Land based (Flat earth) GPS could not indicate elevation.

GPS has elevation(altitude) BECAUSE it has satellites. A flat earth GPS would have to be land base as claimed. It is not possible give elevation on a GPS system if everything is flat.

GPS has elevation(altitude) BECAUSE it has satellites. A flat earth GPS would have to be land base as claimed. It is not possible give elevation on a GPS system if everything is flat.

If it was land based you would not see typically 15 transmitters, some US and some Russian.

GPS has elevation(altitude) BECAUSE it has satellites. A flat earth GPS would have to be land base as claimed. It is not possible give elevation on a GPS system if everything is flat.

Stratollites are not land based. 

GPS has elevation(altitude) BECAUSE it has satellites. A flat earth GPS would have to be land base as claimed. It is not possible give elevation on a GPS system if everything is flat.

Every radio wave has a cycle and peak to peak measurements. When time data is sent, simple calculations can be used to deduce the time in transit for the waves. When utilizing calculations from three separate points, calculations can then be used to triangulate a location.  This process works in both a horizontal or vertical fashion. No satellites are necessary for this process to be accomplished. Occam's razor applies; rf generated from land is the simplest explanation.

Quote from: Starman on April 27, 2014, 02:42:39 PM

GPS has elevation(altitude) BECAUSE it has satellites. A flat earth GPS would have to be land base as claimed. It is not possible give elevation on a GPS system if everything is flat.

Every radio wave has a cycle and peak to peak measurements. When time data is sent, simple calculations can be used to deduce the time in transit for the waves. When utilizing calculations from three separate points, calculations can then be used to triangulate a location.  This process works in both a horizontal or vertical fashion. No satellites are necessary for this process to be accomplished. Occam's razor applies; rf generated from land is the simplest explanation.

Please give some locations of transmitters, I currently see 10 US and 5 Russian.  And they move.  And I am at the side of a hill. And they use 1.5GHz so 'line of sight'.

ps. How does GPS work in the middle of oceans???

Quote from: chuck22 on April 27, 2014, 03:35:02 PM

Quote from: Starman on April 27, 2014, 02:42:39 PM

GPS has elevation(altitude) BECAUSE it has satellites. A flat earth GPS would have to be land base as claimed. It is not possible give elevation on a GPS system if everything is flat.

Every radio wave has a cycle and peak to peak measurements. When time data is sent, simple calculations can be used to deduce the time in transit for the waves. When utilizing calculations from three separate points, calculations can then be used to triangulate a location.  This process works in both a horizontal or vertical fashion. No satellites are necessary for this process to be accomplished. Occam's razor applies; rf generated from land is the simplest explanation.

Please give some locations of transmitters, I currently see 10 US and 5 Russian.  And they move.  And I am at the side of a hill. And they use 1.5GHz so 'line of sight'.

ps. How does GPS work in the middle of oceans???

Using big radio waves like HF, commonly called sky waves, allows for rf transmissions across the world.  So rf waves > 10m can reach the middle of the ocean too.  Knowing this fact eliminates a need to know where the xmt originates from.  Yes, you are correct with 1.5GHz being line of sight (UHF/VHF). <30MHz  make it across the world!  So when your GPS is (searching for satellites) the device, in reality, is waiting for time data to be received from >3 transmitters.  Calculations are made inside your device...your location (altitude) is translated into prompt(s)/pictures on the screen.  Since satellites do not exist, calculations from time data sent via rf is how GPS units really work!

Quote from: Starman on April 27, 2014, 02:42:39 PM

GPS has elevation(altitude) BECAUSE it has satellites. A flat earth GPS would have to be land base as claimed. It is not possible give elevation on a GPS system if everything is flat.

Every radio wave has a cycle and peak to peak measurements. When time data is sent, simple calculations can be used to deduce the time in transit for the waves. When utilizing calculations from three separate points, calculations can then be used to triangulate a location.  This process works in both a horizontal or vertical fashion. No satellites are necessary for this process to be accomplished. Occam's razor applies; rf generated from land is the simplest explanation.

