GPS

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 03, 2014, 03:35:59 PM

What would really satisfy me is when satellite TV becomes a thing of the past and they don't need the satellites anymore then tell us that the new earth technology works just as well and yet nothing will change and all the little whizzing things keep whizzing about in the sky long after the satellites have burned up in the atmosphere, lol.

Thats happening as we speak. That's part of what the big push for fibre internet is for.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 03, 2014, 03:35:59 PM

To be fair, I don't think anything would satisfy me, because I know in my own mind that space satellites do not exist and never have nor will do, because space does not exist.

then don't call it logic, that's intuition. Logic accepts the unbelievable because it has no choice, intuition dismisses it in favor of what seems correct.

We can interpret anything in all kinds of different ways and call it logic, faith, intuition or whatever and to be fair, it doesn't really matter how people view it. It's about how people channel their minds onto any specific alternate theory, even if it's to say, "hmmm...maybe there's something in this...maybe satellites aren't real and they've had the capabilities to do this from earth, all along."

You know, stuff like that.
We all know that we are not being told the whole truth about lots of stuff, or at least most people should be aware of this by now. Anyone who says they believe everything unconditionally will never know anything other than what they are fed and can go about their lives being scared of whatever the media and science decide to put out.

We can interpret anything in all kinds of different ways and call it logic, faith, intuition or whatever and to be fair, it doesn't really matter how people view it. It's about how people channel their minds onto any specific alternate theory, even if it's to say, "hmmm...maybe there's something in this...maybe satellites aren't real and they've had the capabilities to do this from earth, all along."

Now you're suggesting that we're spending billions of pounds installing fibre links when we have the capabilities of satellites within ground based installations?

If that were true the fibre wouldn't be going in, they'd just keep with the broadcast masts because ping times wouldn't be an issue, nor would ever increasing bandwidth requirements.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2014, 04:02:50 AM

We can interpret anything in all kinds of different ways and call it logic, faith, intuition or whatever and to be fair, it doesn't really matter how people view it. It's about how people channel their minds onto any specific alternate theory, even if it's to say, "hmmm...maybe there's something in this...maybe satellites aren't real and they've had the capabilities to do this from earth, all along."

Now you're suggesting that we're spending billions of pounds installing fibre links when we have the capabilities of satellites within ground based installations?

If that were true the fibre wouldn't be going in, they'd just keep with the broadcast masts because ping times wouldn't be an issue, nor would ever increasing bandwidth requirements.

Not at all. I'm saying that we have had the capabilities to use earth as our communication for long enough.
The cable stuff is just an updated version making things faster.

Not at all. I'm saying that we have had the capabilities to use earth as our communication for long enough.
The cable stuff is just an updated version making things faster.

Not at all. The equipment on the end makes it faster, the fibre optics merely allow transmission over greater distances because the old broadband technology couldn't go 15 kilometers, let alone across the globe.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2014, 04:12:49 AM

Not at all. I'm saying that we have had the capabilities to use earth as our communication for long enough.
The cable stuff is just an updated version making things faster.

Not at all. The equipment on the end makes it faster, the fibre optics merely allow transmission over greater distances because the old broadband technology couldn't go 15 kilometers, let alone across the globe.

What I'm saying is, cable is better all round.

Quote from: Spank86 on January 04, 2014, 04:24:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2014, 04:12:49 AM

Not at all. I'm saying that we have had the capabilities to use earth as our communication for long enough.
The cable stuff is just an updated version making things faster.

Not at all. The equipment on the end makes it faster, the fibre optics merely allow transmission over greater distances because the old broadband technology couldn't go 15 kilometers, let alone across the globe.

What I'm saying is, cable is better all round.

It is now (apart from the initial installation cost).

It wasn't back in the past, technology has moved on, as have requirements.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2014, 04:30:27 AM

Quote from: Spank86 on January 04, 2014, 04:24:26 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 04, 2014, 04:12:49 AM

Not at all. I'm saying that we have had the capabilities to use earth as our communication for long enough.
The cable stuff is just an updated version making things faster.

