GPS. This has to be done.

Quote from: mazty88 on February 16, 2010, 03:30:31 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on February 16, 2010, 11:41:35 AM

Well, like I said, without evidence, this argument doesn't prove or disprove anything - that's all I'm trying to say.

The general consensus by the scientific community is that GPS and GNSS systems are orbiting satellite platforms.
If you can't show this to be false, then you have a gaping problem with FET

My uncle works with satellites. How is it if someone on the ground contacts a satellite before it is shot up, then remains in contact with it when it is up in earth orbit can it be faked. why do we have no evidence of the space shots coming down again? why can i not find any photoshop mistakes in nasa videos.

before you FET'ers just scream conspiracy, please take a moment and explain each and every one of these. CONSPIRACY is not an answer i need you to actually explain in detail how each one works.

thank you

I'm working with satellite data as well. I'd love to know what FE 'tards have to say about the flaws in satellite imagery such as flashed lines and dropped pixels - are the companies sabotaging their own products?

Quote from: Kaiuk on February 16, 2010, 03:48:16 PM

Quote from: mazty88 on February 16, 2010, 03:30:31 PM

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on February 16, 2010, 11:41:35 AM

Well, like I said, without evidence, this argument doesn't prove or disprove anything - that's all I'm trying to say.

The general consensus by the scientific community is that GPS and GNSS systems are orbiting satellite platforms.
If you can't show this to be false, then you have a gaping problem with FET

My uncle works with satellites. How is it if someone on the ground contacts a satellite before it is shot up, then remains in contact with it when it is up in earth orbit can it be faked. why do we have no evidence of the space shots coming down again? why can i not find any photoshop mistakes in nasa videos.

before you FET'ers just scream conspiracy, please take a moment and explain each and every one of these. CONSPIRACY is not an answer i need you to actually explain in detail how each one works.

thank you

I'm working with satellite data as well. I'd love to know what FE 'tards have to say about the flaws in satellite imagery such as flashed lines and dropped pixels - are the companies sabotaging their own products?

i would assume they would say that it is put there by the conspiracy to throw you off the scent or some such nonsense.

You're both Conspiracy agents!!!

again, like all FET'ers you ignore all evidence and jump to accusations.

I REQUIRE EVIDENCE

prove to me i am a so called "agent"

if i was a so called agent, i would do the following things

the website logs ip addresses as you can clearly see. i would simply use my uber nasa resources and get that infromation. then i would abduct anyone within a 10 mile radius of that ip address and replace them with clones.

ah world domination is simple.

The principle argument supporting satellite-based GPS transmitters seems to be the line-of-sight argument.   Specifically, 2fst4u is stating that in a valley, one would only have line-of-sight with a high altitude satellite and therefore satellites must be the source of the GPS signal.  This is not accurate though.  GPS operates in the range of 1.1 ~ 1.5GHz.  The 23cm amateur band operates in the 1.2GHz range.  If you ask a radio amateur if (s)he must maintain line-of-sight with another station or a repeater in order to communicate, they will report that they do not.  (The 23cm band is favored by some for this very reason.)  Therefore, the argument is insufficient to prove the existence of satellites and certainly insufficient to prove RET.

The principle argument supporting satellite-based GPS transmitters seems to be the line-of-sight argument.   Specifically, 2fst4u is stating that in a valley, one would only have line-of-sight with a high altitude satellite and therefore satellites must be the source of the GPS signal.  This is not accurate though.  GPS operates in the range of 1.1 ~ 1.5GHz.  The 23cm amateur band operates in the 1.2GHz range.  If you ask a radio amateur if (s)he must maintain line-of-sight with another station or a repeater in order to communicate, they will report that they do not.  (The 23cm band is favored by some for this very reason.)  Therefore, the argument is insufficient to prove the existence of satellites and certainly insufficient to prove RET.

actually, because satellites are the generally accepted theory, you have to prove to me that they dont exist

actually, because satellites are the generally accepted theory, you have to prove to me that they dont exist

People believe in the Bermuda Triangle, flying saucers in Area 51 and a JFK conspiracy.  Are those to be believed until disproved?  You'll find that the "prove a negative" approach won't get you very far in life. 
The claim is that GPS can only work using satellites because the signals are believed to be line-of-sight.  I simply point out that the claim is in error and I offer a way for people to independently corroborate my point. 

Quote from: Kaiuk on February 16, 2010, 05:20:23 PM

actually, because satellites are the generally accepted theory, you have to prove to me that they dont exist

People believe in the Bermuda Triangle, flying saucers in Area 51 and a JFK conspiracy.  Are those to be believed until disproved?  You'll find that the "prove a negative" approach won't get you very far in life. 
The claim is that GPS can only work using satellites because the signals are believed to be line-of-sight.  I simply point out that the claim is in error and I offer a way for people to independently corroborate my point. 

friend, there is proof for re'rs that satellites exist and that gps is satellite based. there is 0 proof for the other opinion. have you seen one of these giant broadcasters? the answer is no you havent. so until i have proof better than what i have now i refuse to accept your theory.