Completely wrong. I know about radio waves very well. GPS system is time based and the fact the satellite is in space takes time to reach the receiver compared to another satellite in space. That is why you need at least three satellite to process altitude. You can't have a 3 dimension information on a 2 dimension platform.  On a land base the time as you say will can give location (lat and long) but the receive can't process altitude by timing. That is why primary radar can't know altitude on the reflection return.

Starman, why did you make this thread if you are going to just say, "nope your wrong" to everything.  Oh, wait.  You've seen this discussed in dozens of threads over the years.  Did you think we something new to say on the subject?

Also, you are wrong about land based systems not being capable of giving accurate coordinates or altitude.  I believe it was your buddy ausGeoff who proved that land based systems can be even more accurate with location and altitude than a satellite based system could be. 

Starman, why did you make this thread if you are going to just say, "nope your wrong" to everything.  Oh, wait.  You've seen this discussed in dozens of threads over the years.  Did you think we something new to say on the subject?

Also, you are wrong about land based systems not being capable of giving accurate coordinates or altitude.  I believe it was your buddy ausGeoff who proved that land based systems can be even more accurate with location and altitude than a satellite based system could be.

The existance of one system does not exclude others.  Which systems are more accurate and used for wordwide navigation?  Clearly GPS exists using sets of satellites.

Starman, why did you make this thread if you are going to just say, "nope your wrong" to everything.  Oh, wait.  You've seen this discussed in dozens of threads over the years.  Did you think we something new to say on the subject?

Also, you are wrong about land based systems not being capable of giving accurate coordinates or altitude.  I believe it was your buddy ausGeoff who proved that land based systems can be even more accurate with location and altitude than a satellite based system could be.

He didn't just say "nope you're wrong", he substantiated his conclusion.

Starman, why did you make this thread if you are going to just say, "nope your wrong" to everything.  Oh, wait.  You've seen this discussed in dozens of threads over the years.  Did you think we something new to say on the subject?

Also, you are wrong about land based systems not being capable of giving accurate coordinates or altitude.  I believe it was your buddy ausGeoff who proved that land based systems can be even more accurate with location and altitude than a satellite based system could be.

I said ELEVATION can't be done on a flat earth. It is possible to build a land base type GPS with lat and long but you could not cover the world like the GPS system with ELEVATION. That is my point of the topic.

Starman, why did you make this thread if you are going to just say, "nope your wrong" to everything.  Oh, wait.  You've seen this discussed in dozens of threads over the years.  Did you think we something new to say on the subject?

Also, you are wrong about land based systems not being capable of giving accurate coordinates or altitude.  I believe it was your buddy ausGeoff who proved that land based systems can be even more accurate with location and altitude than a satellite based system could be.

Also surveying companies use one extra land base GPS transmitter WITH GPS to increase the accuracy for city mapping.

Quote from: Starman on April 27, 2014, 02:42:39 PM

GPS has elevation(altitude) BECAUSE it has satellites. A flat earth GPS would have to be land base as claimed. It is not possible give elevation on a GPS system if everything is flat.

Stratollites are not land based.

In theory you could but you would need a huge network of millions to cover the world and would be completely unrealistic.

Quote from: jroa on April 27, 2014, 03:29:53 PM

Quote from: Starman on April 27, 2014, 02:42:39 PM

GPS has elevation(altitude) BECAUSE it has satellites. A flat earth GPS would have to be land base as claimed. It is not possible give elevation on a GPS system if everything is flat.

Stratollites are not land based.

In theory you could but you would need a huge network of millions to cover the world and would be completely unrealistic.

Ok so let's get our agreements on the table: horizontally speaking, location can be determined via triangulation and radio waves, yes?

Quote from: Starman on April 27, 2014, 02:42:39 PM

GPS has elevation(altitude) BECAUSE it has satellites. A flat earth GPS would have to be land base as claimed. It is not possible give elevation on a GPS system if everything is flat.

