The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Q&A => Topic started by: edlloyd on February 07, 2007, 07:49:56 PM
-
How do they work then?
What about google earth? I don't think they flew around the earth taking pictures.
-
haha.... those guys are full of it
-
GPS uses accurate clocks to triangulate position. It doesn't need satellites.
Google Earth buys pictures taken from aircraft surveys and arranges them on a 3D globe.
-
GPS uses accurate clocks to triangulate position. It doesn't need satellites.
Google Earth buys pictures taken from aircraft surveys and arranges them on a 3D globe.
Planes have not covered the whole of the world mate.
Accurate clocks? Example?
-
Planes have not covered the whole of the world mate.
Very true. Not with high resolution cameras at least. Which is exactly why rural and uninteresting places of Google Earth have low resolution.
Google mostly buys its aircraft pictures from geological surveyors.
Accurate clocks? Example?
Look up "how GPS works" on Google.
-
so why would they require an open sky? and list the satellites they are receiving their triangulated position from ?
-
Planes have not covered the whole of the world mate.
Very true. Not with high resolution cameras at least. Which is exactly why rural and uninteresting places of Google Earth have low resolution.
Google mostly buys its aircraft pictures from geological surveyors.
Accurate clocks? Example?
Look up "how GPS works" on Google.
Global positioning satellite...satellite...tom...satellites!!
-
so why would they require an open sky? and list the satellites they are receiving their triangulated position from ?
It's listing the triangulating stations that it uses with its accurate clocks. Those triangulating stations can be ground based. The signals can be bounced off the atmosphere like radio. And the signals can also be broadcast from Stratellites. Lighter than air vehicles at very high altitudes.
http://images.google.com/images?&q=stratellite
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratellite
-
well then why does it require an open sky? radio doesnt? satellites and gps's do
-
well then why does it require an open sky? radio doesnt? satellites and gps's do
Stratellite is a brand name (Stratellite is a trademark of Sanswire Network, LLC, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of GlobeTel Communications Corp.) for a proposed high-altitude stratospheric airship that would provide a stationary communications platform for various types of wireless signals currently carried by communications towers or satellites.[/b]
Key word there tom...proposed...
currently carried by...oh right...satellites..
good work tom!
-
well then why does it require an open sky?
Because the signals that are bounced off the atmosphere are rather weak. It works better with an open sky just like your radio works better with an open sky.
Stratellite GPS stations also require an open sky.
Key word there tom...proposed...
currently carried by...oh right...satellites..
good work tom!
Lighter than air vehicles have been around since World War 2.
-
To date none of these designs have received approval from the FAA to fly in U.S. airspace.
-
well then why does it require an open sky?
Because the signals that are bounced off the atmosphere are rather weak. It works better with an open sky just like your radio works better with an open sky.
Stratellite GPS stations also require an open sky.
Key word there tom...proposed...
currently carried by...oh right...satellites..
good work tom!
Lighter than air vehicles have been around since World War 2.
yes, but not the one ur talkin bout
-
Those triangulating stations can be ground based. The signals can be bounced off the atmosphere like radio.
No they can't.
-
Global positioning satellite...satellite...tom...satellites!!
GPS is Global Positioning System. The transmitters do not have to be in space for it to work.
-
To date none of these designs have received approval from the FAA to fly in U.S. airspace.
They fly in military airspace, at altitudes over 60,000 feet.
yes, but not the one ur talkin bout
If engineers could make lighter than air vehicles back in WW2, then they could make remote controlled versions today.
-
To date none of these designs have received approval from the FAA to fly in U.S. airspace.
The designs have been flying for years.
-
A stratospheric airship is an airship designed to fly at very high altitudes (30,000 - 70,000 ft or 10 - 20 km). Most designs are (ROA/UAV) remote operated aircraft/unmanned aerial vehicles. To date none of these designs have received approval from the FAA to fly in U.S. airspace.
-
Global positioning satellite...satellite...tom...satellites!!
GPS is Global Positioning System. The transmitters do not have to be in space for it to work.
Yes...but tom is argueing that satellites do not exist.
-
To date none of these designs have received approval from the FAA to fly in U.S. airspace.
They fly in military airspace, at altitudes over 60,000 feet.
yes, but not the one ur talkin bout
If engineers could make lighter than air vehicles back in WW2, then they could make remote control versions today.
Tom...what has this got to do with satellites? Could wot?
Satellities do exists mate. Hence how google earth works and shows the earth to be quite round
-
Yes...but tom is argueing that satellites do not exist.
They don't.
Tom...what has this got to do with satellites? Could wot?
I'm saying that Stratellites are what you think are Satellites.
Hence how google earth works and shows the earth to be quite round.
Google Earth is simply a computer model of a sphere with aircraft pictures on it. It could just as easily be shaped into a flat earth. Or a square earth. Or a cylindrical earth.
-
Yes...but tom is argueing that satellites do not exist.
They don't.
Tom...what has this got to do with satellites? Could wot?
I'm saying that Stratellites are what you think are Satellites.
Hence how google earth works and shows the earth to be quite round.
Google Earth is simply a computer model of a sphere with aircraft pictures on it. It could just as easily be shaped into a flat earth. Or a square earth. Or a cylindrical earth.
Jesus christ. Why do satellities not exist? The technology is quite clearly there.
-
Yes...but tom is argueing that satellites do not exist.
They don't.
Tom...what has this got to do with satellites? Could wot?
I'm saying that Stratellites are what you think are Satellites.
Hence how google earth works and shows the earth to be quite round.
Google Earth is simply a computer model of a sphere with aircraft pictures on it. It could just as easily be shaped into a flat earth. Or a square earth. Or a cylindrical earth.
So where do all these NASA space missions fly off to then?
-
Jesus christ. Why do satellities not exist? The technology is quite clearly there.
Satellites themselves could exist. They just couldn't orbit the earth due to its lack of gravity.
So where do all these NASA space missions fly off to then?
Probably high into the atmosphere to deploy stratellites, or to conduct a survey mission or two.
-
Satellites require gravity to stay aloft. No gravity, no satellites in orbit.
-
but gravity exists so that makes you retarded!!!!!!!!!PUT YOUR HELMET ON AND GET BACK IN THE CAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Satellities do exists mate. Hence how google earth works and shows the earth to be quite round
GoogleEarth uses aeroplanes to take the photos, as stated on their website.
-
but gravity exists so that makes you retarded!!!!!!!!!PUT YOUR HELMET ON AND GET BACK IN THE CAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Prove it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GET YOUR "SHIFT" and "1" KEY UNSTUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
but gravity exists so that makes you retarded!!!!!!!!!PUT YOUR HELMET ON AND GET BACK IN THE CAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Prove it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GET YOUR "SHIFT" and "1" KEY UNSTUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I jump....but then I fall to the ground. Without gravity? What would cause this effect?
-
I jump....but then I fall to the ground. Without gravity? What would cause this effect?
Close. You jump, and the Earth rushes up to meet you.
-
but gravity exists so that makes you retarded!!!!!!!!!PUT YOUR HELMET ON AND GET BACK IN THE CAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Prove it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GET YOUR "SHIFT" and "1" KEY UNSTUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I jump....but then I fall to the ground. Without gravity? What would cause this effect?
