Flight Paths

No other system has near 100% coverage of the earth.

The reference to satellite tv is to establish their existance and then use for GPS.

Great.  In case you have reading comprehension problems, I did not say that the systems do not work.  I questioned the validity of the projected positions. 

Great.  In case you have reading comprehension problems, I did not say that the systems do not work.  I questioned the validity of the projected positions.

Validity in what way?

Quote from: glokta on February 14, 2014, 11:49:49 AM

Quote from: jroa on February 14, 2014, 11:46:39 AM

Quote from: inquisitive on February 14, 2014, 11:42:39 AM

Quote from: jroa on February 14, 2014, 11:23:45 AM

I could project the positions of the air craft onto a cube.  Does that mean that the Earth is a cube?  I don't think so. 

Sorry for being vague, if I was.  I am not doing it on purpose.  I will try not to be in the future.

I have a sat nav that shows my position to within a few feet on a map wherever it can see a few satellites.

If we sit inside a 8000 mile earth how does that explain satellites 22000 miles above earth?

My cell phone will tell me where I am, even with the GPS turned off.  This does not prove anything about whether or not there are satellites magically floating in the sky, now does it?

turn your gps off then go for a walk. Now tell me if your phone can tell you your location to within 10 feet and your altitude. Spoiler alert - it cant.

The point is that satellites are not required in order to find one's position.  Can we agree on this?

you are a fine one to talk about moving goalposts. Mobile triangulation will give a rough location. Those "satellites magically floating about in space" are required for an accurate location and altitude. Agreed?

I did not say that cell reception was the same as GPS.  I simply said that the transmision does not nesicarlily need to come from satellites.  Take LORAN for example. 

I did not say that cell reception was the same as GPS.  I simply said that the transmision does not nesicarlily need to come from satellites.  Take LORAN for example.

There are other systems but none has near 100% coverage of earth with a high level of accuracy. Agree?

Validity answer please.

Quote from: jroa on February 14, 2014, 12:11:52 PM

I did not say that cell reception was the same as GPS.  I simply said that the transmision does not nesicarlily need to come from satellites.  Take LORAN for example.

There are other systems but none has near 100% coverage of earth with a high level of accuracy. Agree?

I will agree with you, if you will agree that it is not necessary for the transmitter to be located in outer space. 

Validity answer please.

What I meant is, how do we know, for absolute certainty, that the shape of the ground in which the system places the aircraft is correct?  I used the cube projection as an example.  However, I know that you only read what you feel proves your shape of the Earth. 

Quote from: inquisitive on February 14, 2014, 12:14:47 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 14, 2014, 12:11:52 PM

I did not say that cell reception was the same as GPS.  I simply said that the transmision does not nesicarlily need to come from satellites.  Take LORAN for example.

There are other systems but none has near 100% coverage of earth with a high level of accuracy. Agree?

I will agree with you, if you will agree that it is not necessary for the transmitter to be located in outer space.

It is not 'the transmitter', there have to be a minimum of 4 visable for an lat/long/height fix. 

What's wrong about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System

If GPS is based on land transmitters, where are they?  My satnav and tablet app shows them moving across the sky.

Quote from: inquisitive on February 14, 2014, 12:14:47 PM

Validity answer please.

What I meant is, how do we know, for absolute certainty, that the shape of the ground in which the system places the aircraft is correct?  I used the cube projection as an example.  However, I know that you only read what you feel proves your shape of the Earth.

What do you mean by 'shape of the ground'.

See http://www.flightradar24.com/  What do you think?

If GPS is based on land transmitters, where are they?  My satnav and tablet app shows them moving across the sky.

Back in WWII, they had radio positioning systems.  Is it really so hard to believe that 70 later, they have been improved?

What do you mean by 'shape of the ground'.

See http://www.flightradar24.com/  What do you think?

Do I really need to define 'shape of the ground'?  You are really nit-picking now. 

Quote from: inquisitive on February 14, 2014, 12:24:36 PM

If GPS is based on land transmitters, where are they?  My satnav and tablet app shows them moving across the sky.

Back in WWII, they had radio positioning systems.  Is it really so hard to believe that 70 later, they have been improved?

They have been replaced by GPS, there are a number of systems, US, China, Russia and Europe.  I don't see Russia installing transmitters in Canada or the middle of the oceans.  So, again, where are the transmitters?

What phone do you have?  The shape of the ground is that observed.

Quote from: jroa on February 14, 2014, 12:29:49 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on February 14, 2014, 12:24:36 PM

If GPS is based on land transmitters, where are they?  My satnav and tablet app shows them moving across the sky.

Back in WWII, they had radio positioning systems.  Is it really so hard to believe that 70 later, they have been improved?

They have been replaced by GPS, there are a number of systems, US, China, Russia and Europe.  I don't see Russia installing transmitters in Canada or the middle of the oceans.  So, again, where are the transmitters?

What phone do you have?  The shape of the ground is that observed.

Russia would not have to install anything in Canada if Canada installed it themselves. 

