GPS

  • 130 Replies
  • 2312 Views
*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16330
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: GPS
« Reply #120 on: March 27, 2020, 04:09:48 PM »
To everyone that thinks you can't have ground based GPS, and that GPS refers to a particular system, what exactly are they claiming to do here?
A very poor article.
They even use things like GPS system, which when expanded would be Global Positioning System System.

They aren't even trying to make a global system, completely ignoring what the G in GPS stands for.

It is so wrong it isn't funny.

But it was probably written for "common folk" that don't understand the difference between GPS, GLONASS and other similar systems used for position determination, and instead just use GPS for it all, probably even Google's wifi based positioning system.
GNSS is the system that uses satellites explicitly. Not GPS.

Quote
But good job guys arguing against something that I wasn't even claiming for 3 pages now, and doing so against the facts. It's almost like you guys have no idea what you are talking about and are just arguing against me because I'm a flat earther.
No, it is more that you are trying to play semantics (and failing).
GPS does use satellites. But rather than try to address that argument you instead want to discuss hypothetical systems that could work without satellites.
GPS does not require satellites. Some GPSs might.
Quote
When did I say that commonly available GPS devices are not talking to satellites 20,000 km in the sky?
When you said GPS does not use satellites.
Again, that isn't just saying it doesn't require it. You said DOES NOT USE.
I have been pretty clear about the argument I'm making and what I'm trying to understand about the OP. It's pretty ballsy for you to play semantics and then accuse me of playing semantics when I am doing no such thing.

Quote
If you want to play a game of semantics, make sure you use the correct wording.
...
As for your claims of attacking a strawman, that sure seems to be what you are doing. Rather than attacking the actual argument discussing the system in use today you repeatedly want to go off to some hypothetical system which doesn't use satellites.
I am simply trying to understand why the OP would think satellites are required for GPS. Can you guys really be this dense?
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16330
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: GPS
« Reply #121 on: March 27, 2020, 04:10:14 PM »
Incorrect. Pseudolites can do this job. Other methods can as well.
Please answer the following direct questions with no wishy-washy claims like "Pseudolites can do this job".
  • Can pseudolites provide adequate vertical precision?
    The Dilution of Precision depends on the angular separation of the transmitters and with all transmitters

Yes
Quote
  • How many pseudolites would be needed for worldwide coverage?

Irrelevant.
Quote
  • Why are pseudolites not see or detected?

Irrelevant
Quote
  • Are pseudolites used in the current GNSS, GPS (USA), GLONASS (Russia), Galileo (European GNSS) BeiDou (China)?

Irrelevant
Inadequate
Ask me relevant questions and I'll give you adequate answers.
Quantum Ab Hoc

*

sokarul

  • 16707
  • Discount Chemist
Re: GPS
« Reply #122 on: March 27, 2020, 04:14:52 PM »
To everyone that thinks you can't have ground based GPS, and that GPS refers to a particular system, what exactly are they claiming to do here?
A very poor article.
They even use things like GPS system, which when expanded would be Global Positioning System System.

They aren't even trying to make a global system, completely ignoring what the G in GPS stands for.

It is so wrong it isn't funny.

But it was probably written for "common folk" that don't understand the difference between GPS, GLONASS and other similar systems used for position determination, and instead just use GPS for it all, probably even Google's wifi based positioning system.
GNSS is the system that uses satellites explicitly. Not GPS.

Quote
But good job guys arguing against something that I wasn't even claiming for 3 pages now, and doing so against the facts. It's almost like you guys have no idea what you are talking about and are just arguing against me because I'm a flat earther.
No, it is more that you are trying to play semantics (and failing).
GPS does use satellites. But rather than try to address that argument you instead want to discuss hypothetical systems that could work without satellites.
GPS does not require satellites. Some GPSs might.
Quote
When did I say that commonly available GPS devices are not talking to satellites 20,000 km in the sky?
When you said GPS does not use satellites.
Again, that isn't just saying it doesn't require it. You said DOES NOT USE.
I have been pretty clear about the argument I'm making and what I'm trying to understand about the OP. It's pretty ballsy for you to play semantics and then accuse me of playing semantics when I am doing no such thing.

Quote
If you want to play a game of semantics, make sure you use the correct wording.
...
As for your claims of attacking a strawman, that sure seems to be what you are doing. Rather than attacking the actual argument discussing the system in use today you repeatedly want to go off to some hypothetical system which doesn't use satellites.
I am simply trying to understand why the OP would think satellites are required for GPS. Can you guys really be this dense?

