The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: TheEngineer on March 22, 2007, 05:06:54 PM
-
p.s. GPS requires satelites
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gps.htm
Really? Which part?
-
The part that makes it work.
-
So, the part of the location process that requires that the transmitter be in orbit is...?
-
Go to http://www.howstuffworks.com/ or other similar sites and type in "GPS" as previously posted.
It will thoroughly explain why satellites are required for GPS to work properly.
-
So, in other words, you can't back up your statement.
-
I guess I'm just giving you the same type of answer you give when people ask about FE experiments and such. All you do is say "Read Earth Not a Globe, and you'll see. It was written 200 years ago, but who cares?"
-
And that helps your argument how?
-
"The modern flat earth movement originated when an eccentric English inventor, Samuel Rowbotham (1816-1884), based on his literal interpretation of certain biblical passages, published a 16-page pamphlet,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth_society
I'd say the Bible, and the biblical passages located within are roughly 2000 years old, give or take a little bit.
It's a good thing TFES website was not started by him, then.
-
And that helps your argument how?
It helps my argument by telling where to locate information that tells you how GPS works. Even includes vidoes if your attention span cannot last very long. And if you actually looked at the information, and understood it, then you would understand that GPS requires sattelites.
-
"The modern flat earth movement originated when an eccentric English inventor, Samuel Rowbotham (1816-1884), based on his literal interpretation of certain biblical passages, published a 16-page pamphlet,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth_society
I'd say the Bible, and the biblical passages located within are roughly 2000 years old, give or take a little bit.
It's a good thing TFES website was not started by him, then.
You originally said nothing about TFES website, now you're changing your words.
-
It helps my argument by telling where to locate information that tells you how GPS works. Even includes vidoes if your attention span cannot last very long. And if you actually looked at the information, and understood it, then you would understand that GPS requires sattelites.
Maybe I just can't find it. No place in that website explains why GPS requires satellites. Perhaps you can help?
-
It's a good thing TFES website was not started by him, then.
[/quote]
You originally said nothing about TFES website, now you're changing your words.
[/quote]
I thought that would be obvious, as the OP specifically mentioned us, on this website.
-
It helps my argument by telling where to locate information that tells you how GPS works. Even includes vidoes if your attention span cannot last very long. And if you actually looked at the information, and understood it, then you would understand that GPS requires sattelites.
Maybe I just can't find it. No place in that website explains why GPS requires satellites. Perhaps you can help?
Jesus Christ!
Wow, you read a lot of text in a very short period of time.
Did you even look at it?
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gps2.htm
-
Still not seeing it. Why don't you just quote the part in which is says the transmitter must be in orbit for GPS to work?
-
Hey personally I think it is pretty dumb basing scientific belief on a book written 2000 years ago, but seeing as you guys do, how come your atlas of the world doesn't have four corners? The bible clearly states that it does
Ever hear of "Not taking the Bible entirely literally?" Figure of speech, boy.
Explain to us how a GPS doesn't require the transmitter to be in orbit.
I don't know the exact components of a GPS. Hell, I know very little about any sort of true electronics, except for a few parts.
If you're trying to say that the government just has the certain points mapped out to make people think that with a GPS they can find their position on a round earth rather than a flat one, prove it. (How would the government organizing such a thing even be worth it? I mean, if it's slightly inaccurate at all, the military uses these things... why would the government issue something to itself that it knew was flawed?)
Sorry, how did GPS come into this anyway?
-
Explain to us how a GPS doesn't require the transmitter to be in orbit.
The receiver doesn't care what is doing the transmitting, or where it is, as long as the current time and position of the transmitter are contained within the broadcast signal.
-
TheEngineer,
No offense, but do you really have nothing better to do than to debate about GPS with a bunch of morons on this site? You seem to post the exact same things every day and you have over 5,000 posts. I guess I don't really understand why any of the members stay on this site for any significant length of time, but you seem to stand out the most. What's the point?
Anyways, if GPS does not use satellites, then why would the government(or whoever is behind the conspiracy) go through all the trouble to convince us that it does? Why would you make it into a huge conspiracy if there is no reason too?
-
Speaking of satellite, how do geostationnary satellites works within the FE theory?
-
TheEngineer,
No offense, but do you really have nothing better to do than to debate about GPS with a bunch of morons on this site?
Better things to do? Probably.
You seem to post the exact same things every day
So, it's my fault you RE'ers are unoriginal, can't read the existing topics and can't use the search function properly?
I guess I don't really understand why any of the members stay on this site for any significant length of time, but you seem to stand out the most. What's the point?
Besides the fact that it is fun schooling RE'ers who think they know how the world works, yet really have no idea how it actually does? Well...as someone so elegantly once put it, "It's mental masturbation."
Anyways, if GPS does not use satellites, then why would the government(or whoever is behind the conspiracy) go through all the trouble to convince us that it does?
To further the illusion of the RE.
-
Speaking of satellite, how do geostationnary satellites works within the FE theory?
Satellites don't work with the FE.
-
How do we get television by satellites?
Or picture of the Earth in the meteo eveyday?
-
1. The signals come from other sources.
2. I don't know what a 'meteo' is.
-
So, when I install a satellite dish and have to point it correctly toward a "satellite" or I dodn't get the signal, to what do I point if there are no satellite?
What are the strange objects you can see floating in space with a telescope?
Meteo = meteorology
The pictures from Weather forecast , where you can see your country with clouds. How are they taken if not by satellite?
-
So, when I install a satellite dish and have to point it correctly toward a "satellite" or I dodn't get the signal, to what do I point if there are no satellite?
What are the strange objects you can see floating in space with a telescope?
Any number of things, including stratellites.
The pictures from Weather forecast , where you can see your country with clouds. How are they taken if not by satellite?
It's more than likely a composite, with the weather info coming from ground Doppler stations.
-
No point arguing with these Fe-ers. All they say is that it is "something else" or that the government is doing some kind of conspiracy(taking note that the FE will not say WHY the government is doing it).
And example would be:-
RE: Why do we have to point the satellite dish to a "satellite"?
FE: It is coming from OTHER sources.
And then, the FE will stop there, not stating what the "other sources" is. Even if the FE state the "other sources", lets say, "Doppler station", they will not reinforce the statement any further.
-
What? Would you like me to explain how Doppler works?
-
You reaslise GPS and communication satellites have to be geostationary, i.e. how are you supposed to know where you are if the GPS satellite constantly shifts it's position above the earth. Startolites would be subject to wind, jet streams, they could never remain stationary as required.
-
You reaslise GPS and communication satellites have to be geostationary, i.e. how are you supposed to know where you are if the GPS satellite constantly shifts it's position above the earth. Startolites would be subject to wind, jet streams, they could never remain stationary as required.
Uh, no. Most if not all GPS 'satellites' are not geostationary. There is no need for them to be. Stratellites are above 99% of the Earth's atmosphere. No need to worry about jet streams.
-
GPS requires satellites.
-
You reaslise GPS and communication satellites have to be geostationary, i.e. how are you supposed to know where you are if the GPS satellite constantly shifts it's position above the earth. Startolites would be subject to wind, jet streams, they could never remain stationary as required.
Uh, no. Most if not all GPS 'satellites' are not geostationary. There is no need for them to be. Stratellites are above 99% of the Earth's atmosphere. No need to worry about jet streams.
If the GPS satellites are not geostationary (coomunication satellites sure are, they have to be because they must reflect signals from stationary points on the ground) then they have orbits which are easily predictable, so they know where they are. Stratolites would still be subject to the random motion of the air they are in, so how would they know where they are so that we know where we are?
-
GPS requires satellites.
GPS requires nothing more than a known position, an accurate clock and a receiver.
-
If the GPS satellites are not geostationary then they have orbits which are easily predictable, so they know where they are.
Uh, yea, it's called orbital mechanics.
Stratolites would still be subject to the random motion of the air they are in, so how would they know where they are so that we know where we are?
By that same logic, no aircraft or ship can know where they are due to the random motion of the fluid they are in.
-
GPS requires nothing more than a known position, an accurate clock and a receiver.
Maybe I should get a friend, try to get lost in a known desert with a clock, and see where I am.
-
As long has he had an accurate clock, is in the known position, can transmit his position and time, you also have a clock and can receive and read his transmission, then you would be just fine.
-
As long has he had an accurate clock, is in the known position, can transmit his position and time, you also have a clock and can receive and read his transmission, then you would be just fine.
How does he transmit information? With a cellphone? If so, add that to your GPS requirement list.
-
I meant to say GPS requires nothing more than a transmitter with an accurate clock, who's position is known and a receiver with a clock.
-
I meant to say GPS requires nothing more than a transmitter with an accurate clock, who's position is known and a receiver with a clock.
Ok, I see. I was saying how does the transmitter transmit information to the receiver if they are several hundred miles apart?
-
GPS requires satellites.
GPS requires nothing more than a known position, an accurate clock and a receiver.
Prove it. And also prove why doesn't GPS require satellites.
-
p.s. GPS requires satelites
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gps.htm
Really? Which part?
The part that triangulates your position.
-
The part that triangulates your position.
That's your receiver's job, so you are saying it must be in space?
-
The part that triangulates your position.
That's your receiver's job, so you are saying it must be in space?
Well, you need 3 satellites to triangulate.
-
HAHAHAHA.
I cant believe those who said that the GPS receiver need a clock!!! They dont even know how the GPS works...
And, if the satellites is subject to wind, jet streams, anything, how the hell are they going to orbit?! Duh, of course they are not subjected to them.
-
HAHAHAHA.
I cant believe those who said that the GPS receiver need a clock!!! They dont even know how the GPS works...
And, if the satellites is subject to wind, jet streams, anything, how the hell are they going to orbit?! Duh, of course they are not subjected to them.
Ha, what does a clock have to do with anything? Bunch of fools.
-
HAHAHAHA.
I cant believe those who said that the GPS receiver need a clock!!! They dont even know how the GPS works...
And, if the satellites is subject to wind, jet streams, anything, how the hell are they going to orbit?! Duh, of course they are not subjected to them.
I can't believe you're terrible at reading. Please read up on your material before you spout nonsense and ignorance.