Also, quit worrying about my phone.  I told you that cell positioning is not the same as GPS.  I only used it as a common example to show that signals do not need to originate from space. 

Quote from: inquisitive on February 14, 2014, 12:24:36 PM

If GPS is based on land transmitters, where are they?  My satnav and tablet app shows them moving across the sky.

Back in WWII, they had radio positioning systems.  Is it really so hard to believe that 70 later, they have been improved?

only for 2D positioning. Hence LORAN being phased out and replaced by those magical floating satellites.

So, in 70 years, the technology could not have possibly improved, right? 

So, in 70 years, the technology could not have possibly improved, right? 

Yes with GPS.  Please explain in detail how you think it works with a few transmitter locations.

I never claimed I had all of the answers.  Unlike you, I do not try to pretend to know things that I do not.  I gave you examples of how this technology could work.  All you can really say is, "oh, yeah, what about GPS?"

I never claimed I had all of the answers.  Unlike you, I do not try to pretend to know things that I do not.  I gave you examples of how this technology could work.  All you can really say is, "oh, yeah, what about GPS?"

but you dont have the courage of your own convictions to even try to expand on your alternative ideas. Instead you try moving the goal posts a few times and then come out with sulky posts like the above when backed into a corner.

You are one to claim goal post moving.  Not as bad as inquisitive, though. 

I will answer any question to the best of my abilities; however, don't get butthurt if I admit that I don't know something. 

You are one to claim goal post moving.  Not as bad as inquisitive, though. 

I will answer any question to the best of my abilities; however, don't get butthurt if I admit that I don't know something.

GPS works with satellites, you may not understand it, but it does.

Quote from: jroa on February 14, 2014, 01:23:35 PM

You are one to claim goal post moving.  Not as bad as inquisitive, though. 

I will answer any question to the best of my abilities; however, don't get butthurt if I admit that I don't know something.

GPS works with satellites, you may not understand it, but it does.

Yes, because your evidence is that it does work.  Circular reasoning much? 

Quote from: inquisitive on February 14, 2014, 01:42:12 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 14, 2014, 01:23:35 PM

You are one to claim goal post moving.  Not as bad as inquisitive, though. 

I will answer any question to the best of my abilities; however, don't get butthurt if I admit that I don't know something.

GPS works with satellites, you may not understand it, but it does.

Yes, because your evidence is that it does work.  Circular reasoning much?

and your response to the wealth of evidence for the existence and functionality of satellites is...its all fake?

No, I claim to have not yet seen any credible evidence. 

Quote from: inquisitive on February 14, 2014, 01:42:12 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 14, 2014, 01:23:35 PM

You are one to claim goal post moving.  Not as bad as inquisitive, though. 

I will answer any question to the best of my abilities; however, don't get butthurt if I admit that I don't know something.

GPS works with satellites, you may not understand it, but it does.

Yes, because your evidence is that it does work.  Circular reasoning much?

Not just my evidence.  Try it for yourself.

No, I claim to have not yet seen any credible evidence.

How about your own eyes? http://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/

Quote from: jroa on February 14, 2014, 01:45:18 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on February 14, 2014, 01:42:12 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 14, 2014, 01:23:35 PM

You are one to claim goal post moving.  Not as bad as inquisitive, though. 

I will answer any question to the best of my abilities; however, don't get butthurt if I admit that I don't know something.

GPS works with satellites, you may not understand it, but it does.

Yes, because your evidence is that it does work.  Circular reasoning much?

Not just my evidence.  Try it for yourself.

Do you think that I have claimed to never have used GPS?  Like I said, I am not claiming that it does not exist. 

Quote from: jroa on February 14, 2014, 01:58:14 PM

No, I claim to have not yet seen any credible evidence.

How about your own eyes? http://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/

Wow, thanks.  If I had gone to art school instead of Engineering school, I might be able to make stuff up like that. 

Quote from: inquisitive on February 14, 2014, 02:01:04 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 14, 2014, 01:45:18 PM

Quote from: inquisitive on February 14, 2014, 01:42:12 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 14, 2014, 01:23:35 PM

You are one to claim goal post moving.  Not as bad as inquisitive, though. 

I will answer any question to the best of my abilities; however, don't get butthurt if I admit that I don't know something.

GPS works with satellites, you may not understand it, but it does.

Yes, because your evidence is that it does work.  Circular reasoning much?

Not just my evidence.  Try it for yourself.

Do you think that I have claimed to never have used GPS?  Like I said, I am not claiming that it does not exist.

wow you are really tying yourself up in knots aren't you. Just now you said you have not seen any credible evidence for the existance or functionality of satellites, now you say you have used global positioning satellites and never denied their existance. 

Quote from: glokta on February 14, 2014, 02:03:11 PM

Quote from: jroa on February 14, 2014, 01:58:14 PM

No, I claim to have not yet seen any credible evidence.

How about your own eyes? http://spotthestation.nasa.gov/sightings/

Wow, thanks.  If I had gone to art school instead of Engineering school, I might be able to make stuff up like that.

that is your attempt to explain being able to watch the iss track across the sky? Are you serious?