-
https://www.quora.com/How-are-major-undersea-cables-laid-in-the-ocean (https://www.quora.com/How-are-major-undersea-cables-laid-in-the-ocean)
This article is quite interesting. I was just reading through trying to figure out exactly how many miles of cable were laid and I came across this quote.
"We don't use satellites because they can't carry terabytes of data for less than a billion dollars per communication line."
Satellites are fake ISS is a lie k thx bai
-
"We don't use satellites because they can't carry terabytes of data for less than a billion dollars per communication line."
I think the data capacity is the main problem of satellite internet. If you are used to unlimited internet access, switching to satellite could be frustating.
-
https://www.quora.com/How-are-major-undersea-cables-laid-in-the-ocean (https://www.quora.com/How-are-major-undersea-cables-laid-in-the-ocean)
This article is quite interesting. I was just reading through trying to figure out exactly how many miles of cable were laid and I came across this quote.
"We don't use satellites because they can't carry terabytes of data for less than a billion dollars per communication line."
Satellites are fake ISS is a lie k thx bai
Whoever said that satellites were used for broadband internet?
They are not used for exactly the reason given "because they can't carry terabytes of data" at a reasonable cost.
BUT satellites ARE used for direct broadcast TV, GPS, Satellite Phone to remote areas and Internet (not very broadband) to remote areas.
Yes, I have used satellite phones (while travelling in outback Australia, hundreds of kilometres away from the nearest phone tower) and satellite internet access (a few times on board ship).
Communications satellites (as used for direct broadcast TV, phone and internet) are normally in Geosynchronous orbits (though the Iridium phone satellites are in lower orbits) and in high latitudes the signals can be blocked by mountains. I have noted that in the Norwegian Fjords.
Your fatuous reasoning is not the slightest evidence against satellites.
Makes about as much sense as saying that FA-18s cannot carry large numbers of passengers hence FA-18s are fake!
Try again!
-
https://www.quora.com/How-are-major-undersea-cables-laid-in-the-ocean (https://www.quora.com/How-are-major-undersea-cables-laid-in-the-ocean)
This article is quite interesting. I was just reading through trying to figure out exactly how many miles of cable were laid and I came across this quote.
"We don't use satellites because they can't carry terabytes of data for less than a billion dollars per communication line."
Satellites are fake ISS is a lie k thx bai
A company provides undersea fiber data links because fiber has advantages over satellite data links, therefore satellites don't exist? That's an interesting conclusion.
I think the data capacity is the main problem of satellite internet.
That and latency. The quarter second two-way time from ground to geostationary satellite and back can kill throughput if your data is a lot of small packets. It takes at least half a second to get an acknowledgement for each packet sent, because both the data packet and the "ack" packet must make the two-way trip.
If you are used to unlimited internet access, switching to satellite could be frustating.
It can be. My brother uses HughesNet satellite broadband (http://www.hughesnet.com/satellite-internet) because he lives in a rural area not served by wired or fiber broadband. It doesn't work well with VPNs, probably because of the latency, speed is expensive compared to terrestrial distribution, and it has a monthly quota less than a lot of people are used to. But it does work, and until someone strings a fiber down his road, it's his only choice.
Despite its limitations, satellite data links have the advantage of covering huge areas without terrestrial infrastructure.
-
Back in the 1930's they sent messages from the UK to the USA by bouncing them off the ionosphere, this could be what satellite dishes and phones are receiving information from.
Also, why doesn't anyone send messages using this technique anymore?
It's cheap and effective.
And uhh how did NASA talk to astronauts on the moon when radio waves can't get out?
-
Back in the 1930's they sent messages from the UK to the USA by bouncing them off the ionosphere, this could be what satellite dishes and phones are receiving information from.
Also, why doesn't anyone send messages using this technique anymore?
It's cheap and effective.
And uhh how did NASA talk to astronauts on the moon when radio waves can't get out?
"Also, why doesn't anyone send messages using this technique anymore?"
Because of the loss of detail and its dependability on weather. It's also not very practical because it only works for a very specific angle of incidence on the ionosphere, which results in massive "dead zones", where you can't communicate using this technique, either because the transmitter/receptor is too far away or too close.
"And uhh how did NASA talk to astronauts on the moon when radio waves can't get out?"
They can get out. Only frequencies below 50MHz, and only when they are directed at a specific angle to the ionosphere are reflected back on earth.
-
Because of the loss of detail and its dependability on weather
Yeah...
Hey, here's an idea; why don't they just spray cheap, radio-wave reflective particles out of airplanes to help alleviate these issues?
Then call em chemtrails, set up a massive but also cheap internet disinfo op to cover up what they're actually for, & Bob's your uncle: problem solved!
Would you like to help me count the chemtrails next time they're active, Rainman?
I think you'd enjoy it, because there will be lots & lots of them for you to count!
-
Wow that would be an epic campaign if that were true, that is why I come here for mind blowing ideas like that, and Qantas really being QSatan ^_^
Satellites are also weather dependent (or used to be?) So that's not a good argument
Is this why chemtrails are always sprayed in an X shape over the entire city so that they can be used for local GPS?
-
There's a thread about it on flat earth general & yes it is true.
The tech has been slowly developed since the 1940s at least & the 1st Gulf War was likely the big roll-out.
It's simple stuff, but meh...
Believe what you like.
-
I'm not doubting you as that is the only explanation of chemtrails that makes any sense.
These radio phones use the ionosphere
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotelephone#Marine_use
If their usage was merely made more efficient with computerized receiving stations they would be so similar to a satellite phone that noone could tell the difference
-
I'm not doubting you as that is the only explanation of chemtrails that makes any sense.
These radio phones use the ionosphere
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotelephone#Marine_use
If their usage was merely made more efficient with computerized receiving stations they would be so similar to a satellite phone that noone could tell the difference
You might not be able to tell the difference, but others can. It would be fairly simple to verify if the phone was trasmitting at 3-30 Mhz like the ones you linked, or above 1 Ghz which satellite phones work at. The antenna would be drastically different, the wavelength of a 30Mhz signal is 32 feet, even a 1/4 wavelength antenna would be 8 feet long.
-
I'm not doubting you as that is the only explanation of chemtrails that makes any sense.
These radio phones use the ionosphere
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotelephone#Marine_use
If their usage was merely made more efficient with computerized receiving stations they would be so similar to a satellite phone that noone could tell the difference
You will find cheaper satellite communication has taken over from this.
-
Because of the loss of detail and its dependability on weather
Yeah...
Hey, here's an idea; why don't they just spray cheap, radio-wave reflective particles out of airplanes to help alleviate these issues?
Then call em chemtrails, set up a massive but also cheap internet disinfo op to cover up what they're actually for, & Bob's your uncle: problem solved!
Would you like to help me count the chemtrails next time they're active, Rainman?
I think you'd enjoy it, because there will be lots & lots of them for you to count!
Lol
Clouds exist.
Lol
-
"Admission?" It's not like this was a secret. I thought everyone knew this. Guess not, but then again it's not a surprising reaction when it's a flat earther learning something about the way the world actually works.
-
Wow that would be an epic campaign if that were true, that is why I come here for mind blowing ideas like that, and Qantas really being QSatan ^_^
Satellites are also weather dependent (or used to be?) So that's not a good argument
Is this why chemtrails are always sprayed in an X shape over the entire city so that they can be used for local GPS?
Of course there are many problems that Papa Legba ignores. GPS doesn't stop working when there are no trails in the sky. A majority of the trails come from commercial aircraft. There is no proof of the claimed aluminum and barium content of the trails. Trying to get precision timing from a signal reflected off a constantly moving and shifting layer wouldn't work. etc.
-
I'm not doubting you as that is the only explanation of chemtrails that makes any sense.
These radio phones use the ionosphere
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotelephone#Marine_use
If their usage was merely made more efficient with computerized receiving stations they would be so similar to a satellite phone that noone could tell the difference
It seems to be tropospheric scatter more than ionospheric bouncing, but whatever the details it's the same shit they've always been doing for over a century.
It may have something to do with solar activity, too, but again, meh... Same shit.
As for the composition of the trails, any fine reflective particles would do the trick.
My guess is some kinda cheap industrial by-product like ash from power stations, incinerators, etc.
It's all pretty basic stuff, anyway.
This frenat guy is a total shill btw, just ignore him.
-
I'm not doubting you as that is the only explanation of chemtrails that makes any sense.
These radio phones use the ionosphere
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotelephone#Marine_use
If their usage was merely made more efficient with computerized receiving stations they would be so similar to a satellite phone that noone could tell the difference
It seems to be tropospheric scatter more than ionospheric bouncing, but whatever the details it's the same shit they've always been doing for over a century.
It may have something to do with solar activity, too, but again, meh... Same shit.
As for the composition of the trails, any fine reflective particles would do the trick.
My guess is some kinda cheap industrial by-product like ash from power stations, incinerators, etc.
It's all pretty basic stuff, anyway.
This frenat guy is a total shill btw, just ignore him.
Lol
So now chemtrails are fly ash?
Lol
Make up your mind.
Lol
-
I'm not doubting you as that is the only explanation of chemtrails that makes any sense.
These radio phones use the ionosphere
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotelephone#Marine_use
If their usage was merely made more efficient with computerized receiving stations they would be so similar to a satellite phone that noone could tell the difference
It seems to be tropospheric scatter more than ionospheric bouncing, but whatever the details it's the same shit they've always been doing for over a century.
It may have something to do with solar activity, too, but again, meh... Same shit.
As for the composition of the trails, any fine reflective particles would do the trick.
My guess is some kinda cheap industrial by-product like ash from power stations, incinerators, etc.
It's all pretty basic stuff, anyway.
This frenat guy is a total shill btw, just ignore him.
Yes, ignore me. Because you certainly can't refute what I said. But you don't care about facts, do you?
-
See?
Idiots.
-
If you could refute it, you would. You could start by posting evidence for your claimed content for "chemtrails". How do you KNOW they contain the aluminum and barium you claim?
-
The official explanation for chemtrails is that they reflect the sunlight away from the earth,so they are reflective.
-
And I thought it was for mind control.
-
And this is why sokarul is on my shit list
-
Wow that would be an epic campaign if that were true, that is why I come here for mind blowing ideas like that, and Qantas really being QSatan ^_^
Satellites are also weather dependent (or used to be?) So that's not a good argument
Is this why chemtrails are always sprayed in an X shape over the entire city so that they can be used for local GPS?
Einstein is reported to have claimed
“Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I am not yet completely sure about the universe.”
Maybe he a few Flat Earthers!
-
And this is why sokarul is on my shit list
Because searching for "chemtrail mind control" brings up zero results...or 458,000.
-
And this is why sokarul is on my shit list
He's on everyone's shit list.
The official explanation for chemtrails is that they reflect the sunlight away from the earth,so they are reflective.
Yeah, typical inversion of truth; tell people it's to reflect radiation back OUT rather than back IN.
Plus it ties in with the whole global warming scam: big $$$ in that bullshit.
-
Because of the loss of detail and its dependability on weather
Yeah...
Hey, here's an idea; why don't they just spray cheap, radio-wave reflective particles out of airplanes to help alleviate these issues?
Then call em chemtrails, set up a massive but also cheap internet disinfo op to cover up what they're actually for, & Bob's your uncle: problem solved!
Would you like to help me count the chemtrails next time they're active, Rainman?
I think you'd enjoy it, because there will be lots & lots of them for you to count!
Because that makes no sense, and I am surprised you can't see why.
-
Wow that would be an epic campaign if that were true, that is why I come here for mind blowing ideas like that, and Qantas really being QSatan ^_^
Satellites are also weather dependent (or used to be?) So that's not a good argument
Is this why chemtrails are always sprayed in an X shape over the entire city so that they can be used for local GPS?
I'm sorry, do you people actually believe this crap? GPS working thanks to chemtrails sprayed over the entirety of earth's atmosphere? WTF?
-
Wow that would be an epic campaign if that were true, that is why I come here for mind blowing ideas like that, and Qantas really being QSatan ^_^
Satellites are also weather dependent (or used to be?) So that's not a good argument
Is this why chemtrails are always sprayed in an X shape over the entire city so that they can be used for local GPS?
I'm sorry, do you people actually believe this crap? GPS working thanks to chemtrails sprayed over the entirety of earth's atmosphere? WTF?
Of course. A FE is pure fantasy. Anything works on it - without evidence. So you can have Moonshramp, GPS off of chemtrails, Dish TV off of invisible balloons/planes, etc. Whatever floats your boat.
One of the definitions of "fantasy" is "imagination unrestricted by reality".
-
Yes, chaff is a fantasy & does not exist & there is no precedent for dumping radio-reflective materials into the atmosphere from planes & you are not the thought-police at work.
We know the routine by now.
-
Hey, here's an idea; why don't they just spray cheap, radio-wave reflective particles out of airplanes to help alleviate these issues?
That is called jamming.
-
LOL!!!