Do you know of the equivalence principle? Didn't think so.
-
Acceleration.
-
Acceleration.
wrong. actually it's "negative deceleration"
-
:roll:
-
Acceleration.
wrong. actually it's "negative deceleration"
(http://forums.shatteredenigma.com/images/smiles/rofl.gif)
You should do comedy; next you'll be trying to convince me of the centrifugal force in inertial reference frames!
-
Acceleration.
wrong. actually it's "negative deceleration"
(http://forums.shatteredenigma.com/images/smiles/rofl.gif)
You should do comedy; next you'll be trying to convince me of the centrifugal force in inertial reference frames!
But BOG... We know that's all true! It's just... not what it seems! :wink:
-
I jump....but then I fall to the ground. Without gravity? What would cause this effect?
Close. You jump, and the Earth rushes up to meet you.
At what rate does the earth accelerate.
When say acelerate? Do u mean move or do you mean its accelerating it's in speed?
-
Woot! I made your sig! I take that as a complement.
And it IS like conversing with a magic 8 ball! Whatever you say... it spins around and some ridiculous answer pops out. Props on the entertainment value, though.
-
but gravity exists so that makes you retarded!!!!!!!!!PUT YOUR HELMET ON AND GET BACK IN THE CAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Prove it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GET YOUR "SHIFT" and "1" KEY UNSTUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I jump....but then I fall to the ground. Without gravity? What would cause this effect?
Do you know of the equivalence principle? Didn't think so.
The delopment of the equivalence principle let to the theory of gravity? Did it not?
-
I jump....but then I fall to the ground. Without gravity? What would cause this effect?
Close. You jump, and the Earth rushes up to meet you.
At what rate does the earth accelerate.
When say acelerate? Do u mean move or do you mean its accelerating it's in speed?
From the FAQ: The Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g (9.8m/s-2)
I don't understand the second queston.
-
I jump....but then I fall to the ground. Without gravity? What would cause this effect?
Close. You jump, and the Earth rushes up to meet you.
At what rate does the earth accelerate.
When say acelerate? Do u mean move or do you mean its accelerating it's in speed?
From the FAQ: The Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g (9.8m/s-2)
I don't understand the second queston.
Forgive me...I dont undestand the maths.
Is this 1g (9.8m/s-2) the speed or the rate of acceleration at which earth moves?
-
I believe it is the rate of acceleration. Which is what you asked.
-
I believe it is the rate of acceleration. Which is what you asked.
So do you know at what speed the earth is moving now?
Surely the faster it goes, the heavier we will become.
If it continues to accelerate, it would eventually reach the speed of light. Which is impossible
-
I jump....but then I fall to the ground. Without gravity? What would cause this effect?
Close. You jump, and the Earth rushes up to meet you.
At what rate does the earth accelerate.
When say acelerate? Do u mean move or do you mean its accelerating it's in speed?
From the FAQ: The Earth is accelerating upwards at 1g (9.8m/s-2)
I don't understand the second queston.
You give what I asked? What did you not understand about my second question then?
-
I believe it is the rate of acceleration. Which is what you asked.
So do you know at what speed the earth is moving now?
Surely the faster it goes, the heavier we will become.
If it continues to accelerate, it would eventually reach the speed of light. Which is impossible
Ok, now you're defintely getting into stuff that's already been covered.
1)I personally am unaware of the Earth's current speed.
2) Not in our frame of reference
3) The closer we get to the speed of light (from someone else's frame of reference - obviously we can't observe the constant acceleration from ours)the more our acceleration drops off. We can never reach the speed of light, but we are forever getting closer.
-
I believe it is the rate of acceleration. Which is what you asked.
So do you know at what speed the earth is moving now?
Surely the faster it goes, the heavier we will become.
If it continues to accelerate, it would eventually reach the speed of light. Which is impossible
Ok, now you're defintely getting into stuff that's already been covered.
1)I personally am unaware of the Earth's current speed.
2) Not in our frame of reference
3) The closer we get to the speed of light (from someone else's frame of reference - obviously we can't observe the constant acceleration from ours)the more our acceleration drops off. We can never reach the speed of light, but we are forever getting closer.
It's a discussion board. Things will get recovered when they is you can't back an argument.
Does any FE know the speed at which we travel now? How do you know we are travelling now is there is no reference? If it was accelerating, then the time it took me to jump and come to the earth would be longer than if I did it again in a years time. Yes, I fall to the earth, because the earth is accelerating, u say.
"obviously we can't observe the constant acceleration from ours" - So how do you know we are accelerating then?
Does anyone FE have proof for this?
And why did they say we can't reach the speed of light? Answer me that, and that would surely flaw your acceleration theory.
-
It's a discussion board. Things will get recovered when they is you can't back an argument.
Does any FE know the speed at which we travel now? How do you know we are travelling now is there is no reference? If it was accelerating, then the time it took me to jump and come to the earth would be longer than if I did it again in a years time. Yes, I fall to the earth, because the earth is accelerating, u say.
"obviously we can't observe the constant acceleration from ours" - So how do you know we are accelerating then?
Does anyone FE have proof for this?
And why did they say we can't reach the speed of light? Answer me that, and that would surely flaw your acceleration theory.
We're clearly accelerating, because if you jump in the air, you don't go flying off the earth as you would if we were travelling at a constant speed. I don't think it would take longer a year later, because your frame of reference hasn't changed.
We can't reach the speed of light, because from an external point of reference, our mass increases as we accelerate, needing more energy to mantain the acceleration. Therefore our acceleration decreases (to an external point of reference) the closer we get to the speed of light, meaning we can never reach it.
Of course we can't observe our fading acceleration due to our point of reference.
-
It's a discussion board. Things will get recovered when they is you can't back an argument.
Does any FE know the speed at which we travel now? How do you know we are travelling now is there is no reference? If it was accelerating, then the time it took me to jump and come to the earth would be longer than if I did it again in a years time. Yes, I fall to the earth, because the earth is accelerating, u say.
"obviously we can't observe the constant acceleration from ours" - So how do you know we are accelerating then?
Does anyone FE have proof for this?
And why did they say we can't reach the speed of light? Answer me that, and that would surely flaw your acceleration theory.
We're clearly accelerating, because if you jump in the air, you don't go flying off the earth as you would if we were travelling at a constant speed. I don't think it would take longer a year later, because your frame of reference hasn't changed.
We can't reach the speed of light, because from an external point of reference, our mass increases as we accelerate, needing more energy to mantain the acceleration. Therefore our acceleration decreases (to an external point of reference) the closer we get to the speed of light, meaning we can never reach it.
Of course we can't observe our fading acceleration due to our point of reference.
Surely u could only say I fall because the earth moves, not accelerates. Your logic cant proving its accelerating. If it was accelerating, a kg would wiegh more on the scales a year later - "our mass increases as we accelerate, needing more energy to mantain the acceleration"
And the only thing you have to I fall to the ground is because the earth is actually moving doesnt hold upto the theory of gravity, which supports Einstein, who u seem, seem to support.
