Distance Calculation

Hi Guys,

It is my position that the GPS system alone is enough tho prove the existence of satellites.
Ground based cell towers making the whole thing work is ridiculous.
The GPS system determines your position with triliteration, not triangulation. There's a difference.
The GPS system can tell you your current altitude. This would not be possible otherwise.

But something I found interesting lately is the Haversine formula.
http://www.geomidpoint.com/destination/calculation.html
I have implemented it personally.
Not only does it tell you the shortest route from any location on the globe to any other,
but also calculates the distance (not accounting for terrain of course).

The formula assumes the Earth is a sphere, which is not quite accurate according to RET,
it is a slight ellipsoid bulging a little at the equator.

I think you are a bunch of trolls.

I think you are a bunch of trolls.

I read through here every once in a while, and man, I really hope so.

LORAN was a ground based system that provided the exact same information as GPS. Why does GPS need to be satellite based?

LORAN (LOng RAnge Navigation[1]) is a terrestrial radio navigation system which enables ships and aircraft to determine their position and speed from low frequency radio signals transmitted by fixed land based radio beacons, using a receiver unit.

A ground based receiver also has a specific altitude and location. Therefore altitude calcs are equally possible.


Then bizarrely you claim some magic formula based on the fact earth is round  can calculate the shortest distance between any two points and then you go on to destroy your own offering by saying that it doesn't actually work in the real world.

LORAN doesn't compare to GPS.
Although altitude data provided by GPS units is less accurate than 2D position data they provide,
it's far better than a ground based triangulation system can ever offer potential for.

Of course the haversine formula works in the real world.
It's how commercial GPS units measure distance, draw map rulers on the screen,
and run their trip odometers. All of that information is calculated locally in the GPS unit
using the current location and the previous location.. and in the case of a trip meter,
a join the dots style cumulative total of the difference between locations logged on the trip at intervals.

What I didn't do, is destroy my own theory by providing an example of another workable system
entirely based on the presupposition that the Earth is round.

LORAN doesn't compare to GPS.

I'd love to see a citation for that.

Although altitude data provided by GPS units is less accurate than 2D position data they provide,
it's far better than a ground based triangulation system can ever offer potential for.

Really? Because air traffic control don't get altitude from GPS. They use transponders or gound based RADAR triangulation for aircraft without. And the aircraft aren't getting their altitude from GPS either. They are using pitot tubes and the autopilot uses a LASER shot at the ground for landing with. In fact in instances where altitude is important, people go to great lengths not to use GPS.

Of course the haversine formula works in the real world.
It's how commercial GPS units measure distance, draw map rulers on the screen,
and run their trip odometers. All of that information is calculated locally in the GPS unit
using the current location and the previous location.. and in the case of a trip meter,
a join the dots style cumulative total of the difference between locations logged on the trip at intervals.

And like you said, its not very accurate. As you'd expect when you use a calculation that assumes a gentle curve when actually the earth is flat.

What I didn't do, is destroy my own theory by providing an example of another workable system
entirely based on the presupposition that the Earth is round.

LORAN is based on line of sight beacons. That's a very flat earth technology if you ask me. Its not going to work so well on a round earth, is it?

Whatever ground based towers they are, they are each only transmitting their own coordinates, the time, etc.
The receiver determines it's own position with this information, and performs a transform of the map grid to account for curvature of the Earth internally.
You only have to look at Wikipedia to see that.
It's probably using the same formula somewhere.

Detailed on the same site, on the same page in my original link is another formula that takes the Earth's ellipsoid into account
and provides distance calculation precise to 1mm, still without taking terrain into account (that's a huge amount of data).
We can still accurately measure distances across the Earth (even from one continent to another) at sea level with great accuracy.

The magnitude of error introduced by using the Haversine formula (perfect sphere), is so small, few people bother to implement the
ellipsoid model... even commercial GPS manufacturers.

The example given relating to air traffic control, I haven't given much thought, and am not knowledgeable about,
but it does smell like since the whole thing is small scale, you can add more radar detectors, better assume the aircraft is
circled by the detectors. It would take little research to find out exactly why, I'm guessing.

Lasers. That's great if you are within a satisfactory range for their usefulness.

Quote from: Art on March 15, 2013, 05:45:58 AM

LORAN doesn't compare to GPS.

I'd love to see a citation for that.

Quote from: Art on March 15, 2013, 05:45:58 AM

Although altitude data provided by GPS units is less accurate than 2D position data they provide,
it's far better than a ground based triangulation system can ever offer potential for.

Really? Because air traffic control don't get altitude from GPS. They use transponders or gound based RADAR triangulation for aircraft without. And the aircraft aren't getting their altitude from GPS either. They are using pitot tubes and the autopilot uses a LASER shot at the ground for landing with. In fact in instances where altitude is important, people go to great lengths not to use GPS.