Your posts are 'jamming'; they are defensive counter-measures aimed at preventing anyone getting a lock on the truth.
Nice new sig btw...
Original stuff there.
-
Your posts are 'jamming'; they are defensive counter-measures aimed at preventing anyone getting a lock on the truth.
Yes. I alone have the power to prevent anyone from
getting a lock on the truth. ::)
Even though the internet is LITERALLY one click away.
-
One less click away every time you lot astroturf any truthful information though...
Anyone with the slightest knowledge of miltary comms history should know instantly what chemtrails are for.
It is blindingly obvious.
Anyhoo; get astroturfing, losers.
-
One less click away every time you lot astroturf any truthful information though...
Anyone with the slightest knowledge of miltary comms history should know instantly what chemtrails are for.
It is blindingly obvious.
Anyhoo; get astroturfing, losers.
Chemtrails are used for either weather or behavior modification depending on who is using it and where. I don't entirely disagree with you on the subject of chemtrails since they are indeed a real thing. I just don't agree with you on the purpose. I'm having trouble finding these videos again but there was meteorologist who had some good videos explaining weather and Doppler and was able to show that every time CA was about to get some good ran, and plan would take off from a certain airport and fly a bath ahead of the system and then you just watch the system die out. Not definitive proof of anything but odd none the less.
As for the behavior part even the late Prince was noticing things in his neighborhood when he was younger. You should be able to find this story easy so I'll let you look (If I can find the other videos I mentioned I will post the link). Basically his neighbors were all nice and wonderful people but he would notice that after the plans flew over and started leaving those trails he would find a film of chemicals on the vehicles sometimes and that everyone in the neighbor started acting agitated and angry towards each other for no reason.
Now it is very possible it does have a communications reflecting aspect as well but I doubt the purpose would be to hide the shape of the Earth and make us think GPS is a thing when it is not. I feel like the Technocratic Elite that Eisenhower warned us about in his speech when he left office has better things to do.
-
Nice astoturfing.
Yet another click away from truth.
The purpose of chemtrails is not even slightly debatable to an intelligent, well informed mind.
Same as how a gas-powered rocket cannot possibly function in a vacuum...
So toodle-pip, 'satellites'.
Astroturf away, losers...
-
Nice astoturfing.
Yet another click away from truth.
The purpose of chemtrails is not even slightly debatable to an intelligent, well informed mind.
Same as how a gas-powered rocket cannot possibly function in a vacuum...
So toodle-pip, 'satellites'.
Astroturf away, losers...
Dishes point at satellites.
-
The purpose of chemtrails is not even slightly debatable to an intelligent, well informed mind.
It is, which is why I'm confused on your conclusions.
-
The purpose of chemtrails is not even slightly debatable to an intelligent, well informed mind.
It is, which is why I'm confused on your conclusions.
It took chemtrails for Legba to confuse you? You're either a brilliant man, or more nuts than all of the Amazon, if you've understood him until now. ::)
-
The purpose of chemtrails is not even slightly debatable to an intelligent, well informed mind.
It is, which is why I'm confused on your conclusions.
It is not, which explains your confusion.
The purpose of chemtrails is not even slightly debatable to an intelligent, well informed mind.
It is, which is why I'm confused on your conclusions.
It took chemtrails for Legba to confuse you? You're either a brilliant man, or more nuts than all of the Amazon, if you've understood him until now. ::)
This is pure astroturfing gibberish, written by either an autist or an AI (same thing).
-
Some Satellite internet is just above dial up and some are as high as any DSL or Cable
I set up quite a few dishes and believe me,if they arent pointed properly,you can hunt for a signal for days before the dish finds one. As soon as you point it in the right direction. BAM! your on.
THE FISHY THING seems to be> the satellites are always in space in the same exact spot at all times. With all the spinning around it seems NOT LOGICAL. Reason being is that gravity just dont explain these little things in orbit staying there when tiny asteroids or comets dont just hang out in orbit... FLAT EARTH AND FIRMAMENT PROOF IMO
So those of you that think they are cell towers and not GPS satellites,4get that idea..
Cell towers are used yes as repeaters or recievers that then connect to your cell.
Thats why areas like alaska have no cell signals. Cause theres no towers in range.Theres ALOT of towers around from old school cells. And the very tops of them are used to scramble our brains cause that tech is useless for anything other than elf waves vlf waves .
They are mini gwen towers.
Consider the amount of power that is needed to transmit that data!
Operating at 5-20kw depending on low or high orbit.
They use solar cells to charge lithium batteries using triple stacked cells that see 3 levels of light.
20kw is equivelent to CNG gas . Constant CNG gas.
The satellite charging systems can run an electric car .
I always felt that the amount of power needed to run satellites transfering those amounts of datas and infos would be too much to be realistic.
-
Internet access using satellites is known, proven and documented.
-
Someone's recently mentioned that bouncing signals off the ionosphere would require accuracy, Maybe that's what the dishes are receiving signals from
-
Someone's recently mentioned that bouncing signals off the ionosphere would require accuracy, Maybe that's what the dishes are receiving signals from
Can you prove it? Because I can tell you the ephemeris and orbital elements of the satellite that provides my family's Internet service.
-
I'd like to see hollow sun respond because he sounds like he knows about this stuff
-
Someone's recently mentioned that bouncing signals off the ionosphere would require accuracy, Maybe that's what the dishes are receiving signals from
Bouncing microwave signals off the ionosphere - Really? The ionosphere is a very poor reflector for microwave, you could get some unreliable medium distance transmission by tropospheric scatter, that's all.
Microwaves
Microwaves are sometimes considered to be very short radio waves (highfrequency and high-energy radio waves).
Some important properties of microwaves are:
- They are reflected by metal surfaces.
- They heat materials if they can make atoms or molecules in the material vibrate. The amount of heating depends on the intensity of the microwave radiation, and the time that the material is exposed to the radiation.
- They pass through glass and plastics.
- They pass through the atmosphere.
- They pass through the ionosphere without being reflected.
- They are absorbed by water molecules, how well depends on the frequency (energy) of the microwaves.
- Transmission is affected by wave effects such as reflection, refraction, diffraction and interference.
From: Radio Waves Microwaves (http://revisionworld.com/gcse-revision/physics/electromagnetic-radiation/radio-waves-microwaves)
Give up! Direct View Satellite TV uses Geostationary Satellites.
An astronomical telescope can see them stationary against the moving background of stars.
-
300km ain't bad
How far did the analog TV transmitters broadcast back in the day?
-
300km ain't bad
How far did the analog TV transmitters broadcast back in the day?
You seem genuinely interested in this stuff.
In which case the subject of Noctilucent Clouds may be worth investigating; no-one had ever seen one before 1885 but now they're everywhere.
Strange, huh?
-
300km ain't bad
How far did the analog TV transmitters broadcast back in the day?
I'm guessing (and trying to remember back over a decade), but I think we got reasonable pictures to 50 km or so, then the "snow" started to get degrade the picture. Analogue TV degrades gradually, but digital TV works almost perfectly to a certain threshold then degrades rapidly. Of course the range depends a lot on the antennas used and the terrain.
But with satellite TV, the one satellite over the equator can cover the whole of Australia around 5,000 km horizontally from satellites at an altitude of 35,786 km. Mind the dishes in Tasmania seem to aim near to horizontal.
And no, don't suggest reflection from anything within the atmosphere, it just is nothing like high enough to give that sort of range.
Of course, you might ask how do you transmit a TV signal around 40,000 km?
Most of this distance is through near vacuum which does not attenuate the signal, while only 20 km or so is in the atmosphere.
-
only 20 km or so is in the atmosphere.
So the atmosphere's only 20km thick, is it?
LMFAO!!!
How drunk are you today, Geoff?
-
only 20 km or so is in the atmosphere.
So the atmosphere's only 20km thick, is it?
LMFAO!!!
How drunk are you today, Geoff?
- As you know quite well I have no connection with anyone called Geoff, so that makes you a liar!
- The effective height of the atmosphere (50% of air mass) is really rather less than 10 km, but I was allowing a bit for the slant distance!
2.3 VERTICAL PROFILES OF PRESSURE AND TEMPERATURE
The troposphere extends from the surface to 8-18 km altitude depending on latitude and season.
.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The troposphere accounts for 90% of total atmospheric mass at 30°N (85% globally).
from: CHAPTER 2. ATMOSPHERIC PRESSURE (http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap2.html)
In other words the effective thickness of the atmosphere is actually much less than 20 km.
So who is the lying one posting drunk!
Next time, make sure you know what you are talking about!
That would be a first of course. How much do you get paid to push threads off the rails? I would never voluntarily make such an idiot of myself.
-
I set up quite a few dishes and believe me,if they arent pointed properly,you can hunt for a signal for days before the dish finds one. As soon as you point it in the right direction. BAM! your on.
THE FISHY THING seems to be> the satellites are always in space in the same exact spot at all times. With all the spinning around it seems NOT LOGICAL.
You might want to read about geostationary orbit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geostationary_orbit). It's a circular orbit with a period that matches the rotation period of the Earth with the equatorial plane as its orbital plane, so that the orbiting object stays at the same spot directly over the equator. Because it's always at the same height above the same spot on earth, it's always in the same place in the sky from anywhere on earth where it's above the horizon. The principle is really quite simple.
Reason being is that gravity just dont explain these little things in orbit staying there when tiny asteroids or comets dont just hang out in orbit...
All those other things you mention aren't in geostationary orbits. That's all. In fact, they are orbiting the Sun, not the Earth.
FLAT EARTH AND FIRMAMENT PROOF IMO
Thank you for sharing your opinion.
-
I'd like to see hollow sun respond because he sounds like he knows about this stuff
You should really work on your source credibility decision making if you thing hollow sun sounds like he knows what he is talking about. Geosationary orbits are fishy to him and he believes "gravity just dont explain" them.
In all honesty I wouldn't take any one on these forums to be a credible source of information, it isn't like the experts in the field of satellite telemetry cruise flat Earth forums in their off time. This site attracts the crazies and the people who like to poke the crazies.
-
In other words the effective thickness of the atmosphere is actually much less than 20 km.
It gets smaller now, Geoff?
So drunk...
-
The Allies had GPS in ww2 using the ionosphere and a few radio antennae
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LORAN
-
That's not GPS.
-
What's the difference
-
How the system works. Where the system is used. The area of coverage.
-
-how it works
It's proof of concept, microwaves could also be used or some other wave
-where
It's basically global, very few antennae are needed
It was even made available to the public in the 70's
It works on land and sea.
It makes more financial sense than using satellites that have to avoid micrometeors constantly
-
Except for it would be alot harder to implement overall land than you think. Plus the accuracy isn't even close to that of GPS.
I thought you gave up on the flat earth when you debunked it yourself when you asked how people in Australia and South America can see the same stars when looking south.
-
Difficult to do on land? There are towers and antennae everywhere...
I have no idea what shape the earth is,and I'm seeing no evidence for any spacecraft or anything outside the atmosphere
-
The Allies had GPS in ww2 using the ionosphere and a few radio antennae
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LORAN
Yes, but apart from all the other problems, however would you fit a Loran antenna into a watch?
Keep on dreaming, but satellites are used for GPS, direct view satellite TV and geostationary weather observation,as well as many other applications.
You don't have any evidence to the contrary, only your NASAphobia, even though many of these satellites are launched by other agencies.
Funny how people without the slightest idea on radio propagation can pontificate of these matters.
-
however would you fit a Loran antenna into a watch?
There were a lot of things you couldn't fit in a watch during WW2 but are now easily incorporated...
Some of them didn't even exist back then!
You are - as usual - utterly mental, Geoff.
-
however would you fit a Loran antenna into a watch?
There were a lot of things you couldn't fit in a watch during WW2 but are now easily incorporated...
Some of them didn't even exist back then!
You are - as usual - utterly mental, Geoff.
I might be tempted to believe you if you could come up with the actual details of this "Loran system" that uses frequencies high enough for such miniature antennas to be feasible and yet still uses ionospheric reflection.
Then tell us the range of these "Loran Transmitters" and how they could possibly have had coverage over the whole outback Australia 15 years ago.
Time for you to come up with some information instead of your usual wise-cracks and simple denials.
And you are still a liar because you know very well that I have no connection with any Geoff on this site.
In case you really think I am the only Australian, there actually are about 24,081,978 others, at least there were on 23 May 2016 at 09:03:20 PM.
-
[quote author=rabinoz link=topic=66788.msg1783595#msg1783595
I might be tempted to believe you if you could come up with the actual details of this "Loran system" that uses frequencies high enough for such miniature antennas to be feasible and yet still uses ionospheric reflection.
[/quote]
Easy; it's called 'GPS'.
And I never said anything about the ionosphere.
I said troposcatter was more likely.
But it's all just bouncing signals around the sky, same as it always has been but with better & better tech; because comms tech has improved a lot since WW2...
Even an old soldier such as yourself should know that, Tommy Atkins.
Anyhoo; your silly flying trashcan 'satellites', that were dreamt up by a paedophile homosexual science-fiction hack btw, have nothing to do with it.