GPS is the US owned GNSS.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System

If you are using GPS like someone might say Teflon, band aid, or Velcro just say so. We will all accept you meant either GNSS or a generic positioning system.
Sokarul

ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

Run Sandokhan run

*

rabinoz

  • 24745
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: GPS
« Reply #123 on: March 27, 2020, 05:30:04 PM »
Incorrect. Pseudolites can do this job. Other methods can as well.
Please answer the following direct questions with no wishy-washy claims like "Pseudolites can do this job".
  • Can pseudolites provide adequate vertical precision?
    The Dilution of Precision depends on the angular separation of the transmitters and with all transmitters
Yes
Quote
  • How many pseudolites would be needed for worldwide coverage?
Irrelevant.
Quote
  • Why are pseudolites not see or detected?
Irrelevant
Quote
  • Are pseudolites used in the current GNSS, GPS (USA), GLONASS (Russia), Galileo (European GNSS) BeiDou (China)?
Irrelevant
Inadequate
Ask me relevant questions and I'll give you adequate answers.
I did. The topic is "GPS", Global Positioning System" and the OP is:
hey Guys
So GPS obviously is working as we all can use it. How does this work on a flat earth?
Since "Global" doesn't a flat Earth it could be interpreted as "Worldwide".
You claim that GPS doesn't need satellites but could uses pseudolites so I fail to see why any of the questions are irrelevant.

But, if you insist, please answer at least this: Are pseudolites used in the current GNSS implementations, GPS (USA), GLONASS (Russia), Galileo (European GNSS) BeiDou (China)?

Right here and now my tablet locks onto GPS, GLONASS, BeiDou plus a couple of Japanese local clock enhancement transmitters.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 16330
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: GPS
« Reply #124 on: March 27, 2020, 05:31:56 PM »
Please use the forum's search function. This question has definitely been asked (and "answered") before.

I'm not even a flattie, but you need to step your game up.
Why do you think GPS wouldn't work on a flat earth?
How do satellites orbit a flat earth? As GPS requires satellites to work.

Two other relevant posts in this thread.
Quantum Ab Hoc

Re: GPS
« Reply #125 on: March 27, 2020, 06:12:25 PM »
GNSS is the system that uses satellites explicitly. Not GPS.
Again, notice how you skip basically everything that is said and then bring up a completley irrelavent point.
GPS is a specific positioning system which uses satellites to determine your position on the globe, which can be supplemented by ground based transmitters.
GNSS is a class of positioning/navigation systems which use satellites.
GPS and GLONASS are 2 examples of a GNSS.

GPS does not require satellites. Some GPSs might.
Again, you ignore what is said. In the comment you are quoting i said GPS USES satellites. Do you understand the difference between uses and requires?
And again, you are wrong, GPS is a specific system, not a type of system. GPS does use satellites. You can have a different positioning system which does not, but it would be quite difficult to get global coverage.

I have been pretty clear about the argument I'm making and what I'm trying to understand about the OP. It's pretty ballsy for you to play semantics and then accuse me of playing semantics when I am doing no such thing.
Yes, you have been pretty clear about the strawman you are making.
You are playing semantics.
It is quite easily understood that the current GPS system uses satellites. Rather than focus on this you want to play semantics about what GPS means and what uses/requires means to set up a straw-man about if a hypothetical positioning system would need to use satellites or not.

I am simply trying to understand why the OP would think satellites are required for GPS. Can you guys really be this dense?
It is quite simple.
The receivers are receiving data from transmitters allegedly on satellites, with their position at the time of transmission determined from their orbital parameters, with those positions and the time taken used to determine the location of the receiver.
How would this be achieved without satellites?

Again, you are playing semantics, trying to ignore the fact that GPS is a system which currently exists and is open to the public to use and understand and instead pretending it means any old positioning system which could cover the globe.

So how can GPS, a system currently in use which relies upon satellites, work without satellites?
How does it provide the global coverage from transmitters pretending to be satellites?
How does it provide an accurate elevation?

*

rabinoz

  • 24745
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: GPS
« Reply #126 on: March 27, 2020, 06:57:20 PM »
GNSS is the system that uses satellites explicitly. Not GPS.
GNSS is simply the generic for all Global navigation systems, the first of which was the Navigation System with Timing and Ranging (NAVSTAR GPS) satellite launched in 1978.

The name Global Positioning System does not explicitly contain "Satellite" but its implementation  with global coverage would by near enough to impossible without satellites.

If you disagree, please explanation how a Global system would be feasible without satellites.

No one disagrees that local enhancements with pseudolites or some such are possible.
The European Galileo system has this included in the specification to allow seamless integration near airports and shipping channels.

*

rabinoz

  • 24745
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: GPS
« Reply #127 on: March 27, 2020, 07:23:49 PM »
GNSS is the system that uses satellites explicitly. Not GPS.

So you admit that "GNSS is the system that uses satellites explicitly".

But GPS is one of the GNSS implementations so if "GNSS is the system that uses satellites explicitly" then GPS uses satellites.

You might read:
Quote
esa navipedia Receiver Types
Multi-constellation
With the emergence of multiple satellite navigation systems (both regional and global), multi-constellation receivers are becoming widely available. This has been encouraged at system design level by working towards interoperability and compatibility among all systems, allowing for seamless combination of the different signal spectra and processing chains into a single, multi-constellation GNSS solution. This approach reflects on the four global GNSS receiver implementations:
  • Galileo Receivers
  • GPS Receivers
  • GLONASS Receivers
  • BeiDou Receivers
From the receiver perspective, multi-constellation brings a key added value on solution availability, especially in urban environments: with the increased number of constellations available, the number of satellites visible to the user is bound to increase. This allows several algorithm implementations to be further refined, and the final solution can be computed with higher accuracy and availability (for instance, see the improvements due to higher availability in Dilution of Precision (DOP)).

