GPS

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 06, 2014, 11:56:28 AM

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 !

I will do! and happy new year to you, too.

Quote from: EarthIsASpaceship on January 05, 2014, 01:16:18 PM

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?

I would also like to have jroa clarify his definition of "signal direction locator."

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.

This is an impossible request for the layman who doesn't possess advanced radio-detection gear (like most of us here I'm guessing).

There's really no point in asking REs for evidence they cannot personally have access to.  I've also asked FEs for photographic images of the ice wall, but thus far none have been forthcoming.  How is it that it's apparently OK for you to ask REs for empirical evidence for our claims, but then refuse to provide any FE empirical evidence of your own?

At least REs provide numerous photos (allegedly) taken from space capsules and high-altitude balloons and sky-divers etc.  Why is it that the FEs can't follow suit with even one single image?

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

You're missing the point;  it IS easy to do.  For a telecommunications engineer with the appropriate professional equipment.

Personally, I can't afford the big bucks to set up my own terrestrial satellite tracking station LOL.

Flat earth cannot provide what round earthers can, for obvious reasons. They do not have the need to pay anyone to fake pictures just to prove a point.

Flat earth cannot provide what round earthers can, for obvious reasons. They do not have the need to pay anyone to fake pictures just to prove a point.

Then why can't they just take real pictures?

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.

Now you're backpedalling on your previous demands about tracking satellites.  You asked us REs to go outside and carry out some tracking of a dozen satellites to prove a point.  Now you're agreeing that only a "small fractional percentage" of the population can do such a thing.

You can't have it both ways.

Flat earth cannot provide what round earthers can, for obvious reasons. They do not have the need to pay anyone to fake pictures just to prove a point.

This is a classic non sequitur and is one of the most obvious fallacies of logic.

You have first to prove that the RE's images of the earth are fake, but you haven't even come close to that yet.  You're simply trying to avoid the question—which I'll ask again—as to why there exists not one single photographic image (faked or otherwise) even as an attempt to prove a flat earth?

Imagine; one single legitimate photo from the FEs, and the entire RE theory would be shot down in flames.  So... where's that photo?

Then why can't they just take real pictures?

This is a question that FEs cannot answer, and also avoid discussing repeatedly when asked.

It's a perfectly legitimate question from REs, and obviously deserves some sort of answer.  Even if the FEs were to post some (possibly) bogus photos, at least it would open up the discussion.  But they won't even do that.  Why not?

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

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.

Now you're backpedalling on your previous demands about tracking satellites.  You asked us REs to go outside and carry out some tracking of a dozen satellites to prove a point.  Now you're agreeing that only a "small fractional percentage" of the population can do such a thing.

You can't have it both ways.

A smart phone or tablet will show reception of typically 15 satellites.

Quote from: ausGeoff on January 06, 2014, 12:28:13 PM

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

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.

Now you're backpedalling on your previous demands about tracking satellites.  You asked us REs to go outside and carry out some tracking of a dozen satellites to prove a point.  Now you're agreeing that only a "small fractional percentage" of the population can do such a thing.

You can't have it both ways.

A smart phone or tablet will show reception of typically 15 satellites.

If there is one thing I have learned on this website, it is this.:
If you post some real-life, genuine, backed up by solid evidence on this website, the FE's will say it is fake and when they run out of answers, which they always usually do, they will "lock" the thread from further posts even though some RE's have complained they wished to make further comments.

I have a relatively old Netropa Intellinav 2 GPS. It willl typically show 12 satellites. It will take at least 4 for a fix to the location and elevation. I usually get at least 7 to 9 out of 12 under good conditions.

I also have Microsoft Streets and Trips 2013 with a GPS receiver on my laptop. IMHO it's a lot more accurate in pin-pointing my location than the small screen on the hand-held GPS. Of course you need a laptop to use this software, but again IMHO, it's a lot better for finding exactly where you are. I would be interested in any comments from users on the pro's and con's of GPS -vs- Mapping Software with a GPS.

If there is one thing I have learned on this website, it is this.:
If you post some real-life, genuine, backed up by solid evidence on this website, the FE's will say it is fake [...]
 

Yep, I've noticed this all too often.  Many FEs seem to think that simply calling RE's (alleged) empirical evidence "fake" is a valid argument.  And that's the end of it.

The funny thing is if we REs describe any of their (alleged) evidence as fake, they ask us to prove it's fake LOL.

Talk about double standards.

Quote from: Googleotomy on January 06, 2014, 01:33:22 PM

If there is one thing I have learned on this website, it is this.:
If you post some real-life, genuine, backed up by solid evidence on this website, the FE's will say it is fake [...]
 

Yep, I've noticed this all too often.  Many FEs seem to think that simply calling RE's (alleged) empirical evidence "fake" is a valid argument.  And that's the end of it.

The funny thing is if we REs describe any of their (alleged) evidence as fake, they ask us to prove it's fake LOL.

Talk about double standards.

Talk about double standards  !

FE's can post all sorts of trolling, off-topic, and especially tons of off-topic "pasta"
but when an RE posts some reference , FE's usually  say it is "off-topic" or "fake" or resort to those measures and FE's can get very vulgar and rude when they get trapped on something they can't prove. (RE's can get a bit rude too but it is usually when they post the facts...."Just the facts Ma-am"-Joe Friday.)

