or under a bridge or in a tunnel where many types of RF can penetrate, however, GPS signals do not. Every underpass I drive by or spend time under will block out my GPS lock, so this does suggest orbiting satellites. The math would make sense I believe for an RE transformed into FE model, my only question is, how is it that satellites stay in orbit on a flat earth? What keeps them suspended unless it is lack of gravitational pull toward a large mass (i.e. earth, flat or not)? Maybe my real question is - what -exactly- is gravity?
You appear to have self invented a class of vehicles or objects that work in a way unknown to science.
You should really try reading more.
The satellites his model has orbit Earth, just like the ones in the RE model.
The only difference between the RE model and his model is he redefines flat to match the surface of Earth.
That is why you didn't stand a chance at debating him, because you weren't paying attention to what he had said and instead were just treating it as a FE model based upon the known definitions.
-
Maybe my real question is - what -exactly- is gravity?
Nobody knows, but we will eventually figure it out, discovering the particle or force that carries it.
Then the question will be what makes THAT work.
And we will eventually answer that question.
Then the question will be what makes THAT work.
And so on, and so on. There will always be limits to knowledge, you can always ask WHY enough times to get a "don't know".
But science knows how gravity BEHAVES extremely well. We know how it operates, what it does, how to measure it. We know these things with great precision. We measure gravity waves. We measure the weight of individual atoms. We can predict the motion of planets and send robots out to land on them.
The force that keeps GPS satellites in orbits is well know, after all we put them up there in the first place with that knowledge. If someone wants to claim they are not orbiting a spherical planet, they need to provide an explanation as to just how their alternate theory works, and as you have found out, that's not easy. There is a reason for this. :)
-
This is the ONLY way I was able to make sense of flat earth and only reason I joined this forum, what JackBlack said - is to redefine the spherical model to a flat model, without destroying orbiting satellites. A very, perhaps super benign explanation of why there are orbiting satellites is because I have yet to see GPS work indoors or under a bridge or in a tunnel where many types of RF can penetrate, however, GPS signals do not. Every underpass I drive by or spend time under will block out my GPS lock, so this does suggest orbiting satellites. The math would make sense I believe for an RE transformed into FE model, my only question is, how is it that satellites stay in orbit on a flat earth? What keeps them suspended unless it is lack of gravitational pull toward a large mass (i.e. earth, flat or not)? Maybe my real question is - what -exactly- is gravity?
You appear to have self invented a class of vehicles or objects that work in a way unknown to science.
You should really try reading more.
The satellites his model has orbit Earth, just like the ones in the RE model.
The only difference between the RE model and his model is he redefines flat to match the surface of Earth.
That is why you didn't stand a chance at debating him, because you weren't paying attention to what he had said and instead were just treating it as a FE model based upon the known definitions.
I think you may have misunderstood me.
It is literally just redefining words.
His model IS the round Earth model.
It isn't taking the RE model and making some tweaks to it so Earth is flat.
His model is the round Earth model, where he appeals to Non-Euclidean spacetime, geodesics in spacetime, and a property which is true in Euclidean space (but not non-Euclidean spaces, at least not in general) to pretend the surface of Earth can be defined as flat, even though Earth is roughly a sphere.
So in this model, his Earth is roughly a sphere and he just calls it flat.
As such, the orbits for his model works just like you would expect for the RE.
The mass of Earth results in curved space time near it. Thus the satellites follow a geodesic through this curved space time.
This geodesic through space time is an ellipse in space.