Not at all. The equipment on the end makes it faster, the fibre optics merely allow transmission over greater distances because the old broadband technology couldn't go 15 kilometers, let alone across the globe.

What I'm saying is, cable is better all round.

It is now (apart from the initial installation cost).

It wasn't back in the past, technology has moved on, as have requirements.

Yes, I understand that. I think that this is a debate that will go nowhere because I'm 100% sure that there are no satellites in space. I cannot rule out stuff under power in our atmosphere though, so I keep an open mind about that. All I can say though, is, whatever they are, they weren't put there by so called space rockets.

I don't mean for our so called satellite TV, because I'm more than happy that transmitters around earth can do the job, bearing in mind it's not a globe.

But you won't look at where satellite tv dishes point to. Why not?

Not at all. The equipment on the end makes it faster, the fibre optics merely allow transmission over greater distances because the old broadband technology couldn't go 15 kilometers, let alone across the globe.

You need to bear in mind that sceptimatic's understanding of even the basics of science is extremely limited—as evidenced by his whacky posts on this forum.

Anybody living in the 21st century who seriously rejects the theories of gravity, energy, force, pressure etc should probably be totally ignored.  It's a total waste of time trying to maintain any sort of meaningful dialogue with the guy.

Thankfully, most of the other FEs here have a more intelligent approach to questions of science, even if their viewpoint differs markedly from that of the REs like me.  With sceptimatic, you'd be better off talking to your palm LOL.

Radio waves travel in straight lines.  How do you think short wave radios have been picking up stations in other countries for YEARS?  Kinda makes you think.....the EARTH IS FLAT

Radio waves travel in straight lines.  How do you think short wave radios have been picking up stations in other countries for YEARS?  Kinda makes you think.....the EARTH IS FLAT

You obviously don't know how short-wave radio works.  The signal is reflected from the ionospheric layer several times, as per:
 


So no; it doesn't make you think the earth is flat at all.
 
 
 

Yes, Geoff, I knew that about the Ionosphere.  REs usually don't mention it though because they say it's satellites that transmit the radio waves, so thank you for admitting it.

Yes, Geoff, I knew that about the Ionosphere.  REs usually don't mention it though because they say it's satellites that transmit the radio waves, so thank you for admitting it.

I don't know anyone who would say that satellites transmit shortwave radio signals.

Yes, Geoff, I knew that about the Ionosphere.  REs usually don't mention it though because they say it's satellites that transmit the radio waves, so thank you for admitting it.

Radio waves bounced off the ionosphere have variable quality (from low to crap to non-existent under certain atmospheric conditions), and the direction they came from can be very difficult to determine due to scattering of the signal. Satellite signals, on the other hand, are usually pretty good quality, and the direction they come from is very easy to determine with great precision. Think of it like trying to pin-point a light source based on it's reflection off an ordinary brick wall (ionosphere bounce), vs seeing the source directly (satellite).

AM radio also has a variable quality, but that did not stop people from using it for the past, what, 100 or more years.

AM radio also has a variable quality, but that did not stop people from using it for the past, what, 100 or more years.

True, but here we are talking about transmitting digital multiplexes with a number of HD channels reliabily.

Satellite signals, on the other hand, are usually pretty good quality, and the direction they come from is very easy to determine with great precision.

OK, go outside and determine the exact location of at least 12 satellites.  Don't forget to log the signal strength of each one, it's altitude relative to your location, and direction.  Also, mix it up so that you have some geosynchronous and some non-geosynchronous satellites.  When you are done, we can discuss your data.

http://in-the-sky.org/satmap.php

Or lets just discuss the location of one set of broadcast satellites owned by Astra. www.onastra.com

Quote from: Scintific Method on January 05, 2014, 01:34:26 PM

Satellite signals, on the other hand, are usually pretty good quality, and the direction they come from is very easy to determine with great precision.