The principle argument supporting satellite-based GPS transmitters seems to be the line-of-sight argument.   Specifically, 2fst4u is stating that in a valley, one would only have line-of-sight with a high altitude satellite and therefore satellites must be the source of the GPS signal.  This is not accurate though.  GPS operates in the range of 1.1 ~ 1.5GHz.  The 23cm amateur band operates in the 1.2GHz range.  If you ask a radio amateur if (s)he must maintain line-of-sight with another station or a repeater in order to communicate, they will report that they do not.  (The 23cm band is favored by some for this very reason.)  Therefore, the argument is insufficient to prove the existence of satellites and certainly insufficient to prove RET.

Incorrect on several levels.

GPS operates at 575.42 MHz -1176.45 MHz placing it in UHF not 1.1 ~ 1.5GHz like you said. Similar, but still shifted too high for the purpose of explanation (infact, the figures you gave would back me up more but lets not go there)

The 23cm band is slightly lower frequency. Still in UHF and therefore, if you ask a radio amateur using UHF (A rare occasion in itself. Most will use VHF as UHF equipment is expensive. VHF will diffract over hills but only slightly) if they need to use a repeater station to communicate, they will say "yes. Yes I do". An amateur working on lower frequencies will not.

Radio communication can also rely on bouncing off the ionosphere at low frequencies and so they can be used in isolated places such as valleys. No higher frequency communication devices will work in such a place. However, GPS is not any kind of communication, it relies on the fact that one must be in a straight line distance to the object it is being measured from. No frequency (bar X-rays or something intense like that) can travel through the earth to a station in a straight line. Radio communication does infact therefore rely on either low frequency, or line of sight. Either way, a GPS device will work in a valley and must be in a straight line from what ever it is measuring it's distance from. A wave diffracting around a ridge line will take longer to reach you and will therefore bear inaccurate results.

A few more examples of UHF use is cellphones, cordless phones bluetooth an TV. All of which we know aren't exactly good in isolated positions (valleys for TV and cellphones, behind a few walls in a house for bluetooth and cordless phones). The UHF band relies on line-of-sight no matter what. And even after a repeater station or reflection off the atmosphere for a lower frequency, that distance has become longer and rendered a GPS device's accuracy useless. This does not happen in a valley and as such we only deduce that all communication between device and what-ever-the-hell-the-other-thing-is [read, satellites] is in a straight line.

After a nice break I'm back.


Ok, lets say that RE is wrong. Give me a theory of how GPS could work without satellites (because we both know it works). Ready set go!

You want me to prove that satellites don't exist? How about you prove that they do.

Did you not understand my question? I said, lets play your game. Say satellites don't exist, how does gps work?


Still waiting on the answer.

Did you not understand my question? I said, lets play your game. Say satellites don't exist, how does gps work?

Stratellites and pseudolites.

Where?

The entire topic, nub. GPS relies on line of sight, no matter what. In a place such as a valley, the only things in line of sight are either invisible radio masts (I probably shouldn't put that idea in your head) and satellites.

Quote from: ugaboga313 on February 16, 2010, 07:13:41 PM

Did you not understand my question? I said, lets play your game. Say satellites don't exist, how does gps work?

Stratellites and pseudolites.

explain

Quote from: ugaboga313 on February 16, 2010, 07:13:41 PM

Did you not understand my question? I said, lets play your game. Say satellites don't exist, how does gps work?

Stratellites and pseudolites.

Do you know the cost of them? Tell me the number, give me equations, and tell me height. Also with bendy light, how would you be able to triangulate at all? Unless the bending constant or equation is known. In which case, that opens lots of cans of worms.

Still, ignoring bending, there would have to be an ungodly amount of stratellites and psuedolittes. Even if there were not that many, they would have to be kept almost stationary for the level of accuracy they provide. Thousands would have to be in on it. All GPS companies, all militaries, etc.

The principle argument supporting satellite-based GPS transmitters seems to be the line-of-sight argument.   Specifically, 2fst4u is stating that in a valley, one would only have line-of-sight with a high altitude satellite and therefore satellites must be the source of the GPS signal.  This is not accurate though.  GPS operates in the range of 1.1 ~ 1.5GHz.  The 23cm amateur band operates in the 1.2GHz range.  If you ask a radio amateur if (s)he must maintain line-of-sight with another station or a repeater in order to communicate, they will report that they do not.  (The 23cm band is favored by some for this very reason.)  Therefore, the argument is insufficient to prove the existence of satellites and certainly insufficient to prove RET.