-
HAHAHAHA.
I cant believe those who said that the GPS receiver need a clock!!! They dont even know how the GPS works...
Uh, it sure as hell does. But by all means, explain how you think GPS works without clocks.
-
Well, you need 3 satellites to triangulate.
No, you need three signals. There is no need for them to come from space.
-
Well, you need 3 satellites to triangulate.
No, you need three signals. There is no need for them to come from space.
Having many ground based signal points is much less efficient that having considerably less in space.
-
HAHAHAHA.
I cant believe those who said that the GPS receiver need a clock!!!
All digital equipment that has any kind of computerized component within it requires a clock (google flip-flop circuit), otherwise it won't operate, you fucking retarded noob.
-
TRIANGULATION:
(http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/5315/tempmm6.jpg)
-
If the GPS satellites are not geostationary then they have orbits which are easily predictable, so they know where they are.
Uh, yea, it's called orbital mechanics.
Stratolites would still be subject to the random motion of the air they are in, so how would they know where they are so that we know where we are?
By that same logic, no aircraft or ship can know where they are due to the random motion of the fluid they are in.
Quite right, aircraft and ships are subject to the motions of the fliud they are in, hence they need GPS, or some other navigation method of finding longitude and latitude. You can't just point a ship at new york, sail accross the atlantic in that same direction and expect to get there without checking your position, because currents/waves will move your ship north/south.
Nice diagram, of course, due to the curvature of the earth/magic refraction (whichever theory you believe) ground-based units only have a limited range of about 100Km, so you'd need a lot of such stations to form a global (or planal) GPS system, satellites in orbit can sned/recieve information from a much larger area of the Earth's surface.
-
GPS still requires satellites.
-
GPS still requires satellites.
Wrong.
-
GPS still requires satellites.
Wrong.
Nope.
-
GPS still requires satellites.
Wrong.
Nope.
Yup.
-
GPS still requires satellites.
Wrong.
Nope.
Yup.
Actually, it doesn't, but to do it without satellites would require thousands of transmitters all over the earth - where to do it from space requires considerably less.
-
GPS still requires satellites.
Wrong.
Nope.
Yup.
Actually, it doesn't, but to do it without satellites would require thousands of transmitters all over the earth - where to do it from space requires considerably less.
But I'm still right, right?
-
Exactly, and such ground-based stations would need to be at most 100km apart, difficult in the oceans, where ships USE GPS. Also, these stations should be all around us, we could easily find one. Yet, there are none, are they all hidden?
-
Disguised as oak trees
-
Disguised as oak trees
And in the oceans?
But yeah, you were right, technically you don't need a satellite to triangulate your position.
-
Disguised as oak trees
And in the oceans?
But yeah, you were right, technically you don't need a satellite to triangulate your position.
Floating oak trees obviously.
Thought so, I'm always right. I am Daniel.
-
I am Daniel.
Damn.
-
Disguised as oak trees
And in the oceans?
But yeah, you were right, technically you don't need a satellite to triangulate your position.
Floating oak trees obviously.
Thought so, I'm always right. I am Daniel.
I am Daniel.
-
Disguised as oak trees
And in the oceans?
But yeah, you were right, technically you don't need a satellite to triangulate your position.
Floating oak trees obviously.
Thought so, I'm always right. I am Daniel.
I am Daniel.
No you're not, don't be silly. I'll ban you!
-
I am Daniel.
There's hope yet.
-
Disguised as oak trees
How do you know my name isn't Daniel?
And in the oceans?
But yeah, you were right, technically you don't need a satellite to triangulate your position.
Floating oak trees obviously.
Thought so, I'm always right. I am Daniel.
I am Daniel.
No you're not, don't be silly. I'll ban you!
-
Ok, this Jack guy is worse than sokarul. No science, just spouts ignorant nonsense. I'm glad sokarul is gone because having two of these guys would drive me crazy.
-
Not in absolution, no.
Remission of sin ?
-
Hey jackarul, look up pseudolites. Oh wait, you'll just ignore this and any other type of source that showcases that you're wrong. Nevermind.
-
Hey jackarul, look up pseudolites. Oh wait, you'll just ignore this and any other type of source that showcases that you're wrong. Nevermind.
Err, still wouldn't work at sea.
-
Err, still wouldn't work at sea.
Oh, I wasn't basing pseudolites as a complete replication of GPS for everything we witness. Just trying to drill it into Mr. Ignore that GPS doesn't require satellites; that's just what happens to be used. The "S" in GPS doesn't stand for satellites after all.
-
Disguised as oak trees
How do you know my name isn't Daniel?
And in the oceans?
But yeah, you were right, technically you don't need a satellite to triangulate your position.
Floating oak trees obviously.
Thought so, I'm always right. I am Daniel.
I am Daniel.
No you're not, don't be silly. I'll ban you!
-
The S stands for system I believe, although a common misconception is that it stands for Satellites.
-
Yeah it stands for system, only an idiot would think it stood for satellite, just wouldn't make sense.
-
Oh, now I get it.
GPS do not use satellites. GPS uses ground stations to work. Also, when I am on the seas, I do not have to worry because the ground stations are disguised as OAK TREES, or, any other trees.
Good idea, but its stupid.
(and yeah, we dont need satellites to triangulate, and, we dont always need ground stations to triangulate too, we can also use....satellites.)
-
Yes, you got it! As long as you see trees floating in the oceans you are safe.
-
There ARE kelp forests in the ocean...
*ponders*
-
Oh, I wasn't basing pseudolites as a complete replication of GPS for everything we witness. Just trying to drill it into Mr. Ignore that GPS doesn't require satellites; that's just what happens to be used. The "S" in GPS doesn't stand for satellites after all.
Who doesn't know the 'S' stands for system? It's Global Positioning System (aka Global Navigation Satellite System). However, that doesn't mean it doesn't require triangulation of satellites.
If the GPS is as simple as TheEngineer said, then why don't everyone, as it saves money from buying a real GPS, just get a friend, get two clocks (both him and his friend), and try to get lost? Why does everyone use the computing GPS?
-
Oh, I wasn't basing pseudolites as a complete replication of GPS for everything we witness. Just trying to drill it into Mr. Ignore that GPS doesn't require satellites; that's just what happens to be used. The "S" in GPS doesn't stand for satellites after all.
Who doesn't know the 'S' stands for system? It's Global Positioning System (aka Global Navigation Satellite System). However, that doesn't mean it doesn't require triangulation of satellites.
If the GPS is as simple as TheEngineer said, then why don't everyone, as it saves money from buying a real GPS, just get a friend, get two clocks (both him and his friend), and try to get lost? Why does everyone use the computing GPS?
For one, people can't measure the speed without aid.
-
However, that doesn't mean it doesn't require triangulation of satellites.
Why does it require the triangulation of satellites?
If the GPS is as simple as TheEngineer said, then why don't everyone, as it saves money from buying a real GPS, just get a friend, get two clocks (both him and his friend), and try to get lost? Why does everyone use the computing GPS?
Atomic clocks are expensive. However, if you happen to have three of them, a quartz watch, a way to communicate with your three buddies, pencil and paper, there is no reason you could not do it yourself.
-
Why does it require the triangulation of satellites?
Why not?
"GPS uses the triangulation of signals from the satellites to determine locations on earth. GPS satellites know their location in space and receivers can determine their distance from a satellite by using the travel time of a radio message from the satellite to the receiver."
Source: Here (http://www.adventuregps.com/about_gps.php) and here (http://lapierre.jammys.net/nvi/nvi4.html).
-
That's nice, but you didn't answer the question. Why must the signals originate from space?
-
That's nice, but you didn't answer the question. Why must the signals originate from space?
They don't have to. But in space, you need less. Much less.
-
You need less...what?
-
That's nice, but you didn't answer the question. Why must the signals originate from space?
Because each GPS satellite transmits data that indicates its location and the current time.
"The signals, moving at the speed of light, arrive at a GPS receiver at slightly different times because some satellites are farther away than others. The distance to the GPS satellites can be determined by estimating the amount of time it takes for their signals to reach the receiver. When the receiver estimates the distance to at least four GPS satellites, it can calculate its position in three dimensions."
Signal > Time > Distance > Location.
Source: Here. (http://www.nasm.si.edu/gps/work.html)
I can ask you the same question: "Why can't the signals not be coming from satellites when this process is more convenient?"
-
That's nice, but you didn't answer the question. Why must the signals originate from space?
Because each GPS satellite transmits data that indicates its location and the current time.
"The signals, moving at the speed of light, arrive at a GPS receiver at slightly different times because some satellites are farther away than others. The distance to the GPS satellites can be determined by estimating the amount of time it takes for their signals to reach the receiver. When the receiver estimates the distance to at least four GPS satellites, it can calculate its position in three dimensions."
Signal > Time > Distance > Location.
Source: Here. (http://www.nasm.si.edu/gps/work.html)
I can ask you the same question: "Why can't the signals not be coming from satellites when this process is more convenient?"
It isn't more convienent.
-
It isn't more convienent.
Care to tell me what's more convenient?
-
It isn't more convienent.
Care to tell me what's more convenient?
I didn't say anything was more convenient, you did.
-
I didn't say anything was more convenient, you did.
Therefore, it is more convenient to use satellites. The end.
-
I didn't say anything was more convenient, you did.
Therefore, it is more convenient to use satellites. The end.
Well if you hold it is more convenient, prove it. How is launching something into an impossible orbit more convienent?
-
Well if you hold it is more convenient, prove it.
I've already stated above. There are at least 24 satellites orbiting the Earth. Therefore, the time it takes to locate one's position is faster and accurate. Thus, it is more convenient. Why? Well, what does a computing GPS read? Where are the information it reads come from? (Hint: satellites)
How is launching something into an impossible orbit more convienent?
Care to tell me why is it an impossible orbit?
-
Well if you hold it is more convenient, prove it.
I've already stated above. There are at least 24 satellites orbiting the Earth. Therefore, the time it takes to locate one's position is faster and accurate. Thus, it is more convenient. Why? Well, what does a computing GPS read? Where are the information it reads come from? (Hint: satellites)
How is launching something into an impossible orbit more convienent?