OK, go outside and determine the exact location of at least 12 satellites.  Don't forget to log the signal strength of each one, it's altitude relative to your location, and direction.  Also, mix it up so that you have some geosynchronous and some non-geosynchronous satellites.  When you are done, we can discuss your data.

DIY. I'm not your babysitter.

Quote from: jroa on January 05, 2014, 03:35:54 PM

Quote from: Scintific Method on January 05, 2014, 01:34:26 PM

Satellite signals, on the other hand, are usually pretty good quality, and the direction they come from is very easy to determine with great precision.

OK, go outside and determine the exact location of at least 12 satellites.  Don't forget to log the signal strength of each one, it's altitude relative to your location, and direction.  Also, mix it up so that you have some geosynchronous and some non-geosynchronous satellites.  When you are done, we can discuss your data.

DIY. I'm not your babysitter.

You are the one claiming that it is such an easy thing to do. 

Quote from: Scintific Method on January 05, 2014, 04:38:44 PM

Quote from: jroa on January 05, 2014, 03:35:54 PM

Quote from: Scintific Method on January 05, 2014, 01:34:26 PM

Satellite signals, on the other hand, are usually pretty good quality, and the direction they come from is very easy to determine with great precision.

OK, go outside and determine the exact location of at least 12 satellites.  Don't forget to log the signal strength of each one, it's altitude relative to your location, and direction.  Also, mix it up so that you have some geosynchronous and some non-geosynchronous satellites.  When you are done, we can discuss your data.

DIY. I'm not your babysitter.

You are the one claiming that it is such an easy thing to do.

It is, but if I do it for you, you won't learn anything from it, so go do it yourself. A least then you might actually learn something.

I learn things everyday.  However, I also know that it is no small feat to build a signal direction locator.  I would never claim that it is an easy thing to do and that any ordinary Joe can do it.  In fact, I would say that only a small fractional percentage of the population can do such a thing in order to perform experiments to prove the location of satellites. 

It seems to me that I live in a realistic reality, while you make up reality as you go.  It is a shame.

I learn things everyday.  However, I also know that it is no small feat to build a signal direction locator.  I would never claim that it is an easy thing to do and that any ordinary Joe can do it.  In fact, I would say that only a small fractional percentage of the population can do such a thing in order to perform experiments to prove the location of satellites. 

It seems to me that I live in a realistic reality, while you make up reality as you go.  It is a shame.

Why would you want to over-complicate it by building extra equipment? If you have satellite TV, you have the means to locate at least one satellite already (it's direction at least, not necessarily it's range). Use your head, find something with which to block the signal, then move away from the dish, block the signal, then extrapolate the line between the dish and the blocker. If that line is nearly horizontal, then congratulations, the signal must be coming from a tower! If the line ascends at a decent angle however, then you might want to reconsider your stance on the earth's shape.

This site seems helpful for finding satellites.
http://www.dishpointer.com/

I learn things everyday.  However, I also know that it is no small feat to build a signal direction locator.  I would never claim that it is an easy thing to do and that any ordinary Joe can do it.  In fact, I would say that only a small fractional percentage of the population can do such a thing in order to perform experiments to prove the location of satellites. 

It seems to me that I live in a realistic reality, while you make up reality as you go.  It is a shame.

Maybe amateur radio operators might be considered  a small fractional percentage of the population, but if you are speaking of a "signal direction locator" that is one of the simplest and easiest things that you can do in radio. Thousands of hams do this every day.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "signal direction locator" but all you need is a directional antenna and a receiver. When you have aimed the antenna to receive the signal, the antenna is pointing in the direction of the transmitter. One of the things that some amateur radio clubs do is "The Hidden Transmitter Hunt". Some one hides a transmitter. The rest of the hams aim their antennas and the bearings are compared and where they cross is the location of the hidden transmitter.The antennas are usually simple and often home-made.
"Any Ordinary Joe" can make one with some wire or aluminum tubing. Pretty simple and it's a lot of fun.

