GPS

  • 498 Replies
  • 54352 Views
Re: GPS
« Reply #60 on: December 17, 2013, 07:15:41 AM »
I hope you all realise that the air you are in is ALL magnetically charged, don't you.

Is that relevant?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: GPS
« Reply #61 on: December 17, 2013, 07:24:35 AM »
I hope you all realise that the air you are in is ALL magnetically charged, don't you.

Is that relevant?
It depends on how you want to look at it. It's relevant to me, because it shows how signals and everything else works on earth and how rebounding signals are capable of working.
No signal gets past the last element on earth, no matter how you want to dress it up.

A vacuum cannot allow ANYTHING to move within it, which includes your satellites or signals. Deal with that because it's the reality.

Re: GPS
« Reply #62 on: December 17, 2013, 07:57:42 AM »
A vacuum cannot allow ANYTHING to move within it, which includes your satellites or signals. Deal with that because it's the reality.

that doesn't sound right.

That sounds the opposite of right.

I mean the air is closer to a vacuum than a brick wall is yet I can run through the air easier than I can run through a brick wall.

Seems to me a vacuum would be even easier to move through than the air.

Besides which the composition of their air around the TV transmitter is only relevant once we've ascertained it's position, which is damn high up.

Re: GPS
« Reply #63 on: December 17, 2013, 08:06:14 AM »
I hope you all realise that the air you are in is ALL magnetically charged, don't you.

Is that relevant?
It depends on how you want to look at it. It's relevant to me, because it shows how signals and everything else works on earth and how rebounding signals are capable of working.
No signal gets past the last element on earth, no matter how you want to dress it up.

A vacuum cannot allow ANYTHING to move within it, which includes your satellites or signals. Deal with that because it's the reality.
Fine, so you have no idea of what the ionospehre is.
Can you at least draw some diagram of how the signal refects on it ?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: GPS
« Reply #64 on: December 17, 2013, 08:29:17 AM »
Why can't a signal bounce off of a flat ionoplane?  Why dose it have to be a sphere?  Bouncing a signal does not prove the shape of what it was bounced off of.  It only shows that a signal can bounce, which I don't think that anyone is denying. 
« Last Edit: December 17, 2013, 08:30:59 AM by jroa »

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: GPS
« Reply #65 on: December 17, 2013, 08:31:47 AM »
A vacuum cannot allow ANYTHING to move within it, which includes your satellites or signals. Deal with that because it's the reality.

that doesn't sound right.

That sounds the opposite of right.

I mean the air is closer to a vacuum than a brick wall is yet I can run through the air easier than I can run through a brick wall.

Seems to me a vacuum would be even easier to move through than the air.

Besides which the composition of their air around the TV transmitter is only relevant once we've ascertained it's position, which is damn high up.
Of course it seems easier to run through a vacuum, because your mind has been saturated in so much bull crap that you cannot comprehend what a vacuum actually is.
You just think of thinner air or less matter and that's not what a vacuum really is.
You could not run inside of a N.A.S.A evacuation chamber. WHY?

Because your body would be quickly taken apart, meaning all of your heavier elements would be expanded to fill what was being evacuated, so you aren't running anywhere easier or at all.
Your body is designed to live where you are, under 14.7 psi of pressure. Go higher and you suffer for it. Go lower, as in water and you suffer for it.

As far as signals go, sound, light or signals as we know them work better for what WE perceive, in our atmosphere, in our pressure.
Think of your signal as throwing a ball into the air and it falling back down back into your hand. Depending on the strength of throw, depends on the distance you can send that ball (signal)...

If you want someone to catch it over a distance, then you angle your throw to gain the bigger distance, or you bounce it up and down, or basically you play a game of relay racing with it.
This is all that's happening with signals, only I'm explaining it in a crude and simplified way.

Whales and other species communicate this way, by frequency and vibration, because every molecule on this earth is attached...and every species can detect their own vibrations through it, because it's simply a wave not unlike holding a length of rope and whipping it to see the ripple run along it, except only faster.

Time and distance of any sound is dependent on the severity of it, just as light to your eye is dependent on the severity of it as to how much you see of it in distance from which the friction/vibration/sound that created it, may or may not be strong enough to merit a vibration of your ear drum from your hammer in your ear for your brain to pick up the sound, only the light.