-
Surely u could only say I fall because the earth moves, not accelerates. Your logic cant proving its accelerating. If it was accelerating, a kg would wiegh more on the scales a year later - "our mass increases as we accelerate, needing more energy to mantain the acceleration"
And the only thing you have to I fall to the ground is because the earth is actually moving doesnt hold upto the theory of gravity, which supports Einstein, who u seem, seem to support.
Dude, can you please proof read your posts? there parts in all of them that make no sense.
As I said in my previous post, if we were travelling at a constant speed, you jumping would result in you going a higher speed, and not falling back to Earth at all. However, because you do fall back to earth, your reference frame reverts back to what it was, so the earth would rush up to meet you at the same speed as previously.
Our mass only increases from an external perspective. A Kg weighs a Kg every year.
I don't understand the Einstein paragraph.
-
Surely u could only say I fall because the earth moves, not accelerates. Your logic cant proving its accelerating. If it was accelerating, a kg would wiegh more on the scales a year later - "our mass increases as we accelerate, needing more energy to mantain the acceleration"
And the only thing you have to I fall to the ground is because the earth is actually moving doesnt hold upto the theory of gravity, which supports Einstein, who u seem, seem to support.
Dude, can you please proof read your posts? there parts in all of them that make no sense.
As I said in my previous post, if we were travelling at a constant speed, you jumping would result in you going a higher speed, and not falling back to Earth at all. However, because you do fall back to earth, your reference frame reverts back to what it was, so the earth would rush up to meet you at the same speed as previously.
Our mass only increases from an external perspective. A Kg weighs a Kg every year.
I don't understand the Einstein paragraph.
Apologies for my slight dyslexia. What part did you not understand, I shall translate for you.
"As I said in my previous post, if we were travelling at a constant speed, you jumping would result in you going a higher speed" Not if earth was travelling faster than I was? I must jump about what 5mph into the air? Does the earth not travel at least 5mph? How many miles do it accelerate by then?
-
Apologies for my slight dyslexia. What part did you not understand, I shall translate for you.
"As I said in my previous post, if we were travelling at a constant speed, you jumping would result in you going a higher speed" Not if earth was travelling faster than I was? I must jump about what 5mph into the air? Does the earth not travel at least 5mph? How many miles do it accelerate by then?
As I said, I didn't understand the Einstein paragraph. No need to apologise, I just want to be able to answer your questions (if i can).
What I'm saying, is that if the earth (with no gravity) is travelling at a steady 1000kms/h (obviously an example number), and you jumped at 5km/h into the air, you would then be going 1005 kms/h, and therefore would be going faster than the earth. Being that the earth was travelling at a constant speed, you would pull away from it. Howver, the earth rushes up to meet you, in the same time, everytime, so we're clearly accelerating.
-
Apologies for my slight dyslexia. What part did you not understand, I shall translate for you.
"As I said in my previous post, if we were travelling at a constant speed, you jumping would result in you going a higher speed" Not if earth was travelling faster than I was? I must jump about what 5mph into the air? Does the earth not travel at least 5mph? How many miles do it accelerate by then?
As I said, I didn't understand the Einstein paragraph. No need to apologise, I just want to be able to answer your questions (if i can).
What I'm saying, is that if the earth (with no gravity) is travelling at a steady 1000kms/h (obviously an example number), and you jumped at 5km/h into the air, you would then be going 1005 kms/h, and therefore would be going faster than the earth. Being that the earth was travelling at a constant speed, you would pull away from it. Howver, the earth rushes up to meet you, in the same time, everytime, so we're clearly accelerating.
Would it not be because I lose momentum then?
And what of sky divers and terminal velocity? How could planes fly straight across? They would have to fly like how helicopters, do.
-
Would it not be because I lose momentum then?
And what of sky divers and terminal velocity? How could planes fly straight across? They would have to fly like how helicopters, do.
That's my understanding of it anyway. I don't profess to be any sort of expert.
Sky divers jump out of the plane, then the Earth rushes up to meet them. Planes fly as per normal.
-
Would it not be because I lose momentum then?
And what of sky divers and terminal velocity? How could planes fly straight across? They would have to fly like how helicopters, do.
That's my understanding of it anyway. I don't profess to be any sort of expert.
Sky divers jump out of the plane, then the Earth rushes up to meet them. Planes fly as per normal.
How could a plane fly normal though and not be rushed by the ground? And why do sky divers reach terminal velocity?
-
Would it not be because I lose momentum then?
And what of sky divers and terminal velocity? How could planes fly straight across? They would have to fly like how helicopters, do.
That's my understanding of it anyway. I don't profess to be any sort of expert.
Sky divers jump out of the plane, then the Earth rushes up to meet them. Planes fly as per normal.
How could a plane fly normal though and not be rushed by the ground? And why do sky divers reach terminal velocity?
Planes fly using the same physics the would on RE - as they are in the Earth's frame of reference.
Sky divers reach terminal velocity because the Earth can't rush towards them any faster.
-
Would it not be because I lose momentum then?
And what of sky divers and terminal velocity? How could planes fly straight across? They would have to fly like how helicopters, do.
That's my understanding of it anyway. I don't profess to be any sort of expert.
Sky divers jump out of the plane, then the Earth rushes up to meet them. Planes fly as per normal.
How could a plane fly normal though and not be rushed by the ground? And why do sky divers reach terminal velocity?
Planes fly using the same physics the would on RE - as they are in the Earth's frame of reference.
Sky divers reach terminal velocity because the Earth can't rush towards them any faster.
Right...I'm gonna this beer, go outside in the freezing and have a fag (ciggerette for you non English), whilst looking at the stars.
Why do stars twinkle and not the sun?
-
Why do stars twinkle and not the sun?
For the same reason as in RE.
-
Ok, the earth is accelerating at 9.81m/s^2. When you jump off the ground, you have added to your velocity, but you are no longer accelerating. The earth still is. The earth simply accelerates up to your new velocity.
Aircraft must produce lift in order to stay aloft. As long as they are producing an upwards acceleration of 9.81m/s^2, they are not getting any closer to the ground.
Terminal velocity is reached when the drag force of the air on the skydiver equals the acceleration of the earth. He is still falling, just no longer accelerating. The atmosphere is pushed along with the earth.
-
Why do stars twinkle and not the sun?
For the same reason as in RE.
What reason is that then?
I just had a ciggy outside and the moon was half lite. It was not twinkling, but the stars were.
How do you also explain hayley's comet as well?
-
Ok, the earth is accelerating at 9.81m/s^2. When you jump off the ground, you have added to your velocity, but you are no longer accelerating. The earth still is. The earth simply accelerates up to your new velocity.
Aircraft must produce lift in order to stay aloft. As long as they are producing an upwards acceleration of 9.81m/s^2, they are not getting any closer to the ground.
A plane would only stay a flight it was facing away from the earth, IE, straight up. Its flying horizonatal to the earth, the earth would be moving upwards to meet it.
-
Airplanes create this thing called lift.
-
Airplanes create this thing called lift.
which is how they fly in RE, but in FE, the earth moves upwards. so regardless of lift or not, the earth would surely meet it.
-
Why do they need to create lift? Because without it they would crash into the ground. In either model.
-
A plane would only stay a flight it was facing away from the earth, IE, straight up. Its flying horizonatal to the earth, the earth would be moving upwards to meet it.