Care to tell me why is it an impossible orbit?
Faster? By how much? Like, a clock cycle faster at most? Wouldn't it be slower if it was further away? And how is it more accurate?
The reasons why orbit is impossible in the standard FE view are well documented on this site.
-
You need less...what?
Burritos.
Signals, fool, signals.
-
Faster? By how much? Like, a clock cycle faster at most? Wouldn't it be slower if it was further away? And how is it more accurate?
Care to not ignore the statements I've made above?
"The signals, moving at the speed of light, arrive at a GPS receiver at slightly different times because some satellites are farther away than others. The distance to the GPS satellites can be determined by estimating the amount of time it takes for their signals to reach the receiver. When the receiver estimates the distance to at least four GPS satellites, it can calculate its position in three dimensions."
Source: Here (http://www.nasm.si.edu/gps/work.html).
The reasons why orbit is impossible in the standard FE view are well documented on this site.
Is this an excuse? You should know by now when we're talking about satellites, we're talking about RE, since satellites don't exist on FE.
-
Faster? By how much? Like, a clock cycle faster at most? Wouldn't it be slower if it was further away? And how is it more accurate?
Care to not ignore the statements I've made above?
"The signals, moving at the speed of light, arrive at a GPS receiver at slightly different times because some satellites are farther away than others. The distance to the GPS satellites can be determined by estimating the amount of time it takes for their signals to reach the receiver. When the receiver estimates the distance to at least four GPS satellites, it can calculate its position in three dimensions."
Source: Here (http://www.nasm.si.edu/gps/work.html).
Perhaps you should read that yourself. If you'd notice the signals are moving at the speed of light, you may realize the difference in time for transmitters further away would be very very very small andt he time difference would not be noticable. Even given that, the signals would theoretically be closer and therefore it would take less time for them to be transmitted and received.
The reasons why orbit is impossible in the standard FE view are well documented on this site.
Is this an excuse? You should know by now when we're talking about satellites, we're talking about RE, since satellites don't exist on FE.
Satellites are impossible in the standard FE. However there are some FE views (such as my own) which hold they can exist.
-
Didn't you just say they were impossible...now they are...?
-
The reasons why orbit is impossible in the standard FE view are well documented on this site.
Satellites are impossible in the standard FE.
-
Perhaps you should read that yourself. If you'd notice the signals are moving at the speed of light, you may realize the difference in time for transmitters further away would be very very very small and the time difference would not be noticable. Even given that, the signals would theoretically be closer and therefore it would take less time for them to be transmitted and received.
Therefore, the time it takes for you to receive the information about your location is much faster.
Perhaps you should really read this (http://www.nasm.si.edu/gps/work.html) before posting more stuffs.
Satellites are impossible in the standard FE. However there are some FE views (such as my own) which hold they can exist.
I've already said we're talking about RE, not FE. Troll much?
-
That's nice, but you didn't answer the question. Why must the signals originate from space?
Because each GPS satellite transmits data that indicates its location and the current time.
"The signals, moving at the speed of light, arrive at a GPS receiver at slightly different times because some satellites are farther away than others. The distance to the GPS satellites can be determined by estimating the amount of time it takes for their signals to reach the receiver. When the receiver estimates the distance to at least four GPS satellites, it can calculate its position in three dimensions."
Signal > Time > Distance > Location.
Source: Here. (http://www.nasm.si.edu/gps/work.html)
And? You still have failed to answer the question.
-
Signals, fool, signals.
Why would you need less signals because they are coming from space?
-
Perhaps you should read that yourself. If you'd notice the signals are moving at the speed of light, you may realize the difference in time for transmitters further away would be very very very small and the time difference would not be noticable. Even given that, the signals would theoretically be closer and therefore it would take less time for them to be transmitted and received.
Therefore, the time it takes for you to receive the information about your location is much faster.
Perhaps you should really read this (http://www.nasm.si.edu/gps/work.html) before posting more stuffs.
I know how it works. If signals are closer, it would be faster. If they were on land or stratelites, they would be closer.
Though as I said, you probably wouldn't notice it.
I've already said we're talking about RE, not FE.
So you are saying it is easier on a round earth to use satellites than to not. Going quite out on a limb there ::). That is obvious, and you ask it to us as if we are proponents of a RE.
Troll much?
No, never.
-
Also, stationary land transmitters would be more accurate too, though it seems you figured that out.
-
Signals, fool, signals.
Why would you need less signals because they are coming from space?
How do I explain this...
Due to the curvature of the earth and things such as mountains, ground based signals would have to be closer together in order for 3 of them to be able to contact a receiver without being blocked. In space, however, one satellite can cover more area since there is no planet or other obstruction...yeah...
-
Signals, fool, signals.
Why would you need less signals because they are coming from space?
How do I explain this...
Due to the curvature of the earth and things such as mountains, ground based signals would have to be closer together in order for 3 of them to be able to contact a receiver without being blocked. In space, however, one satellite can cover more area since there is no planet or other obstruction...yeah...
Stratellites would reach further than round earth satellites because there would be no curvature or land mass to block them. You would need less.
-
And? You still have failed to answer the question.
Love asking meaningless questions, eh? Just like how I asked you "how does matter curve space-time" and you asked me "how does gravity attract mass".
It's in the statement. The reason why signals must come from space is because there are at least 24 satellites orbiting the Earth and signals coming out from them travel at the speed of light. Therefore, since the satellites are orbiting and not stationary (meaning they could reach any point on the globe), the time it takes for you to know your location is faster.
Mind answering my question too?
"Why can't the signals not be coming from satellites?"
-
Signals, fool, signals.
Why would you need less signals because they are coming from space?
How do I explain this...
Due to the curvature of the earth and things such as mountains, ground based signals would have to be closer together in order for 3 of them to be able to contact a receiver without being blocked. In space, however, one satellite can cover more area since there is no planet or other obstruction...yeah...
Stratellites would reach further than round earth satellites because there would be no curvature or land mass to block them. You would need less.
Unless it is higher than a satellite...no...
And they can only be up 18 months at a time.
-
The whole reason this debate mixed in the way it did is because people had the notion that GPS requires satellites. In short, it doesn't. Can we move on?
-
The reason why signals must come from space is because there are at least 24 satellites orbiting the Earth and signals coming out from them travel at the speed of light.
So stratellites can't send radio signals and travel in orbital patterns?
Therefore, since the satellites are orbiting and not stationary (meaning they could reach any point on the globe), the time it takes for you to know your location is faster.
Stationary transmitters could not reach any place on the RE globe
-
Stratellites would reach further than round earth satellites because there would be no curvature or land mass to block them. You would need less.
Unless it is higher than a satellite...no...
And they can only be up 18 months at a time.
They would not be blocked by a RE globe.
-
Stratellites would reach further than round earth satellites because there would be no curvature or land mass to block them. You would need less.
Unless it is higher than a satellite...no...
And they can only be up 18 months at a time.
They would not be blocked by a RE globe.
Neither are satellites.
-
Stratellites would reach further than round earth satellites because there would be no curvature or land mass to block them. You would need less.
Unless it is higher than a satellite...no...
And they can only be up 18 months at a time.
They would not be blocked by a RE globe.
Neither are satellites.
Then why have 24? We could easily make do with 3 and one on the land.
-
So stratellites can't send radio signals and travel in orbital patterns?
When did I ever said that? However, it seems like your saying stratellites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratellite) are more advanced than satellites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellites).
A proposed high-altitude stratospheric airship that would provide a stationary communications platform for various types of wireless signals currently carried by communications towers or satellites
So stationary communications are better than orbital communications?
Therefore, since the satellites are orbiting and not stationary (meaning they could reach any point on the globe), the time it takes for you to know your location is faster.
Stationary transmitters could not reach any place on the RE globe
Read my quote again.
When did I said satellites are stationary transmitters? Satellites are orbiting and therefore they can reach any point on the globe. That's a fact.
-
So stratellites can't send radio signals and travel in orbital patterns?
When did I ever said that? However, it seems like your saying stratellites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratellite) are more advanced than satellites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellites).
A proposed high-altitude stratospheric airship that would provide a stationary communications platform for various types of wireless signals currently carried by communications towers or satellites
So stationary is better than orbiting?
Therefore, since the satellites are orbiting and not stationary (meaning they could reach any point on the globe), the time it takes for you to know your location is faster.
Stationary transmitters could not reach any place on the RE globe
Read my quote again.
When did I said satellites are stationary transmitters? Satellites are orbiting and therefore they can reach any point on the globe. That's a fact.
I misunderstood. Sorry. I thought you meant stationary transmitters on the ground.
Stratellites could reach any place on the globe and be more accurate and faster. If you spread those 24 out evenly you would have roughly the same effect as having them orbit. It is also not inconceivable that technology could have been developed to make stratellites travel orbital paths.
-
Stratellites would reach further than round earth satellites because there would be no curvature or land mass to block them. You would need less.
Unless it is higher than a satellite...no...
And they can only be up 18 months at a time.
They would not be blocked by a RE globe.
Neither are satellites.
Then why have 24? We could easily make do with 3 and one on the land.
Oh, I see what you mean.
Stratellites would be blocked in the same way.
-
Stratellites would reach further than round earth satellites because there would be no curvature or land mass to block them. You would need less.
Unless it is higher than a satellite...no...
And they can only be up 18 months at a time.
They would not be blocked by a RE globe.
Neither are satellites.
Then why have 24? We could easily make do with 3 and one on the land.
Oh, I see what you mean.
Stratellites would be blocked in the same way.
Sorry, I'm talking about a flat earth. My bad. I seem to have misunderstood something somewhere.
-
True. However, why is flying in the atmosphere with obstacles better than orbiting in a very large amount of space (outer-space)?
-
True. However, why is flying in the atmosphere with obstacles better than orbiting in a very large amount of space (outer-space)?
What kind of obstacles are in the stratosphere?
-
Air.
Other Stratellites.
More Air.
Asteroids.
-
True. However, why is flying in the atmosphere with obstacles better than orbiting in a very large amount of space (outer-space)?
