Dude what?

  • 50 Replies
  • 10444 Views
Re: Dude what?
« Reply #30 on: September 24, 2008, 09:31:35 AM »
I cannot find the sat altitude on your picture.  Can you point it out for me?

Lower left corner.  The satellite ID number (L1) and elevation (El) is listed there.

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11857
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Dude what?
« Reply #31 on: September 24, 2008, 09:34:23 AM »
I cannot find the sat altitude on your picture.  Can you point it out for me?

Lower left corner.  The satellite ID number (L1) and elevation (El) is listed there.

What is that?   Miles?  Degrees off the horizon?  100s of thousands of feet?  100s of kilometers?

Re: Dude what?
« Reply #32 on: September 24, 2008, 09:35:45 AM »
What is that?   Miles?  Degrees off the horizon?  100s of thousands of feet?  100s of kilometers?

Degrees.

?

GravitySlave

  • 68
  • I think the Earth is
Re: Dude what?
« Reply #33 on: September 24, 2008, 09:47:05 AM »
GPS on the other hand, depending on the monitoring correction used, and has an accuracy from 10-30cm.

I've heard that different GPS systems can have discrepancies of up to 95m, I know I tried using a satnav once and it tried to tell me I was in the middle of a shopping centre - I didn't bother after that.

I think that most civilian GPS systems don't use monitoring corrections, so they would have degraded accuracy of possibly 95m.  I haven't found anything stating this, but I believe it as I've seen this myself.  However...I have also seen military GPS in action with almost pinpoint accuracy.
The gravitation influence of the stars is just less over the North Pole than it is over other areas, that's all.

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11857
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Dude what?
« Reply #34 on: September 24, 2008, 09:53:17 AM »
What is that?   Miles?  Degrees off the horizon?  100s of thousands of feet?  100s of kilometers?

Degrees.

So I cant bounce a signal off the atmoplane and send it back to you making it look like a degree off the horizon?

or

The supposed "degrees" off the horizon could just be built into the program because that is where the sat is "supposed" to be.  While actually still receiving a a signal from a land based tower.

Either one of those scenarios is plausible.

?

GravitySlave

  • 68
  • I think the Earth is
Re: Dude what?
« Reply #35 on: September 24, 2008, 10:01:18 AM »
What is that?   Miles?  Degrees off the horizon?  100s of thousands of feet?  100s of kilometers?

Degrees.

So I cant bounce a signal off the atmoplane and send it back to you making it look like a degree off the horizon?

or

The supposed "degrees" off the horizon could just be built into the program because that is where the sat is "supposed" to be.  While actually still receiving a a signal from a land based tower.

Either one of those scenarios is plausible.

What type of land based tower could be utilized WORLD WIDE?  Even LORAN, which Tom loves to bring up, isn't capable of world wide tracking.
The gravitation influence of the stars is just less over the North Pole than it is over other areas, that's all.

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11857
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Dude what?
« Reply #36 on: September 24, 2008, 10:01:59 AM »
What is that?   Miles?  Degrees off the horizon?  100s of thousands of feet?  100s of kilometers?

Degrees.

So I cant bounce a signal off the atmoplane and send it back to you making it look like a degree off the horizon?

or

The supposed "degrees" off the horizon could just be built into the program because that is where the sat is "supposed" to be.  While actually still receiving a a signal from a land based tower.

Either one of those scenarios is plausible.

What type of land based tower could be utilized WORLD WIDE?  Even LORAN, which Tom loves to bring up, isn't capable of world wide tracking.

Who said it was ONE tower?

*

Sean O'Grady

  • 625
  • Flat Earth Theorist
Re: Dude what?
« Reply #37 on: September 24, 2008, 10:12:23 AM »
I'm just curious, what causes LORAN's range to be limited?

?

GravitySlave

  • 68
  • I think the Earth is
Re: Dude what?
« Reply #38 on: September 24, 2008, 10:15:24 AM »
What is that?   Miles?  Degrees off the horizon?  100s of thousands of feet?  100s of kilometers?

Degrees.