Sorry mate, now you're effectively moving into a full explanation of FE. I can't let you be that lazy. Search for hayley's comet and the like if you want. I'll let engineer take over the aeroplane bit. I'm going for lunch!
-
Why do they need to create lift? Because without it they would crash into the ground. In either model.
When did I say they didnt need lift??
-
When you said they had to fly straight up to keep from hitting the earth.
-
A plane would only stay a flight it was facing away from the earth, IE, straight up. Its flying horizonatal to the earth, the earth would be moving upwards to meet it.
Sorry mate, now you're effectively moving into a full explanation of FE. I can't let you be that lazy. Search for hayley's comet and the like if you want. I'll let engineer take over the aeroplane bit. I'm going for lunch!
What? That lazy? That's science mate. Einstein had to be pretty in depth about relativity, did he not?
The only result to hayley's is in this thread.
Thanks for another helpful explanation.
-
What? That lazy? That's science mate. Einstein had to be pretty in depth about relativity, did he not?
The only result to hayley's is in this thread.
Thanks for another helpful explanation.
:? I think I've been pretty helpful this morning buddy. Considering I'm at work, and I'm spending a lot of time typing out answers to your questions. At this point, I'm handing over as I need to eat lunch. My problem was that you keep introducing new questions, effectively de-railing the thread. If you couldn't find something specifically on Hayley's comet, you should definetly been able to find something on comets and meteors in general.
-
What? That lazy? That's science mate. Einstein had to be pretty in depth about relativity, did he not?
The only result to hayley's is in this thread.
Thanks for another helpful explanation.
:? I think I've been pretty helpful this morning buddy. Considering I'm at work, and I'm spending a lot of time typing out answers to your questions. At this point, I'm handing over as I need to eat lunch. My problem was that you keep introducing new questions, effectively de-railing the thread. If you couldn't find something specifically on Hayley's comet, you should definetly been able to find something on comets and meteors in general.
New questions?? What? You never gave an answer my thread of how GPS works did you? So what are you doing in this thread then?
-
New questions?? What? You never gave an answer my thread of how GPS works did you? So what are you doing in this thread then?
Actually I was answering this question: I jump....but then I fall to the ground. Without gravity? What would cause this effect?
-
New questions?? What? You never gave an answer my thread of how GPS works did you? So what are you doing in this thread then?
Actually I was answering this question: I jump....but then I fall to the ground. Without gravity? What would cause this effect?
Apology accepted
-
Apology accepted
It's a shame you turned out to be another typical RE'er after I invested so much of my morning trying to answer the questions you had. Looks like referring people to the FAQ and search really is the way to go.
-
Apology accepted
It's a shame you turned out to be another typical RE'er after I invested so much of my morning trying to answer the questions you had. Looks like referring people to the FAQ and search really is the way to go.
Well...think about it. I said I fall to the ground in response to someone saying gravity didnt exists. But gravity exists, so that is how satelites orbit.
We, in affect, both at fault for not concentratin on the original debate of how does GPS work.
U tell people to stick to the subject, yet you didnt stick to this subject yourself. Hence...a cheeky comment
-
U tell people to stick to the subject, yet you didnt stick to this subject yourself. Hence...a cheeky comment
I had put the topic aside for one sec to try and help out a new member. Don't worry, I won't do it again.
-
Fine. GPS works because of very accurate clocks.
-
Fine. GPS works because of very accurate clocks.
lol no it doesn't
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS its satellites...how can we have Satellites, they themselves contradict FE theory
-
but gravity exists so that makes you retarded!!!!!!!!!PUT YOUR HELMET ON AND GET BACK IN THE CAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Prove it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GET YOUR "SHIFT" and "1" KEY UNSTUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FAQ - says...
Q: "Why does gravity vary with altitude?"
A: The moon and stars have a slight gravitational pull.
-
lol no it doesn't
Actually, yes it does.
-
Fine. GPS works because of very accurate clocks.
lol no it doesn't
Please explain how GPS is possible if they don't use very accurate clocks.
-
Fine. GPS works because of very accurate clocks.
lol no it doesn't
Please explain how GPS is possible if they don't use very accurate clocks.
engineer you seem quite clued up about FE...
could u answer in my moon crater thread as to why there are craters on the moon?
-
Fine. GPS works because of very accurate clocks.
lol no it doesn't
Please explain how GPS is possible if they don't use very accurate clocks.
It uses three satellites. A message is sent to the satellites from the ground by any GPS device. The three satellites then send a signal back to the device triangulating its position relative to the positions of the satellites above the surface of the earth. Remember these satellites are in geosynchronous orbit some 36 000km's above the surface of the Earth so time is not necessary.
-
Fine. GPS works because of very accurate clocks.
lol no it doesn't
Please explain how GPS is possible if they don't use very accurate clocks.
It uses three satellites. A message is sent to the satellites from the ground by any GPS device. The three satellites then send a signal back to the device triangulating its position relative to the positions of the satellites above the surface of the earth. Remember these satellites are in geosynchronous orbit some 36 000km's above the surface of the Earth so time is not necessary.
Nope. The GPS unit in your car is a RECEIVER, not a transmitter. Try again.
I will give you a chance to redeem yourself: Research how GPS works and then come back and explain how it is done without those clocks I mentioned earlier.
-
Nope. The GPS unit in your car is a RECEIVER, not a transmitter. Try again.
I will give you a chance to redeem yourself: Research how GPS works and then come back and explain how it is done without those clocks I mentioned earlier.
Wrong again. firstly I provided a link to how GPS works earlier in this forum.
Secondly any device which sends information to anything else is a transmitter. lol u just disproved yourself if the GPS unit is only a reciever, then it can NOT operate based on very accurate clocks, as to determine the position of an object using clocks is called multilateration, where a signal is sent to three fixed points on the earths surface and then these points can determine the transmitters position based on the time it took for the signal to be recieved at all three locations. This is DIFFERENT TO GPS which uses satellites...Check it on wiki lol, or google or even go back to my previous post.
GPS device requires the satellites to know the position of the device. I know the GPS system in your car is just a reciever...but I didn't mention that did I, not all GPS devices are simply recievers. ASIO uses GPS devices that can send and recieve information so that they can locate objects on the surface of the planet which are not GPS devices
Its pretty clear that u know nothing of what you are talking about. Everytime u make a counter-point i easily rebut. When will u ever prove me worng...I question your scientific background immensely.
-
lol u just disproved yourself if the GPS unit is only a reciever, then it can NOT operate
...
I know the GPS system in your car is just a reciever...
:roll:
-
Let me help you out a little bit.
GPS 101 will now begin.
The transmitters have on board atomic clocks. These are all sync'ed to what is known as GPS time. These transmitters send out signals which contain three pieces of data: The status of the transmitter, the position of the transmitter, and the current GPS time.
The receiver contains an antenna, a quartz clock, and a computer. When it receives a signal, it calculates the transit time of the signal based on the time stamp contained within the signal, and using the known speed of light, determines the receiver's distance from the transmitter. The receiver can be anywhere on the surface of a sphere whose radius is is the calculated distance from the transmitter.
After doing this for two signals, the receiver's possible location is now a circle where the two spheres intersect.