Every radio wave has a cycle and peak to peak measurements. When time data is sent, simple calculations can be used to deduce the time in transit for the waves. When utilizing calculations from three separate points, calculations can then be used to triangulate a location.  This process works in both a horizontal or vertical fashion. No satellites are necessary for this process to be accomplished. Occam's razor applies; rf generated from land is the simplest explanation.

If Ockham's razor applied in natural sciences Atheism would be self-contradictory.

How does it calculate altitude when it's directly above you?
A signal sent from a more sidelying location should be able to determine altitude.

How does it calculate altitude when it's directly above you?
A signal sent from a more sidelying location should be able to determine altitude.

It does BECAUSE it is above us. The positioning is 3 dimensional. Not just lat and long. You know nothing about GPS. I do.

Quote from: ClockworkJaffa on May 10, 2014, 11:23:35 AM

How does it calculate altitude when it's directly above you?
A signal sent from a more sidelying location should be able to determine altitude.

It does BECAUSE it is above us. The positioning is 3 dimensional. Not just lat and long. You know nothing about GPS. I do.

Your knowledge of satellites is the same as your knowledge of the three little pigs; you just don't know it yet.  Peak to peak measurements of several radio waves modulated with time data does yield a height and location within the perimeter of originating radio frequencies.

Quote from: Starman on May 10, 2014, 12:14:45 PM

Quote from: ClockworkJaffa on May 10, 2014, 11:23:35 AM

How does it calculate altitude when it's directly above you?
A signal sent from a more sidelying location should be able to determine altitude.

It does BECAUSE it is above us. The positioning is 3 dimensional. Not just lat and long. You know nothing about GPS. I do.

Your knowledge of satellites is the same as your knowledge of the three little pigs; you just don't know it yet.  Peak to peak measurements of several radio waves modulated with time data does yield a height and location within the perimeter of originating radio frequencies.

What frequency radio is used and how is the time data used to calculate location and height to within a few metres?  Within what perimeter?

Quote from: Starman on May 10, 2014, 12:14:45 PM

Quote from: ClockworkJaffa on May 10, 2014, 11:23:35 AM

How does it calculate altitude when it's directly above you?
A signal sent from a more sidelying location should be able to determine altitude.

It does BECAUSE it is above us. The positioning is 3 dimensional. Not just lat and long. You know nothing about GPS. I do.

Your knowledge of satellites is the same as your knowledge of the three little pigs; you just don't know it yet.  Peak to peak measurements of several radio waves modulated with time data does yield a height and location within the perimeter of originating radio frequencies.

Peak to peak measurement is just the strength of the signal. The closer to the transmitter the higher the peak to peak signal. You can't put data of the peaks. What technician training or experience do you have regarding electronics?

Quote from: chuck22 on May 10, 2014, 10:12:20 PM

Quote from: Starman on May 10, 2014, 12:14:45 PM

Quote from: ClockworkJaffa on May 10, 2014, 11:23:35 AM

How does it calculate altitude when it's directly above you?
A signal sent from a more sidelying location should be able to determine altitude.

It does BECAUSE it is above us. The positioning is 3 dimensional. Not just lat and long. You know nothing about GPS. I do.

Your knowledge of satellites is the same as your knowledge of the three little pigs; you just don't know it yet.  Peak to peak measurements of several radio waves modulated with time data does yield a height and location within the perimeter of originating radio frequencies.

Peak to peak measurement is just the strength of the signal. The closer to the transmitter the higher the peak to peak signal. You can't put data of the peaks. What technician training or experience do you have regarding electronics?

Starman, that is a very incorrect statement.  You can put data on peaks.  Have you never heard of amplitude modulation (AM)?

Quote from: Starman on May 11, 2014, 04:12:34 AM

Quote from: chuck22 on May 10, 2014, 10:12:20 PM

Quote from: Starman on May 10, 2014, 12:14:45 PM

Quote from: ClockworkJaffa on May 10, 2014, 11:23:35 AM

How does it calculate altitude when it's directly above you?
A signal sent from a more sidelying location should be able to determine altitude.