And everybody knows you are Geoff; give it up, eh?
-
however would you fit a Loran antenna into a watch?
There were a lot of things you couldn't fit in a watch during WW2 but are now easily incorporated...
Some of them didn't even exist back then!
You are - as usual - utterly mental, Geoff.
I might be tempted to believe you if you could come up with the actual details of this "Loran system" that uses frequencies high enough for such miniature antennas to be feasible and yet still uses ionospheric reflection.
Then tell us the range of these "Loran Transmitters" and how they could possibly have had coverage over the whole outback Australia 15 years ago.
Time for you to come up with some information instead of your usual wise-cracks and simple denials.
And you are still a liar because you know very well that I have no connection with any Geoff on this site.
In case you really think I am the only Australian, there actually are about 24,081,978 others, at least there were on 23 May 2016 at 09:03:20 PM.
I would leave Papa Legba alone - I have. His stuff is just not worth responding to. He as some sort of fixation on someone named Geoff. Let it go...
When posters invoke "paedophile homosexual" or "Satan" to discuss things, I just stop answering such quacks... I suggest you do the same. These people need to grow up...
-
Are you saying that Arthur C Clarke was not a homosexual paedophile?
Because it is a matter of record that he was.
Why do you think he skedaddled to Sri Lanka to live with his 'house-boys' when things got too hot in England?
As for the Geoff business; it is blatantly obvious that one Australia-based person is running a sock-army here...
Geoff is just a catch-all term for this person.
You can pretend he doesn't exist if you like?
But he does; & we all see him...
& he is very, very, very shit at his shit job indeed.
Toodle-pip, not-Geoff & his not-a-sock-puppet army!
-
As for the Geoff business; it is blatantly obvious that one Australia-based person is running a sock-army here...
I just like calling Papa Legba what he is - a blatant liar who is a total, idiot and knows nothing about me.
No as far as I know no memebers in Australia run anything together. It is just that most Globe supporters know the Globe pretty well, while all Flat Earther seem to have their own ideas on gravity and everything else.
I know Papa's not a Flat Earther or a proper Globe supporter - seems he's probably not even human.
The nearest I can guess is that he's paid to disrupt any serious discussion!
-
Difficult to do on land? There are towers and antennae everywhere...
If you read up you will see the most accurate wave from Loran is the groundwave. Those don't work well in mountainous terrain. Cell and radio doesn't even cover the whole earth, but you think some secret Loran towers do? The 200+ meter towers.
I have no idea what shape the earth is,and I'm seeing no evidence for any spacecraft or anything outside the atmosphere
You changed the subject from stars to satellites because you know there is no answer to the star problem.
-
https://www.quora.com/How-are-major-undersea-cables-laid-in-the-ocean (https://www.quora.com/How-are-major-undersea-cables-laid-in-the-ocean)
This article is quite interesting. I was just reading through trying to figure out exactly how many miles of cable were laid and I came across this quote.
"We don't use satellites because they can't carry terabytes of data for less than a billion dollars per communication line."
Satellites are fake ISS is a lie k thx bai
The biggest objection I have to this whole thread is simply the title
"Admission that they don't use satellite for internet"
Calling it an admission is a blatant distortion of the facts!
When has anyone ever claimed that broadband internet (30 Mbits/sec plus) ever used satellites for connection to users?
Satellite internet connection (but not broadband) and direct view TV is common in remote areas of Australia, as any examination of available evidence will prove.
If you deny this, please explain how a caravanner (yes, I am one and a member of a club with wide connections) with Satellite TV can go to any remote area in Australia, aim the dish at a known location[1] over the equator and get TV signal.
No phone towers within hundreds of kilometres!
So the intent of the whole whole thread is simply a distortion of the facts and so claiming this statement as any evidence of
Satellites being fake ISS being a lie is a complete fabrication by a dishonest FEer who can't face simple FACTS!
[1] Just look up Satsig.net web (http://www.satsig.net/maps/satellite-tv-dish-pointing-australia-new-zealand.htm). eg on the "Gunbarrel Highway" at 25.0932° S, 126.6439° E, point your Dish elevation= 42.8°, Azimuth= 54.3° (magnetic compass), Polarisation= 49.6° for the 160E Optus D1 satellite.
Try to explain how that dish is pointing at any structure on Earth!
-
-how it works
It's proof of concept, microwaves could also be used or some other wave
-where
It's basically global, very few antennae are needed
It was even made available to the public in the 70's
It works on land and sea.
It's also being phased out in favor or GPS.
-
All you have to do is extrapolate a little.
If a proto-GPS system existed 70 years ago, and didn't need satellites,and only needed one base every 2400km
It's not too much of a stretch of the imagination to think that an improved system exists now with no satellites necessary.
It doesn't have to use radio waves either.
-
All you have to do is extrapolate a little.
If a proto-GPS system existed 70 years ago, and didn't need satellites,and only needed one base every 1400km
It's not too much of a stretch of the imagination to think that an improved system exists now with no satellites necessary.
It doesn't have to use radio waves either.
You have no idea what extrapolation is, because it certainly doesn't apply in this case. Don't you know that with a GPS program and a receiver, you can see which satellites it's connecting to and view the raw data? Not to mention that you can see the GPS satellites in orbit at night.
-
It doesn't have to use radio waves either.
"It doesn't have to use radio waves either." Really?
:P ::) An I suppose it now uses well trained carrier pigeons! ::) :P
-
Microwaves duh
GPS units offer an option to convert to LORAN units in the options screen
-
Microwaves duh
GPS units offer an option to convert to LORAN units in the options screen
;D ;D ;D And you claim Microwaves are not Radio Waves ;D ;D ;D Back to school!
"GPS units offer an option to convert to LORAN units in the options screen"! Show me some!
Yes, some marine GPS units might, but the handheld GPS units (I had had one or more for the last 14 years), in car navigators and mobile phones with GPS do NOT have any Loran option. Loran has NEVER had worldwide coverage. GPS is worldwide, though "flaky" in the Polar regions.
Please explain how my GPS (in car and hand-held) worked perfectly all over outback Australia, many times hundreds of kilometres from any mobile phone towers. And, yes I also had a Satellite phone for phone coverage in those areas.
All you have is guess and maybe - learn a bit about radio propagation etc before spouting off you imaginary hypotheses!
Yes, I did a bit on radio propagation in my 40 years in that general topic!
-
It doesn't have to use radio waves either.
Microwaves duh
Duh indeed!
-
Yes it was a marine GPS unit with the option to convert to LORAN
In the fifties they covered Alaska with a network of stations using tropospheric methods of propagation.
It was called White Alice, so it's possible Australia has a network of even more advanced stations that use technology which allows a very small number of stations to cover the entire country.
Using tropospheric ducting
It's possible to recieve signals in Hawaii from Mexico which is 2500 miles.
But on the average day the signals travel 800 miles.
Australia is 2500 miles wide so there you go,very few stations needed.
Tropospheric ducting works with microwaves and radio waves.
-
Yes it was a marine GPS unit with the option to convert to LORAN
In the fifties they covered Alaska with a network of stations using tropospheric methods of propagation.
It was called White Alice, so it's possible Australia has a network of even more advanced stations that use technology which allows a very small number of stations to cover the entire country.
Using tropospheric ducting
It's possible to recieve signals in Hawaii from Mexico which is 2500 miles.
But on the average day the signals travel 800 miles.
Australia is 2500 miles wide so there you go,very few stations needed.
Tropospheric ducting works with microwaves and radio waves.
GPS in cars, tablets, phones etc. uses satellites.
-
Yes it was a marine GPS unit with the option to convert to LORAN
In the fifties they covered Alaska with a network of stations using tropospheric methods of propagation.
It was called White Alice, so it's possible Australia has a network of even more advanced stations that use technology which allows a very small number of stations to cover the entire country.
Using tropospheric ducting
It's possible to recieve signals in Hawaii from Mexico which is 2500 miles.
But on the average day the signals travel 800 miles.
Australia is 2500 miles wide so there you go,very few stations needed.
Tropospheric ducting works with microwaves and radio waves.
GPS in cars, tablets, phones etc. uses satellites.
Wow, I did not know there were satellite dishes in those devices that point to a specific spot in the sky in order for you to know that. Thanks for sharing. ::)
-
Yes it was a marine GPS unit with the option to convert to LORAN
In the fifties they covered Alaska with a network of stations using tropospheric methods of propagation.
It was called White Alice, so it's possible Australia has a network of even more advanced stations that use technology which allows a very small number of stations to cover the entire country.
Using tropospheric ducting
It's possible to recieve signals in Hawaii from Mexico which is 2500 miles.
But on the average day the signals travel 800 miles.
Australia is 2500 miles wide so there you go,very few stations needed.
Tropospheric ducting works with microwaves and radio waves.
GPS in cars, tablets, phones etc. uses satellites.
Wow, I did not know there were satellite dishes in those devices that point to a specific spot in the sky in order for you to know that. Thanks for sharing. ::)
GPS satellites aren't geostationary.
-
Yes it was a marine GPS unit with the option to convert to LORAN
In the fifties they covered Alaska with a network of stations using tropospheric methods of propagation.
It was called White Alice, so it's possible Australia has a network of even more advanced stations that use technology which allows a very small number of stations to cover the entire country.
Using tropospheric ducting
It's possible to recieve signals in Hawaii from Mexico which is 2500 miles.
But on the average day the signals travel 800 miles.
Australia is 2500 miles wide so there you go,very few stations needed.
Tropospheric ducting works with microwaves and radio waves.
GPS in cars, tablets, phones etc. uses satellites.
Wow, I did not know there were satellite dishes in those devices that point to a specific spot in the sky in order for you to know that. Thanks for sharing. ::)
GPS satellites aren't geostationary.
Wow, you are so smart. Please, share more of your knowledge about these flying trash cans. All of us are to stupid to know what they claim satellites do, but sokarul is a genius and can explain it it us idiots. ::)
-
Yes it was a marine GPS unit with the option to convert to LORAN
In the fifties they covered Alaska with a network of stations using tropospheric methods of propagation.
It was called White Alice, so it's possible Australia has a network of even more advanced stations that use technology which allows a very small number of stations to cover the entire country.
Using tropospheric ducting
It's possible to recieve signals in Hawaii from Mexico which is 2500 miles.
But on the average day the signals travel 800 miles.
Australia is 2500 miles wide so there you go,very few stations needed.
Tropospheric ducting works with microwaves and radio waves.
GPS in cars, tablets, phones etc. uses satellites.
Wow, I did not know there were satellite dishes in those devices that point to a specific spot in the sky in order for you to know that. Thanks for sharing. ::)
GPS satellites aren't geostationary.
Wow, you are so smart. Please, share more of your knowledge about these flying trash cans. All of us are to[sic] stupid to know what they claim satellites do, but sokarul is a genius and can explain it it us idiots. ::)
Well another thing is that the GPS satellites broadcast their position. So you don't need to try and locate them with a satilite dish.
-
Yes it was a marine GPS unit with the option to convert to LORAN
In the fifties they covered Alaska with a network of stations using tropospheric methods of propagation.
It was called White Alice, so it's possible Australia has a network of even more advanced stations that use technology which allows a very small number of stations to cover the entire country.
Using tropospheric ducting
It's possible to recieve signals in Hawaii from Mexico which is 2500 miles.
But on the average day the signals travel 800 miles.
Australia is 2500 miles wide so there you go,very few stations needed.
Tropospheric ducting works with microwaves and radio waves.
GPS in cars, tablets, phones etc. uses satellites.
Wow, I did not know there were satellite dishes in those devices that point to a specific spot in the sky in order for you to know that. Thanks for sharing. ::)
GPS satellites aren't geostationary.
Wow, you are so smart. Please, share more of your knowledge about these flying trash cans. All of us are to[sic] stupid to know what they claim satellites do, but sokarul is a genius and can explain it it us idiots. ::)
Well another thing is that the GPS satellites broadcast their position. So you don't need to try and locate them with a satilite dish.
How many times have you decoded their position from their signals and then triangulated their positions in order to figure out your own? Oh, never? Interesting how you bring that up then.
-
7
-
It's weird how TV satellites need an exact angle on the dish, but GPS units use the same technology and don't use dishes or need to be pointed, and there are only 24 satellites for the entire planet.
-
7
I am sorry, was that too technological for you? Do you need for me to break it down into small, manageable pieces for you to digest?
-
It's weird how TV satellites need an exact angle on the dish, but GPS units use the same technology and don't use dishes or need to be pointed, and there are only 24 satellites for the entire planet.
Clearly it is magic that allows GPS to operate.
-
It's weird how TV satellites need an exact angle on the dish, but GPS units use the same technology and don't use dishes or need to be pointed, and there are only 24 satellites for the entire planet.
all easily explained if you look it up.
-
It's weird how TV satellites need an exact angle on the dish, but GPS units use the same technology and don't use dishes or need to be pointed, and there are only 24 satellites for the entire planet.