One more signal narrows the position to two locations.
Using the earth as a fourth sphere, it has located its position on the surface of the earth.
Now, at start up, the receiver has no idea what the current GPS time is. In order for it to set its clock without the lag caused by signal transit time, it must aquire four signals. Knowing there is only a small time error, the receiver begins to calculate a time that would cause all four spheres to intersect at one point in space. Since there is only one value for time that would allow this, it now knows GPS time, and sets its quartz clock accordingly.
It now needs only three signals to calculate its position.
Without the atomic clocks on the transmitters, time synchronization between the transmitters would not be possible and the receiver would be getting different time values for each signal. This means that the location spheres would intermittently not intersect or two would meet at a single point in the upper atmosphere, making GPS useless.
-
Shit, I just learned something new tonight! Thanks Engineer!
But, aren't there units that use a satellite as well? Or are they all the same?
-
If you believe in such things as satellites, replace 'transmitter' in my post with 'satellite'.
-
If you believe in such things as satellites, replace 'transmitter' in my post with 'satellite'.
You seem confused by Multilateration and Trilateration. What you have described is Multilateration.
GPS uses trilateration...and I quote from Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS
Trilateration is the mathematical basis behind the Global Positioning System (GPS) and similar systems.
What you said in your previous post was exactly what I was saying. The point about synchronized satellite clocks I thought was obvious.
The receiver contains an antenna, a quartz clock, and a computer. When it receives a signal, it calculates the transit time of the signal based on the time stamp contained within the signal, and using the known speed of light, determines the receiver's distance from the transmitter. The receiver can be anywhere on the surface of a sphere whose radius is is the calculated distance from the transmitter.
this is Multilateration, this is not how GPS works...
From wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_positioning
Multilateration, also known as hyperbolic positioning, is the process of locating an object by accurately computing the time difference of arrival (TDOA) of a signal emitted from the object to three or more receivers. It also refers to the case of locating a receiver by measuring the TDOA of a signal transmitted from three or more synchronised transmitters.
Multilateration should not be confused with trilateration, which uses absolute measurements of time-of-arrival from three or more sites.
Triliteration is used by GPS which is not the same as what you are presenting. I however do not deny the use of synchronized Atomic clocks on the satellite, it seems pretty obvious to me that they would use them to determine their own orbital position with reference to the point above the Earth's surface, distance to other satellites etc.
-
What you have described is Multilateration.
Multilateration is what you have described. You said that the unit in your car transmits a signal to three receivers. What I have described is trilateration.
Let's review. You said:
It uses three satellites. A message is sent to the satellites from the ground by any GPS device. The three satellites then send a signal back to the device triangulating its position relative to the positions of the satellites above the surface of the earth.
Multilateration is :
Multilateration, also known as hyperbolic positioning, is the process of locating an object by accurately computing the time difference of arrival (TDOA) of a signal emitted from the object to three or more receivers.
I said:
The receiver contains an antenna, a quartz clock, and a computer. When it receives a signal, it calculates the transit time of the signal based on the time stamp contained within the signal, and using the known speed of light, determines the receiver's distance from the transmitter.
Measuring the time delay between transmission and reception of each GPS radio signal gives the distance to each satellite, since the signal travels at a known speed. The signals also carry information about the satellites' location. By determining the position of, and distance to, at least three satellites, the receiver can compute its position using trilateration.
Can you really be this stupid?
-
What you have described is Multilateration.
Multilateration is what you have described. You said that the unit in your car transmits a signal to three receivers. What I have described is trilateration.
LOL you didn't even listen to what i said. I said GPS devices in your CARS are simply recievers, I never said anything about simple GPS devices being transmitters!!!!...I said Some GPS devices, which ASIO uses can however send information to satellites to calculate the position of something which does not have a GPS device. The transmission would Carry co-ordinants
I described Trilateration, YOU described multilateration you moron
-
I described Trilateration, YOU described multilateration you moron
Ok, then, show me where.
-
The receiver contains an antenna, a quartz clock, and a computer. When it receives a signal, it calculates the transit time of the signal based on the time stamp contained within the signal, and using the known speed of light, determines the receiver's distance from the transmitter. The receiver can be anywhere on the surface of a sphere whose radius is is the calculated distance from the transmitter.
Multilateration...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_positioning
-
Apparently you don't actually know what multilateration is. Tell me in your own words what it is. No links, just a simple explanation.
-
Apparently you don't actually know what multilateration is. Tell me in your own words what it is. No links, just a simple explanation.
The only difference between the multilateration you suggest and real multilateration is that in reality, yes the object which requests its location is both a transmitter and a reciever in ALL cases, unlike GPS where basic commercial devices are recievers as well as the more advanced devices being transmitters and recievers. However multilateration is what you described is locating a position using very accurate clocks
Multilateration - the calculation of a position based on the time difference of accurate clocks from recievers at fixed position. A short signal is sent from the transmitter to 4 points on the earths surface. Now using the Difference in the Arrival time, the recievers, using atomic clocks accurately calculate the transmitters position.
The first two recievers calculate one time difference, also know as TDOA (time difference of arrival). This creates a hyperbola of possible locations. The 3rd reciever creates a second TDOA. The second hyperbola created from this TDOA will intersect the first. A curve of possible locations exists between these two points. A fourth reciever then confirms the exact position with a third Hyperbola. Where the curve and this hyperbola intersect is the position of the transmitter.
-
I'm going to have to concur with what TheEngineer described; it is not multilateration because there is no "pinged" signal from the GPS device. Even though GPS transmits a "time", the information is not at all related to time-delay of a pinged signal (as in multilateration). The "time" information transmitted by GPS is directly used to calculate the distance between the two devices, thus is trilateration.
Edit: Wiki has a great statement in the article for multi- that you posted (but must not have read):Multilateration should not be confused with trilateration, which uses absolute measurements of time-of-arrival from three or more sites.
-
Here is another interesting tidbit from Wiki on GPS:
Developed by the United States Department of Defense, it is officially named NAVSTAR GPS (Navigation Satellite Timing And Ranging Global Positioning System). The satellite constellation is managed by the United States Air Force 50th Space Wing. Although the cost of maintaining the system is approximately US$400 million per year, including the replacement of aging satellites, GPS is free for civilian use as a public good.
That wreaks of conspiracy in my nose. The public doesn't need this service for free; I guarantee companies and outdoorsmen would pay for use of GPS. There is no benefit for the military in spending all that money and not charging for the systems use . . . except to make us believe the Earth is round. :wink:
-
Multilateration - the calculation of a position based on the time difference of accurate clocks from recievers at fixed position. A short signal is sent from the transmitter to 4 points on the earths surface. Now using the Difference in the Arrival time, the recievers, using atomic clocks accurately calculate the transmitters position.
Nope. In multilateration, the unit whose position is to be determined, transmits a signal to multiple receivers that use time difference of arrival between the receiving sites to determine a set of possible locations that lie in a hyperboloid, hence the term hyperbolic positioning. This does not require an absolute time, as the only thing that matters is the difference of arrival times between the receivers. Now, if you add in a third receiver, you now get another hyperboloid, defining a curve in space. Toss in a fourth receiver, and you now have your location in space, without reference to an absolute time.