What kind of obstacles are in the stratosphere?
Wind.
-
Air.
Other Stratellites.
More Air.
Asteroids.
It's above wind. Satellites also have to deal with other satellites. Asteroids? Heh.
-
Therefore, since the satellites are orbiting and not stationary (meaning they could reach any point on the globe), the time it takes for you to know your location is faster.
How does that make sense? They are orbiting, therefore you know your location faster?
"Why can't the signals not be coming from satellites?"
When did I say that? I seem to remember you people arguing that the signals must come from satellites.
-
18 month air time.
-
Due to the curvature of the earth and things such as mountains, ground based signals would have to be closer together in order for 3 of them to be able to contact a receiver without being blocked. In space, however, one satellite can cover more area since there is no planet or other obstruction...yeah...
All you need to determine your position on the Earth is three signals. Three signals from space, three signals from the atmosphere, or three signals from the ground, it makes no difference.
-
Due to the curvature of the earth and things such as mountains, ground based signals would have to be closer together in order for 3 of them to be able to contact a receiver without being blocked. In space, however, one satellite can cover more area since there is no planet or other obstruction...yeah...
All you need to determine your position on the Earth is three signals. Three signals from space, three signals from the atmosphere, or three signals from the ground, it makes no difference.
However, the higher up you go, the larger an area you can cover with 3 signals - thus space is the logical conclusion.
-
And?
-
And what?
-
Due to the curvature of the earth and things such as mountains, ground based signals would have to be closer together in order for 3 of them to be able to contact a receiver without being blocked. In space, however, one satellite can cover more area since there is no planet or other obstruction...yeah...
All you need to determine your position on the Earth is three signals. Three signals from space, three signals from the atmosphere, or three signals from the ground, it makes no difference.
3 signal can't contact every point on the planet. What about the stuff on the other side?
-
I believe that's why Jack said 24 satellites would be required, for worldwide navigation.
-
Due to the curvature of the earth and things such as mountains, ground based signals would have to be closer together in order for 3 of them to be able to contact a receiver without being blocked. In space, however, one satellite can cover more area since there is no planet or other obstruction...yeah...
All you need to determine your position on the Earth is three signals. Three signals from space, three signals from the atmosphere, or three signals from the ground, it makes no difference.
3 signal can't contact every point on the planet. What about the stuff on the other side?
You need three signals to locate your position on the Earth.
-
Therefore, since the satellites are orbiting and not stationary (meaning they could reach any point on the globe), the time it takes for you to know your location is faster.
How does that make sense? They are orbiting, therefore you know your location faster?
Do I really have to word as precise as possible? Why don't you word your posts more precisely too?
Because there are at least 24 satellites orbiting (traveling at any point on the globe at high speed) and not stationary, the time requires for their signal to transmit to your device is smaller. Thus, you know your location faster.
-
And what?
And what does that have to do with the conversation?
-
You need three signals to locate your position on the Earth.
Which 24 is better than 3. The end.
-
I was merely pointing out a valid reason for GPS transmitters to be satellites in space. That is the discussion after all.
-
You need three signals to locate your position on the Earth.
Which 24 is better than 3. The end.
The discussion was that someone said you needed satellites to have GPS. Not that satellites would be more ideal given a round earth for GPS
-
Because there are at least 24 satellites orbiting (traveling at any point on the globe at high speed) and not stationary, the time requires for their signal to transmit to your device is smaller. Thus, you know your location faster.
WHY? That makes no sense. Because they are moving faster, the time it takes the signal to reach your receiver is less? How?
-
I was merely pointing out a valid reason for GPS transmitters to be satellites in space. That is the discussion after all.
No, the discussion is why GPS must come from satellites.
-
Because there are at least 24 satellites orbiting (traveling at any point on the globe at high speed) and not stationary, the time requires for their signal to transmit to your device is smaller. Thus, you know your location faster.
WHY? That makes no sense. Because they are moving faster, the time it takes the signal to reach your receiver is less? How?
Hello? Signals? ? ? ? ? Speed of light? ? ? ? ?
-
I got that part. Now, how does having the satellite moving at high speeds make the signal's travel time less?
-
I was merely pointing out a valid reason for GPS transmitters to be satellites in space. That is the discussion after all.
No, the discussion is why GPS must come from satellites.
The title of the thread is "GPS again..." not "why GPS must come from satellites"
Also, like I just said, that was a valid reason to use satellites.
-
Due to the curvature of the earth and things such as mountains, ground based signals would have to be closer together in order for 3 of them to be able to contact a receiver without being blocked. In space, however, one satellite can cover more area since there is no planet or other obstruction...yeah...
All you need to determine your position on the Earth is three signals. Three signals from space, three signals from the atmosphere, or three signals from the ground, it makes no difference.
3 signal can't contact every point on the planet. What about the stuff on the other side?
You need three signals to locate your position on the Earth.
Which is perfectly fine if you're only on one portion of the planet near the satellites haha.
-
First Post and the raison d'etre in regards to this thread:
p.s. GPS requires satelites
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gps.htm
Really? Which part?
I was merely pointing out a valid reason for GPS transmitters to be satellites in space. That is the discussion after all.
No, the discussion is why GPS must come from satellites.
The title of the thread is "GPS again..." not "why GPS must come from satellites"
Also, like I just said, that was a valid reason to use satellites.
-
So we're having a 9 page debate over one persons P.S.
And I still fail to see how my point was irrelevant.
GPS needs 3 points to triangulate a position - if you go higher up, you can cover more area - if you go high enough up - you can cover a very large area of the earth - to be that high however requires sattelites - GPS uses satellites.
-
Okay, so is everybody in agreement that GPS does not require satellites yet? I think everybody agrees with TheEngineer here. He clearly won the debate. Another victory for FE!
-
Clearly.
-
haha, I didn't even disagree with that fact.
-
Then why were you arguing? ???
-
I wasn't arguing, I was just pointing out the logical conclusion. The fact that it is not required is not the entire argument with this problem, because GPS satellites do exist, and I was explaining why.
-
But the point is that there's no reason to jump to that conclusion. Satellites aren't necessary.
-
Well, unless you could find a way to put transmitters all over the Pacific Ocean, then they would be.
Plus Satellites need no fuel to stay in orbit, once they get there, they'll stay there forever, never corrode, and require little maintenance.
-
Well, unless you could find a way to put transmitters all over the Pacific Ocean, then they would be.
Can you prove that they haven't?
-
can you prove that they have?
I'm not sure why we're still debating this...
-
can you prove that they have?
I see no need to.
I'm not sure why we're still debating this...
Well, you can stop any time.
-
I see no need to either then.
I'll stop when you stop.
-
I got that part. Now, how does having the satellite moving at high speeds make the signal's travel time less?
When did I said traveling at high speed would make the signal travel less? I bracketed the "high speed" thing didn't I? I thought you would know something about orbiting speed.
Anyway, I was saying the advantage of reaching any point on the globe combined with the speed of the signals can reduce the time needed for the device to read the information to you. I've been saying this the whole time.
-
I see no need to either then.
I'll stop when you stop.
As long as you agree, I'm done. ;D
-
It's too late, Jacks back!
-
Clearly.
Nope.
-
Because there are at least 24 satellites orbiting (traveling at any point on the globe at high speed) and not stationary, the time requires for their signal to transmit to your device is smaller. Thus, you know your location faster.
So, how, again?
-
Because there are at least 24 satellites orbiting (traveling at any point on the globe at high speed) and not stationary, the time requires for their signal to transmit to your device is smaller. Thus, you know your location faster.
So, how, again?
Read: "Because there are at least 24 satellites orbiting and not stationary, the time requires for their signal to transmit to your device is smaller."
The more satellites you have, the more number of triangulations, right? Since there are 24 satellites and if you place each satellite at one point on the globe until all 24 of them completely surrounds it, the time it takes for the signals to reach to your device is smaller due to the distance between you and the nearby satellite. Let's not forget the satellites are moving and the signals are traveling at the speed of light.
(The bracket was used just to let you know that orbiting requires high speed, but I never said that this is related to the time it takes for the signal to be received.)
Now, care to explain to me why and how 3 is better than 24?
-
Because there are at least 24 satellites orbiting (traveling at any point on the globe at high speed) and not stationary, the time requires for their signal to transmit to your device is smaller. Thus, you know your location faster.
So, how, again?
Read: "Because there are at least 24 satellites orbiting and not stationary, the time requires for their signal to transmit to your device is smaller."
The more satellites you have, the more number of triangulations, right? Since there are 24 satellites and if you place each satellite is at one point on the globe until all 24 of them completely surrounds it, the time it takes for the signals to reach to your device is smaller due to the distance between you and the nearby satellite. And let's not forget the signals travel at the speed of light.
(The bracket was used just to let you know that orbiting requires high speed, but I never said that this is related to the time it takes for the signal to be received.)
Now, care to explain to me why and how 3 is better than 24?
You can spread out other transmitters that are not satellites...
-
You can spread out other transmitters that are not satellites...
Ok, you're going off topic. Of course you can spread other transmitters. However, that's not my point.
He was asking how, and I was making an answer.
-
GPS requires nothing more than a known position, an accurate clock and a receiver.
TheEngineer, care to explain how this work?
-
GPS requires nothing more than a known position, an accurate clock and a receiver.
TheEngineer, care to explain how this work?
That's how GPS works. You have a transmitter that knows its position, has an accurate clock, and can transmit its position and the current time, and you have a receiver that can read this transmission and also contains a clock. The calculations are simple after that.
-
Now, care to explain to me why and how 3 is better than 24?
24 is a waste of resources.
-
That's how GPS works. You have a transmitter that knows its position, has an accurate clock, and can transmit its position and the current time, and you have a receiver that can read this transmission and also contains a clock. The calculations are simple after that.
How does the transmitter transmit his position and current time (with the clock) to the receiver if they are many miles apart?
-
Uh, via the EM spectrum.
-
Uh, via the EM spectrum.
Well, how does this EM spectrum allow the transmitter to transmit his information to the receiver?
-
By modulating it.