You are walking about under magnetic conditions, mostly so small that you as a human would never guess it.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: GPS
« Reply #66 on: December 17, 2013, 08:33:29 AM »
I hope you all realise that the air you are in is ALL magnetically charged, don't you.

Is that relevant?
It depends on how you want to look at it. It's relevant to me, because it shows how signals and everything else works on earth and how rebounding signals are capable of working.
No signal gets past the last element on earth, no matter how you want to dress it up.

A vacuum cannot allow ANYTHING to move within it, which includes your satellites or signals. Deal with that because it's the reality.
Fine, so you have no idea of what the ionospehre is.
Can you at least draw some diagram of how the signal refects on it ?
The signal doesn't actually reflect of bounce off of it. That's just a saying. It's about sending a signal upwards like I explained with the ball.

Re: GPS
« Reply #67 on: December 17, 2013, 08:33:43 AM »
Why can't a signal bounce off of a flat ionoplane?  Why dose it have to be a sphere?  Bouncing a signal does not prove the shape of what it was bounced off of.  It only shows that a signal can bounce, which I don't think that anyone is denying.

I have no idea, perhaps in scepti's world its a sphere because it mirrors the curve of the ice dome?

Either way whilst in theory a satellite signal could at times bounce of the iono-whatever it would still raise questions of where the transmitter is, adding in a bounce and assuming a flat earth would move it a ways towards the Antarctic depending on how high you think an ionoplane would be?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: GPS
« Reply #68 on: December 17, 2013, 08:39:53 AM »
Why can't a signal bounce off of a flat ionoplane?  Why dose it have to be a sphere?  Bouncing a signal does not prove the shape of what it was bounced off of.  It only shows that a signal can bounce, which I don't think that anyone is denying.

I have no idea, perhaps in scepti's world its a sphere because it mirrors the curve of the ice dome?

Either way whilst in theory a satellite signal could at times bounce of the iono-whatever it would still raise questions of where the transmitter is, adding in a bounce and assuming a flat earth would move it a ways towards the Antarctic depending on how high you think an ionoplane would be?

It is just that flat things can, and do, bounce off things.  Why say that you can only bounce something off a round medium?   
« Last Edit: December 17, 2013, 08:53:46 AM by jroa »

Re: GPS
« Reply #69 on: December 17, 2013, 08:52:08 AM »
Of course it seems easier to run through a vacuum, because your mind has been saturated in so much bull crap that you cannot comprehend what a vacuum actually is.
I'm using the "look out of the window" test here. The thinner the air is the easier it is to push through it, same goes for water and any other material, the less material in any given space the easier it is to get through.


You just think of thinner air or less matter and that's not what a vacuum really is.

so thin there's no air at all, right?
You could not run inside of a N.A.S.A evacuation chamber. WHY?
Because I couldn't breathe

Because your body would be quickly taken apart, meaning all of your heavier elements would be expanded to fill what was being evacuated, so you aren't running anywhere easier or at all.

There would be serious issues eventually yes, I wouldn't explode in holywood style though, I'd probably suffer internal bleeding and a lot of other ill effects especially in the eyes but I certainly wouldn't atomise and fill the chamber
Your body is designed to live where you are, under 14.7 psi of pressure. Go higher and you suffer for it. Go lower, as in water and you suffer for it.

Our limits are mostly down to being able to breathe at these different places, You have to pile on quite a lot of pressure to crush us under it and likewise we don't tend to explode, but then that's to do with our internal pressures, something say a rock or light, or radio waves wouldn't need to worry about too much, it's not like they have internal organs.

As far as signals go, sound, light or signals as we know them work better for what WE perceive, in our atmosphere, in our pressure.
Think of your signal as throwing a ball into the air and it falling back down back into your hand. Depending on the strength of throw, depends on the distance you can send that ball (signal)...

If you want someone to catch it over a distance, then you angle your throw to gain the bigger distance, or you bounce it up and down, or basically you play a game of relay racing with it.
This is all that's happening with signals, only I'm explaining it in a crude and simplified way.

so you're essentially saying that the signal follows a ballistic or parabolic (ballistic being closer to what you were implying but parabolic closer modelling what we see in the setup of dishes) trajectory?


That's an explanation, and again we ought to be able to project the placement of the transmitter based on the placement of dishes.

So we're still looking for a reliable transmitter station that's been going for a good few decades with no long term interruptions in... the Congo.

We're definitely going to need your flat earth map Scepti, because there's no way my round earth one can be right.