In case you don't know, a hyperboloid is kind of like two cones connected at the points.
What I explained was nothing like multilateration: The unit whose position is to be determined, receives absolute time and position signals from a transmitter. Using the time delay in reception, it calculates its distance from the transmitter. This defines a sphere in space. A sphere is not a hyperboloid.
-
Multilateration - the calculation of a position based on the time difference of accurate clocks from recievers at fixed position. A short signal is sent from the transmitter to 4 points on the earths surface. Now using the Difference in the Arrival time, the recievers, using atomic clocks accurately calculate the transmitters position.
Nope. In multilateration, the unit whose position is to be determined, transmits a signal to multiple receivers that use time difference of arrival between the receiving sites to determine a set of possible locations that lie in a hyperboloid, hence the term hyperbolic positioning. This does not require an absolute time, as the only thing that matters is the difference of arrival times between the receivers. Now, if you add in a third receiver, you now get another hyperboloid, defining a curve in space. Toss in a fourth receiver, and you now have your location in space, without reference to an absolute time.
In case you don't know, a hyperboloid is kind of like two cones connected at the points.
What I explained was nothing like multilateration: The unit whose position is to be determined, receives absolute time and position signals from a transmitter. Using the time delay in reception, it calculates its distance from the transmitter. This defines a sphere in space. A sphere is not a hyperboloid.
Ok Yep thats right, but it still supports my original point that the GPS uses satellites, otherwise there would be no need for the GPS device to reset itself all the time, it could simply calculate its position use multilateration as the recievers for multilateration are fixed.
-
...it could simply calculate its position use multilateration as the recievers for multilateration are fixed.
That is true, it could; but that would not be simpler. Trilateration still works when the transmitters are stationary. It is simpler for a GPS unit to have a fairly accurate quartz clock that is calibrated on startup rather than having a transmitter.
-
Trilateration still works when the transmitters are stationary. It is simpler for a GPS unit to have a fairly accurate quartz clock that is calibrated on startup rather than having a transmitter.
When the transmitters are stationary there is no need to trilateration because, as we said they are fixed. It would be much cheaper to have a simple IR emitting device and recievers on the ground than pointlessly launch $400 million dollars worth of satellites and then upkeep and replacement costs added on annually.
-
It would be much cheaper to have a simple IR emitting device and recievers on the ground than pointlessly launch $400 million dollars worth of satellites and then upkeep and replacement costs added on annually.
Yes it would, which is why the whole GPS thing is suspicious.
-
It would be much cheaper to have a simple IR emitting device and recievers on the ground than pointlessly launch $400 million dollars worth of satellites and then upkeep and replacement costs added on annually.
Yes it would, which is why the whole GPS thing is suspicious.
The amount of money that the Government would need to hide the flat earth is really quite rediculous.
-
I know, they do spend way too much money. Lies cost us all dearly, and in so many ways. :(
-
When the transmitters are stationary there is no need to trilateration because, as we said they are fixed.
What good is it to know where the transmitters are, if you don't know where you are?
-
When the transmitters are stationary there is no need to trilateration because, as we said they are fixed.
What good is it to know where the transmitters are, if you don't know where you are?
We send out a pulse, then the fixed recievers calculate our position based on theTDOA, then send it back to us.
-
We send out a pulse, then the fixed recievers calculate our position based on theTDOA, then send it back to us.
Or, one can have a simple, relativly cheap receiver that calculates position based on uniformly broadcast signals from transmitters with known locations. Which seems to be the way to go as it's what is used in GPS and the very popular VOR.
-
We send out a pulse, then the fixed recievers calculate our position based on theTDOA, then send it back to us.
Or, one can have a simple, relativly cheap receiver that calculates position based on uniformly broadcast signals from transmitters with known locations. Which seems to be the way to go as it's what is used in GPS and the very popular VOR.
It would overall be cheaper to use multilateration, cheap IR/radio emitters and stationary recievers vs $400 million dollars worth of satellites (negating upkeep costs) and much more expensive GPS devices which cost anywhere from $400AU to $1000AU each
-
Well, as Evil as stated, that makes GPS highly suspect.
-
It all comes back to the government...how can You FE'ers not see that basing a theory on government conspiracy is total rubbish
-
Nothing is based on government conspiracy; rather, government conspiracy is an aspect. Not all that many people need to know it; I know it sounds ridiculous at first, but it really is plausible if you think about it.
-
Nothing is based on government conspiracy; rather, government conspiracy is an aspect. Not all that many people need to know it; I know it sounds ridiculous at first, but it really is plausible if you think about it.
Actually no its not, the amount of people that would need to know to cover that up is rediculous, its impossible for just a few people, even at the top of a governmental department to hide it from the masses. All developed countries and even some undeveloped nations have the means to test whether the world was flat. Any Nation with an airforce could do it. Most 1st world countries have satellite programs. The amount of money to cover it up would be rediculous.
-
Nothing is based on government conspiracy; rather, government conspiracy is an aspect. Not all that many people need to know it; I know it sounds ridiculous at first, but it really is plausible if you think about it.
-
Nothing is based on government conspiracy; rather, government conspiracy is an aspect. Not all that many people need to know it; I know it sounds ridiculous at first, but it really is plausible if you think about it.
Not really if you actually think about it logistically. The conpiracy compendium doesn't even begin to cover it
-
All developed countries and even some undeveloped nations have the means to test whether the world was flat. Any Nation with an airforce could do it. Most 1st world countries have satellite programs.
Yes they do have the means to test this, but why would they? They already 'know' the Earth is round.
-
All developed countries and even some undeveloped nations have the means to test whether the world was flat. Any Nation with an airforce could do it. Most 1st world countries have satellite programs.
Yes they do have the means to test this, but why would they? They already 'know' the Earth is round.
They would see it is flat though. Noone is that blind to not question something when they can clearly see differently.
-
They can "clearly see differently"? How's that?
And what is it with all you argumentative types and bad grammar?
-
They can "clearly see differently"? How's that?
And what is it with all you argumentative types and bad grammar?
Too lazy to correct. From the alttitude which most fighters can reach today, the sphereical nature of the Earth could be clearly defined.
-
(http://www.linenoiz.com/pics/funny/its_a_conspiracy.jpg)
-
Too lazy to correct. From the alttitude which most fighters can reach today, the sphereical nature of the Earth could be clearly defined.
Incorrect. No plane could see the earth as a globe.
-
Too lazy to correct. From the alttitude which most fighters can reach today, the sphereical nature of the Earth could be clearly defined.
Incorrect. No plane could see the earth as a globe.
You're an idiot tom, planes can get high enough to see a clear curvature due to its spherical nature.
The SR-71 blackbird can reach 87 000 ft, they've been around since 1964.
The Eurofighter Typhoon can reach 60 000ft and is in service for several different airforces.
-
They can "clearly see differently"? How's that?
And what is it with all you argumentative types and bad grammar?
Too lazy to correct. From the alttitude which most fighters can reach today, the sphereical nature of the Earth could be clearly defined.
Please quantify that claim.
-
They can "clearly see differently"? How's that?
And what is it with all you argumentative types and bad grammar?
