Works = shows the place where you actually are.
My eyes can do that. 
define 'eyes'.
Infact, define every single word in that sentence. I'm a douche and can't think of any comeback to your brilliant argument because I totally concede that this is all correct and true information but am not willing to admit it.
My name is Lord Wilmore.
Wow, how modest of you 
There's no point saying 'go use GPS, if it works RET is true'. If by 'works', you mean accords with experienced reality, then yes, G.P.S. works. FE'ers don't disagree with this. What we disagree with is whether or not it works the way people believe it works (this is why I asked for a definition of 'works'). If it does, then yes, RET is true. However you need to prove that.
Your OP is fascinating, but it doesn't contain any evidence.
Then show me how they work. I'm not going to go out of my way to figure out something that I feel isn't the way it works. It might not be scientific of me but the way we know it works, is the way we make all things depending on the system. All large aircraft manufacturers and major GPS companies obviously know how they work. Why go to all the effort to come up with a fake way to explain how they work when they
could just tell us that they work using ground based towers? It wouldn't contradict RET, it just wouldn't matter to either.
There is
no other way for them to work. Ground based towers using UHF would not be able to reach your device whilst standing in a valley or forest. (btw, we know it is UHF because we can measure it). And a lower frequency
would infact reach the device, but then there's the complications of that signal now having to travel further than a straight line and therefore adding increased amounts of inaccuracy. Radio signals can't be emitted at specific angles, bounced back and then have their distance measured by using trigonometry to take into account their angles. They simply emit in all directions at the same time.
Satellites must exist for any GPS device to work.