It does BECAUSE it is above us. The positioning is 3 dimensional. Not just lat and long. You know nothing about GPS. I do.

Your knowledge of satellites is the same as your knowledge of the three little pigs; you just don't know it yet.  Peak to peak measurements of several radio waves modulated with time data does yield a height and location within the perimeter of originating radio frequencies.

Peak to peak measurement is just the strength of the signal. The closer to the transmitter the higher the peak to peak signal. You can't put data of the peaks. What technician training or experience do you have regarding electronics?

Starman, that is a very incorrect statement.  You can put data on peaks.  Have you never heard of amplitude modulation (AM)?

You have to define what you mean by data. AM is modulation is of the whole wave not just the peak.

Quote from: jroa on May 11, 2014, 04:16:19 AM

Quote from: Starman on May 11, 2014, 04:12:34 AM

Quote from: chuck22 on May 10, 2014, 10:12:20 PM

Quote from: Starman on May 10, 2014, 12:14:45 PM

Quote from: ClockworkJaffa on May 10, 2014, 11:23:35 AM

How does it calculate altitude when it's directly above you?
A signal sent from a more sidelying location should be able to determine altitude.

It does BECAUSE it is above us. The positioning is 3 dimensional. Not just lat and long. You know nothing about GPS. I do.

Your knowledge of satellites is the same as your knowledge of the three little pigs; you just don't know it yet.  Peak to peak measurements of several radio waves modulated with time data does yield a height and location within the perimeter of originating radio frequencies.

Peak to peak measurement is just the strength of the signal. The closer to the transmitter the higher the peak to peak signal. You can't put data of the peaks. What technician training or experience do you have regarding electronics?

Starman, that is a very incorrect statement.  You can put data on peaks.  Have you never heard of amplitude modulation (AM)?

You have to define what you mean by data. AM is modulation is of the whole wave not just the peak.

Data is information.  That could be a persons voice, music, or digital communications.  Wait, you are the one who brought up data.  Why should I be the one who defines it? 

Anyway, yes, AM is the whole wave, not just the peak.  This is otherwise known as peak-to-peak, which is what you ranted about in the previous post.  It is OK to admit that you made an incorrect statement and then back out with dignity. 

Meanwhile, all the things we know about GPS fit in with reality.  Line of sight from typically 10 1.5GHz transmitters received at any one time anywhere in the world.  Read the GPS spec, it's not just a bit of time data.  No skywaves with unknown time delays.

Quote from: Starman on May 11, 2014, 04:22:46 AM

Quote from: jroa on May 11, 2014, 04:16:19 AM

Quote from: Starman on May 11, 2014, 04:12:34 AM

Quote from: chuck22 on May 10, 2014, 10:12:20 PM

Quote from: Starman on May 10, 2014, 12:14:45 PM

Quote from: ClockworkJaffa on May 10, 2014, 11:23:35 AM

How does it calculate altitude when it's directly above you?
A signal sent from a more sidelying location should be able to determine altitude.

It does BECAUSE it is above us. The positioning is 3 dimensional. Not just lat and long. You know nothing about GPS. I do.

Your knowledge of satellites is the same as your knowledge of the three little pigs; you just don't know it yet.  Peak to peak measurements of several radio waves modulated with time data does yield a height and location within the perimeter of originating radio frequencies.

Peak to peak measurement is just the strength of the signal. The closer to the transmitter the higher the peak to peak signal. You can't put data of the peaks. What technician training or experience do you have regarding electronics?

Starman, that is a very incorrect statement.  You can put data on peaks.  Have you never heard of amplitude modulation (AM)?

You have to define what you mean by data. AM is modulation is of the whole wave not just the peak.

Data is information.  That could be a persons voice, music, or digital communications.  Wait, you are the one who brought up data.  Why should I be the one who defines it? 

Anyway, yes, AM is the whole wave, not just the peak.  This is otherwise known as peak-to-peak, which is what you ranted about in the previous post.  It is OK to admit that you made an incorrect statement and then back out with dignity.