-
Ok... you modulate it so the transmitter can transmit his information to the receiver... Hmm, well, how do you modulate the thing in order to do all that? I'm confused. :o
-
You modulate the amplitude or the frequency.
-
Yes, in the same way TV or Radio or Telephone signals are sent. It's position is just a set of coordinates, it's time a set of numbers, easily sent in binary, the reciever recieves these signals (from multiple GPS sources) and measures accurately the time difference between the message being sent and recieved, and calculates the distances from the GPS sources and therefore triangulates it's position.
-
Oh, now I get it.
GPS do not use satellites. GPS uses ground stations to work. Also, when I am on the seas, I do not have to worry because the ground stations are disguised as OAK TREES, or, any other trees.
Good idea, but its stupid.
(and yeah, we dont need satellites to triangulate, and, we dont always need ground stations to triangulate too, we can also use....satellites.)
only oak trees, not other trees
-
Oh, now I get it.
GPS do not use satellites. GPS uses ground stations to work. Also, when I am on the seas, I do not have to worry because the ground stations are disguised as OAK TREES, or, any other trees.
Good idea, but its stupid.
(and yeah, we dont need satellites to triangulate, and, we dont always need ground stations to triangulate too, we can also use....satellites.)
only oak trees, not other trees
Nuh uh, cherry trees for obvious reasons.
-
You can spread out other transmitters that are not satellites...
Ok, you're going off topic. Of course you can spread other transmitters. However, that's not my point.
He was asking how, and I was making an answer.
No, you are going off topic. The point of this thread is: GPS: Does or Does not Require Satellites.
-
Oh, now I get it.
GPS do not use satellites. GPS uses ground stations to work. Also, when I am on the seas, I do not have to worry because the ground stations are disguised as OAK TREES, or, any other trees.
Good idea, but its stupid.
(and yeah, we dont need satellites to triangulate, and, we dont always need ground stations to triangulate too, we can also use....satellites.)
only oak trees, not other trees
Nuh uh, cherry trees for obvious reasons.
No, you can't use cherry trees, elephants hide in them.
-
Oh, now I get it.
GPS do not use satellites. GPS uses ground stations to work. Also, when I am on the seas, I do not have to worry because the ground stations are disguised as OAK TREES, or, any other trees.
Good idea, but its stupid.
(and yeah, we dont need satellites to triangulate, and, we dont always need ground stations to triangulate too, we can also use....satellites.)
only oak trees, not other trees
Nuh uh, cherry trees for obvious reasons.
No, you can't use cherry trees, elephants hide in them.
Of course... thats why you use them. They make sure the transmitters stay in working order.
-
You people are silly ::)
-
You can spread out other transmitters that are not satellites...
Ok, you're going off topic. Of course you can spread other transmitters. However, that's not my point.
He was asking how, and I was making an answer.
No, you are going off topic. The point of this thread is: GPS: Does or Does not Require Satellites.
So, saying about the spread of transmitters is not off-topic? :o
As you've said, the topic is about DOES OR DOES NOT REQUIRE Satellites, not SPREADING TRANSMITTERS.
-
So are we going to continue our discussion about how GPS works?
-
You can spread out other transmitters that are not satellites...
Ok, you're going off topic. Of course you can spread other transmitters. However, that's not my point.
He was asking how, and I was making an answer.
No, you are going off topic. The point of this thread is: GPS: Does or Does not Require Satellites.
So, saying about the spread of transmitters is not off-topic? :o
As you've said, the topic is about DOES OR DOES NOT REQUIRE Satellites, not SPREADING TRANSMITTERS.
Either you can spread out transmitters on a globe, and it doesn't need satellites or you can't and it does. Is there anything I am missing?
-
You can spread out other transmitters that are not satellites...
Ok, you're going off topic. Of course you can spread other transmitters. However, that's not my point.
He was asking how, and I was making an answer.
No, you are going off topic. The point of this thread is: GPS: Does or Does not Require Satellites.
So, saying about the spread of transmitters is not off-topic? :o
As you've said, the topic is about DOES OR DOES NOT REQUIRE Satellites, not SPREADING TRANSMITTERS.
Either you can spread out transmitters on a globe, and it doesn't need satellites or you can't and it does. Is there anything I am missing?
You are missing the fact that it is not possible to spread out satellites all over the globe. The enviroment of certain areas would not be possible - consider tropical jungles for one example. Oceans being another. Even places like the great plains, where massive erosion occurs in just a few days of rainfall - there is a reason why nobody lives on them - manmade structures simply get washed away.
-
I never said it was possible to spread satellites all over the world. I assume you mean transmitters.
I've read interesting research and papers on ad hoc disposable networks. Something about the size of little styrofoam peanuts that are thrown about to create a wireless network. Surely something similar could be constructed for areas that you can supposedly not get to. Since they are cheap and disposable and reliable and fairly long lasting, this could be an ideal solution for such areas.
-
Okay...if there are no satellites...why is that if I go outside at the right time of night, with a telescope or binoculars or sometimes without anything, I can see a satellite slowly move across the sky?
-
Okay...if there are no satellites...why is that if I go outside at the right time of night, with a telescope or binoculars or sometimes without anything, I can see a satellite slowly move across the sky?
There are satellites. However, there need not be satellites for GPS to work. Furthermore, having satellites does not necessarily make it faster or more accurate. In fact, it would be slower and less accurate, contrary to what Jack claims.
-
I never said it was possible to spread satellites all over the world. I assume you mean transmitters.
I've read interesting research and papers on ad hoc disposable networks. Something about the size of little styrofoam peanuts that are thrown about to create a wireless network. Surely something similar could be constructed for areas that you can supposedly not get to. Since they are cheap and disposable and reliable and fairly long lasting, this could be an ideal solution for such areas.
Each one would have to know where it is, but if it's that's small, it could easily be moves about by all sorts of things.
-
Okay...if there are no satellites...why is that if I go outside at the right time of night, with a telescope or binoculars or sometimes without anything, I can see a satellite slowly move across the sky?
There are satellites. However, there need not be satellites for GPS to work. Furthermore, having satellites does not necessarily make it faster or more accurate. In fact, it would be slower and less accurate, contrary to what Jack claims.
Well, of course you don't need them. Local GPS systems use ground based transmitters. But it's only worth it for a local system. On a global scale, satellite transmitters are more effective due to oceans, the fact that one can cover more gound and what not..
-
I never said it was possible to spread satellites all over the world. I assume you mean transmitters.
I've read interesting research and papers on ad hoc disposable networks. Something about the size of little styrofoam peanuts that are thrown about to create a wireless network. Surely something similar could be constructed for areas that you can supposedly not get to. Since they are cheap and disposable and reliable and fairly long lasting, this could be an ideal solution for such areas.
Each one would have to know where it is, but if it's that's small, it could easily be moves about by all sorts of things.
It could triangulate off other nearby transmitters.
-
Okay...if there are no satellites...why is that if I go outside at the right time of night, with a telescope or binoculars or sometimes without anything, I can see a satellite slowly move across the sky?
There are satellites. However, there need not be satellites for GPS to work. Furthermore, having satellites does not necessarily make it faster or more accurate. In fact, it would be slower and less accurate, contrary to what Jack claims.
Well, of course you don't need them. Local GPS systems use ground based transmitters. But it's only worth it for a local system. On a global scale, satellite transmitters are more effective due to oceans, the fact that one can cover more gound and what not..
Apparently, some think you do need them. If you don't, I'm obviously not talking to you.
Stratellites would also work just as well for oceans or hard to reach places.
-
I never said it was possible to spread satellites all over the world. I assume you mean transmitters.
I've read interesting research and papers on ad hoc disposable networks. Something about the size of little styrofoam peanuts that are thrown about to create a wireless network. Surely something similar could be constructed for areas that you can supposedly not get to. Since they are cheap and disposable and reliable and fairly long lasting, this could be an ideal solution for such areas.
Each one would have to know where it is, but if it's that's small, it could easily be moves about by all sorts of things.
It could triangulate off other nearby transmitters.
But you would only get your location relative to where the other transmitters think they are. But if they are so small that they can easily be moved about by the wind or water or animals or something, your location will be incorrect.
-
Okay...if there are no satellites...why is that if I go outside at the right time of night, with a telescope or binoculars or sometimes without anything, I can see a satellite slowly move across the sky?
There are satellites. However, there need not be satellites for GPS to work. Furthermore, having satellites does not necessarily make it faster or more accurate. In fact, it would be slower and less accurate, contrary to what Jack claims.
Well, of course you don't need them. Local GPS systems use ground based transmitters. But it's only worth it for a local system. On a global scale, satellite transmitters are more effective due to oceans, the fact that one can cover more gound and what not..
Apparently, some think you do need them. If you don't, I'm obviously not talking to you.
Stratellites would also work just as well for oceans or hard to reach places.
I'm not saying they are 100% necessary. I'm just saying it's more continent.
And stratellites can only stay up for ~18 months at a time.
-
The more you know:
Amplitude triangulation yeilds two points. You would need a fourth observer to get an absolute position in three dimensional space.
1 observer yeilds the surface of a sphere
2 observers yeild a ring on the sphere
3 observers yeild two equidistant points on the ring
4 observers yeild a point
Directional triangulation yeilds one point and one observer is redundant.
1 observer yeilds a line
2 observers yeild a point
GPS claims to use amplitude triangulation within the gps unit itself.
Now that I've armed you with knowledge, you go get 'em tiger!
-
The more you know:
Amplitude triangulation yeilds two points. You would need a fourth observer to get an absolute position in three dimensional space.
1 observer yeilds the surface of a sphere
2 observers yeild a ring on the sphere
3 observers yeild two equidistant points on the ring
4 observers yeild a point
Directional triangulation yeilds one point and one observer is redundant.
1 observer yeilds a line
2 observers yeild a point
GPS claims to use amplitude triangulation within the gps unit itself.
Now that I've armed you with knowledge, you go get 'em tiger!
Wrong. Only 3. Unless you're in space. ;)
-
I never said it was possible to spread satellites all over the world. I assume you mean transmitters.