Clearly it is magic that allows GPS to operate.
Nope, just omni receivers. GPS signals don't need very high bandwidth like satellite TV or internet applications do, and the satellites are much closer, so a small omni antenna receiver will suffice instead of a directional (dish) antenna.
-
Why are GPS satellites closer?
-
Why are GPS satellites closer?
Is your Google broken?
-
Why are GPS satellites closer?
GPS satellites are in semi-synchronous orbits of about 20,200 km altitude. TV and internet satellites are in geostationary orbits of 35,786 km altitude.
-
I tried google but no luck,
-
I tried google but no luck,
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Comparison_satellite_navigation_orbits.svg (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b4/Comparison_satellite_navigation_orbits.svg)
-
That doesnt answer why
-
That doesnt answer why
Because it takes less power to communicate with than geostationary, it helps maximize ground coverage and minimize orbital decay compared to satellites in LEO, and semi-synchronous orbits are easier to work with mathematically.
-
Most if not all satellites should be at that distance if there are no disadvantages
-
Most if not all satellites should be at that distance if there are no disadvantages
The disadvantage is that the satellites don't stay in one place for directional antennas like a geostationary satellite would, and it takes more fuel and signal strength to reach a semi-synchronous orbit than a low-earth orbit. Another disadvantage is that the repeating ground track means it's not good for surface scanning. Trust me, each satellite's orbit is carefully selected for the task at hand. There is no catch-all orbit.
-
Most if not all satellites should be at that distance if there are no disadvantages
;D :o ::) Now you are the expert at optimum satellite placement! ::) :o ;D
Why don't you hire out your expertise to NASA, you get make a fortune!
-
I can't make money on things that don't exist unless I work in Hollywood
Anything a satellite can do for a billion dollars,a tower can do for a few million.
Tropospheric ducting means entire oceans can be covered by a few towers.
The white Alice program already covered Alaska so with today's signal propagation techniques Australia is probably not too difficult.
Satellites cannot be repaired, if a battery or solar panel wears out you have to spend billions on a new ,satellite, they also have to be manouvered out of the way of micro meteors,when do they run out of fuel?
-
Most if not all satellites should be at that distance if there are no disadvantages
;D :o ::) Now you are the expert at optimum satellite placement! ::) :o ;D
Why don't you hire out your expertise to NASA, you get make a fortune!
lol, but no. Why would anyone freely give their information to NASA? Are you high?
-
"lol, but no. Why would anyone freely give their information to NASA? Are you high? " Is this a real question for Americans? Does your government not already have every single detail of you stored somewhere?
They probably have of me too, I'm just asking.
-
I can't make money on things that don't exist unless I work in Hollywood
Anything a satellite can do for a billion dollars,a tower can do for a few million.
Tropospheric ducting means entire oceans can be covered by a few towers.
The white Alice program already covered Alaska so with today's signal propagation techniques Australia is probably not too difficult.
Satellites cannot be repaired, if a battery or solar panel wears out you have to spend billions on a new ,satellite, they also have to be manouvered out of the way of micro meteors,when do they run out of fuel?
TV from satellites works.
-
So do Tropospheric Ducting & Troposcatter.
Which are both easily enhanced by spraying radio-reflective muck out the back of airplanes.
Hence 'Chemtrails'...
Or 'Comm-trails' as they should be called.
Simple, eh?
-
The troposphere is the same height as those planes too :)
-
Chemtrails are really clouds.
-
So do Tropospheric Ducting & Troposcatter.
Which are both easily enhanced by spraying radio-reflective muck out the back of airplanes.
Hence 'Chemtrails'...
Or 'Comm-trails' as they should be called.
Simple, eh?
Nothing to do with receiving tv from satellites.
-
So do Tropospheric Ducting & Troposcatter.
Which are both easily enhanced by spraying radio-reflective muck out the back of airplanes.
Hence 'Chemtrails'...
Or 'Comm-trails' as they should be called.
Simple, eh?
How many times do you have to be told that "Tropospheric Ducting & Troposcatter" cannot transmit microwaves (3 to 12 GHz or so) over any large distance.
How many times do you have to be told that to receive satellite TV you have to point a dish with a very narrow reception angle at a specific location over the equator.
Still what would the Papa Bot know about things like this.
-
Satellite TV and chemtrails - is there a link????!!???
-
Ducting travels about 2000-3000miles over water and 800 miles over land look on Wikipedia
Of course I have looked in Wikipedia!
Tropospheric propagation
Tropospheric ducting over water, particularly between California and Hawaii, Brazil and Africa, Australia and New Zealand, Australia and Indonesia, Strait of Florida, and Bahrain and Pakistan, has produced VHF/UHF reception ranging from 1000 to 3,000 miles (1,600 – 4,800 km). A US listening post was built in Ethiopia to exploit a common ducting of signals from southern Russia.
Tropospheric signals exhibit a slow cycle of fading and will occasionally produce signals sufficiently strong for noise-free stereo, reception of Radio Data System(RDS) data, and solid locks of HD Radio streams on FM or noise-free, color TV pictures.
From Tropospheric Ducting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropospheric_propagation#Tropospheric_ducting).
You might notice "has produced VHF/UHF reception ranging from 1000 to 3,000 miles" and "occasionally produce signals sufficiently strong for noise-free stereo".
- It is NOT a reliable means of communication, particularly of wide band data.
- It does not cover the frequency bands used for Satellite TV - 10.7 GHz to 12.75 GHz.
So it does not wash!
And you still have not faced up to the FACT that travellers can go to any location in outback Australia point their narrow angle at a predetermined azimuth and bearing and get TV signals with a receiver that covers a band for which ducting simply does not occur.
Satellite TV uses satellites - it's that simple!
-
Chemtrails are reliable :)
Or the more politically correct thing of calling them clouds, Wikipedia says the clouds contain reflective materials.
-
"lol, but no. Why would anyone freely give their information to NASA? Are you high? " Is this a real question for Americans? Does your government not already have every single detail of you stored somewhere?
They probably have of me too, I'm just asking.
Our government knows when you are sleeping and knows when you're awake. That doesn't mean you should cooperate with NASA.
-
"lol, but no. Why would anyone freely give their information to NASA? Are you high? " Is this a real question for Americans? Does your government not already have every single detail of you stored somewhere?
They probably have of me too, I'm just asking.
Our government knows when you are sleeping and knows when you're awake. That doesn't mean you should cooperate with NASA.
That doesn't, but you still should. They've consistently proven to be trustworthy, despite your best efforts to prove otherwise.
-
OK found it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noctilucent_cloud
These clouds reflect the microwaves of low frequency
If satellites were real their signals would get bounced back by these clouds.
-
OK found it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noctilucent_cloud
These clouds reflect the microwaves of low frequency
But diffusely, not specularly. Meaning they're not good for accurate signal reflection.
-
So do Tropospheric Ducting & Troposcatter.
Troposcatter works in the 2GHz range.
Tropospheric ducting works between 300MHz and 3GHz (UHF).
Satellite TV and internet work the 18GHz range (Ka band).
-
OK found it
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noctilucent_cloud
These clouds reflect the microwaves of low frequency
If satellites were real their signals would get bounced back by these clouds.
You claim
"If satellites were real their signals would get bounced back by these clouds." NO, just because a bit is reflected does NOT mean most is blocked.
This is so utterly stupidly wrong that it proves conclusively that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Noctilucent cloud
Noctilucent clouds are known to exhibit high radar reflectivity, in a frequency range of 50 MHz to 1.3 GHz.
BUT, this is NOT the frequency range used by direct broadcast TV satellites[/b]
ALL Satellite TV uses microwave frequencies!
The Optus D1 Satellite servicing Australia and New Zealand uses Downlink Frequencies: 12.25 - 12.75 GHz.
Go learn a bit about your magic Noctilucent Clouds:
Ice iron/sodium film as cause for high noctilucent cloud radar reflectivity
Noctilucent clouds (also called polar mesospheric clouds) exist at ∼85 km, an altitude much higher than ordinary clouds and have a vertical extent of 1–2 km. Because of their many unusual properties noctilucent clouds have received considerable attention in recent years. It is now known that noctilucent clouds consist of tiny, extremely cold grains of water ice that can be either negatively or positively charged. Noctilucent clouds occur only when the ambient temperature is ∼150 K, a situation that occurs at 85 km altitude in polar regions during the summer.
From: Journal of Geophysical Research (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JD009927/full).
And don't listen to your mad mate Papa Legba say that these clouds are being seeded by aircraft - 85 km is just a bit high!
You should learn by heart: A little learning is a dangerous thing;
drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
there shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
and drinking largely sobers us again. |
-
And don't listen to your mad mate Papa Legba say that these clouds are being seeded by aircraft
Please find a post where I said they were being seeded by aircraft, Geoff.
I simply said that they had never been observed before 1885 & now they're everywhere.
I have also said that I am not especially interested in the precise details of the whole comm-trail/radio-wave reflectivity enhancement operation.
I just know it exists, same as I know satellites & 'space travel' do not exist.
If ex-globe is inclined to research those details then good luck to him, because he will be up against a vast disinformation operation designed specifically to distract him from finding out the facts.
Won't he, Geoff?
-
Poor Papa! He's still pining for Geoff and there isn't any Geoff around to respond!
I guess he's feeling guilty and holds himself to blame for all the Geoff's leaving! Can't say I blame them, and now Papa's going from bad to worse.
When I joined Papa almost made sense, but he's almost unintelligible now, poor fellow! That's what guilt does to you.
He's almost "sub-clinically neurotic". Or as a psychiatrist would say, "stark staring bonkers".
Apologies to Flanders and Swann
Maybe it's a case of:
And an answer came directed in a writing unexpected,
(And I think the same was written in a thumbnail dipped in tar)
'Twas his shearing mate who wrote it, and verbatim I will quote it:
"Geoff's gone to Queensland droving, and we don't know where he are."
Though I'm thinkin' 'is shearin' mate's got it wrong, 'cos I ain't seen 'im up 'ere. 'e musta be still over the border down Mexico way.
Can't 'elp ya Papa, I dunna where 'e are.
-
And don't listen to your mad mate Papa Legba say that these clouds are being seeded by aircraft
Please find a post where I said they were being seeded by aircraft, Geoff.
I simply said that they had never been observed before 1885 & now they're everywhere.
I have also said that I am not especially interested in the precise details of the whole comm-trail/radio-wave reflectivity enhancement operation.
I just know it exists, same as I know satellites & 'space travel' do not exist.
If ex-globe is inclined to research those details then good luck to him, because he will be up against a vast disinformation operation designed specifically to distract him from finding out the facts.
Won't he, Geoff?
-
Poor Papa! He's still pining for Geoff and there isn't any Geoff around to respond!
I guess he's feeling guilty and holds himself to blame for all the Geoff's leaving! Can't say I blame them, and now Papa's going from bad to worse.
When he calls you Geoff, call him markjo!
-
Poor Papa! He's still pining for Geoff and there isn't any Geoff around to respond!
I guess he's feeling guilty and holds himself to blame for all the Geoff's leaving! Can't say I blame them, and now Papa's going from bad to worse.
When he calls you Geoff, call him markjo!
Doesn't Poppy like markjo? If I call him anything it will be a lot worse than markjo!
-
And don't listen to your mad mate Papa Legba say that these clouds are being seeded by aircraft
Please find a post where I said they were being seeded by aircraft, Geoff.
I simply said that they had never been observed before 1885 & now they're everywhere.
Bacteria had never been observed before the invention of the microscope and now they're everywhere. :o
-
Noctilucent clouds are visible to the naked eye, idiot.
But good work coming to the aid of your floundering & terminally-crippled disinfo-buddy with irrelevant time-wasting bullshit...
Seems completely normal behaviour, totally legit, etc; all in a day's work for the Clown Derf Thought-Police.
-
Noctilucent clouds are visible to the naked eye, idiot.
Who was seeding the noctilucent clouds back in the 1890s?
-
Google seems to have broken for you, markjo...
Just like it does for every shill, ever, on every occasion they need to waste people's time with tedious shitpost irrelevancies.
Have you done enough to help out your disgraced piss-head shill-buddy Geoff yet, markjo?
Or are you going to carry on with this farce?
-
I did do the research before posting, I found this...
GPS satellites use the exact same frequency that noctilucent clouds reflect!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L_band
I didn't imagine that the other bands would be used as evidence and the L band ignored by the trolls,nice try at disinfo.
Also these clouds appear at 50 degrees latitude and higher in the North which covers a lot of cities.
Any city in the North of England and Scotland and the Netherlands just for a couple of examples.
Also 50 degrees South and lower.
-
I did do the research before posting, I found this...
GPS satellites use the exact same frequency that noctilucent clouds reflect!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/L_band
I didn't imagine that the other bands would be used as evidence and the L band ignored by the trolls,nice try at disinfo.
Also these clouds appear at 50 degrees latitude and higher in the North which covers a lot of cities.