Wow...you are a little off there.  If im not mistaken the 23cm band is 1240-1300 MHz.  Sorry, but I do RFID for a living, so that doesnt sound right.

The entire topic, nub. GPS relies on line of sight, no matter what. In a place such as a valley, the only things in line of sight are either invisible radio masts (I probably shouldn't put that idea in your head) and satellites.

I don't see how anything you've said proves satellites against other possibilities, such as stratellites.

explain

Stratellites and pseudolites simulate satellites.

Do you know the cost of them? Tell me the number, give me equations,

NASA has admitted that they manufacture $500-a-pop pseudolites.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11911-nasa-develops-smart-weather-balloons-for-launch-sites.html

and tell me height.

I'm not sure about the $500 ones, but others can get to the edge of the atmosphere.

Also with bendy light, how would you be able to triangulate at all?

I don't believe in "bendy light". I support the model presented in Earth Not a Globe and in the Wiki.

Quote

The entire topic, nub. GPS relies on line of sight, no matter what. In a place such as a valley, the only things in line of sight are either invisible radio masts (I probably shouldn't put that idea in your head) and satellites.

I don't see how anything you've said proves satellites against other possibilities, such as stratellites.

Quote

explain

Stratellites and pseudolites simulate satellites.

explain means explain. Not state. HOW do these other systems work? There aren;t enough weather balloons to give entire earth coverage.

Quote

Do you know the cost of them? Tell me the number, give me equations,

NASA has admitted that they manufacture $500-a-pop pseudolites.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11911-nasa-develops-smart-weather-balloons-for-launch-sites.html

That article says nothing about an alternative to GPS. It only talks about weather balloons.

weather balloons are used for weather forecast

Quote

and tell me height.

I'm not sure about the $500 ones, but others can get to the edge of the atmosphere.

no, weather balloons can. Alternative GPS technologies cannot exist in such a way that they are forced around by air currents. Their paths would be unpredictable and inconsistent.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11911-nasa-develops-smart-weather-balloons-for-launch-sites.html

I'm sorry, is there 500000000 of these flying around the place?

explain means explain. Not state. HOW do these other systems work? There aren;t enough weather balloons to give entire earth coverage.

Why would weather balloons at the edge of the atmosphere need to be numerous? The earth is flat. Not round. Range isn't limited by the "curvature" of the earth.

Quote

explain means explain. Not state. HOW do these other systems work? There aren;t enough weather balloons to give entire earth coverage.

Why would weather balloons at the edge of the atmosphere need to be numerous? The earth is flat. Not round. Range isn't limited by the "curvature" of the earth.

Your argument is inferior. Leave this topic or provide theoretical evidence that such a system would work with unpredictable paths and probable occurrence that an area will be left with too few 'stratolites' to calculate from, leaving more inaccuracy and unobserved unusual phenomenon. Your presence in this topic without backed up statements, even if only theoretical is useless.

Infact, I would go as far as to say your only posts here have been spam so far. They serve no purpose.

Quote

explain means explain. Not state. HOW do these other systems work? There aren;t enough weather balloons to give entire earth coverage.

Why would weather balloons at the edge of the atmosphere need to be numerous? The earth is flat. Not round. Range isn't limited by the "curvature" of the earth.

Tom,

Please study the teachings of Tom Bishop for an answer to this:

Quote from: Robert64 on December 06, 2009, 02:06:27 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2009, 01:50:22 AM

From the edge of space one is looking down at an illuminated circle.

Then why, at the edge of the "circle", is there only the edge of the atmosphere? Surely we should see land through it?

The atmosphere builds up with distance and is not perfectly transparent.

Also please read Earth Not a Globe.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 16, 2010, 11:16:12 PM

Quote

explain means explain. Not state. HOW do these other systems work? There aren;t enough weather balloons to give entire earth coverage.

Why would weather balloons at the edge of the atmosphere need to be numerous? The earth is flat. Not round. Range isn't limited by the "curvature" of the earth.

Tom,

Please study the teachings of Tom Bishop for an answer to this:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2009, 12:24:53 AM

Quote from: Robert64 on December 06, 2009, 02:06:27 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2009, 01:50:22 AM

From the edge of space one is looking down at an illuminated circle.

Then why, at the edge of the "circle", is there only the edge of the atmosphere? Surely we should see land through it?

The atmosphere builds up with distance and is not perfectly transparent.

Also please read Earth Not a Globe.

Fortunately there is not much atmosphere at the edge of space.

Quote from: Moon squirter on February 17, 2010, 12:26:02 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 16, 2010, 11:16:12 PM

Quote

explain means explain. Not state. HOW do these other systems work? There aren;t enough weather balloons to give entire earth coverage.

Why would weather balloons at the edge of the atmosphere need to be numerous? The earth is flat. Not round. Range isn't limited by the "curvature" of the earth.