It is just that flat things can, and do, bounce things.  Why say that you can only bounce something off a round medium?

I'm not sure anyone is.

I think the contention is not that you can or can't bounce signals of any atmospheric layer of any shape. I think it's that it couldn't be done reliably to provide a TV service no matter what shape the layer is given changing conditions, but that's pure speculation on my part..
« Last Edit: December 17, 2013, 08:54:12 AM by Spank86 »

Re: GPS
« Reply #70 on: December 17, 2013, 08:59:20 AM »
So where are the GPS transmitters?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: GPS
« Reply #71 on: December 17, 2013, 09:08:18 AM »
So where are the GPS transmitters?
Look around you, the world is crammed full of them.

Re: GPS
« Reply #72 on: December 17, 2013, 09:14:46 AM »
So where are the GPS transmitters?
Look around you, the world is crammed full of them.

GPS transmits data on two frequencies, L1 (1575.42 Mhz) and L2 (1227.60 MHz), how do you identify them?

GPS works in the middle of the oceans, where are the transmitters?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: GPS
« Reply #73 on: December 17, 2013, 09:24:18 AM »
So where are the GPS transmitters?
Look around you, the world is crammed full of them.

GPS transmits data on two frequencies, L1 (1575.42 Mhz) and L2 (1227.60 MHz), how do you identify them?

GPS works in the middle of the oceans, where are the transmitters?

Ya, great, they both bounce, now don't they.

What is you point about the ocean?

Re: GPS
« Reply #74 on: December 17, 2013, 09:29:35 AM »
So where are the GPS transmitters?
Look around you, the world is crammed full of them.

GPS transmits data on two frequencies, L1 (1575.42 Mhz) and L2 (1227.60 MHz), how do you identify them?

GPS works in the middle of the oceans, where are the transmitters?

Ya, great, they both bounce, now don't they.

What is you point about the ocean?

If the world is crammed full of transmitters where are they and how does GPS work in the centre of an ocean where there are no transmitters.  If it's about signals 'bouncing' how is the accuracy maintained with an unknown distance and why does there need to be so many transmitters?

A reference to the detail of how GPS works would help.  Like a specification for manufacturers.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: GPS
« Reply #75 on: December 17, 2013, 09:52:07 AM »
So where are the GPS transmitters?
Look around you, the world is crammed full of them.

GPS transmits data on two frequencies, L1 (1575.42 Mhz) and L2 (1227.60 MHz), how do you identify them?

GPS works in the middle of the oceans, where are the transmitters?

Ya, great, they both bounce, now don't they.

What is you point about the ocean?

If the world is crammed full of transmitters where are they and how does GPS work in the centre of an ocean where there are no transmitters.  If it's about signals 'bouncing' how is the accuracy maintained with an unknown distance and why does there need to be so many transmitters?

A reference to the detail of how GPS works would help.  Like a specification for manufacturers.
How did they communicate during the war years?

No satellites then, was there, just as there isn't, now.

Re: GPS
« Reply #76 on: December 17, 2013, 10:27:22 AM »
So where are the GPS transmitters?
Look around you, the world is crammed full of them.

GPS transmits data on two frequencies, L1 (1575.42 Mhz) and L2 (1227.60 MHz), how do you identify them?

GPS works in the middle of the oceans, where are the transmitters?

Ya, great, they both bounce, now don't they.

What is you point about the ocean?

If the world is crammed full of transmitters where are they and how does GPS work in the centre of an ocean where there are no transmitters.  If it's about signals 'bouncing' how is the accuracy maintained with an unknown distance and why does there need to be so many transmitters?

A reference to the detail of how GPS works would help.  Like a specification for manufacturers.
How did they communicate during the war years?

No satellites then, was there, just as there isn't, now.

Let's stick to 1 topic:

If the world is crammed full of transmitters where are they and how does GPS work in the centre of an ocean where there are no transmitters.  If it's about signals 'bouncing' how is the accuracy maintained with an unknown distance and why does there need to be so many transmitters?

A reference to the detail of how GPS works would help.  Like a specification for manufacturers.

Re: GPS
« Reply #77 on: December 17, 2013, 10:37:50 AM »
How did they communicate during the war years?

No satellites then, was there, just as there isn't, now.

poor quality radio and fixed line telephone.

Depending on which war of course.

Re: GPS
« Reply #78 on: December 17, 2013, 11:58:42 AM »
I hope you all realise that the air you are in is ALL magnetically charged, don't you.