Any city in the North of England and Scotland and the Netherlands just for a couple of examples.
Also 50 degrees South and lower.
Yet no reports of GPS not working in those locations.
-
Because GPS satellites don't exist.
These clouds are highly reflective according to Wikipedia and have a height,(vertical extent) of 1-2km
So any gps signals have to travel through 1-2km of highly reflective material.
Nothing in the 1ghz range will get through that!
-
Because GPS satellites don't exist.
These clouds are highly reflective according to Wikipedia and have a height,(vertical extent) of 1-2km
So any gps signals have to travel through 1-2km of highly reflective material.
Nothing in the 1ghz range will get through that!
Strange, cos the documentation says they do.
-
Hey Ex-Globe thanks for that, you led me to some interesting reading.
Noctilucent clouds have been detected to reflect signals, but not block them. They did this with long range ground radar. Meaning the signal incidence angle has a very big influence on what is reflected and what goes through.
Also the clouds are very rare, so it is generally not a big problem.
-
Where does it say these clouds are rare?
The only reference I found to that was their increasing appearances over time.
Quote:
Scientists can observe widespread instances of the clouds throughout the polar summer.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2008-09-02-strange-clouds-space_N.htm
The clouds have also been spotted in locations under 50 degrees latitude like turkey Iran and Oregon.
-
Where does it say these clouds are rare?
The only reference I found to that was their increasing appearances over time.
Then your google-fu is weak. They are very rare, only ever observed less than a 100 times in the southern hemisphere. Fortunately they have satallites looking for them!
Noctilucent clouds were first detected from space by an instrument on the OGO-6 satellite in 1972. The OGO-6 observations of a bright scattering layer over the polar caps were identified as poleward extensions of these clouds.[25] A later satellite, the Solar Mesosphere Explorer, mapped the distribution of the clouds between 1981 and 1986 with its ultraviolet spectrometer.[25] The clouds were detected with a lidar in 1995 at Utah State University, even when they were not visible to the naked eye.[26] The first physical confirmation that water ice is indeed the primary component of noctilucent clouds came from the HALOE instrument on the Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite in 2001.[27]
In 2001, the Swedish Odin satellite performed spectral analyses on the clouds, and produced daily global maps that revealed large patterns in their distribution.[28]
On April 25, 2007, the AIM satellite (Aeronomy of Ice in the Mesosphere) was launched.[29] It is the first satellite dedicated to studying noctilucent clouds,[30] and made its first observations on May 25, 2007.[31] Images taken by the satellite show shapes in the clouds that are similar to shapes in tropospheric clouds, hinting at similarities in their dynamics.[1]
-
They are weird to say the least
"Polar mesospheric clouds (PMCs) or observed from the ground, this phenomenon is known as noctilucent clouds." wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_mesospheric_clouds)
" From satellites, PMCs are most frequently observed above 70°-75° in latitude and have a season of 60 to 80 days duration cantered about a peak which occurs about 20 days after the summer solstice. This holds true for both hemispheres. Great variability in scattering is observed from day-to-day and year-to- year, but averaging over large time and space scales reveals a basic underlying symmetry and pattern. The long- term behaviour of polar mesospheric cloud frequency has been found to vary inversely with solar activity."
They are best studied from space due to the unreliability in sightings from the ground. They are very hard to spot from the ground.
"They can be observed only when the Sun is below the horizon." wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noctilucent_cloud)
Also confirming that the sun sets below the horizon. :)
What your seeing from the ground
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Noctilucent_clouds_over_Uppsala%2C_Sweden.jpg)
"When mesospheric clouds are viewed above the atmosphere, the geometrical limitations of observing from the ground are significantly reduced. They may be observed ‘edge-on’ against the comparatively dark sky background, even in full daylight."
wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_mesospheric_clouds)
What you see from space
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Polar_Mesospheric_Clouds_Illuminated_by_Orbital_Sunrise.JPG)
-
Noctilucent clouds have been detected to reflect signals, but not block them.
Oxymoron much?
Also the clouds are very rare, so it is generally not a big problem.
Lie much?
The damn things are everywhere...
Do none of you ever watch the skies except through your lovingly-fondled telescopes?
-
Yeah and his post includes a picture of the sky in northern Europe that is just full of the things :D
2km of reflective clouds let enough signals through though! So it's not an issue! ;)
He didn't provide any evidence that these clouds are 'very rare' so that must be bias
-
Yeah and his post includes a picture of the sky in northern Europe that is just full of the things :D
2km of reflective clouds let enough signals through though! So it's not an issue! ;)
Umm... Isn't that pretty much the same way that troposcatter works?
-
Yeah and his post includes a picture of the sky in northern Europe that is just full of the things :D
2km of reflective clouds let enough signals through though! So it's not an issue! ;)
He didn't provide any evidence that these clouds are 'very rare' so that must be bias
These guys got nothing.
It's good to see you doing the research & thinking things through logically.
I grew up with this shit, so even though I don't know the details I know the overall scheme.
I'm not sure about the part buoys play in it though.
In my day the MOD could & did fit out any civilian ship they wanted with any kit they wanted, then tell em it's for 'national security', post an undercover tech aboard, have the skipper sign the Official Secrets Act, & off they went.
Most of the deep-sea UK trawler fleet were in on it.
Having said that, maybe the tech's miniaturised enough to fit on bouys now?
My point is: don't sweat the tiny details, keep your eye on the big picture.
-
Yeah if you think about it there is nothing a buoy can't do that a satellite can.
It's just that you need more of them.
They are easily repaired and replaced, unlike satellites which can't even be repaired.
It makes no financial sense to even use satellites for anything ocean related, and it debatable for land uses.
As I posted in another thread Doppler radar gives the same results on land as a weather satellite.
Except one supposedly costs a billion more.
Those deep sea trawlers could be transmitting weather data,GPS stuff, to Lockheed Martin,then Lockheed sells the information saying it came from outer spaaace!
-
Meanwhile still no evidence that GPS etc. do not use satellites. eg. specific transmitter locations, supplier details etc.
-
Yeah if you think about it there is nothing a buoy can't do that a satellite can.
The problem I have with buoys as radar transmitters is whether solar arrays/batteries could provide the necessary power.
Whereas shipborne transmitters powered by onboard generators could easily cope with the power demands.
And there's plenty of ships in the sea...
Minor quibbles; that Doppler radar can do all that 'satellites' can do at a fraction of the price is obvious.
-
Yeah if you think about it there is nothing a buoy can't do that a satellite can.
The problem I have with buoys as radar transmitters is whether solar arrays/batteries could provide the necessary power.
Whereas shipborne transmitters powered by onboard generators could easily cope with the power demands.
And there's plenty of ships in the sea...
Minor quibbles; that Doppler radar can do all that 'satellites' can do at a fraction of the price is obvious.
How do ships doing navigation systems know where they are to sub metre accuracy?
-
They did it in ww2 with the loran system ,with no satellites necessary, 70 yrs later they could have one as accurate as you want
-
They did it in ww2 with the loran system ,with no satellites necessary, 70 yrs later they could have one as accurate as you want
Exactly.
And that was with analogue valve tech.
You got digital microprocessors now, & I'm told that graphene tech's a big deal for radars too...
Dunno if the military are using it already but it's on the way for sure.
-
Yeah if you think about it there is nothing a buoy can't do that a satellite can.
The problem I have with buoys as radar transmitters is whether solar arrays/batteries could provide the necessary power.
Whereas shipborne transmitters powered by onboard generators could easily cope with the power demands.
And there's plenty of ships in the sea...
Minor quibbles; that Doppler radar can do all that 'satellites' can do at a fraction of the price is obvious.
How do ships doing navigation systems know where they are to sub metre accuracy?
;D ;D Easy, they use the satellite based GPS! ;D ;D
-
They did it in ww2 with the loran system ,with no satellites necessary, 70 yrs later they could have one as accurate as you want
Exactly.
And that was with analogue valve tech.
You got digital microprocessors now, & I'm told that graphene tech's a big deal for radars too...
Dunno if the military are using it already but it's on the way for sure.
Link to technical details please. Specifications etc.
-
I'm not seeing any evidence that loran even needed anything permanent in the ocean to work
I'm going to look into it a bit more but it seems the only Loran stations were on land
-
LORAN is more than a half century old. You people don't think that they would have better and more advanced technology today?
-
Loran was usable up to 700 miles in the daytime and Australia is 2500 miles wide.
You would only need say 10 stations to cover the entire country
Lol check this out:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_phone
Look at the low earth orbit section,it mentions two companies and both of them are dependent on earth stations 😂
That doesn't make any sense that a satellite phone would be dependent on an earth station, that makes the satellite completely useless.
-
LORAN is more than a half century old. You people don't think that they would have better and more advanced technology today?
Well, there is eLoran, but it can hardly be confused with GPS:
http://www.ursanav.com/solutions/technology/eloran/
-
They did it in ww2 with the loran system ,with no satellites necessary, 70 yrs later they could have one as accurate as you want
Exactly.
And that was with analogue valve tech.
You got digital microprocessors now, & I'm told that graphene tech's a big deal for radars too...
Dunno if the military are using it already but it's on the way for sure.
Link to technical details please. Specifications etc.
-
Loran was usable up to 700 miles in the daytime and Australia is 2500 miles wide.
You would only need say 10 stations to cover the entire country
Lol check this out:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_phone
Look at the low earth orbit section,it mentions two companies and both of them are dependent on earth stations 😂
That doesn't make any sense that a satellite phone would be dependent on an earth station, that makes the satellite completely useless.
The signal picked up from the phones has to get back to Earth somewhere to get into the telephone network.
-
Loran was usable up to 700 miles in the daytime and Australia is 2500 miles wide.
You would only need say 10 stations to cover the entire country
Lol check this out:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_phone
Look at the low earth orbit section,it mentions two companies and both of them are dependent on earth stations 😂
That doesn't make any sense that a satellite phone would be dependent on an earth station, that makes the satellite completely useless.
The signal picked up from the phones has to get back to Earth somewhere to get into the telephone network.
If they are dependent on earth stations that makes the satellites useless.
In the article it says that certain areas of earth render the phone useless,so you have to be in range of an earth station.......
-
Loran was usable up to 700 miles in the daytime and Australia is 2500 miles wide.
You would only need say 10 stations to cover the entire country
Lol check this out:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_phone
Look at the low earth orbit section,it mentions two companies and both of them are dependent on earth stations 😂
That doesn't make any sense that a satellite phone would be dependent on an earth station, that makes the satellite completely useless.
The signal picked up from the phones has to get back to Earth somewhere to get into the telephone network.
If they are dependent on earth stations that makes the satellites useless.
In the article it says that certain areas of earth render the phone useless,so you have to be in range of an earth station.......
You do not understand. They work successfully.
-
Loran was usable up to 700 miles in the daytime and Australia is 2500 miles wide.
You would only need say 10 stations to cover the entire country
Lol check this out:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_phone
Look at the low earth orbit section,it mentions two companies and both of them are dependent on earth stations 😂
That doesn't make any sense that a satellite phone would be dependent on an earth station, that makes the satellite completely useless.
The signal picked up from the phones has to get back to Earth somewhere to get into the telephone network?
If they are dependent on earth stations that makes the satellites useless.
In the article it says that certain areas of earth render the phone useless,so you have to be in range of an earth station.......
Of course satellite phones depend on ground stations. How else could the signal connect with the terrestrial phone system.
We all need a bit of advice at times. Learn to engage brain before writing anything!
Go and learn a bit about satellite phone systems, then come back and talk sense. This article might be a starting point:
Satellite phone
A satellite telephone, satellite phone, or satphone is a type of mobile phone that connects to orbiting satellites instead of terrestrial cell sites. They provide similar functionality to terrestrial mobile telephones; voice, short messaging service and low-bandwidth internet access are supported through most systems.
from: Satellite Phone (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_phone)
But, there are two basic approaches:
The Iridium system uses LEO satellites that can communicate with each other and ground stations. These can handle connections even when the satellite in range cannot contact a ground station directly.
There are other systems that use geostationary satellites which have a defined footprint on earth. For example one can cover the whole of Australia.
Go and read up on sat phones.
-
LORAN is more than a half century old. You people don't think that they would have better and more advanced technology today?
Well, yes you are quite correct. Positioning systems now rely on satellite technology.
-
Loran was usable up to 700 miles in the daytime and Australia is 2500 miles wide.
You would only need say 10 stations to cover the entire country
Lol check this out:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_phone
Look at the low earth orbit section,it mentions two companies and both of them are dependent on earth stations 😂
That doesn't make any sense that a satellite phone would be dependent on an earth station, that makes the satellite completely useless.
The signal picked up from the phones has to get back to Earth somewhere to get into the telephone network.
If they are dependent on earth stations that makes the satellites useless.
In the article it says that certain areas of earth render the phone useless,so you have to be in range of an earth station.......
No, the satellite has to be in range of an Earth station. the user has to be in range of a satellite in range of that station.