I've read interesting research and papers on ad hoc disposable networks. Something about the size of little styrofoam peanuts that are thrown about to create a wireless network. Surely something similar could be constructed for areas that you can supposedly not get to. Since they are cheap and disposable and reliable and fairly long lasting, this could be an ideal solution for such areas.
Each one would have to know where it is, but if it's that's small, it could easily be moves about by all sorts of things.
It could triangulate off other nearby transmitters.
But you would only get your location relative to where the other transmitters think they are. But if they are so small that they can easily be moved about by the wind or water or animals or something, your location will be incorrect.
It would give higher priority to triangulations of stationary towers than off the ad hoc network. Thus, the network would eventually and continually fix itself if it gets misaligned.
-
Luckily for us, we only need three signals to find our position on the Earth.
-
The more you know:
Amplitude triangulation yeilds two points. You would need a fourth observer to get an absolute position in three dimensional space.
1 observer yeilds the surface of a sphere
2 observers yeild a ring on the sphere
3 observers yeild two equidistant points on the ring
4 observers yeild a point
Directional triangulation yeilds one point and one observer is redundant.
1 observer yeilds a line
2 observers yeild a point
GPS claims to use amplitude triangulation within the gps unit itself.
Now that I've armed you with knowledge, you go get 'em tiger!
Wrong. Only 3. Unless you're in space. ;)
Wrong. You need 4. Depending on the placement of the 3 observers, the two possible positions could be a mile apart and both on the surface of earth.
-
The more you know:
Amplitude triangulation yeilds two points. You would need a fourth observer to get an absolute position in three dimensional space.
1 observer yeilds the surface of a sphere
2 observers yeild a ring on the sphere
3 observers yeild two equidistant points on the ring
4 observers yeild a point
Directional triangulation yeilds one point and one observer is redundant.
1 observer yeilds a line
2 observers yeild a point
GPS claims to use amplitude triangulation within the gps unit itself.
Now that I've armed you with knowledge, you go get 'em tiger!
Wrong. Only 3. Unless you're in space. ;)
Wrong. You need 4. Depending on the placement of the 3 observers, the two possible positions could be a mile apart and both on the surface of earth.
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gps2.htm (http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gps2.htm)
-
Conviniently using nominal placement of satellites that are stationary you can use 3 signals with accuracy by providing a secondary point that is ignoreable. However, satellites and stratellites move. Government standards for use of the c/a code require 4 observers.
-
You can spread out other transmitters that are not satellites...
Ok, you're going off topic. Of course you can spread other transmitters. However, that's not my point.
He was asking how, and I was making an answer.
No, you are going off topic. The point of this thread is: GPS: Does or Does not Require Satellites.
So, saying about the spread of transmitters is not off-topic? :o
As you've said, the topic is about DOES OR DOES NOT REQUIRE Satellites, not SPREADING TRANSMITTERS.
Either you can spread out transmitters on a globe, and it doesn't need satellites or you can't and it does. Is there anything I am missing?
I'm not talking about that. I was saying that you were going off-topic when this thread was about GPS DOES OR DOES NOT require satellites, not SPREADING satellites. Get the words?
Read.
You can spread out other transmitters that are not satellites...
So, saying about the spread of transmitters is not off-topic? :o
As you've said, the topic is about DOES OR DOES NOT REQUIRE Satellites, not SPREADING TRANSMITTERS.
By the way:
There are satellites. However, there need not be satellites for GPS to work. Furthermore, having satellites does not necessarily make it faster or more accurate. In fact, it would be slower and less accurate, contrary to what Jack claims.
Care to explain how it is less accurate and slower with satellites?
You are missing the fact that it is not possible to spread out satellites all over the globe. The enviroment of certain areas would not be possible - consider tropical jungles for one example. Oceans being another. Even places like the great plains, where massive erosion occurs in just a few days of rainfall - there is a reason why nobody lives on them - manmade structures simply get washed away.
What are you talking about? Satellites are above the atmosphere, in the outer space. Outer space doesn't have tropical jungles or oceans. Therefore, you can spread satellites above (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_Earth_Orbit) the Earth, up in the space.
You mean local ground-based transmitters?
-
yeah my bad, I meant to say transmitters, and wrote satellites.
-
The ones we cant attach to buoys or install in the plains due to erosion?
-
I'm sure it's possible. But unlikely.
-
Ever heard of VOR's or NBD's?
-
We already have the hardware in place. Now it's a simple task of adding another signal from those towers. Hello GPS.
-
Goodbye GPS. Buoys would, even when anchored, move around randomly and unpredictably. No good for GPS.
-
There'd obviously be a certain margin of error as with most systems.
-
my GPS device can give me a 10 figure grid reference - for those of you who didn't do geography or orienteering, that's a square centimetre - pretty accurate if you ask me.
-
my GPS device can give me a 10 figure grid reference - for those of you who didn't do geography or orienteering, that's a square centimetre - pretty accurate if you ask me.
Coolbeans.
-
my GPS device can give me a 10 figure grid reference - for those of you who didn't do geography or orienteering, that's a square centimetre - pretty accurate if you ask me.
Except the signal itself is only accurate to 15 meters.
-
You could use an arbritrary number of extra satellites/transmitters to gain a more precise location.
-
More satellites, more error.
-
More satellites, more error.
How?
-
More satellites, more error.
Prove this.
-
By the way:
There are satellites. However, there need not be satellites for GPS to work. Furthermore, having satellites does not necessarily make it faster or more accurate. In fact, it would be slower and less accurate, contrary to what Jack claims.
Care to explain how it is less accurate and slower with satellites?
Moving satellites give more error than stationary transmitters. I believe this is in the source you cited earlier...
Its slower because satellites are further away, and thus signals take more time to reach you.
-
More satellites, more error.
Yeah, I may just be missing something obvious, but I wouldn't mind an explanation of why too.
-
More satellites, more error.
How?
Well, if each signal is only accurate to 15 meters (going off TE's statement), then adding satellites would only compound the number of meters that it could be off. For instance, one signal would have an possible margin of 15 meters. Having two would increase that to 30, etc...
That's assuming all of them would be at the maximum that they could be inaccurate, which is unlikely.
-
Moving satellites give more error than stationary transmitters. I believe this is in the source you cited earlier...
Care to tell me how moving satellites give more error than stationary transmitters?
Its slower because satellites are further away, and thus signals take more time to reach you.
How? The signals are moving at the speed of light.
-
More satellites, more error.
How?
Increased multipath and atmospheric errors.
-
Moving satellites give more error than stationary transmitters. I believe this is in the source you cited earlier...
Care to tell me how moving satellites give more error than stationary transmitters?
As I said, it was your source that said that. I assumed you read and understood it. This is why they use Differential GPS. Because the satellites' measured pseudoranges differ from the computed pseudoranges.
Its slower because satellites are further away, and thus signals take more time to reach you.
How? The signals are moving at the speed of light.
299 792 458 m / s
-
Care to tell me how moving satellites give more error than stationary transmitters?
Ephemeris errors
Its slower because satellites are further away, and thus signals take more time to reach you.
How? The signals are moving at the speed of light.
Because there are...further away.
-
Increased multipath and atmospheric errors.
Aw, so my assumption was wrong?
-
Care to tell me how moving satellites give more error than stationary transmitters?
Ephemeris errors
Its slower because satellites are further away, and thus signals take more time to reach you.
How? The signals are moving at the speed of light.
Because there are...further away.
Do you have any idea of how fast light travels?
How there would be virtually no difference between the time it would take a ground based signal, a suborbital signal, or orbital signal to reach a receiver?
-
I stated multiple times to those actually reading that the difference would be small.
-
Do you have any idea of how fast light travels?
299 792 458 m/s
-
Do you have any idea of how fast light travels?
Yes.
How there would be virtually no difference between the time it would take a ground based signal, a suborbital signal, or orbital signal to reach a receiver?
The difference would be extremely small.
-
Its slower because satellites are further away, and thus signals take more time to reach you.
How? The signals are moving at the speed of light.
Because there are...further away.
Yes, they take time, but by how much? Probably less than half of a second.
GPS satellites orbiting at an altitude of approximately 20,200 kilometers (12,600 miles or 10,900 nautical miles; orbital radius of 26,600 km (16,500 mi or 14,400 NM)) Source: Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_Earth_Orbit).
Convert that 20,200km in meters gives you 20,200,000m. So... what's the speed of light in terms of m/s? Divito!
299 792 458 m/s
Therefore, t = 20,200,000m = 0.067379947s
299 792 458 m/s
How there would be virtually no difference between the time it would take a ground based signal, a suborbital signal, or orbital signal to reach a receiver?
The difference would be extremely small.
Yea baby, therefore...?
Therefore, it's faster because signals travel at the speed of light and the difference would extremely small.
Hence, satellite signals are fast, contrary to what you've said earlier:
Its slower because satellites are further away, and thus signals take more time to reach you.
-
my GPS device can give me a 10 figure grid reference - for those of you who didn't do geography or orienteering, that's a square centimetre - pretty accurate if you ask me.
Except the signal itself is only accurate to 15 meters.
Where is your reference that says it is accurate to 15 metres?
-
How there would be virtually no difference between the time it would take a ground based signal, a suborbital signal, or orbital signal to reach a receiver?
The difference would be extremely small.
Yea baby, therefore...?
Therefore...what?
Therefore, it's faster because signals travel at the speed of light and the difference would extremely small.
Hence, satellite signals are fast, contrary to what you've said earlier:
Its slower because satellites are further away, and thus signals take more time to reach you.
Where is the contradiction in what he said?
-
my GPS device can give me a 10 figure grid reference - for those of you who didn't do geography or orienteering, that's a square centimetre - pretty accurate if you ask me.
Except the signal itself is only accurate to 15 meters.
Where is your reference that says it is accurate to 15 metres?
For one:
Electronics errors are one of several accuracy-degrading effects outlined in the table below. When taken together, autonomous civilian GPS horizontal position fixes are typically accurate to about 15 meters (50 ft).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System)
-
thanks, i always like a source when I'm being proved wrong.
-
thanks I'm being proved wrong.
That's my specialty.
-
Jack, you made the claim that they were faster and more accurate than ground based transmitters. They are neither.