But it you have been on this website after a while, you get used to that and expect it. Oh, well, just consider it's all part of the game. I'm still not sure - as one person posted - Whether "The Flat Earth Society is one big hoax or one big joke." I'm not sure if it is the "One Big Hoax" or the "One Big Joke" or both of the above. Cheers ! 

Currently seeing 8 Russian and 13 US satellites.

Currently seeing 8 Russian and 13 US satellites.

Great stuff! can you actually see the flags of any of them painted on or U.S.A or whatever?
Put some pictures up because if you do, you have convinced me and I will never question anything again.
Just a few of the pictures you've taken would be enough.
I look forward to seeing them. Thanks!

Quote from: inquisitive on January 07, 2014, 12:46:30 AM

Currently seeing 8 Russian and 13 US satellites.

Great stuff! can you actually see the flags of any of them painted on or U.S.A or whatever?
Put some pictures up because if you do, you have convinced me and I will never question anything again.

Bet you would.

Bet you'd say they were  fakes, or not in space but just flying up high or something.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 07, 2014, 05:36:50 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on January 07, 2014, 12:46:30 AM

Currently seeing 8 Russian and 13 US satellites.

Great stuff! can you actually see the flags of any of them painted on or U.S.A or whatever?
Put some pictures up because if you do, you have convinced me and I will never question anything again.

Bet you would.

Bet you'd say they were  fakes, or not in space but just flying up high or something.

He's probably saying that you're claiming that you can actually see the satellites by eye.

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 07, 2014, 05:36:50 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on January 07, 2014, 12:46:30 AM

Currently seeing 8 Russian and 13 US satellites.

Great stuff! can you actually see the flags of any of them painted on or U.S.A or whatever?
Put some pictures up because if you do, you have convinced me and I will never question anything again.

Bet you would.

Bet you'd say they were  fakes, or not in space but just flying up high or something.

Not at all! if he can show me from his own camera, then I'm hooked and I will change my full stance, I promise you that.

Quote from: Spank86 on January 07, 2014, 06:00:03 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on January 07, 2014, 05:36:50 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on January 07, 2014, 12:46:30 AM

Currently seeing 8 Russian and 13 US satellites.

Great stuff! can you actually see the flags of any of them painted on or U.S.A or whatever?
Put some pictures up because if you do, you have convinced me and I will never question anything again.

Bet you would.

Bet you'd say they were  fakes, or not in space but just flying up high or something.

Not at all! if he can show me from his own camera, then I'm hooked and I will change my full stance, I promise you that.

Last time someone posted his own picture of the moon, you yelled "fake fake". Why would it be otherwise now ?

Currently seeing 8 Russian and 13 US satellites.

inquistive, are you using a phone app?  If so, you do realize that the phone does not actually detect the satellites, right? 

As you know this is shown on tablets and smart phones.  This shows the data for accurate location used by industry professions across the world.

How you looked at some satellite tv dishes lately, all facing south?

Quote from: inquisitive on January 07, 2014, 12:46:30 AM

Currently seeing 8 Russian and 13 US satellites.

inquistive, are you using a phone app?  If so, you do realize that the phone does not actually detect the satellites, right?

How does it work then, same on tablets with no phone. Smart phones have a GPS receiver.

How does it work then, same on tablets with no phone.

The device knows where you are, and then tells you what satellites are supposed to be around you and where in the sky they are supposed to be.

Did you seriously think that an app can make your device magically detect all of the frequencies that satellites use?

Quote from: inquisitive on January 07, 2014, 06:58:50 AM

How does it work then, same on tablets with no phone.

The device knows where you are, and then tells you what satellites are supposed to be around you and where in the sky they are supposed to be.

Did you seriously think that an app can make your device magically detect all of the frequencies that satellites use?

Sadly, this is a perfect example of how most spherical Earthers think....very gullable....very naïve.

Quote from: inquisitive on January 07, 2014, 06:58:50 AM

How does it work then, same on tablets with no phone.

The device knows where you are, and then tells you what satellites are supposed to be around you and where in the sky they are supposed to be.

Did you seriously think that an app can make your device magically detect all of the frequencies that satellites use?

How does the device know where you are?  It's the receiver, not the app that detects the GPS frequencies.  The app decodes the NMEA protocol.

Quote from: jroa on January 07, 2014, 07:01:55 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on January 07, 2014, 06:58:50 AM

How does it work then, same on tablets with no phone.

The device knows where you are, and then tells you what satellites are supposed to be around you and where in the sky they are supposed to be.

Did you seriously think that an app can make your device magically detect all of the frequencies that satellites use?

How does the device know where you are?  It's the receiver, not the app that detects the GPS frequencies.  The app decodes the NMEA protocol.

The device knows where you are due to several factors, but not necessarily satellite signals.  Also, NMEA is separate from GPS.

What are these factors? How does a tablet know an accurate location, other than by GPS?

GPS receivers output data in NMEA format.  And GPS uses just 2 frequencies for civilian use.

The signals could be coming from anywhere, not necessarily from satellites.

Also, NMEA protocol defines how devices communicate with each other.  It only involves GPS if a receiver is communicating with another device. 

So where are the signals coming from and where is the specification for receiver manufacturers?  Remembering planes high over oceans also use GPS.

My tablet shows 21 transmitters...

The signals could be coming from any number of types of transmitters.  You assume they are coming from satellites because that is what you have been programmed to believe. 

Why do I have to go over this every single time you and I talk about GPS?