Quote from: Art on March 15, 2013, 05:45:58 AM

Of course the haversine formula works in the real world.
It's how commercial GPS units measure distance, draw map rulers on the screen,
and run their trip odometers. All of that information is calculated locally in the GPS unit
using the current location and the previous location.. and in the case of a trip meter,
a join the dots style cumulative total of the difference between locations logged on the trip at intervals.

And like you said, its not very accurate. As you'd expect when you use a calculation that assumes a gentle curve when actually the earth is flat.

He only said, "altitude data is less than accurate", not the 2-D data.  Please do not misconstrue his words.

Quote from: Art on March 15, 2013, 05:45:58 AM

What I didn't do, is destroy my own theory by providing an example of another workable system
entirely based on the presupposition that the Earth is round.

LORAN is based on line of sight beacons. That's a very flat earth technology if you ask me. Its not going to work so well on a round earth, is it?

That really depends on the distance of the beacons from one another doesn't it?

He only said, "altitude data is less than accurate", not the 2-D data.  Please do not misconstrue his words.

The whole thing is inaccurate. It has deliberate built in inaccuracies.
It has an entire wiki page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System

That really depends on the distance of the beacons from one another doesn't it?

They are not as far apart as these alleged satellites.

As for 'Art's' comments, you seem to have run out of legitimate objections.

Quote from: Rama Set on March 15, 2013, 08:23:57 AM

He only said, "altitude data is less than accurate", not the 2-D data.  Please do not misconstrue his words.

The whole thing is inaccurate. It has deliberate built in inaccuracies.
It has an entire wiki page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System

Thats fine Thork, but just say that, and do not misquote or miscontrue people's words.  It is dishonest and misleading.

He only said, "altitude data is less than accurate", not the 2-D data.  Please do not misconstrue his words.

There is some error in the 2D georeferencing, but it's round Earth error (very small because the Earth isn't a prefect sphere even without terrain),
it's not fold the surface of the Earth inside out kind of error

BTW. Many handheld GPS units have built in Barometers to supplement their GPS acquired altitude data,
because it can be estimated by the GPS unit how accurate the altitude data is at the time.
It's a neat trick, and GPS units aren't necessarily the first device the idea is implemented in.


Really what is interesting is



that when this is zoomed in, distances across points of land can be measured at levels
that can be observed from the sky with balloons sent up by hobbyists.

I understand that some convoluted explanation will follow, but the shortest route from
any point on the globe to the other can be measured this way, and could also be verified
on land by a hobbyist in some scenarios.

GPS error, it does exist, yes.
Do a test. turn on a GPS and drive your car.
Your GPS is using a lock to road function to lock you onto the nearest road.
Maybe at an intersection it will lock you onto a different road.

I think you wish to make the whole thing sound like a motor running on a couple of cylinders.


By the way we are on only one track here.
GPS error doesn't relate to the GPS unit's software ability to calculate distances.
You can enter coordinates precisely in Google Earth and replicate the results that way.

People go on about transmitters not having range on earth and yet are happy to accept that a satellite 23,000 miles in space is fine.

People go on about transmitters not having range on earth and yet are happy to accept that a satellite 23,000 miles in space is fine.

I'd also add that power is the most important consideration for a transmitter. The strength of a signal is directly related to the power the transmitter uses. With a ground based station, no problem. But I'm supposed to believe a satellite with a couple of solar panels is capable of running an atomic clock and then transmitting that data across the world covering thousands of miles at 10,000,000 times a second?




And something else that bothers me. Never in my life have I ever seen a photo of a GPS satellite. Not one before launch, not one in space. Its always an artist impression.



Look at them all. There are only supposed to be 49 of them. And what, they are all individual? Every one of them is different. What does a GPS satellite even look like? Why only ever pictures from artists? Not a single photo of one anywhere ... ever!

transmitters don't have range on the earth because of curvature geographical and man made environment clutter. that's why even gps has a hard time in the concrete canyons of large cities. gps works best in large open spaces with clear views of the sky.


thork, you haven't seen a photo? and how do you suppose you get a photo of a satellite 25,000 miles away that the size of a small car?
care to post any actual facts or figures on power requirement and generation on board these satellites or are we just supposed to take you uneducated and also wrong opinion as cold hard fact?

i wont hold my breath for the evidence. its not a FE strong point.

also those photos care to post links? are they all GPS satellites or are they for different functions? and why would they all be the same. they are built over the space of decades. you dont think they might change the design a but as they improve things?

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 15, 2013, 10:05:55 AM

People go on about transmitters not having range on earth and yet are happy to accept that a satellite 23,000 miles in space is fine.