Too lazy to correct. From the alttitude which most fighters can reach today, the sphereical nature of the Earth could be clearly defined.
Please quantify that claim.
It would be my pleasure. even at 60 000ft (18 300m - the altitude of the Eurofighter Typhoon) the planes would be flying in the troposhere, giving them a clear, unobstructed view of the world below. Now granted a fair amount would be covered in clouds. so lets so that the furthest the plane could see completely unobstructed is to the top of the highest clouds, which are found at 5000m. But lets say we are at the North pole where the highest clouds orbit much lower, at 3000m, so the visable distance straight down is 15 300m
Ok so using trigonometry and a hypothetical view angle of 60 degrees (remember he's in the troposphere, he can look where ever he wants, theoretically if the Earth was flat, he could see right until the edge but lets just say his maximum viewing angle is 60, which is nothing really)
He could see in a radius 26, 500m from the point directly below him.
After calculating it the Earths surface drops away by 100th of a degree, assuming a 60 degree view field.
However in the troposphere there would be no visual interfearance, at 80 degrees (he could see in a radius of 85 000m below him) the earths surface drops by almost half a degree...or in other words, the Earth surface drops away by just under a kilometer, thats a pretty defined curve consider how enourmous the Earth is and we are only 26km's above the surface of the clouds. On a clear day it would be further. Thats just with jet fights at 80 degree vieing angel. From the troposphere you would be able to see the Earth's edge.
Then we get to satellites. most countries have space programs, however only America/Russia and China activily launch objects into outer-space. The Australian government I know pays the Americans to launch satellites on its behalf, as do the French and British...are all these countries in on the conspiracy as well
-
at 60,000 feet... the earths surface drops by almost half a degree...or in other words, the Earth surface drops away by just under a kilometer, thats a pretty defined curve
I can agree with that. Too bad civilians are not permitted to fly to an altitude of 60,000 feet to verify this.
-
Too bad for you I am going in the Air Force this summer.
Guess who'll have clearance to tell you otherwise? :wink:
-
Guess who'll have clearance to tell you otherwise? :wink:
The military doesn't give clearance to to diploma mill drop outs, sorry.
-
Hey Tom, why don't you leave my schooling alone? Have you considered there was a reason other than money that I stopped going?
You're being a real big asshole by saying shit like that, and pissing me off.
And you've never been in the military, and guess what? I already spoke with recruiters. If I get assigned as a pilot, I would have the proper clearance.
Like I said, I've tried to help you, and you need to do some damn research.
-
Guess who'll have clearance to tell you otherwise? :wink:
The military doesn't give clearance to to diploma mill drop outs, sorry.
the military gives clearance to all qualified pilots regardless of education. See the military isn't about education, although they give you some, it's about skill and merit.
-
at 60,000 feet... the earths surface drops by almost half a degree...or in other words, the Earth surface drops away by just under a kilometer, thats a pretty defined curve
I can agree with that. Too bad civilians are not permitted to fly to an altitude of 60,000 feet to verify this.
too bad all the worlds militaries and all the service men and women are part of the conspiracy...suddenly it just gets more and more rediculous
-
Guess who'll have clearance to tell you otherwise? :wink:
The military doesn't give clearance to to diploma mill drop outs, sorry.
what do u have a degree in tom? if anything it would be Batchelor of arts no doubt in history of english literature, majoring in speculative fiction.
-
And you've never been in the military, and guess what? I already spoke with recruiters. If I get assigned as a pilot, I would have the proper clearance.
You really are gullible.
Only officers can become pilots. Only college graduates can become officers.
-
And you've never been in the military, and guess what? I already spoke with recruiters. If I get assigned as a pilot, I would have the proper clearance.
You really are gullible if you believed them.
Only officers can become pilots. Only degree holders can become officers.
Whats your degree in tom...i state again if anything it would be Batchelor of arts no doubt in history of english literature, majoring in speculative fiction.
-
Tom.
Before you post.
DO SOME RESEARCH!
I plan on attending the Academy. Which, if you didn't know, is an accredited "community" college in the Air Force, and they give degree's. Oh, and guess what? When you get out of the Academy, you get... A degree! So that means... I can be an Officer! Which means that if I was so inclined... I could become a pilot!
Although I plan on doing graphic design and photography as my major and minor (respectively), I still have the option of being an officer upon graduation.
DO SOME RESEARCH!
-
I plan on attending the Academy. Which, if you didn't know, is an accredited "community" college in the Air Force, and they give degree's.
In that case, you are not really "joining the Airforce" this summer, are you?
-
You need to go through Boot Camp, and then you are in the Air Force. You need to be in the Air Force before you can attend the Academy.
So, yes, I would be in the Air Force this summer.
Stop making this about me, and focus on the the main point of the thread.
-
You know Quarrior, I'm not intending to be rude, but I can hardly follow your posts. You're jumping all over the place and you're not specifying where it is you are going. You should read your posts over before you submit them, or something. You are not doing a great job of gettting your point across and you have done an extremely poor job of clarifying the calculations you made. I'm not going to just take your word for it, and I really cannot tell what it is you have shown with these quantities. You're going to have to clarify all of your reasoning and calculations, please, if you want anyone to know what you are talking about.
Why do you need a viewing angle? Where is this viewing angle directed?
He could see in a radius 26, 500m from the point directly below him.
How did you get that number? I get a different number for the viewable surface radius, but I can't tell what it is you are calculating. Is this FE or RE?
After calculating it the Earths surface drops away by 100th of a degree, assuming a 60 degree view field.
How did you get that degree measure? The surface drops from where? I don't think you would notice 1/100 degree in any situation.
However in the troposphere there would be no visual interfearance, at 80 degrees (he could see in a radius of 85 000m below him) the earths surface drops by almost half a degree...or in other words, the Earth surface drops away by just under a kilometer, thats a pretty defined curve consider how enourmous the Earth is and we are only 26km's above the surface of the clouds. On a clear day it would be further. Thats just with jet fights at 80 degree vieing angel. From the troposphere you would be able to see the Earth's edge.
Ignore visual interference, it is of no use to this calculation.
Why did you choose another viewing angle?
Half a degree absolutely is NOT a very defined curve, considering how enormous the Earth is. However, I can not tell what this quantity means from reading your description. You're going to have to make some kind of drawing.
Please don't respond to each of my questions; just run through your calculations with drawings and descriptions, please.
-
Im not denying that people could somehow see a drop of 100th of a degree. I chose another viewing angle to show the difference 20 degrees could make.
The 26 500m is the radius of a circle normal to the varticle line from the distance to the Earth surface and it is correct, perhaps we are thinking of different things. It is for both FE and RE theories.
However in a RE theory the pilot could actually see a greater radius than this because it is a greater hypoteinein distance to the surface of the planet would be greater due to its curving away. However it easiest to calculate the curvature of the Earth if you just use simple triangles and then measure the angle of depression using it and a chord which runs through the surface of the Earth (because 26.5km of the Earth is nothing in terms of its circumference and the curvature would be minute so its ok enough to estimate in this way...the overall difference will be neglegable if we account fo the slight curvature and the angle of depression will be the same.
I'll draw a diagram when I get back from a boring relo bash later today, as for now gotta head off.