Is that relevant?
It depends on how you want to look at it. It's relevant to me, because it shows how signals and everything else works on earth and how rebounding signals are capable of working.
No signal gets past the last element on earth, no matter how you want to dress it up.

A vacuum cannot allow ANYTHING to move within it, which includes your satellites or signals. Deal with that because it's the reality.
Fine, so you have no idea of what the ionospehre is.
Can you at least draw some diagram of how the signal refects on it ?
The signal doesn't actually reflect of bounce off of it. That's just a saying. It's about sending a signal upwards like I explained with the ball.
Can you then show some drawing explaining how a a big bunch of parabolic antennas pointing to the same dot in the sky receive in fact a signal coming from earth ?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: GPS
« Reply #79 on: December 17, 2013, 12:04:20 PM »
So where are the GPS transmitters?
Look around you, the world is crammed full of them.

GPS transmits data on two frequencies, L1 (1575.42 Mhz) and L2 (1227.60 MHz), how do you identify them?

GPS works in the middle of the oceans, where are the transmitters?

Ya, great, they both bounce, now don't they.

What is you point about the ocean?

If the world is crammed full of transmitters where are they and how does GPS work in the centre of an ocean where there are no transmitters.  If it's about signals 'bouncing' how is the accuracy maintained with an unknown distance and why does there need to be so many transmitters?

A reference to the detail of how GPS works would help.  Like a specification for manufacturers.
How did they communicate during the war years?

No satellites then, was there, just as there isn't, now.

Let's stick to 1 topic:

If the world is crammed full of transmitters where are they and how does GPS work in the centre of an ocean where there are no transmitters.  If it's about signals 'bouncing' how is the accuracy maintained with an unknown distance and why does there need to be so many transmitters?

A reference to the detail of how GPS works would help.  Like a specification for manufacturers.
What do you mean by accuracy?

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: GPS
« Reply #80 on: December 17, 2013, 12:05:34 PM »
How did they communicate during the war years?

No satellites then, was there, just as there isn't, now.

poor quality radio and fixed line telephone.

Depending on which war of course.
It's not a case of poor quality, it's a case of they managed to get signals even during those days and it's a stark contrast to what they have now.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: GPS
« Reply #81 on: December 17, 2013, 12:13:19 PM »
I hope you all realise that the air you are in is ALL magnetically charged, don't you.

Is that relevant?
It depends on how you want to look at it. It's relevant to me, because it shows how signals and everything else works on earth and how rebounding signals are capable of working.
No signal gets past the last element on earth, no matter how you want to dress it up.

A vacuum cannot allow ANYTHING to move within it, which includes your satellites or signals. Deal with that because it's the reality.
Fine, so you have no idea of what the ionospehre is.
Can you at least draw some diagram of how the signal refects on it ?
The signal doesn't actually reflect of bounce off of it. That's just a saying. It's about sending a signal upwards like I explained with the ball.
Can you then show some drawing explaining how a a big bunch of parabolic antennas pointing to the same dot in the sky receive in fact a signal coming from earth ?
Read this, it might wake you up, but if I was a betting man, I would bet it doesn't even make you question it, because your goal here isn't about questioning anything that you have been brainwashed into.
http://www.liveviewgps.com/blog/china-australia-investigate-groundbased-gps-system/

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: GPS
« Reply #82 on: December 17, 2013, 12:15:15 PM »
I hope you all realise that the air you are in is ALL magnetically charged, don't you.

Is that relevant?
It depends on how you want to look at it. It's relevant to me, because it shows how signals and everything else works on earth and how rebounding signals are capable of working.
No signal gets past the last element on earth, no matter how you want to dress it up.

A vacuum cannot allow ANYTHING to move within it, which includes your satellites or signals. Deal with that because it's the reality.
Fine, so you have no idea of what the ionospehre is.
Can you at least draw some diagram of how the signal refects on it ?
The signal doesn't actually reflect of bounce off of it. That's just a saying. It's about sending a signal upwards like I explained with the ball.
Can you then show some drawing explaining how a a big bunch of parabolic antennas pointing to the same dot in the sky receive in fact a signal coming from earth ?
Those dishes are receivers, they receive bounced signals. It's like catching a ball by using a big net.

Re: GPS
« Reply #83 on: December 17, 2013, 12:40:57 PM »
I hope you all realise that the air you are in is ALL magnetically charged, don't you.