So I cant bounce a signal off the atmoplane and send it back to you making it look like a degree off the horizon?

or

The supposed "degrees" off the horizon could just be built into the program because that is where the sat is "supposed" to be.  While actually still receiving a a signal from a land based tower.

Either one of those scenarios is plausible.

What type of land based tower could be utilized WORLD WIDE?  Even LORAN, which Tom loves to bring up, isn't capable of world wide tracking.

Who said it was ONE tower?

Not me, L2read, I asked what type of tower, never stating it was one tower.
The gravitation influence of the stars is just less over the North Pole than it is over other areas, that's all.

?

GravitySlave

  • 68
  • I think the Earth is
Re: Dude what?
« Reply #39 on: September 24, 2008, 10:16:02 AM »
I'm just curious, what causes LORAN's range to be limited?

The amount of actual towers, in a previous post of mine I linked the LORAN range map.
The gravitation influence of the stars is just less over the North Pole than it is over other areas, that's all.

Re: Dude what?
« Reply #40 on: September 24, 2008, 10:22:32 AM »
So I cant bounce a signal off the atmoplane and send it back to you making it look like a degree off the horizon?

You wouldn't be able to bounce signals off of the atmosphere and get angles above a certain limit.  Although the highest value on that diagram is 68°, there are frequently angles greater than that.  Bouncing signals in the atmosphere has fairly shallow angle limits, this is why there is a "dead band" for MF and HF radio communications after you get out of direct path signals, but where the angles don't allow the reflection of the radio signal.


Quote
The supposed "degrees" off the horizon could just be built into the program because that is where the sat is "supposed" to be.  While actually still receiving a a signal from a land based tower.

The program has to take into account the motion of the rig.  We have motion reference units (MRU) that feed a signal to the demodulator to correct for this.  There is no mechanism that will allow for a land based signal to give these results.


Quote
Either one of those scenarios is plausible.

Not with the current models of radio communication.

*

Sean O'Grady

  • 625
  • Flat Earth Theorist
Re: Dude what?
« Reply #41 on: September 24, 2008, 10:23:58 AM »
I'm just curious, what causes LORAN's range to be limited?

The amount of actual towers, in a previous post of mine I linked the LORAN range map.

Yes, but why does any tower have a limited range?

?

GravitySlave

  • 68
  • I think the Earth is
Re: Dude what?
« Reply #42 on: September 24, 2008, 10:27:02 AM »
I'm just curious, what causes LORAN's range to be limited?

The amount of actual towers, in a previous post of mine I linked the LORAN range map.

Yes, but why does any tower have a limited range?

Power of the transmitted signal.  Also PW has some effect on range.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2008, 10:30:17 AM by GravitySlave »
The gravitation influence of the stars is just less over the North Pole than it is over other areas, that's all.

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11857
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Dude what?
« Reply #43 on: September 24, 2008, 10:35:40 AM »
So I cant bounce a signal off the atmoplane and send it back to you making it look like a degree off the horizon?

You wouldn't be able to bounce signals off of the atmosphere and get angles above a certain limit.  Although the highest value on that diagram is 68°, there are frequently angles greater than that.  Bouncing signals in the atmosphere has fairly shallow angle limits, this is why there is a "dead band" for MF and HF radio communications after you get out of direct path signals, but where the angles don't allow the reflection of the radio signal.


Quote
The supposed "degrees" off the horizon could just be built into the program because that is where the sat is "supposed" to be.  While actually still receiving a a signal from a land based tower.

The program has to take into account the motion of the rig.  We have motion reference units (MRU) that feed a signal to the demodulator to correct for this.  There is no mechanism that will allow for a land based signal to give these results.


Quote
Either one of those scenarios is plausible.

Not with the current models of radio communication.

The program can take into account the motion of the rig and still falsify the position of the satellite.  Like it does when it is originally looking for the satellites.  Say if it was turned off or something. 

Re: Dude what?
« Reply #44 on: September 24, 2008, 10:39:45 AM »
The program can take into account the motion of the rig and still falsify the position of the satellite.  Like it does when it is originally looking for the satellites.  Say if it was turned off or something. 

