I already got a clear response to my question. No one in this thread can provide any credentials that show they are an authority on weather balloons, GPS, or anything of that nature. There's no reason to respond. They have shown their intellectual dishonesty. They are frauds who think googling the answers to all life's questions will show them the way. Trusting others over their own senses. Pathetic.
The only one who needs any credentials on weather balloons is the person claiming that they are responsible for what the rest of the world believes is handled by satellites. That would be you, by the way. The rest of us don't need to be credentialed, we're asking you to educate us on this balloon system, because my own senses don't show any information about your claims.
Quite frankly, I don't even need your credentials, I would just like you to do better than "I would guess" and "I don't have that information" before you claim to have a better answer than the rest of the world and then accuse us all of intellectual dishonesty.
Sure.
Seriously? That's the best you can come up with after building an entire argument on a foundation of "I would guess" and "I don't have that information" and then calling other people intellectually dishonest?
If you can acknowledge that you're 100% in the wrong (which is what I infer from this ridiculous post), then the least you could do is apologize and admit your error instead of sulking like an angsty teen.
I am not the one responding emotionally, so this "Sulky teenager" routine you're projecting on me is exactly that: projection. You think you've disproved everything I've said because you can provide a manufacturer for weather balloons (that you googled). Which is not relevant at all. You don't understand the basics of how to form a proper argument.
Calling you out for not knowing what you're talking about isn't "responding emotionally".
I don't think I've disproved anything you said because you've disproved everything you said before I had the chance.
You talk about how to form an argument, and yet you said here is an example of your "argument":
Yes it does! Cell phone towers have a radius around them and dont cover every place on earth. As for satellite phones they work almost every place on earth even in the middle of the oceans which definitely dont have cell towers.
You lack reading comprehension. They don't need cell towers. There are also balloons that function as what you call "satellites". They are similar to weather balloons in design.
Normal "Cell service" that degrades in certain areas (mountains, to use Sokarul's example) is simply a signal that is ONLY using cell towers. A "satellite" based signal uses 4G Balloons and other technology, which allows it to work even in isolated areas.
I bolded two statements in your quote that are statements you made as if they are factual. You don't claim to be speculating or hypothesizing, daydreaming or fantasizing. The first bold statement says "There are...", not "there may be..." or "there could be". The second says "A "satellite" based signal uses...", not "...might use..." or "...could use..."
When asked to provide even the most basic evidence to support these "facts" you've shared, you answered:
The technology is a lot more powerful than we're led to believe. It doesn't take "thousands" to cover the area of the United States for example. And yes, you can spot these balloons in the sky all the time and can easily view them lining the firmament with a telescope.
Regarding the manufacturer, I would guess that world governments manufacturer them and their schematics are top secret. I don't have that information.
You claim "the technology is a lot more powerful than we're led to believe." and in the same post, admit "their schematics are top secret" and that you "don't have that information".
You don't even know who makes these balloons that you have stated with certainty exist and "would guess" that "world governments manufacturer (sic) them", the reason you "would guess" this not being not apparent to anyone.
I'm very sure I don't need critiques in constructing a "proper argument" from someone who believes that spinning some delusional fantasy from their own mind and pawning it off as absolute truth that should simply be accepted, and then supporting that fantasy with such evidence as "I would guess" and "I don't have that information" even qualifies as an argument.
You are literally an embarrassment to intellectual debate and should be ashamed of questioning anyone else's "intellectual honesty".