-
How there would be virtually no difference between the time it would take a ground based signal, a suborbital signal, or orbital signal to reach a receiver?
The difference would be extremely small.
Yea baby, therefore...?
Therefore...what?
I'm asking you.
Therefore, it's faster because signals travel at the speed of light and the difference would extremely small.
Hence, satellite signals are fast, contrary to what you've said earlier:
Its slower because satellites are further away, and thus signals take more time to reach you.
Where is the contradiction in what he said?
How is 0.067s slow?
Jack, you made the claim that they were faster and more accurate than ground based transmitters. They are neither.
I never said that; I said satellites are accurate, but that doesn't mean I said they're more accurate than transmitters. You said it's slower for satellites because they are further away and therefore signals take longer. Therefore, I said it didn't make sense because they're not.
-
How there would be virtually no difference between the time it would take a ground based signal, a suborbital signal, or orbital signal to reach a receiver?
The difference would be extremely small.
Yea baby, therefore...?
Therefore...what?
I'm asking you.
What the hell is the question?
Therefore, it's faster because signals travel at the speed of light and the difference would extremely small.
Hence, satellite signals are fast, contrary to what you've said earlier:
Its slower because satellites are further away, and thus signals take more time to reach you.
Where is the contradiction in what he said?
How is 0.067s slow?
Who said they were slow?
You said it's slower for satellites because they are further away and therefore signals take longer. Therefore, I said it didn't make sense because they're not.
They are not what? Further away?
-
How there would be virtually no difference between the time it would take a ground based signal, a suborbital signal, or orbital signal to reach a receiver?
The difference would be extremely small.
Yea baby, therefore...?
Therefore...what?
I'm asking you.
What the hell is the question?
Did I said there was a question?
Therefore, it's faster because signals travel at the speed of light and the difference would extremely small.
Hence, satellite signals are fast, contrary to what you've said earlier:
Its slower because satellites are further away, and thus signals take more time to reach you.
Where is the contradiction in what he said?
How is 0.067s slow?
Who said they were slow?
Who said I said that they were slow?
You said it's slower for satellites because they are further away and therefore signals take longer. Therefore, I said it didn't make sense because they're not.
They are not what? Further away?
They are not what, what? Further way, what what?
-
So you have no argument. Gotcha.
-
So you have no argument. Gotcha.
I have no argument of what?
-
Like I said.
Seems like we have another Gulliver in our midst.
-
It would cost more to have thousands (hundreds of thousand, possibly) of ground-based transmitters than to have less satellites. (I know satellites are very expensive, and also the cost of putting them in orbit.)
-
It appears to be a Gullarul hybrid. Although, Jack has used more science and math during his time here than sokarul ever did. Either way, he is eerily similar to those two.
-
It would cost more to have thousands (hundreds of thousand, possibly) of ground-based transmitters than to have less satellites. (I know satellites are very expensive, and also the cost of putting them in orbit.)
Care to back this up at all?
-
Care to back this up at all?
Based on his other posts, nope.
-
How dare you! I do not back anything up! However, I shall try to do so.
Don't know exactly how much each ground-based station would cost, so will call this x.
Don't know exactly how much each satellite would cost, so will call this y.
So, if FE were to be GPSed using ground-based stations (GBS for short) then, the following would apply:
>Each station has a maximum operational radius of about 35 miles. That covers an area of 3848.4510006474967171167381445174 miles2.
> The total SA of flat earth is (based on a diameter of 24,900 miles) 486954715.28805192644480588101678 miles2
>So, the number of stations (minimum) required x is the total area divided by the area each can cover.
This comes out at 126533 stations (rounded to the nearest one). So, 126533x.
If FE were to be GPSed using satellites (or stratolites, since satellites won't work) then one stratolite could theoretically see the entire plane of the earth if high enough. So, use 3 with known positions to enable triangulation, gives us 3y.
In order for the two to be of equal cost, y would have to be 42,177 times more expensive than x.
My maths and logic are probably full of holes, but you can apply the same to RE using area = 4pi*r2. 3 stratolites are a minimum requirement, you'll probably need more, and you would need more GBSs because their ranges would have to intersect.
-
>Each station has a maximum operational radius of about 35 miles.
Why?
-
How dare you! I do not back anything up! However, I shall try to do so.
Don't know exactly how much each ground-based station would cost, so will call this x.
Don't know exactly how much each satellite would cost, so will call this y.
So, if FE were to be GPSed using ground-based stations (GBS for short) then, the following would apply:
>Each station has a maximum operational radius of about 35 miles. That covers an area of 3848.4510006474967171167381445174 miles2.
> The total SA of flat earth is (based on a diameter of 24,900 miles) 486954715.28805192644480588101678 miles2
>So, the number of stations (minimum) required x is the total area divided by the area each can cover.
This comes out at 126533 stations (rounded to the nearest one). So, 126533x.
If FE were to be GPSed using satellites (or stratolites, since satellites won't work) then one stratolite could theoretically see the entire plane of the earth if high enough. So, use 3 with known positions to enable triangulation, gives us 3y.
In order for the two to be of equal cost, y would have to be 42,177 times more expensive than x.
My maths and logic are probably full of holes, but you can apply the same to RE using area = 4pi*r2. 3 stratolites are a minimum requirement, you'll probably need more, and you would need more GBSs because their ranges would have to intersect.
3 sat's for triangulation is not enough for anything but an approximation of your position. Good enough for your car to "snap" your automobile to a road that it has programmed in it, but not for any "real" navigation. Look up some GPS setups for flying, most can acquire up to 12 sat's at a time. Cant' fly GPS approaches without at least 5 in most systems, and even then it's degraded.
Oh, and whoever thinks that GPS only would work with sat's is dumb. Sorry, I know there ARE sat's up there that run most of the signals, but again it's just most. Look up wide-area precisino enhancing landing systems related to GPS approaches at airports. Also look into land-based GPS precision enhancment stations on the ground. Ground based signals are used alot to enhance precision, because commercial GPS is "fudged" and the device can't decrypt the portion of the signal that the military/gov is using to get better accuracy.
-
Like I said.
Seems like we have another TheEngineer in our midst.
Fixed :)
-
a couple of questions have gone unanswered, and gotten lost in the insults.
1: why do we have to point satellite dishes to a certain fixed point in the sky, if not to aim at geostationary or geosynchronous satellites? esp. the ones that networks use which people (like a buddy of mine) pilfer which require huge dishes and precise aim.
2: what are all those points of light, that travel across the sky after sundown and before sunup on dark nights? you'd have to try hard not to see them, when lying on the ground in the middle of the desert.
3: what happened to the "pseudolite" argument, seems like that was just abandoned by the fe'ers when they couldn't bend it enought to fit their belief. now they invoke the magic word "stratolites", which is so far a vaporware pipe-dream. (but the must be working, they'd say, because the earth is flat which is therefore proof they exist.)
trust me, gps uses satellites. when you are in the middle of the pacific ocean, or in the middle of a barren wasteland with nothing man-made within a 200 mile radius, and all that bombed and shelled to powder, you tend to think there isn't another way to locate to within sub-meter accuracy.
btw just to clarify for fellow re'ers, gps satellites are in low-earth, not geostationary orbits, and so cross the sky pretty quickly. that's why it takes so many of them to have at least three in line-of-sight at any given time and place on earth, even in mountain valleys. they also do require clocks, incredibly accurate atomic clocks that even have general relativity written into the algorithm to compensate for the earth's gravitational distortion as well as their own orbital velocity, because it's the differentials between the clocks due to speed of light, which gps receivers calculate.
-
>Each station has a maximum operational radius of about 35 miles.
Why?
Because that is apparently as far as we can see, according to FE dirty air theory. There is no quote for Radio waves I think, so I used that. The alternative is that they can reach every point on FE if placed high enough.
-
>Each station has a maximum operational radius of about 35 miles.
Why?
Because that is apparently as far as we can see, according to FE dirty air theory. There is no quote for Radio waves I think, so I used that. The alternative is that they can reach every point on FE if placed high enough.
You're an embarrassment to our species.
-
>Each station has a maximum operational radius of about 35 miles.
Why?
Because that is apparently as far as we can see, according to FE dirty air theory. There is no quote for Radio waves I think, so I used that. The alternative is that they can reach every point on FE if placed high enough.
I am an embarrassment to our species.
QFT
-
>Each station has a maximum operational radius of about 35 miles.
Why?
Because that is apparently as far as we can see, according to FE dirty air theory. There is no quote for Radio waves I think, so I used that. The alternative is that they can reach every point on FE if placed high enough.
I am an embarrassment to my species.
I know you are. Until someone can tell me how far a radio transmission can travel on FE, that's the best estimation I can come up with. However, since it will be exactly the same as on RE, about 100Km, you can redo the calculation with that.
Radio waves are very different to visible light, they are low-energy long-wavelength, they are more penetrating than visible light, so could travel further in dirty air, you can see through clouds with radio waves.
-
You're an embarrassment to our species.
What, monkies?
That's what you are anyway. Nobody else would think that oceans float.
-
And nobody intelligent would actually believe him.
-
However, we have thrown an intellectual blunder by thinking we can actually get Smarticus to think, at all.
-
However, we have thrown an intellectual blunder by thinking we can actually get Smarticus to think, at all.
So the only conclusion to this is: Smarticus does not have brains.
Although i think that was commonly known already.
-
I got a perfect score on the ACT's which I didn't even study for because I was too busy banging your mom, who is actually a totally fat hag, right before I scored the winning touchdown in overtime at my local highschool which totally turned on the whole cheerleading squad so I banged them all too and filmed it so I could sell it later and make millions which I have already but I can use a couple more so whatever.
While I was doing that, you were thinking for two hours about how you could burn me on the internet and all you could come up with was:
Smarticus does not have brains.
-
I got a perfect score on the ACT's which I didn't even study for because I was too busy banging your mom, who is actually a totally fat hag, right before I scored the winning touchdown in overtime at my local highschool which totally turned on the whole cheerleading squad so I banged them all too and filmed it so I could sell it later and make millions which I have already but I can use a couple more so whatever.
And still you think that oceans should float. Also, remember a topic called "Shoe results are in!"?