Is that relevant?
It depends on how you want to look at it. It's relevant to me, because it shows how signals and everything else works on earth and how rebounding signals are capable of working.
No signal gets past the last element on earth, no matter how you want to dress it up.

A vacuum cannot allow ANYTHING to move within it, which includes your satellites or signals. Deal with that because it's the reality.
Fine, so you have no idea of what the ionospehre is.
Can you at least draw some diagram of how the signal refects on it ?
The signal doesn't actually reflect of bounce off of it. That's just a saying. It's about sending a signal upwards like I explained with the ball.
Can you then show some drawing explaining how a a big bunch of parabolic antennas pointing to the same dot in the sky receive in fact a signal coming from earth ?
Those dishes are receivers, they receive bounced signals. It's like catching a ball by using a big net.

So why do satellite TV receiver dishes point in different directions depending on which satellite they want to receive?  So the UK companies building satellites are doing what exactly?

Have we established exactly how GPS works in the middle of an ocean and how it determines its location, what does it measure to accurately calculate its position within a few metres?

Re: GPS
« Reply #84 on: December 17, 2013, 01:26:35 PM »
Quote
Read this, it might wake you up, but if I was a betting man, I would bet it doesn't even make you question it, because your goal here isn't about questioning anything that you have been brainwashed into.
http://www.liveviewgps.com/blog/china-australia-investigate-groundbased-gps-system/

You realize you just provided a link from a GPS company..............while trying to claim GPS and satellites can't be real? If they aren't real............how can your link prove anything?

Furthermore..............how does the fact that companies are "experimenting" with ground based GPS prove you right?
You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa

Re: GPS
« Reply #85 on: December 17, 2013, 02:14:03 PM »
How did they communicate during the war years?

No satellites then, was there, just as there isn't, now.

poor quality radio and fixed line telephone.

Depending on which war of course.
It's not a case of poor quality, it's a case of they managed to get signals even during those days and it's a stark contrast to what they have now.

What sort of a contrast? I mean Longwave radio is slightly higher quality than it was in those days (probably mostly due to receiver tech) and FM is much clearer but with limited range.

of course the technology has got a lot smaller and uses a lot less power but I'm still not sure where you're going with that one, are you suggesting that radio transmission is less effective than it was?
 

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: GPS
« Reply #86 on: December 18, 2013, 04:56:36 AM »
Quote
Read this, it might wake you up, but if I was a betting man, I would bet it doesn't even make you question it, because your goal here isn't about questioning anything that you have been brainwashed into.
http://www.liveviewgps.com/blog/china-australia-investigate-groundbased-gps-system/

You realize you just provided a link from a GPS company..............while trying to claim GPS and satellites can't be real? If they aren't real............how can your link prove anything?

Furthermore..............how does the fact that companies are "experimenting" with ground based GPS prove you right?
I don't know whether you people are simply devoid of reason or are deliberate.
I'm fairly sure you can see what I'm getting at, but if not, ask around, maybe someone can help you.

*

sceptimatic

  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 30059
Re: GPS
« Reply #87 on: December 18, 2013, 04:57:15 AM »
How did they communicate during the war years?

No satellites then, was there, just as there isn't, now.

poor quality radio and fixed line telephone.

Depending on which war of course.
It's not a case of poor quality, it's a case of they managed to get signals even during those days and it's a stark contrast to what they have now.

What sort of a contrast? I mean Longwave radio is slightly higher quality than it was in those days (probably mostly due to receiver tech) and FM is much clearer but with limited range.

of course the technology has got a lot smaller and uses a lot less power but I'm still not sure where you're going with that one, are you suggesting that radio transmission is less effective than it was?
Now why would I say it's less effective?
Have a word will you.

Re: GPS
« Reply #88 on: December 18, 2013, 05:20:38 AM »
Quote
I'm fairly sure you can see what I'm getting at, but if not, ask around, maybe someone can help you.

Who shall we ask?

Outside of earthisaspaceship, quite possibly the dumbest person on the internet, everyone here KNOWS you're an idiot. Even the FE'ers know you're wrong.

So...........who can I ask that will back you up?
You did not ask me for logic.  You asked for my opinion. - Jroa

Re: GPS
« Reply #89 on: December 18, 2013, 06:14:33 AM »
Now why would I say it's less effective?
Have a word will you.

I have no idea why you might, but I still also have no idea what you're trying to get at witht he point that during ww2 we had radios.