The statement that stated this is the data is on the peaks of the signals. If you change the shape of the wave it will produce unwanted signals. GPS works on timing with data on the signal. The GPS satellite sends a coded time and the GPS receiver compares the coded time with the coded time of the other satellites. It can then triangulate it's position including elevation.

Quote from: jroa on May 11, 2014, 04:35:56 AM

Quote from: Starman on May 11, 2014, 04:22:46 AM

Quote from: jroa on May 11, 2014, 04:16:19 AM

Quote from: Starman on May 11, 2014, 04:12:34 AM

Quote from: chuck22 on May 10, 2014, 10:12:20 PM

Quote from: Starman on May 10, 2014, 12:14:45 PM

Quote from: ClockworkJaffa on May 10, 2014, 11:23:35 AM

How does it calculate altitude when it's directly above you?
A signal sent from a more sidelying location should be able to determine altitude.

It does BECAUSE it is above us. The positioning is 3 dimensional. Not just lat and long. You know nothing about GPS. I do.

Your knowledge of satellites is the same as your knowledge of the three little pigs; you just don't know it yet.  Peak to peak measurements of several radio waves modulated with time data does yield a height and location within the perimeter of originating radio frequencies.

Peak to peak measurement is just the strength of the signal. The closer to the transmitter the higher the peak to peak signal. You can't put data of the peaks. What technician training or experience do you have regarding electronics?

Starman, that is a very incorrect statement.  You can put data on peaks.  Have you never heard of amplitude modulation (AM)?

You have to define what you mean by data. AM is modulation is of the whole wave not just the peak.

Data is information.  That could be a persons voice, music, or digital communications.  Wait, you are the one who brought up data.  Why should I be the one who defines it? 

Anyway, yes, AM is the whole wave, not just the peak.  This is otherwise known as peak-to-peak, which is what you ranted about in the previous post.  It is OK to admit that you made an incorrect statement and then back out with dignity.

The statement that stated this is the data is on the peaks of the signals. If you change the shape of the wave it will produce unwanted signals. GPS works on timing with data on the signal. The GPS satellite sends a coded time and the GPS receiver compares the coded time with the coded time of the other satellites. It can then triangulate it's position including elevation.

There are many ways to put information onto an alternating signal.  AM and FM are the most common for radio signals.  However, there is also Pulse Width Modulation (PWM), Pulse Frequency Modulation (PFM), and Pulse Amplitude Modulation (PAM).  I know I am forgetting one of the Pulse methods, but I don't feel like looking it up at this time.  All of the pulse methods can impart digital information onto a carrier signal. 

This says how it works - http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/gpssps1.pdf

Everybody happy?

Well, I looked it up anyway, and apparently, I was wrong.  There are many other pulse methods for encoding data on a carrier signal than I stated earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modulation#Pulse_modulation_methods

Quote from: Starman on May 11, 2014, 04:48:33 AM

Quote from: jroa on May 11, 2014, 04:35:56 AM

Quote from: Starman on May 11, 2014, 04:22:46 AM

Quote from: jroa on May 11, 2014, 04:16:19 AM

Quote from: Starman on May 11, 2014, 04:12:34 AM

Quote from: chuck22 on May 10, 2014, 10:12:20 PM

Quote from: Starman on May 10, 2014, 12:14:45 PM

Quote from: ClockworkJaffa on May 10, 2014, 11:23:35 AM

How does it calculate altitude when it's directly above you?
A signal sent from a more sidelying location should be able to determine altitude.

It does BECAUSE it is above us. The positioning is 3 dimensional. Not just lat and long. You know nothing about GPS. I do.

Your knowledge of satellites is the same as your knowledge of the three little pigs; you just don't know it yet.  Peak to peak measurements of several radio waves modulated with time data does yield a height and location within the perimeter of originating radio frequencies.

Peak to peak measurement is just the strength of the signal. The closer to the transmitter the higher the peak to peak signal. You can't put data of the peaks. What technician training or experience do you have regarding electronics?

Starman, that is a very incorrect statement.  You can put data on peaks.  Have you never heard of amplitude modulation (AM)?