Some ham clubs call this "Fox and Hounds" exercises. The "Fox" is the hidden transmitter and the "Hounds" are the hams with their directional antennas and receivers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmitter_hunting

If you have watched some of the "Nature" programs on PBS , there have been programs showing how wild animals were traced by placing transmitters on the animals and then tracing them with the directional antennas and receivers. 

You can do this for any kind of radio signal. If you point a directional antenna at a satelllite, it will point to the satellite.  There is nothing complicated or mysterious about this.

Maybe I've not understanding your claim that "it is no small feat to build a signal direction locator." If you are not using cable TV that is what you do with your TV antenna to get the best picture. Your TV antenna is a "signal direction locator."


Please clarify your statement. It doesn't seem to make any  sense but maybe I'm not reading you right.

On other posts FE's have demonstrated an abyssmal ignorance of radio. I hope this isn't just one more if you mean what I think you mean about a "signal direction locator."

P.S. FE's have also said that you can't bounce radio signals off the moon. But a lot of hams enjoy doing this on "Moon Bounce".

There are a number of apps for smart phones and tablets that will show the direction, ID, signal to noise ratio etc of US and Russian GPS satellites.

I learn things everyday.  However, I also know that it is a small  feat to build a signal direction locator.  I would  claim that  is an easy thing to do and any ordinary Joe can do it  In fact, I would say that it is only a large fractional percentage of the population can do such a thing in order to perform experiments to prove the location of satellites. 

It seems to me that I live in a realistic reality, while you make up reality as you go.  It is a shame.

I've made some corrections to jroa's post.

PS- If you read that old thread on "Ham Radio Measurements Of The Distance From The Earth To The Moon", those antennas the hams were using for "Moon Bounce" were a kind of "signal direction locator." They were used to aim their transmitters and receivers at the moon. Granted, they were often fairly complicated, but all you really need for a "signal direction locator" is a simple hand held dipole antenna such as those that hams use on "The Hidden Transmitter Hunt."

Quote from: jroa on January 05, 2014, 05:08:29 PM

I learn things everyday.  However, I also know that it is a small  feat to build a signal direction locator.  I would  claim that  is an easy thing to do and any ordinary Joe can do it  In fact, I would say that it is only a large fractional percentage of the population can do such a thing in order to perform experiments to prove the location of satellites. 

It seems to me that I live in a realistic reality, while you make up reality as you go.  It is a shame.

I've made some corrections to jroa's post.

You shouldn't be making your own perceived corrections to anyone's post. You should know better than that having had corrections made to your once rational mind by mainstream indoctrination.

Quote from: Googleotomy on January 06, 2014, 11:24:43 AM

Quote from: jroa on January 05, 2014, 05:08:29 PM

I learn things everyday.  However, I also know that it is a small  feat to build a signal direction locator.  I would  claim that  is an easy thing to do and any ordinary Joe can do it  In fact, I would say that it is only a large fractional percentage of the population can do such a thing in order to perform experiments to prove the location of satellites. 

It seems to me that I live in a realistic reality, while you make up reality as you go.  It is a shame.

I've made some corrections to jroa's post.

You shouldn't be making your own perceived corrections to anyone's post. You should know better than that having had corrections made to your once rational mind by mainstream indoctrination.

If FE's can do it, why can't RE's ? LOL.

Just trying to inject a bit of sanity to this website . LOL. But after a while I have come to the conclusion that it is an impossiblity to do so on this website. Keep on looking out your window, sceptimatic.

Happy New Year !

Yes, Geoff, I knew that about the Ionosphere.  REs usually don't mention it though because they say it's satellites that transmit the radio waves, so thank you for admitting it.

You may well have known about the ionosphere, but you obviously didn't understand how it enables the transmission of radio waves over intercontinental distances.

REs have never claimed that it's solely "satellites" that transmit shortwave radio signals.  They're more than likely transmitted from ground-based stations.

I'm not sure exactly what you're thanking me for "admitting"?  There's no satellite transponders even shown in my diagram.  Care to clarify this?