Re: GPS
« Reply #128 on: Today at 04:00:12 AM »
To everyone that thinks you can't have ground based GPS, and that GPS refers to a particular system, what exactly are they claiming to do here?
A very poor article.
They even use things like GPS system, which when expanded would be Global Positioning System System.

They aren't even trying to make a global system, completely ignoring what the G in GPS stands for.

It is so wrong it isn't funny.

But it was probably written for "common folk" that don't understand the difference between GPS, GLONASS and other similar systems used for position determination, and instead just use GPS for it all, probably even Google's wifi based positioning system.
GNSS is the system that uses satellites explicitly. Not GPS.

Quote
But good job guys arguing against something that I wasn't even claiming for 3 pages now, and doing so against the facts. It's almost like you guys have no idea what you are talking about and are just arguing against me because I'm a flat earther.
No, it is more that you are trying to play semantics (and failing).
GPS does use satellites. But rather than try to address that argument you instead want to discuss hypothetical systems that could work without satellites.
GPS does not require satellites. Some GPSs might.
Quote
When did I say that commonly available GPS devices are not talking to satellites 20,000 km in the sky?
When you said GPS does not use satellites.
Again, that isn't just saying it doesn't require it. You said DOES NOT USE.
I have been pretty clear about the argument I'm making and what I'm trying to understand about the OP. It's pretty ballsy for you to play semantics and then accuse me of playing semantics when I am doing no such thing.

Quote
If you want to play a game of semantics, make sure you use the correct wording.
...
As for your claims of attacking a strawman, that sure seems to be what you are doing. Rather than attacking the actual argument discussing the system in use today you repeatedly want to go off to some hypothetical system which doesn't use satellites.
I am simply trying to understand why the OP would think satellites are required for GPS. Can you guys really be this dense?

Your thinking John goes something like this.

I believe the world is flat, therefore there can be no such thing as satellites that orbit a spherical earth.
GPS does work, billions of people use it, therefore it must come from a system that is ground-based...


John then looks up to see if there are any references to the possibility of such a system, which of course there are as but it's for a situation like Mars exploration. Putting a satellite-based GPS system into operation around Mars would be very expensive hence the ground-based approach. The problem is, however, there is no such system in operation on earth no matter how much John wishes there were. There is no evidence of such a system and such a system would by virtue of it being ground-based would not work at sea. Ask any mariner about GPS which is an integral part of the navigation system of every seagoing vessel.

The reference John posted:
https://web.stanford.edu/group/arl/projects/mars-rover-navigation-using-gps-self-calibrating-pseudolite-arrays
Really had me in stitches as it referenced a system for use in an interplanetary situation such as on Mars. I thought John didn't believe in space travel or trust the scientists at Stanford? I wonder how many of the scientists who work on the system John referenced would agree with him?

If John trusts the scientists only at Stanford then he must agree with one of their other projects:
https://web.stanford.edu/group/arl/projects/nano-satellite-attitude-determination

This is another interesting project for spacecraft navigation.

The problem flat earth believers have is referencing any scientific research to support their arguments just don't hold any water. Here is a link to a quarterly magazine that deals with new developments in GPS. Look through them and you will find nothing on John's earthbound mythical Pseudo- sats
https://link.springer.com/journal/10291/24/2

This one makes for interesting reading John. What do you think?
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10291-020-0967-3


*

FlatAssembler

  • 179
  • Not a FE-er
Re: GPS
« Reply #129 on: Today at 05:44:50 AM »
I think that what John Davis believes, correct me if I am wrong, is that the Earth is an infinite plane and that we are living in some non-Euclidean space. And that that non-Euclidean space has properties so that it basically appears to us that the Earth is a sphere (ships disappearing bottom first, the distances on Earth being more-or-less the same as we would except if the Earth was a sphere), except that it somehow won't appear round if looked from a very high altitude (I don't know what he thinks a non-fake image from space would look like). And that the satellites staying above the Earth at 20'000 kilometers height are possible thanks to the non-Euclidean nature of space we live in. John Davis, I think, doesn't believe that the Moon, the Sun, the planets and the stars are 3'000 kilometers up in the sky, that they are very far away and that they, for some reason (maybe he can explain), can't be reached.
The Occam's Razor clearly favors the hypothesis that the Earth is round, and a reasonable person wouldn't even consider such ridiculous hypotheses.
Fan of Stephen Wolfram.
This is my parody of the conspiracy theorists:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=71184.0

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39043
Re: GPS
« Reply #130 on: Today at 09:55:10 AM »
Your thinking John goes something like this.

I believe the world is flat, therefore there can be no such thing as satellites that orbit a spherical earth.
GPS does work, billions of people use it, therefore it must come from a system that is ground-based...
When arguing with John you have to remember that he doesn't use the more traditional disc or flat plane models.  He supports a non-Euclidean flat earth that behaves an awful lot like a globe, so satellites may be possible in his model.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.