You're funny.
Plus, you're terribly incorrect. My mom is not fat.
While I was doing that, you were thinking for two hours about how you could burn me on the internet and all you could come up with was:
Smarticus does not have brains.
Again, you're terribly incorrect. It actually took me 3600 times less.
-
Actually she is fat, and has a vaginal growth. You should tell her to see a doctor. It was pretty disgusting.
-
...And there he was, with no brains, telling his boring test results he has no evidence he actually made, and at the same time, flaming my mom hopelessly like a 10-year old.
::)
-
Indeed. Well, back on topic, eh chaps?
-
I don't see how there is anything else to discuss.
-
No. We seem to have covered everything, satellites and stratollites can perform the same function, so GPS can function on FE. I think that's about it.
-
So now let's move to the next topic: Why is Smarticus so god damn stupid.
-
Bcause, when he was a child, a ladybird stole most of his brain.
-
Bcause, when he was a child, a ladybird stole most of his brain.
She tried at least, she was cheated.
-
You guys really are funny. Stratollites instead of satellites? You do realise that Stratollites themselves require GPS in order to keep themselves in a known position? From your own wiki link...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratellite (Performance section)
Navigation: 6 onboard GPS units connected to the ship's engines
So, your argument that GPS works using stratollites is a bit daft as stratollites use GPS (from satellites!)
-
You guys really are funny. Stratollites instead of satellites? You do realise that Stratollites themselves require GPS in order to keep themselves in a known position? From your own wiki link...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratellite (Performance section)
Navigation: 6 onboard GPS units connected to the ship's engines
So, your argument that GPS works using stratollites is a bit daft as stratollites use GPS (from satellites!)
Prove that stratellites can't stay in one place without GPS. And when I say "prove", I mean something more substantial than linking to Wikipedia.
-
Providing quotes doesn't make you right. If you're going to argue that stratellites need GPS to stay where they are, you'll need to provide reasons why they can't do so without it.
-
You'll need to provide reasons why they can't do so without it.
No I won't. That's your job. If you claim that SansWire are lying when they say they're using GPS you'll need to provide evidence that they're lying, then provide evidence of how they're commiting this deception.
I'll remind you that SansWire Corp are a publicly listed stock (http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=SNSR.PK), whose value will be quite sensitive to rumour. This being the case they probably take defamation very seriously.
I'm not saying they're lying.
-
A stratolite could just use triangulation from ground stations to keep its location constant, especially over a flat Earth.
-
p.s. GPS requires satelites
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gps.htm
Really? Which part?
The S part. GPS. lul.
-
Are you saying that's what Sanswire are doing?
I have no idea what they're doing, if I'm honest, I hadn't even heard about them before reading this thread. I'm just saying it's possible.
-
And you 'know' that GPS satellites/stratolites don't stay in position by using ground station triangulation do you? For 100% certainty, so that there isn't even the remotest, most miniscule chance that you could be mistaken?
Bollocks do you.
-
The point is you have made a value judgement based on the available evidence. That doesn't mean you 'know' to 100%. The distinction is where the conspiracy lives, so by ignoring the possibility you could be wrong you are at once being arrogant and also missing the entire point of the debate.
Plus, GPS does need ground stations, even in RET. Sorry.
-
If the point of the debate is to sow dumb doubt, in the same vein as "How do you know China exists, have you ever been there?" etc etc.
If this forum was dedicated to proving whether China exists then it would be trivial to buy a discount plane ticket.
It's not so trivial to peer review NASA.
-
Yes, you are right that the timing signals are from the GPS satellites themselves, but the fact remains that all of them constantly exchange control data with ground stations - if you wanted to set up a system to mimic 'true' GPS then it probably wouldn't look all that different.
As for 'dumb doubt', this goes a little beyond the Kantian 'well how can you be SURE?' since the technical capacity to fake GPS has existed for just as long as the ability to make a 'true' GPS system. There are obvious ways that you can determine which is correct, but to do so without resorting to part of the GPS system itself (and thus invalidating the experiment) requires technical capabilities beyond 99.99%(ish) of people on this forum. That is why I was sceptical of your claims to certainty.
-
This thread is about GPS. Read this link (http://pds.jpl.nasa.gov/data_services/peer_reviews.html)and then open a thread if you have any questions.
Did an unconnected third party peer review and verify NASA's claims?
-
Did an unconnected third party peer review and verify NASA's claims?
Well here is a quote from the website that was linked...
The peer reviewers
Generally 2-3 people knowledgeable in the type of data being reviewed, but not directly connected with the project which produced it.
Looks like independent review to me.
-
This thread is about GPS. Read this link (http://pds.jpl.nasa.gov/data_services/peer_reviews.html)and then open a thread if you have any questions.
Did an unconnected third party peer review and verify NASA's claims?
Tom, I think your AI needs a reboot. The military runs GPS, not NASA.
-
Tom, I think your AI needs a reboot. The military runs GPS, not NASA.
Who do you think started and runs NASA?
-
So you're saying that high flying stratolites could not perform the same function as GPS satellites? Ignoring the problem of polar orbits, that is...
-
It does make the debate somewhat pointless, but one network of stratolites could use another as a reference. The GPS stratolites could also have atomic clocks on them the way that GPS satellites do, so you wouldn't need (in principle) any more than the GPS system requires... the functionality of the system would be essentially the same, except of course for the lack of any objects on a polar orbit...
-
Tom, I think your AI needs a reboot. The military runs GPS, not NASA.
Who do you think started and runs NASA?
Eisenhower. But wait, Tom! There's no proof that Eisenhower actually signed the Act, therefore he didnt, therefore Eisenhower is not 3-dimensional, he is 2-dimensional. Careful of cracks in the floor, Ike!
-
Eisenhower. But wait, Tom! There's no proof that Eisenhower actually signed the Act, therefore he didnt, therefore Eisenhower is not 3-dimensional, he is 2-dimensional. Careful of cracks in the floor, Ike!
Eisenhower didn't fund NASA. NASA was originally funded and operated by the Airforce.
-
So Tom the US Air force is in on it as well. It would appear that you are the only person who isn't part of the conspiracy!
-
Eisenhower. But wait, Tom! There's no proof that Eisenhower actually signed the Act, therefore he didnt, therefore Eisenhower is not 3-dimensional, he is 2-dimensional. Careful of cracks in the floor, Ike!
Eisenhower didn't fund NASA. NASA was originally funded and operated by the Airforce.
You're avoiding the statement Tom
-
I've worked as a surveyor myself for a year or so, using GPS.
We used GPS to provide fixed base points to conduct land surveys in various different locations, cities, countryside, and anywhere in between. We have to be very careful about GPS receiver placement in built up areas due to reflections from high buildings etc, and also in countrysides under heavily wooded areas. However, with a clear sky, the GPS units would work perfectly.
The GPS units we used actually gave us readings of numbers of satellites in the sky and their positions with bearings etc, which moved throughout the day.
This implies to me that there actually satellites in the sky. Please explain how this works without the use of satellites in giving an accurate system of measurement? Or am I in the conspiracy aswell?
-
No. We seem to have covered everything, satellites and stratollites can perform the same function, so GPS can function on FE. I think that's about it.
-
So Tom the US Air force is in on it as well. It would appear that you are the only person who isn't part of the conspiracy!
Well yeah, I said that the military is in on it. They have very strong ties to NASA to the point of controlling its operations and the DoD currently claims to deploy satellites, ICBM's and other things that allegedly go into earth orbit.
-
Yeah, if NASA is corrupt the air force most certainly is corrupt as well.
-
Sorry... forgive me for being irrational.
What does NASA/Air Force/Anyone gain out of saying they've put satellites in the sky without actually doing it?
If you say 'money' I want hard evidence that they make money by doing it. If you say 'I'm not sure' then don't even bother posting.
-
As far as I'm aware, the GPS system can only work with satellites, as the method used by receivers to calculate their position requires the receivers to assume that they are orbiting a spherical Earth about 20,200 kilometres above it's surface. A GPS transmitter doesn't transmit it's position, it transmits where it is in it's current orbit.
-
Sorry... forgive me for being irrational.
What does NASA/Air Force/Anyone gain out of saying they've put satellites in the sky without actually doing it?
If you say 'money' I want hard evidence that they make money by doing it. If you say 'I'm not sure' then don't even bother.
The government gives the military many billions of dollars to put up weather satellites. By not putting up weather satellites and then getting the data from existing technologies out in the field and using predictive algorithms to fill in missing data sets, the conspirators can skim a good chunk of change.
As far as I'm aware, the GPS system can only work with satellites
Tower and dirigible based GPS has been around much longer than "satellite" based GPS. Look up the LORAN System.
-
As far as I'm aware, the GPS system can only work with satellites
Tower and dirigible based GPS has been around much longer than "satellite" based GPS. Look up the LORAN System.
Yes Tom, LORAN is a positioning system, but it's hardly global.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/09/LoranCoverage.gif)
-
Tower and dirigible based GPS has been around much longer than "satellite" based GPS. Look up the LORAN System.
And? This doesn't change the fact that the GPS transmits orbital information, not a simple coordinate position.
-
The government gives the military many billions of dollars to put up weather satellites. By not putting up weather satellites and then getting the data from existing technologies out in the field and using predictive algorithms to fill in missing data sets, the conspirators can skim a good chunk of change.
Of course, weather predicting based on a spherical Earth was in place well before the advent of weather satellite. The models for weather predicting are not "owned by the military." Of course, even these predictive models have problems, hence why your local weatherman can't get tomorrow's weather right all of the time (some would say most of the time they can't get it right).
But for your hypothesis to be correct, then the land based predictive model would be able to accurately tell me the location of clouds and weather out at sea in real time. This doesn't sound very likely.
Tower and dirigible based GPS has been around much longer than "satellite" based GPS. Look up the LORAN System.
LORAN is not GPS. They work on completely different operating principles. Can you provide evidence of a "dirigible based GPS" system that you say "has been around much longer?"
So far I haven't seen anything in FE explanations of GPS that explains the signals received on my GPS at sea, much less the ones used in many cars and trucks.