Ahh, so we are back to the conspiracy.  Add Garmin, Trimble and other GPS manufactures to the conspiracy list, in addition to the maintenance personnel for this worldwide network of antennas.

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11857
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Dude what?
« Reply #45 on: September 24, 2008, 10:43:06 AM »
The program can take into account the motion of the rig and still falsify the position of the satellite.  Like it does when it is originally looking for the satellites.  Say if it was turned off or something. 

Ahh, so we are back to the conspiracy.  Add Garmin, Trimble and other GPS manufactures to the conspiracy list, in addition to the maintenance personnel for this worldwide network of antennas.

No I don't think so.  The programers have data form NASA or the Air Force (which actually tracks the sats) which tells them where the sats are supposed to be.  He progams that into the computer program while unbeknowst to the programer or user receiving a signal from another source all together.

?

GravitySlave

  • 68
  • I think the Earth is
Re: Dude what?
« Reply #46 on: September 24, 2008, 10:44:36 AM »
The program can take into account the motion of the rig and still falsify the position of the satellite.  Like it does when it is originally looking for the satellites.  Say if it was turned off or something. 

Ahh, so we are back to the conspiracy.  Add Garmin, Trimble and other GPS manufactures to the conspiracy list, in addition to the maintenance personnel for this worldwide network of antennas.

No I don't think so.  The programers have data form NASA or the Air Force (which actually tracks the sats) which tells them where the sats are supposed to be.  He progams that into the computer program while unbeknowst to the programer or user receiving a signal from another source all together.

Which implies a conspiracy  ::)
The gravitation influence of the stars is just less over the North Pole than it is over other areas, that's all.

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11857
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Dude what?
« Reply #47 on: September 24, 2008, 10:48:27 AM »
The program can take into account the motion of the rig and still falsify the position of the satellite.  Like it does when it is originally looking for the satellites.  Say if it was turned off or something. 

Ahh, so we are back to the conspiracy.  Add Garmin, Trimble and other GPS manufactures to the conspiracy list, in addition to the maintenance personnel for this worldwide network of antennas.

No I don't think so.  The programers have data form NASA or the Air Force (which actually tracks the sats) which tells them where the sats are supposed to be.  He progams that into the computer program while unbeknowst to the programer or user receiving a signal from another source all together.

Which implies a conspiracy  ::)

Well Duh.  I was just keeping the list of conspirators down.  lrn2read.

Re: Dude what?
« Reply #48 on: September 24, 2008, 10:53:26 AM »
No I don't think so.  The programers have data form NASA or the Air Force (which actually tracks the sats) which tells them where the sats are supposed to be.  He progams that into the computer program while unbeknowst to the programer or user receiving a signal from another source all together.

But it requires the programmer to make the software interpret a non-moving source as a moving source and correct for that.  It requires the hardware to work on different frequencies that are published and coming from a different direction than they were lead to expect based on the documentation.

The antenna wouldn't be wide and pointed at the sky...



Any explanation that requires the company building equipment to make it work on a different principle implies that there is some sort of conspiracy to make that happen.  If the designers work from the assumption that there are satellites circling the Earth, and that isn't true, then their equipment will not work.

*

WardoggKC130FE

  • 11857
  • What website is that? MadeUpMonkeyShit.com?
Re: Dude what?
« Reply #49 on: September 24, 2008, 10:56:43 AM »
Almost all antenna point up.  Radio, Microwave, it proves nothing.   It can still be broadcast on whatever freq the sats are supposed to be on just coming from a different direction than what you think they are.  I still think it is plausible.

Re: Dude what?
« Reply #50 on: September 24, 2008, 11:01:38 AM »
Almost all antenna point up.  Radio, Microwave, it proves nothing.   

No, radio antennas are normally whip antennas, same as the ones on most cars.  Microwave antennas are large cylinders and point toward their source.


Quote
It can still be broadcast on whatever freq the sats are supposed to be on just coming from a different direction than what you think they are.  I still think it is plausible.

The ultra high frequency signals used by satellites wouldn't travel long distances parallel to the surface of the Earth.  They are too easily absorbed by the ground and other things like trees, houses, wires, etc.