You have to define what you mean by data. AM is modulation is of the whole wave not just the peak.

Data is information.  That could be a persons voice, music, or digital communications.  Wait, you are the one who brought up data.  Why should I be the one who defines it? 

Anyway, yes, AM is the whole wave, not just the peak.  This is otherwise known as peak-to-peak, which is what you ranted about in the previous post.  It is OK to admit that you made an incorrect statement and then back out with dignity.

The statement that stated this is the data is on the peaks of the signals. If you change the shape of the wave it will produce unwanted signals. GPS works on timing with data on the signal. The GPS satellite sends a coded time and the GPS receiver compares the coded time with the coded time of the other satellites. It can then triangulate it's position including elevation.

There are many ways to put information onto an alternating signal.  AM and FM are the most common for radio signals.  However, there is also Pulse Width Modulation (PWM), Pulse Frequency Modulation (PFM), and Pulse Amplitude Modulation (PAM).  I know I am forgetting one of the Pulse methods, but I don't feel like looking it up at this time.  All of the pulse methods can impart digital information onto a carrier signal.

Some are on a carrier and some are purely digital. Either way GPS runs on timing and on a 3d information platform. You can use all the terms you want it does not show me how it would work on land with elevation.

Quote from: jroa on May 11, 2014, 05:05:19 AM

Quote from: Starman on May 11, 2014, 04:48:33 AM

Quote from: jroa on May 11, 2014, 04:35:56 AM

Quote from: Starman on May 11, 2014, 04:22:46 AM

Quote from: jroa on May 11, 2014, 04:16:19 AM

Quote from: Starman on May 11, 2014, 04:12:34 AM

Quote from: chuck22 on May 10, 2014, 10:12:20 PM

Quote from: Starman on May 10, 2014, 12:14:45 PM

Quote from: ClockworkJaffa on May 10, 2014, 11:23:35 AM

How does it calculate altitude when it's directly above you?
A signal sent from a more sidelying location should be able to determine altitude.

It does BECAUSE it is above us. The positioning is 3 dimensional. Not just lat and long. You know nothing about GPS. I do.

Your knowledge of satellites is the same as your knowledge of the three little pigs; you just don't know it yet.  Peak to peak measurements of several radio waves modulated with time data does yield a height and location within the perimeter of originating radio frequencies.

Peak to peak measurement is just the strength of the signal. The closer to the transmitter the higher the peak to peak signal. You can't put data of the peaks. What technician training or experience do you have regarding electronics?

Starman, that is a very incorrect statement.  You can put data on peaks.  Have you never heard of amplitude modulation (AM)?

You have to define what you mean by data. AM is modulation is of the whole wave not just the peak.

Data is information.  That could be a persons voice, music, or digital communications.  Wait, you are the one who brought up data.  Why should I be the one who defines it? 

Anyway, yes, AM is the whole wave, not just the peak.  This is otherwise known as peak-to-peak, which is what you ranted about in the previous post.  It is OK to admit that you made an incorrect statement and then back out with dignity.

The statement that stated this is the data is on the peaks of the signals. If you change the shape of the wave it will produce unwanted signals. GPS works on timing with data on the signal. The GPS satellite sends a coded time and the GPS receiver compares the coded time with the coded time of the other satellites. It can then triangulate it's position including elevation.

There are many ways to put information onto an alternating signal.  AM and FM are the most common for radio signals.  However, there is also Pulse Width Modulation (PWM), Pulse Frequency Modulation (PFM), and Pulse Amplitude Modulation (PAM).  I know I am forgetting one of the Pulse methods, but I don't feel like looking it up at this time.  All of the pulse methods can impart digital information onto a carrier signal.

Some are on a carrier and some are purely digital. Either way GPS runs on timing and on a 3d information platform. You can use all the terms you want it does not show me how it would work on land with elevation.

I can connect a serial cable from a computer to another device or computer.  Guess what, the communications works on timing.  It is nothing new and has been around for a long, long time.  You are making the timing out to be something incredible, when it is just the way communications works.