-
Loran was usable up to 700 miles in the daytime and Australia is 2500 miles wide.
You would only need say 10 stations to cover the entire country
Lol check this out:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_phone
Look at the low earth orbit section,it mentions two companies and both of them are dependent on earth stations 😂
That doesn't make any sense that a satellite phone would be dependent on an earth station, that makes the satellite completely useless.
The signal picked up from the phones has to get back to Earth somewhere to get into the telephone network.
If they are dependent on earth stations that makes the satellites useless.
In the article it says that certain areas of earth render the phone useless,so you have to be in range of an earth station.......
Seriously, learn alittle about a system before you try and say it doesn't exist. This entire thread is nothing but you making incorrect statements from a position of ignorance then ignoring the responses to your incorrect statements.
You have no idea how any of the systems actually work, your basic claim is that maybe some secret organization has technologies that no other engineer on the planet knows about and are actively defrauding the world. You also make no effort to actually prove any of your statements, like looking at the raw GPS data or hooking up a scope to the GPS antenna to verifiy the frequecies it is receiving.
Just because you don't understand something does not mean no one else does either.
-
You have to be in range of an earth station to use a LEO satellite phone,so there is no reason for satellites to be used,its just basic logic.
Towers would do the same job with exactly the same functionality.
-
This is the coverage of 3 satellites
(http://www.inmarsat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/coverage_map.jpg)
How many cell towers have that coverage
IsatPhone (http://www.inmarsat.com/service/isatphone-pro/)
-
You have to be in range of an earth station to use a LEO satellite phone,so there is no reason for satellites to be used,its just basic logic.
Towers would do the same job with exactly the same functionality.
It's the satellite that has to be in the range of the earth station...
-
You have to be in range of an earth station to use a LEO satellite phone,so there is no reason for satellites to be used,its just basic logic.
Towers would do the same job with exactly the same functionality.
You have no idea what it means for a satellite to be in range of an earth station, do you? The user does not have to be in range. The satellite does.
-
And the user obviously has to be in range of the satellite.
According to Wikipedia this makes the phones useless in isolated areas, so this about as useful! As a bunch of towers,
-
And the user obviously has to be in range of the satellite.
According to Wikipedia this makes the phones useless in isolated areas, so this about as useful! As a bunch of towers,
the user can be in range of the satellite and far out of range of the ground station.
-
And the user obviously has to be in range of the satellite.
According to Wikipedia this makes the phones useless in isolated areas, so this about as useful! As a bunch of towers,
With every post you make yourself seem more ridiculous than ever.
Of course the "user obviously has to be in range of the satellite". Any child would know that.
::) ::) ::) If the user were not in range of the satellite the user could not connect to that satellite! ::) ::) ::)
Though in the case of the Iridium system a satellite can connect to the ground station via other satellites, so each satellite does not need to be itself in range of a base station.
I fail to see why YOU can't research this yourself and not appear so completely ignorant on the subject!
Please explain just how "this makes the phones useless in isolated areas"!
ONE SATELLITE covers the whole area of Australia! This is a coverage map of the Optus D3 satellite. As far as I know this is primarily for Satellite TV, but Optus also provides Satphone services.
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/20160528%20-%20Coverage%20Map%20Optus%20D1%20Satellite_zpsjtqhomnu.png)
Coverage Map Optus D3 Satellite
That satellite is located over the equator at 156° E (Just to the NE of New Guinea) and the green line shows the aiming direction from Hobart in Tasmania and is not the only satellite serving Australia (in addition to the Iridium system that Telstra utilises).
And in case you wonder if Australia needs Satellite Phones, here is the mobile phone (cell-phone) coverage map for Telstra over Australia (and no other carrier covers it better).
(http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/20160528%20-%20Telstra%20Coverage%20Map%20of%20Australia_zpsgibibknf.png)
Telstra Coverage Map of Australia
So you see there are large areas without coverage from land based towers.
I suspect parts of Asia and Africa have poorer coverage.
I don't know how many SatPhone satellites there are, but
Iridium has 72 Operational (66 in active service 6 spares) in Low Earth Orbit plus
numerous Geostationary satellites providing Sat Phone services and Satellite internet.
If you are interested, you can look up more yourself!
-
From Wikipedia:
Globalstar: A network covering most of the world's landmass using 44 active satellites. However, many areas are left without coverage since a satellite must be in range of an Earth station. Satellites fly in an inclined orbit of 52 degrees, so polar regions cannot be covered. The network went into limited commercial service at the end of 1999
That makes no financial sense,using satellites that can't cover many areas, it would be cheaper to use ionosphere bouncing or some other propagation technique with towers.
This would give the same functionality of a satellite phone at a fraction of the cost.
-
First of all, that was 1999 and this is 2016. Care to update your story with current coverage statistics?
Secondly, Globalstar is not the only satellite communication service available. Using primarily LEO satellites, it may not offer the best coverage either.
-
Even if the story is old it doesn't make sense
44 satellites at current prices is about 12 billion
Then you need to build 44 earth stations??
It would cost a fraction of that to build towers
-
Why do you think you'd need a separate station for each satellite?
-
From Wikipedia:
Globalstar: A network covering most of the world's landmass using 44 active satellites. However, many areas are left without coverage since a satellite must be in range of an Earth station. Satellites fly in an inclined orbit of 52 degrees, so polar regions cannot be covered. The network went into limited commercial service at the end of 1999
That makes no financial sense,using satellites that can't cover many areas, it would be cheaper to use ionosphere bouncing or some other propagation technique with towers.
This would give the same functionality of a satellite phone at a fraction of the cost.
Rubbish!
You forgot Iridium (which I did tell you about), with 66 operational LEO satellites, which does NOT need each satellite in contact with a ground station and all the geostationary satellites used for Sat Phone services.
;D ;D ;D You make me laugh, pretending to be an expert on costing satellite v. phone tower costings. ;D ;D ;D
You've proved you know nothing on these topics, and can't even research the latest data!
Ionosphere bounce is simply not a reliable form of communication. Go look up data on service performance.
Look, give up! Satellites are used for GPS, satellite phones, satellite TV and satellite internet (limited bandwidth).
Even the topic title was quite deliberately misleading.
The quote "We don't use satellites because they can't carry terabytes of data for less than a billion dollars per communication line." WAS NOT an "Admission that they don't use satellite for internet" - that is deliberately misleading - that's all you can call it! It was simply a statement that "satellites . . . . . can't carry terabytes of data" and are not economical for "broadband internet services"
-
Even if the story is old it doesn't make sense
44 satellites at current prices is about 12 billion
Then you need to build 44 earth stations??
It would cost a fraction of that to build towers
??? Huh? Where did you get the idea that each individual satellite needs its own ground station? Did you even read the wiki article that you referenced?
A network of ground gateway stations provides connectivity from the 40 satellites to the public switched telephone network and Internet. A satellite must have a Gateway station in view to provide service to any users it may see. Twenty Four Globalstar Gateways are located around the world, including 7 in North America.
-
Even if the story is old it doesn't make sense
44 satellites at current prices is about 12 billion
Then you need to build 44 earth stations??
It would cost a fraction of that to build towers
Not more completely erroneous rubbish!
By the way Telstra alone is building another 429 phone towers this year, and that is just to fill in "black spots" in existing coverage.
You certainly have know idea on the financing of this sort of thing.
Crawl back into you burrow and do some real reserch. When you have the qualifications to judge these things come back and try again! And no, I am no expert on the financial side of these things, though I have been close to this area for decades.
Stop the guesswork and the pretending that you know things when you don't have any idea.
I suppose you are just trying to big-note youself with the Flat Earth community! Probably work too. :P :P
Don't you ever tired of making a fool of yourself.
-
Nice try with the humourless gaslighting, Geoff, but there's no escaping the fact that you wrote this:
Yes, if the clouds contain water droplets, ice or snow.
What a jackass!
All I'm saying is that satellites can't do anything that we can't do on the ground,
There are so many airships ,planes and towers that everything is covered.
Short wave radio, an old technology can reach anywhere on the planet so being able to get a signal from somewhere in the Australian outback isn't impressive or impossible without satellites.
-
If you deny this, please explain how a caravanner (yes, I am one and a member of a club with wide connections) with Satellite TV can go to any remote area in Australia, aim the dish at a known location[1] over the equator and get TV signal.
Receiving TV signals in the out back isn't impressive or impossible because:
Virtually all long-distance reception of digital television occurs by tropospheric ducting (due to most, but not all, DTV stations broadcasting in the UHF band).-quote from Wikipedia article on tropospheric propagation.
I'm not saying that's what happened in your case,merely that it is possible without satellites.tropospheric propagation must be reliable if it's being used for TV broadcasting.
You could have been pointing your dish at a blimp at high altitude. Google uses them to beam signals and wifi at people.
If all satellites were erased from history and all the money refunded, then the satellites were replaced with airships it would be much cheaper. The only difference would be the need for more blimps than satellites.
The satellite TV companies in new Zealand and the UK are called sky broadcasting. Probably an allusion to using blimps ^_^
The airships are also below the highly reflective noctilucent clouds, unlike satellites.
-
The satellite TV companies in new Zealand and the UK are called sky broadcasting. Probably an allusion to using blimps ^_^
Or maybe just an allusion to using the sky itself?
The airships are also below the highly reflective noctilucent clouds, unlike satellites.
Why put expensive airships below a thing that is a natural reflector & does the same job?
Also, the power demands both for transmitting & station-keeping of blimps in the upper atmosphere may be prohibitive. Blimps don't like cross-winds or pressure variations!
Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying blimps, plus drones & buoys, do not play a part in the overall scheme...
But the main part is just bouncing signals round the sky, like they've always done.
With a bit of artificial help from comm-trails in high-traffic areas.
-
If you deny this, please explain how a caravanner (yes, I am one and a member of a club with wide connections) with Satellite TV can go to any remote area in Australia, aim the dish at a known location[1] over the equator and get TV signal.
Receiving TV signals in the out back isn't impressive or impossible because:
Virtually all long-distance reception of digital television occurs by tropospheric ducting (due to most, but not all, DTV stations broadcasting in the UHF band).-quote from Wikipedia article on tropospheric propagation.
I'm not saying that's what happened in your case,merely that it is possible without satellites.tropospheric propagation must be reliable if it's being used for TV broadcasting.
You could have been pointing your dish at a blimp at high altitude. Google uses them to beam signals and wifi at people.
If all satellites were erased from history and all the money refunded, then the satellites were replaced with airships it would be much cheaper. The only difference would be the need for more blimps than satellites.
The satellite TV companies in new Zealand and the UK are called sky broadcasting. Probably an allusion to using blimps ^_^
The airships are also below the highly reflective noctilucent clouds, unlike satellites.
Please provide a link to a broadcaster using tropospheric scatter.
Note we are dicsussing how current systems work and not what might be possible. Please explain how airships would be used and the issues of frequency coordination for multi channel HD broadcating.
Please provide specific details of Google using blimps.
UHF DTV requires near line of sight, no scatter.
-
yeah it is probably mostly reflection, it is the easiest way,
The magical reflective clouds are supposed to be rare near the equator, (coincidentally where developing nations tend to be ^_^)
So those areas are probably augmented
The clouds do seem to cover large areas, most of the sky in most pictures
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01c71d5/p01c70j5
There are a lot of viewer submissions of these 'incredibly rare' clouds
Its weird that the guy above is called inquisitive because all his questions can be answered with wikipedia and google,
google the google blimps
and
wikipedia trophospheric propogation
Just for his info its trophospheric ducting not scattering , that DIgital TV uses.
-
yeah it is probably mostly reflection, it is the easiest way,
The magical reflective clouds are supposed to be rare near the equator, (coincidentally where developing nations tend to be ^_^)
So those areas are probably augmented
The clouds do seem to cover large areas, most of the sky in most pictures
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01c71d5/p01c70j5
There are a lot of viewer submissions of these 'incredibly rare' clouds
Its weird that the guy above is called inquisitive because all his questions can be answered with wikipedia and google,
google the google blimps
and
wikipedia trophospheric propogation
Just for his info its trophospheric ducting not scattering , that DIgital TV uses.
DTV does not use ducting. Why do you not post links from professional sources to prove your statements.
No proof of blimps used for widespread communication. Satellite use proven.
-
yeah it is probably mostly reflection, it is the easiest way,
The magical reflective clouds are supposed to be rare near the equator, (coincidentally where developing nations tend to be ^_^)
So those areas are probably augmented
The clouds do seem to cover large areas, most of the sky in most pictures
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01c71d5/p01c70j5
There are a lot of viewer submissions of these 'incredibly rare' clouds
Yeah, I'm not sure where these bloody things came from.
Not sure how much of the data about them I can trust, either...
HAARP was up near the North Pole, maybe that played a part in creating them?
The military seemed very keen to encourage a million-&-one daft conspiracy theories about what it could do, but it always looked like just a giant radar station to me...
Worth looking into maybe?