-
Whats your degree in tom...i state again if anything it would be Batchelor of arts no doubt in history of english literature, majoring in speculative fiction.
I'm a new visitor as of today (yes, from digg), all I know so far is some of your posts are useless and you should try to be more respectful even if you don't agree with people. Your immaturity does not help your arguments. Same thing with Tom and the Haiku character. Get over your egos and provide convincing evidence... Everyone just bounces off each other and then screams "do research!" or "i'm gonna be a pilot yay!"
Instead of a society this seems to be a meeting of the quickly aggravated.
-
Okay Tom, you say that Satellite TV does not require satellites to exist. That the signals can come from radio towers.
Let me ask you a question: Have you ever worked with a satellite for satellite TV reception?
The dish has to be precisely aimed at a specific location in the sky that changes based upon where you are located on the planet. The positioning has to be so acurate that you cannot be more than a couple of tenths of a degree off of the positioning point.
How do you get that result with radio towers? Radio waves can be somewhat directional, yes; but for the most part, radio waves propegate in a fashion that (especially at the frequency that they use for satellite communication) they spread out over large areas and are not directional.
And because I want a real answer, you need to explain this to me with more than two sentences or a link to another website. I want to see that you truly understand the physics of how radio waves, more specifically those used for satellite commincation, work.
-
I'm a new visitor as of today (yes, from digg), all I know so far is some of your posts are useless and you should try to be more respectful even if you don't agree with people. Your immaturity does not help your arguments. Same thing with Tom and the Haiku character. Get over your egos and provide convincing evidence... Everyone just bounces off each other and then screams "do research!" or "i'm gonna be a pilot yay!"
Instead of a society this seems to be a meeting of the quickly aggravated.
Well said my friend. No one is going to listen, though. I've said a number of times that this site is full of knee-jerk responses with little to no thought put into them. Some of them are funny, yes, but they should be kept to the "angry ranting" section.
And Quarrior, I hope to see your next post soon.
-
I'm a new visitor as of today (yes, from digg), all I know so far is some of your posts are useless and you should try to be more respectful even if you don't agree with people. Your immaturity does not help your arguments. Same thing with Tom and the Haiku character. Get over your egos and provide convincing evidence... Everyone just bounces off each other and then screams "do research!" or "i'm gonna be a pilot yay!"
Instead of a society this seems to be a meeting of the quickly aggravated.
Well said my friend. No one is going to listen, though. I've said a number of times that this site is full of knee-jerk responses with little to no thought put into them. Some of them are funny, yes, but they should be kept to the "angry ranting" section.
And Quarrior, I hope to see your next post soon.
Sorry but Ive actually been living a life. Can't stay on this thing 24/7 like some.
As for this new chap, read the forums where I've posted, I'm one of the few that actually privides scientific evidence to support my arguments, most of the FE'ers, EvilToothPaste included dont actually have points to their arguments. As u will notice they just attack the credibility of the RE'ers without posting anything to support Flat Earth Theory.
Once again another topic disproving FE has turned into an attack on an RE'er in some form or another...for GOD SAKE STAY ON TOPIC!
-
Sorry but Ive actually been living a life.
That must be really good for you. I have too!
As for this new chap, read the forums where I've posted, I'm one of the few that actually privides scientific evidence to support my arguments, most of the FE'ers, EvilToothPaste included dont actually have points to their arguments. As u will notice they just attack the credibility of the RE'ers without posting anything to support Flat Earth Theory.
Yes, let us all grovel at your ability to regurgitate. You are just spewing words into this forum, non of which have been 'evidence'. I think you got some stuck in your hair, too.
You have only show evidence that there is real evidence.
Once again another topic disproving FE has turned into an attack on an RE'er in some form or another...for GOD SAKE STAY ON TOPIC!
Hypocrisy knows no bounds.
-
DON'T ARGUE WITH EVILTOOTHPASTE FOR HE IS THE TRUSTED DISCIPLE OF FATHER TOM BISHOP.
-
DON'T ARGUE WITH EVILTOOTHPASTE FOR HE IS THE TRUSTED DISCIPLE OF FATHER TOM BISHOP.
Are you kidding me? I've never agreed with a single thing Tom Bishop has said. I can't wait until you trolls are banned.
Can't wait.
-
As for this new chap, read the forums where I've posted, I'm one of the few that actually privides scientific evidence to support my arguments, most of the FE'ers, EvilToothPaste included dont actually have points to their arguments. As u will notice they just attack the credibility of the RE'ers without posting anything to support Flat Earth Theory.
Yes, let us all grovel at your ability to regurgitate. You are just spewing words into this forum, non of which have been 'evidence'. I think you got some stuck in your hair, too.
You have only show evidence that there is real evidence.
Once again another topic disproving FE has turned into an attack on an RE'er in some form or another...for GOD SAKE STAY ON TOPIC!
Hypocrisy knows no bounds.
At least I have a point about the topic when I insult someone, lol once again u fail to stay on topic.
I always provide evidence when I argue. if you actually sat and read my posts, unless i'm defending myself from pointless personal attacks like this forum has turned into, I actually have something to say, and I never regurgitate. If i regurgitated I would actually have sentences which are formally structured, like the documents I would be regurgitating from. I just type out a quick argument with no care for grammar or spelling. Why should I, noone else does, it's pretty much a reflection of how seriously people actually take FE theory. There is a reason why, in a forum of only a few thousand, 90% support the notion of a spherical Earth.
FE theory just provides us with pseudo-scientific rubbish, no actual evidence. You say I don't provide anything to support my arguments, lets see some FE theorists provide solid evidence to prove their point. Oh wait, I forgot, there is none!
Not one person has argued the point that geomagnetic reversal is not Possible and FE theory. I provided evidence for it, and look what happens to the forum, its a "you're a crock of shit" session now.
Cmon Evil, you just sit there and *try* abuse with nothing intellegent to say, pathetic...I say again, stay on track.
Geomagnetic Reversal, how is it possible in FE theory?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleomagnetism
OOPS!!!
Just because you are to stupid to find it yourself.
Anyway this forum isn't about Magnetism, lets get back to satellites.
-
Do you know what the topic is? Do you know what you have been posting these last two pages? You must not know one of those, because if you did you would realize that nothing you posted pertains to the topic. So I will say again: you are a hypocrite.
I'm still waiting for you to clarify your maths about the curvature of the Earth. Your post which, I will add, was not on topic.
-
Geomagnetic reversal has never occurred. Take your discussion here:
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4962&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=geomagnetic+reversal&start=0
-
Do you know what the topic is? Do you know what you have been posting these last two pages? You must not know one of those, because if you did you would realize that nothing you posted pertains to the topic. So I will say again: you are a hypocrite.
I'm still waiting for you to clarify your maths about the curvature of the Earth. Your post which, I will add, was not on topic.
lol what did I say, personal attacks. I was just showing you that i provide evidence to support my arguments. Your wrong and you can't face it so you just abuse people...and they say FE'ers arn't ignorant!
You are truely pathetic. Unless you have something intellegent to say I;m not going to continue to discuss this matter with you further.
-
Unless you have something intellegent to say I;m not going to continue to discuss this matter with you further.
I'm glad to see that you've finally given up.