I'd also add that power is the most important consideration for a transmitter. The strength of a signal is directly related to the power the transmitter uses. With a ground based station, no problem. But I'm supposed to believe a satellite with a couple of solar panels is capable of running an atomic clock and then transmitting that data across the world covering thousands of miles at 10,000,000 times a second?




And something else that bothers me. Never in my life have I ever seen a photo of a GPS satellite. Not one before launch, not one in space. Its always an artist impression.



Look at them all. There are only supposed to be 49 of them. And what, they are all individual? Every one of them is different. What does a GPS satellite even look like? Why only ever pictures from artists? Not a single photo of one anywhere ... ever!

I think you and I know the answer to than one. They don't exist in space for definite.
Here's something else: did you know that once those 23,000 mile satellites are supposedly put into geo sync orbit, they cannot be repaired and yet they appear to work perfectly well and are maintenance free for decades.
Once one does fail, it's not clear how they get another one up there "pronto" to take up the exact position of the used one, so that we don;t need to alter our satellite dishes.

Not to mention what craft they are using to actually put them into 23,000 mile orbit in the first place.

transmitters don't have range on the earth because of curvature geographical and man made environment clutter. that's why even gps has a hard time in the concrete canyons of large cities. gps works best in large open spaces with clear views of the sky.


thork, you haven't seen a photo? and how do you suppose you get a photo of a satellite 25,000 miles away that the size of a small car?
care to post any actual facts or figures on power requirement and generation on board these satellites or are we just supposed to take you uneducated and also wrong opinion as cold hard fact?

i wont hold my breath for the evidence. its not a FE strong point.

also those photos care to post links? are they all GPS satellites or are they for different functions? and why would they all be the same. they are built over the space of decades. you dont think they might change the design a but as they improve things?

GPS have a hard time in the concrete canyons of cities because they are earth transmitters.
Any person on here will encounter bad signals where dock yards are with high buildings fr rigs and stuff.
If satellites were really doing the job, nobody would be having any problems.

Here's something for you though. Imagine how well transmitters would work on a flat earth. They would work just like they do right now. Strange eh?

transmitters don't have range on the earth because of curvature geographical and man made environment clutter. that's why even gps has a hard time in the concrete canyons of large cities. gps works best in large open spaces with clear views of the sky.


thork, you haven't seen a photo? and how do you suppose you get a photo of a satellite 25,000 miles away that the size of a small car?
care to post any actual facts or figures on power requirement and generation on board these satellites or are we just supposed to take you uneducated and also wrong opinion as cold hard fact?

i wont hold my breath for the evidence. its not a FE strong point.

also those photos care to post links? are they all GPS satellites or are they for different functions? and why would they all be the same. they are built over the space of decades. you dont think they might change the design a but as they improve things?

Well they didn't change the design for the shuttle because it supposedly worked so well, so why change the design of a satellite of it works so well. After all, it's not like it needs pretty red ribbons to flaunt in space is it.

you know sceptic acting ignorant is relay getting old. you start by saying these things work perfectly well and are maintenance free for decades. as if this is a massive problem and they should fail in orbit. then go on to say "when they do fail......" after just saying they don't in the sentence before? do you want to get you story straight?
then through shear ignorance of the subject suggest their is no way of getting them to the correct place in its orbit. may i suggest perhaps doing some research of geostationary transfer orbits perhaps?

you act so definitive in your statement that satellites don't exist yet you nor any of the flat earth society can answer the problem of Doppler shift in transmitions. and yes i will bring it up every single time someone says satellites don't exist

and thork i have found out power requirement and generation capabilities gps satellites in general.

How much POWER do the GPS Satellites output on the 1575mhz L1 frequency?
One of our anonomous newgroup readers gave this correct answer..

In the frequency allocation filing the L1 C/A power is listed as 25.6 Watts.  The Antenna gain is listed at 13 dBi.  Thus, based on the frequency allocation  filing, the power would be about 500 Watts (27 dBW).

Now, the free space path loss from 21000 km is about 182 dB.  Take the 500 Watts (27 dBW) and subtract the free space path loss (27 - 182) and you get  -155 dBW. The end of life spec is -160 dBW, which leaves a 5 dB margin.

And if you really get into it, you'll discover ALL of the following represent the same approximate signal strength for GPS on the face of the earth (m stands for milliwatts and m2 stands for meters squared):

-160 dBW, -130 dBm, -135 dBW/m2, -105 dBm/m2, -223 dBW/Hz, -163 dBW/MHz, -193 dBm/Hz, -198 dBW/m2/Hz, -138 dBW/m2/MHz

Once you figure out why they're all the same, you're well on your way to understanding power, power density, and power flux density as it relates to GPS. For those that wish to quibble, I am assuming an even distribution of
power density over a 2 MHz C/A bandwidth.