Oh, & ignore 'inquisitive'; I'm undecided if it's some kind of bot or not, but it's definitely a time-waster.
-
OK the way the wikipedia article is worded is misleading , ducting seems to be an unintended effect that happens but isnt relied upon because of seasonality.
Scattering has been used to create several military networks across several countries using few stations. Im looking into how much bandwidth it allows.
The military networks have been disbanded, they could have been removed to allow a new network of blimps and stations to take over.
GPS using the exact same frequency as these reflective clouds has to be significant.
As well as appearing 50 degree latitude north to the north pole
the clouds are supposed to also appear at 50 degrees latitude South to the south pole
so HAARP probably isnt creating the clouds, unless those antarctic research centres are doing something.
-
lolx2
http://www.insidegnss.com/node/4431
If the US decides to create a backup system for GPS by going back to Loran it would only cost $50 million a year,
1/6 of the cost of one satellite....
The GPS satellites have a life span of 7.5 years so, every seven years on average it will cost seven billion dollars to replace 24 satellites,
This is one billion dollars per year!
Sometimes a GPS satellite will last twice as long but this is still half a billion dollars
The USA and Russia were integrating their LORAN systems together even though they are supposed to be enemies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loran-C
In 2010 the US and Canadian systems were shut down, along with shared Loran-C/CHAYKA stations with Russia
-
lolx2
http://www.insidegnss.com/node/4431
If the US decides to create a backup system for GPS by going back to Loran it would only cost $50 million a year,
1/6 of the cost of one satellite....
The GPS satellites have a life span of 7.5 years so, every seven years on average it will cost seven billion dollars to replace 24 satellites,
This is one billion dollars per year!
Sometimes a GPS satellite will last twice as long but this is still half a billion dollars
Again, LORAN is not as accurate as GPS. It also uses different mathematics. And remember, LORAN is a completely separate system from GPS and cannot be used to emulate it. You may be able to fool laypeople with it, but there are enough people knowledgable on the operations of GPS that the secret won't last. Remember that.
-
Loran was improved with portable units to 20 feet in the 1960's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loran-C#Loran-D_and_-F
GPS is about the same accuracy but it depends on the reciever you use,
LORAN is the same, it depends if you use a portable unit to get more accuracy.
-
https://www.quora.com/How-are-major-undersea-cables-laid-in-the-ocean (https://www.quora.com/How-are-major-undersea-cables-laid-in-the-ocean)
This article is quite interesting. I was just reading through trying to figure out exactly how many miles of cable were laid and I came across this quote.
"We don't use satellites because they can't carry terabytes of data for less than a billion dollars per communication line."
Satellites are fake ISS is a lie k thx bai
I find myself unsure as to how to respond to this. I can agree that, at least as far as the main trunks are concerned, cable is superior to satalite for bulk data transmission. I fail to see where the causal relationship between cables being more prominent in bulk transmission and satellites are fake. Certainly, there's an arguement there for a corrolative relationship, I just don't see anything in this article that could really be used as proof of causation.
-
Oh, & ignore 'Papa Legba'; I'm undecided if it's some kind of bot or not, but it's definitely a time-waster.
-
Loran was improved with portable units to 20 feet in the 1960's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loran-C#Loran-D_and_-F
GPS is about the same accuracy but it depends on the reciever you use,
LORAN is the same, it depends if you use a portable unit to get more accuracy.
Still, all you have is guessing! And there are so many observations with the use of GPS that fit the implementation using satellites and not a ground based system.
Does Loran measure altitude - IN an aircraft? Where ARE the Loran stations, etc, etc.
Then with satellite phones (and to some extent GPS) why do they fail miserably when there is a metal roof overhead, while a ground based system (such as mobile phones) carries on fimne?
All you STILL have is guesswork - you do not have any evidence that the GPS systems uses Loran or that "satellite" phones and TV uses ground based towers of "little floaty things".
Sure, the GPS system can be disabled, by destroying satellites or by blocking the signals locally, so the US military wants a backup system.
-
If satellite phones used some kind of atmospheric bouncing like shortwave radio or airship then a metal roof would block both
LORAN is just proof of concept, it is a separate system but is proof that GPS is possible without satellites.
Y
GPS could be reflected off noctilucent clouds at latitudes higher than 50 North and 50 south,
or if none are available some other technology already discussed.
Its weird how GPS is the right frequency to be reflected by these highly reflective clouds but the satellites have no problem getting through them.
-
If satellite phones used some kind of atmospheric bouncing like shortwave radio or airship then a metal roof would block both
LORAN is just proof of concept, it is a separate system but is proof that GPS is possible without satellites.
Y
GPS could be reflected off noctilucent clouds at latitudes higher than 50 North and 50 south,
or if none are available some other technology already discussed.
Its weird how GPS is the right frequency to be reflected by these highly reflective clouds but the satellites have no problem getting through them.
A GPS system cannot use moving clouds, it has to be direct.
-
As well as appearing 50 degree latitude north to the north pole
the clouds are supposed to also appear at 50 degrees latitude South to the south pole
so HAARP probably isnt creating the clouds, unless those antarctic research centres are doing something.
Fair enough.
Like I said, HAARP just looks like a giant radar to me, so guess it was a research centre for this kinda tech as much as anything.
But it supposedly had the capability to heat the Ionosphere so I thought that may tie in with the appearance of noctilucent clouds somehow?
Whatever; no matter their origin, noctilucent clouds exist & are highly reflective.
-
If satellite phones used some kind of atmospheric bouncing like shortwave radio or airship then a metal roof would block both
LORAN is just proof of concept, it is a separate system but is proof that GPS is possible without satellites.
Y
GPS could be reflected off noctilucent clouds at latitudes higher than 50 North and 50 south,
or if none are available some other technology already discussed.
Its weird how GPS is the right frequency to be reflected by these highly reflective clouds but the satellites have no problem getting through them.
"Weird", really?
Noctilucent clouds are known to exhibit high radar reflectivity, in a frequency range of 50 MHz to 1.3 GHz.
The only reference I has so far found on the frequency range puts the upper limit at 1.3 GHz.
All GPS satellites broadcast at the same two frequencies, 1.57542 GHz (L1 signal) and 1.2276 GHz (L2 signal)
and the Russian GLONASS system uses a band around 1602 MHz. (A couple of "GPS" units I have do receive GLONASS too.)
Really, it is ridiculous to suggest that GPS (or GLONASS) would use reflection from noctilucent clouds that:
- are very transient,
- are only at all common in the 50° to 70° N or S latitude range,
- have a top limit of reflected frequency that does not cover the frequencies used.
All you can come up with is more and more guessing!
-
All GPS satellites broadcast at the same two frequencies, 1.57542 GHz (L1 signal) and 1.2276 GHz (L2 signal)
No 'GPS satellites' broadcast anything, Geoff.
Because they don't exist.
Because the laws of physics & principles of aerodynamics won't let them.
Let me tell you something, Geoff; I have an acquaintance who worked on designing the guidance systems for drones.
Similar job to what you & your sock-puppet 'Rayzor' claim to have in fact.
He made a shed-load of money out of it, has the Official Secrets Act up the wazoo, & will not talk in any detail about anything connected to it under any circumstances.
The very last thing he would do is spend 16 hours of every day, 7 days a week, trolling & shilling & thought-policing all over the web...
Like you do.
He does not do this because he is a decent man, with a very comfortable existence, doing things that matter, in the real world.
You are not who you claim to be, Geoff, for the simple reason that people like you do not behave in that manner.
You are just a massively obvious disinfo-drone, & I cannot imagine what you did to be reduced to such a miserable existence.
I would say I pity you; but you are too far gone for pity...
That would imply humanity; & I see none in you.
Toodle-pip, Geoff!
-
All GPS satellites broadcast at the same two frequencies, 1.57542 GHz (L1 signal) and 1.2276 GHz (L2 signal)
No 'GPS satellites' broadcast anything, Geoff.
Because they don't exist.
Because the laws of physics & principles of aerodynamics won't let them.
Let me tell you something, Geoff; I have an acquaintance who worked on designing the guidance systems for drones.
Similar job to what you & your sock-puppet 'Rayzor' claim to have in fact.
He made a shed-load of money out of it, has the Official Secrets Act up the wazoo, & will not talk in any detail about anything connected to it under any circumstances.
The very last thing he would do is spend 16 hours of every day, 7 days a week, trolling & shilling & thought-policing all over the web...
Like you do.
He does not do this because he is a decent man, with a very comfortable existence, doing things that matter, in the real world.
You are not who you claim to be, Geoff, for the simple reason that people like you do not behave in that manner.
You are just a massively obvious disinfo-drone, & I cannot imagine what you did to be reduced to such a miserable existence.
I would say I pity you; but you are too far gone for pity...
That would imply humanity; & I see none in you.
Toodle-pip, Geoff!
Simply put, you are wrong. Regardless of whether the earth is flat or round, or even the specific forces that are in play, the moon and sun clearly maintain a relationship in regards to Earth's position. If forces can act on those two objects and keep them in place, then it also has to be possible for a man made object to be kept in place. Scattered throughout this site is the assertion of observable phenomena. Can you refute that the sun is not maintaining it's position relative to earth? Can you refute the moon is maintaining it's position relative to earth? Or any one of the other observable planets, comets, and asteroids.
-
Simply put, you are wrong.
Simply put, I am not.
As for your 'teh munn exists therefore GPS satylytes iz reel' argument: LMFAO!!!
Grow up, Walter Mitty.
-
Simply put, you are wrong.
Simply put, I am not.
As for your 'teh munn exists therefore GPS satylytes iz reel' argument: LMFAO!!!
Grow up, Walter Mitty.
Ahh, so you have nothing then. Fair enough, there's no shame in not knowing an answer. I'm a little confused as to why you couldn't just say as much, but that's people I suppose. Though, I was under the impression that these boards were strictly moderated, and your response doesn't really seem to further the conversation.
-
Wtf are you babbling on about now, Walter?
Are you really threatening to report me because I laughed at you for comparing teh Munn to a 'GPS satylite'?
Good luck with that!
-
Wtf are you babbling on about now, Walter?
Are you really threatening to report me because I laughed at you for comparing teh Munn to a 'GPS satylite'?
Good luck with that!
Do you have a reason as to why forces that work on celestial objects would not also work on fabricated objects?
-
Do you have a reason to believe that teh Munn was created by human beings & placed in orbit with rockets?
Cos if you don't then take your stupid time-wasting strawman & GTFO.
Or report me, or whatever your shilling 101 handbook commands you do next...
Nobody cares.
-
Do you have a reason to believe that teh Munn was created by human beings & placed in orbit with rockets?
Cos if you don't then take your stupid time-wasting strawman & GTFO.
Or report me, or whatever your shilling 101 handbook commands you do next...
Nobody cares.
Oh. So, that answer seems contradictory. Do you believe the moon is artificial and placed into orbit with rockets? Me, no, I don't believe that. But if I don't then I'm wasting my time, according to you, so that leads me to reason that you do...Which is really odd since you've been supporting that satellites aren't possible. Also, it appears you don't seem to know what a strawman rebuttal is, like I haven't covertly replaced one arguement with something else, I've been consistant in that whatever forces are in operation should remain in operation uniformly. But, admittedly, that's just semantics.
Also, I would love to see the 'shilling handbook'. I have no idea what shilling is, so if I am to be a .... shiller? would that be the right usage? Anyways, I should probably be certain I am performing that duty adaquately.
-
The best accuracy I have read anywhere for new eLORAN system was 300m3.
Very specifically designed as a back up to GPS for shipping.
If anyone can show any articles claiming better it would be great.
"eLoran meets the requirement for non-precision approaches; this means that although eLoran (which has no means of measuring height) will not provide any vertical guidance, it will provide sufficient horizontal guidance. Specifically eLoran meets the requirements for Area Navigation (RNAV) non-precision approaches to Lateral Navigation (LNAV) minimums. For non-precision approaches aviation has the following stringent requirements"
Further
"For non-precision approaches, eLoran will have at least 307m position accuracy 95 percent of the time to account for all sources of errors to meet the 556 meter alarm limit. "
for some light reading (http://www.loran.org/ILAArchive/eLoran%20Definition%20Document/eLoran%20Definition%20Document-1.0.pdf)
-
So what?
Imprecision can easily be built into a system.
In fact, when the first civilian 'GPS' units were brought out the manufacturers stated that they were deliberately made less accurate than military units so they could not be used for nefarious purposes.
I remember this well, as mountaineering magazines stated in reviews that they should never be trusted for micro-navigation in hazardous terrain.
Funny how quickly stuff like this is forgotten, eh?
That old internet memory-hole is a beauty, ain't it?
-
"The actual accuracy users attain depends on factors outside the government's control, including atmospheric effects, sky blockage, and receiver quality. Real-world data from the FAA show that their high-quality GPS SPS receivers provide better than 3.5 meter horizontal accuracy" link (http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/performance/accuracy/)
Seeing that I had a surveyor survey a very large urban area recently with over 1000 GPS plotted both co-ordinates and elevation. And that they very closely (within 1m) match up to actual ground measurements, I can say 3.5m is fair.