Tom,

Please study the teachings of Tom Bishop for an answer to this:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2009, 12:24:53 AM

Quote from: Robert64 on December 06, 2009, 02:06:27 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2009, 01:50:22 AM

From the edge of space one is looking down at an illuminated circle.

Then why, at the edge of the "circle", is there only the edge of the atmosphere? Surely we should see land through it?

The atmosphere builds up with distance and is not perfectly transparent.

Also please read Earth Not a Globe.

Fortunately there is not much atmosphere at the edge of space.

Unfortunately there is lots of atmosphere between space and the earth, partially if you are not looking straight down.

Unfortunately there is lots of atmosphere between space and the earth, partially if you are not looking straight down.

At the edge of space there is less atmosphere looking into the distance than there is on the ground. This is partially why one can see further when he increases his altitude.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 17, 2010, 12:54:22 AM

Quote from: Moon squirter on February 17, 2010, 12:26:02 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 16, 2010, 11:16:12 PM

Quote

explain means explain. Not state. HOW do these other systems work? There aren;t enough weather balloons to give entire earth coverage.

Why would weather balloons at the edge of the atmosphere need to be numerous? The earth is flat. Not round. Range isn't limited by the "curvature" of the earth.

Tom,

Please study the teachings of Tom Bishop for an answer to this:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2009, 12:24:53 AM

Quote from: Robert64 on December 06, 2009, 02:06:27 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2009, 01:50:22 AM

From the edge of space one is looking down at an illuminated circle.

Then why, at the edge of the "circle", is there only the edge of the atmosphere? Surely we should see land through it?

The atmosphere builds up with distance and is not perfectly transparent.

Also please read Earth Not a Globe.

Fortunately there is not much atmosphere at the edge of space.

Unfortunately there is lots of atmosphere between space and the earth, partially if you are not looking straight down.

Quote

Unfortunately there is lots of atmosphere between space and the earth, partially if you are not looking straight down.

At the edge of space there is less atmosphere looking into the distance than there is on the ground. This is partially why one can see further when he increases his altitude.

At 21,000 metres, all I can see is a blue haze in the distance.  That's not exactly global coverage, is it?  You would need an awful lot of balloons to give a global picture.

Quote from: Moon squirter on February 17, 2010, 01:34:31 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 17, 2010, 12:54:22 AM

Quote from: Moon squirter on February 17, 2010, 12:26:02 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 16, 2010, 11:16:12 PM

Quote

explain means explain. Not state. HOW do these other systems work? There aren;t enough weather balloons to give entire earth coverage.

Why would weather balloons at the edge of the atmosphere need to be numerous? The earth is flat. Not round. Range isn't limited by the "curvature" of the earth.

Tom,

Please study the teachings of Tom Bishop for an answer to this:

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 07, 2009, 12:24:53 AM

Quote from: Robert64 on December 06, 2009, 02:06:27 AM

Quote from: Tom Bishop on December 06, 2009, 01:50:22 AM

From the edge of space one is looking down at an illuminated circle.

Then why, at the edge of the "circle", is there only the edge of the atmosphere? Surely we should see land through it?

The atmosphere builds up with distance and is not perfectly transparent.

Also please read Earth Not a Globe.

Fortunately there is not much atmosphere at the edge of space.

Unfortunately there is lots of atmosphere between space and the earth, partially if you are not looking straight down.

Quote from: Tom Bishop on February 17, 2010, 02:17:32 AM

Quote

Unfortunately there is lots of atmosphere between space and the earth, partially if you are not looking straight down.

At the edge of space there is less atmosphere looking into the distance than there is on the ground. This is partially why one can see further when he increases his altitude.

At 21,000 metres, all I can see is a blue haze in the distance.  That's not exactly global coverage, is it?  You would need an awful lot of balloons to give a global picture.

please remember that  because this photo seems to show a round earth then it is photo shopped.. that is all

I think it is worth cross referencing this thread's proof of GPS with my proof of geostationary satellite thread, in which the angles of dishes indicate through simple trigonometry that satellites are hundreds of miles away and the signals do not come from a pseudolite.

I think it is worth cross referencing this thread's proof of GPS with my proof of geostationary satellite thread, in which the angles of dishes indicate through simple trigonometry that satellites are hundreds of miles away and the signals do not come from a pseudolite.

I know this has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but I love that animation of the hypercube(?) repeatedly turning itself inside out!  Did you animate that yourself?  It is really neat!

Quote from: Alchemist on February 16, 2010, 05:15:44 PM

The 23cm amateur band operates in the 1.2GHz range.

Wow...you are a little off there.  If im not mistaken the 23cm band is 1240-1300 MHz.  Sorry, but I do RFID for a living, so that doesnt sound right.

Aren't we saying the same thing?  1.2GHz = 1200Mhz does it not?