Other Interesting information about the latest (Block IIR)  GPS satellites:
        Earth Weight (module in orbit): 2370 pounds
        Orbit altitude: 10,988 nautical miles
        Power source: solar panels generating 1136 watts
        Launch vehicle: Delta II
        Dimensions: 5 feet wide, 6.33 feet in diameter, 6.25 feet high
        (38.025 feet wide including wing span)
        Design life: 10 years


kind of puts an end to that line of discussion dont it ? ???lol

GPS have a hard time in the concrete canyons of cities because they are earth transmitters.

Yet cell phones work just fine in those very same concrete canyons using those very same earth transmitters.  Odd, don't you think?

Twisting things will get you nowhere Thaggy.
You clearly understand what I mean and that's good enough for me.
You can hang on to satellites in space all you like and scour the internet proving it but the reality of the matter is, everything that gets shown is artistic drawings, CGI and everything else but legitimate photo's.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 15, 2013, 10:42:51 AM

GPS have a hard time in the concrete canyons of cities because they are earth transmitters.

Yet cell phones work just fine in those very same concrete canyons using those very same earth transmitters.  Odd, don't you think?

But they don't Marko, it depends on the position of the transmitters, cell towers.

Welcome to the world of communication.

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Tower Climbers working

Cell phone towers usually aren't terribly tall.

It all depends on the area they're covering. The world is full of weird and wonderful structures that can obstruct.

Densely built urban areas tend to have the best cell phone coverage while sparsely populated rural areas tend to have spotty coverage.  That's pretty much the opposite situation of GPS having trouble in the "concrete canyons" of big cities and having little trouble in the wide open spaces of the country.

Densely built urban areas tend to have the best cell phone coverage while sparsely populated rural areas tend to have spotty coverage.  That's pretty much the opposite situation of GPS having trouble in the "concrete canyons" of big cities and having little trouble in the wide open spaces of the country.

In the wide open spaces of the country, over the past years, GPS coverage as we are led to believe it is, has been widely inaccurate.
It's getting better by the day because more and more pretend satellites are being positioned in space to cater for it. When I say, pretend satellites, I mean transmitter towers and relays to cover the space on earth that are passed off as satellites.

If I was a billionaire, I would offer anyone one million pounds to directly prove to me that satellites are in space, knowing that my money is safe.

Quote from: markjo on March 15, 2013, 11:35:33 AM

Densely built urban areas tend to have the best cell phone coverage while sparsely populated rural areas tend to have spotty coverage.  That's pretty much the opposite situation of GPS having trouble in the "concrete canyons" of big cities and having little trouble in the wide open spaces of the country.

In the wide open spaces of the country, over the past years, GPS coverage as we are led to believe it is, has been widely inaccurate.
It's getting better by the day because more and more pretend satellites are being positioned in space to cater for it. When I say, pretend satellites, I mean transmitter towers and relays to cover the space on earth that are passed off as satellites.

If I was a billionaire, I would offer anyone one million pounds to directly prove to me that satellites are in space, knowing that my money is safe.

care to give us evidence to back up your statement of inaccuracy in the country side compared to urban centers?

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 15, 2013, 11:42:12 AM

Quote from: markjo on March 15, 2013, 11:35:33 AM

Densely built urban areas tend to have the best cell phone coverage while sparsely populated rural areas tend to have spotty coverage.  That's pretty much the opposite situation of GPS having trouble in the "concrete canyons" of big cities and having little trouble in the wide open spaces of the country.

In the wide open spaces of the country, over the past years, GPS coverage as we are led to believe it is, has been widely inaccurate.
It's getting better by the day because more and more pretend satellites are being positioned in space to cater for it. When I say, pretend satellites, I mean transmitter towers and relays to cover the space on earth that are passed off as satellites.

If I was a billionaire, I would offer anyone one million pounds to directly prove to me that satellites are in space, knowing that my money is safe.

care to give us evidence to back up your statement of inaccuracy in the country side compared to urban centers?

I could tell you I had huge problems going to the west of Scotland using a sat nav which continually had me all over the place when I hit the sticks.
I could accept transmitters/relays/cells doing this but not a satellite in the sky Thaggy.
I also noticed when going to Scotland that my sat nav kept on re-adjusting. Maybe that was the satellite nodding off or something eh?

sat nav? the gps wasant the problem it was the street map software or you inability to input a address properly. nothing to do with the gps itself.

sat nave re adjusting? whats that supposed to mean?

so so no actual prof then? just you typing words into the computer?

sat nav? the gps wasant the problem it was the street map software or you inability to input a address properly. nothing to do with the gps itself.

sat nave re adjusting? whats that supposed to mean?

so so no actual prof then? just you typing words into the computer?

Of course I'm typing words into a computer. Who am I talking to here. Stephen Hawking?