Also, go speak to an actual surveyor ask them what happens when they take their GPS staff under a roof.
LORAN can not measure altitude, GPS can.
-
Did all that actually mean anything?
Sounded like pointless evasive garbage to me.
Wanna try again?
-
"Wanna try again?"
No. Was hoping to have a fun debate, but you don't bring any actual information, just disgruntled complaining.
Don't let me stop you. Carry on as you where.
-
"Wanna try again?"
No.
Good.
See ya!
-
So what?
Imprecision can easily be built into a system.
In fact, when the first civilian 'GPS' units were brought out the manufacturers stated that they were deliberately made less accurate than military units so they could not be used for nefarious purposes.
I remember this well, as mountaineering magazines stated in reviews that they should never be trusted for micro-navigation in hazardous terrain.
Funny how quickly stuff like this is forgotten, eh?
That old internet memory-hole is a beauty, ain't it?
How did they achieve imprecision?
-
So what?
Imprecision can easily be built into a system.
In fact, when the first civilian 'GPS' units were brought out the manufacturers stated that they were deliberately made less accurate than military units so they could not be used for nefarious purposes.
I remember this well, as mountaineering magazines stated in reviews that they should never be trusted for micro-navigation in hazardous terrain.
Funny how quickly stuff like this is forgotten, eh?
That old internet memory-hole is a beauty, ain't it?
How did they achieve imprecision?
It was known as selective availability and was discontinued in May 2000.
http://www.gps.gov/systems/gps/modernization/sa/
-
Loran C was made precise by using additional handheld units, there is no reason eLoran cant be augmented in exactly the same way.
-
Loran C was made precise by using additional handheld units, there is no reason eLoran cant be augmented in exactly the same way.
But it wasn't, and instead we use GPS satellites. Face it: you can't fool everyone by using ground-based units instead of satellites.
-
Loran C was made precise by using additional handheld units, there is no reason eLoran cant be augmented in exactly the same way.
Do you mean? Loran-D and -F
When Loran-C became widespread, the USAF once again became interested in using it as a guidance system. They proposed a new system layered on top of Loran-C, using it as the coarse guidance signal in much the same way that pulses were the coarse guidance and phase-comparison used for fine. To provide an extra-fine guidance signal, Loran-D interleaved another train of eight pulses immediately after the signals from one of the existing Loran-C stations, folding the two signals together. This technique became known as "Supernumary Interpulse Modulation" (SIM). These were broadcast from low-power portable transmitters, offering relatively short-range service of high accuracy.
or this? eLORAN
With the perceived vulnerability of GNSS systems, and their own propagation and reception limitations, renewed interest in LORAN applications and development has appeared. Enhanced LORAN, also known as eLORAN or E-LORAN, comprises an advancement in receiver design and transmission characteristics which increase the accuracy and usefulness of traditional LORAN. With reported accuracy as good as ± 8 meters, the system becomes competitive with unenhanced GPS. eLORAN also includes additional pulses which can transmit auxiliary data such as DGPS corrections. eLORAN receivers now use "all in view" reception, incorporating signals from all stations in range, not solely those from a single GRI, incorporating time signals and other data from up to 40 stations. These enhancements in LORAN make it adequate as a substitute for scenarios where GPS is unavailable or degraded.[/size]
But, I can't find any reference to "Loran C was made precise by using additional handheld units".
You will note becomes competitive with unenhanced GPS, but for surveying applications there is "Differential GPS" available.
Differential GPS
Transportable DGPS reference station Baseline HD by CLAAS for use in satellite-assisted steering systems in modern agriculture
Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS) is an enhancement to Global Positioning System that provides improved location accuracy, from the 15-meter nominal GPS accuracy to about 10 cm in case of the best implementations.
DGPS uses a network of fixed, ground-based reference stations to broadcast the difference between the positions indicated by the GPS satellite systems and the known fixed positions. These stations broadcast the difference between the measured satellite pseudoranges and actual (internally computed) pseudoranges, and receiver stations may correct their pseudoranges by the same amount. The digital correction signal is typically broadcast locally over ground-based transmitters of shorter range.
Keep up the guesswork, in the meantime I'll keep using my satellite based GPS.
-
Okay replace the word handheld with portable.
Portable units were used to improve the accuracy of Loran c.
The new more accurate GPS seems to be using the same method as Loran to improve accuracy.
Using more local transmitters.
-
Okay replace the word handheld with portable.
Portable units were used to improve the accuracy of Loran c.
The new more accurate GPS seems to be using the same method as Loran to improve accuracy.
Using more local transmitters.
That doesn't make it the same as LORAN. Not by a long shot.
-
Okay replace the word handheld with portable.
Portable units were used to improve the accuracy of Loran c.
The new more accurate GPS seems to be using the same method as Loran to improve accuracy.
Using more local transmitters.
Details of these local transmitters please.
-
Cellphone towers, radio transmitters...
There are literally hundreds of these things within a 10-mile radius of where I live.
Please provide details of exactly what type of equipment every single one of them contains & exactly what that equipment is doing.
Thank you please!
-
Cellphone towers, radio transmitters...
There are literally hundreds of these things within a 10-mile radius of where I live.
Please provide details of exactly what type of equipment every single one of them contains & exactly what that equipment is doing.
Thank you please!
Zero evidence for land based GPS transmitters.
-
There are literally hundreds of these things within a 10-mile radius of where I live.
Proof you have never left the city.
I get great GPS signal in the Western Cape, that big area with no cell coverage.
Also, my cell phones GPS works without its sim card in when I'm in either Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho or Mozambique. I take the sim out to stop the chances of cell roaming, which they charge you 100x plus for if your phone uses any data.
(http://www.prepaidsimcard.org/images/south-africa-coverage-map.jpg)
-
Doesn't gps trilateration require the signals to travel in straight lines, so no reflections of the ionosphere. Also you have the problem that the coordinates you get from gps fit on to a sphere.
-
Cellphone towers, radio transmitters...
There are literally hundreds of these things within a 10-mile radius of where I live.
Please provide details of exactly what type of equipment every single one of them contains & exactly what that equipment is doing.
Thank you please!
Zero evidence for land based GPS transmitters.
LOL!!!
Inquisitive runs away like a dog...
I get great GPS signal in the Western Cape, that big area with no cell coverage.
Also, my cell phones GPS works without its sim card in when I'm in either Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho or Mozambique. I take the sim out to stop the chances of cell roaming, which they charge you 100x plus for if your phone uses any data.
Cool story, bro...
You should write a book about it.
Doesn't gps trilateration require the signals to travel in straight lines
No.
-
Cellphone towers, radio transmitters...
There are literally hundreds of these things within a 10-mile radius of where I live.
Please provide details of exactly what type of equipment every single one of them contains & exactly what that equipment is doing.
Thank you please!
Zero evidence for land based GPS transmitters.
LOL!!!
Inquisitive runs away like a dog...
I get great GPS signal in the Western Cape, that big area with no cell coverage.
Also, my cell phones GPS works without its sim card in when I'm in either Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho or Mozambique. I take the sim out to stop the chances of cell roaming, which they charge you 100x plus for if your phone uses any data.
Cool story, bro...
You should write a book about it.
Doesn't gps trilateration require the signals to travel in straight lines
No.
So you can provide no evidence for you beliefs. End of topic.
-
Cellphone towers, radio transmitters...
There are literally hundreds of these things within a 10-mile radius of where I live.
Please provide details of exactly what type of equipment every single one of them contains & exactly what that equipment is doing.
Thank you please!
Zero evidence for land based GPS transmitters.
LOL!!!
Inquisitive runs away like a dog...
I get great GPS signal in the Western Cape, that big area with no cell coverage.
Also, my cell phones GPS works without its sim card in when I'm in either Botswana, Namibia, Lesotho or Mozambique. I take the sim out to stop the chances of cell roaming, which they charge you 100x plus for if your phone uses any data.
Cool story, bro...
You should write a book about it.
Doesn't gps trilateration require the signals to travel in straight lines
No.
So you can provide no evidence for you beliefs. End of topic.
No; you can provide no evidence for exactly what type of equipment every cell-tower & transmitter near me contains or exactly how it functions & are running away from this fact.
You are a bot, aren't you?
Or an autist; or sokarul; same thing.
Toodle-pip, Little Loser!
-
Loran could use skywaves so location systems don't necessarily need straight lines.
The only evidence for satellites is a photo with some dots on it, and a belief that received dishes are pointed at something in space and not something closer.
-
The only evidence for satellites is a photo with some dots on it, and a belief that received dishes are pointed at something in space and not something closer.
That and the thousands of satellites that have been launched by a huge industry spanning multiple countries/ universities and private organisations involving millions of people.
47 so far this year (http://www.satellitedebris.net/Database/LaunchHistoryView.php)
-
Loran could use skywaves so location systems don't necessarily need straight lines.
The only evidence for satellites is a photo with some dots on it, and a belief that received dishes are pointed at something in space and not something closer.
Not a belief, fact, do some investigation.
-
Doesn't gps trilateration require the signals to travel in straight lines
No.
LOLWUT!?!?
-
Doesn't gps trilateration require the signals to travel in straight lines
No.
LOLWUT!?!?
Are you mental?
It just requires signals.
Wtf has 'straight lines' got to do with it?
Or are they using lasers for GPS now?
Knowing you madmen, you'll probably say 'yes', so...
Meh.
-
Doesn't gps trilateration require the signals to travel in straight lines
No.
LOLWUT!?!?
Are you mental?
It just requires signals.
Wtf has 'straight lines' got to do with it?
Or are they using lasers for GPS now?
Knowing you madmen, you'll probably say 'yes', so...
Meh.
'Line of sight'. As you know.
-
Oh, so you just mean aligning your receiver with the signal?
Same as every radio, ever?
Why didn't you say so?
Oh, of course - because you're a time-wasting shill.
As you know.
-
Oh, so you just mean aligning your receiver with the signal?
Same as every radio, ever?
Why didn't you say so?
Oh, of course - because you're a time-wasting shill.
As you know.
Yes, aligning satellite dishes with satellites, which proves their location.
-
Oh, so you just mean aligning your receiver with the signal?
Same as every radio, ever?
Why didn't you say so?
Oh, of course - because you're a time-wasting shill.
As you know.
The transmitter high in the air.
(http://www.weltrekordreise.ch/bilder%20id/359-P1130587.jpg)
(http://www.personamgmt.com/remotescanner.aspx)
-
Although arguing with shills is repetitive and draining, but it can actually help.
I would never have discovered that most GPS frequencies have to go through a kilometre of reflective cloud unless they had tried to use frequency as an argument that GPS signals are not skywaves on the ionosphere ;)
But when someone posts a picture of dishes pointing upwards after all that's been said,it's just not worth saying the same repetitive things.
-
Doesn't gps trilateration require the signals to travel in straight lines
No.
LOLWUT!?!?
Are you mental?
It just requires signals.
Wtf has 'straight lines' got to do with it?
The shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line.
This simple fact is the basis for any sort of location based calculation.
-
Although arguing with shills is repetitive and draining, but it can actually help.
I would never have discovered that most GPS frequencies have to go through a kilometre of reflective cloud unless they had tried to use frequency as an argument that GPS signals are not skywaves on the ionosphere ;)
But when someone posts a picture of dishes pointing upwards after all that's been said,it's just not worth saying the same repetitive things.
Satellite TV dishes are not simply pointing upwards. The have to be correctly aligned in altitude and azimuth to within a degree or so. Having been aligned they will not need re-adjusting unless knocked out of place.
Also, as has been carefully explained, the dishes using a given satellite all align at the same location 35,786 km above the equator.
So, there is no way there are pointing at balloons or any other ideas you might dream up.
;D Unless there is a balloon magically tethered at the required location so that the dish appears to point at the satellite! :o
Do you ever read the explanations given, or since you know everything, just ignore what everyone else says?
-
One of those dishes is angled totally differently to the others, but there is probably an excuse for that
-
Doesn't gps trilateration require the signals to travel in straight lines
No.
LOLWUT!?!?
Are you mental?
It just requires signals.
Wtf has 'straight lines' got to do with it?
The shortest distance between 2 points is a straight line.
This simple fact is the basis for any sort of location based calculation.
So the signal will be strongest at the shortest distance away from it, immaterial of its footprint.
And we're back to aligning our receiver with the signal...
Like every radio, ever.
-
So the signal will be strongest at the shortest distance away from it, immaterial of its footprint.
And we're back to aligning our receiver with the signal...
Like every radio, ever.
Do you align your cell phone receiver with the cell tower?
-
My cellphone doesn't have a dish antenna.
Perhaps yours does?
As well as firing laser beams at shpayze-satylytez?
I have no idea what kinda mad shit you lot will come up with next, so let me know...
Or don't.
It's not like it'll make any difference.
-
My cellphone doesn't have a dish antenna.
Neither do GPS receivers.