Satellites and the Internet ?

  • 405 Replies
  • 30637 Views
?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: Satellites and the Internet ?
« Reply #270 on: November 06, 2014, 11:28:28 AM »
Quote
Maybe you should study up on the English language?
Maybe you should get some new shtick, this got very stale a long time ago.

If you aren't going to bother with a cogent argument you could at least be amusing.  You seem to be incapable of being either.

I don't know if it's just me or another one of my "IMHO's" but jroa can get rather tiresome at times. ???
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

*

legion

  • 1593
  • You are in my VR
Re: Satellites and the Internet ?
« Reply #271 on: November 06, 2014, 12:14:51 PM »
I did not say that these radios were used for internet service across the ocean.  All I claimed was that data can be sent on these radios across the ocean.  ...

OK. Good. So here's what we seem to have established:

HF is known to work well beyond the horizon (like halfway around the world with the right wavelength and the right conditions) but doesn't support the necessary bandwidth for routine web browsing, especially with a shared connection.

The SINCGARS and PRC-77 radios that jroa says he used to transmit data halfway across the Pacific aren't usable for trans-oceanic Internet service.

The higher frequencies necessary to provide the necessary bandwidth are essentially limited to line of sight (LOS).

Tropo Scatter has some promise for non-LOS comms with high bandwidth, but doesn't appear reliable, has limited range, and operational difficulties even for fixed stations.

Anything else?

That seems to leave very, very high-altitude relay systems that are within LOS of large areas of ocean and at least some land at the same time as the most plausible possibility to date. Are there any other practical possibilities beside this?

How did you establish that SHF is limited to line-of-sight? This guy seems to dispute that:

http://www.g3pho.free-online.co.uk/microwaves/history.htm





This page also has some interesting records: http://www.arrl.org/distance-records



I'm not suggesting that this is evidence that satellites are bogus, but, if nothing else, it shows radio waves can travel large distances at microwave frequencies in the hands of amateurs.

In the hands of the military or other organisations with massive funds: who knows what's possible?


"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

Re: Satellites and the Internet ?
« Reply #272 on: November 06, 2014, 02:16:54 PM »
I did not say that these radios were used for internet service across the ocean.  All I claimed was that data can be sent on these radios across the ocean.  ...

OK. Good. So here's what we seem to have established:

HF is known to work well beyond the horizon (like halfway around the world with the right wavelength and the right conditions) but doesn't support the necessary bandwidth for routine web browsing, especially with a shared connection.

The SINCGARS and PRC-77 radios that jroa says he used to transmit data halfway across the Pacific aren't usable for trans-oceanic Internet service.

The higher frequencies necessary to provide the necessary bandwidth are essentially limited to line of sight (LOS).

Tropo Scatter has some promise for non-LOS comms with high bandwidth, but doesn't appear reliable, has limited range, and operational difficulties even for fixed stations.

Anything else?

That seems to leave very, very high-altitude relay systems that are within LOS of large areas of ocean and at least some land at the same time as the most plausible possibility to date. Are there any other practical possibilities beside this?

How did you establish that SHF is limited to line-of-sight? This guy seems to dispute that:

< uWave DX info>

I'm not suggesting that this is evidence that satellites are bogus, but, if nothing else, it shows radio waves can travel large distances at microwave frequencies in the hands of amateurs.

In the hands of the military or other organisations with massive funds: who knows what's possible?

You did notice that I said "essentially limited to line of sight" didn't you? That wasn't to be a weasel, that was because sometimes this can be beaten. For practical purposes these freqs are treated as LOS, though. The lists you include show several dozen examples over decades. Note, also, that the second embedded article lists 'Mode', and what is shown is all CW or SSB - in other words, narrowband modes (CW [Morse Code] is about as narrow as you can get). Why is this meaningful here in microwave land where bandwidth is abundant? Because signal-to-noise ratio is inversely proportional to bandwidth, all else being equal. Pulling this off at all is a challenge, so narrowband modes have an advantage.

Military satellite capacity is limited, and even narrowband satellite authorizations are hard to get in most cases. If there were a workable alternative to SATCOM for reliable long range comms, I have no doubt they'd be all over it; they do have huge budgets for R&D.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

*

legion

  • 1593
  • You are in my VR
Re: Satellites and the Internet ?
« Reply #273 on: November 06, 2014, 02:27:26 PM »
I did not say that these radios were used for internet service across the ocean.  All I claimed was that data can be sent on these radios across the ocean.  ...

OK. Good. So here's what we seem to have established:

HF is known to work well beyond the horizon (like halfway around the world with the right wavelength and the right conditions) but doesn't support the necessary bandwidth for routine web browsing, especially with a shared connection.

The SINCGARS and PRC-77 radios that jroa says he used to transmit data halfway across the Pacific aren't usable for trans-oceanic Internet service.

The higher frequencies necessary to provide the necessary bandwidth are essentially limited to line of sight (LOS).

Tropo Scatter has some promise for non-LOS comms with high bandwidth, but doesn't appear reliable, has limited range, and operational difficulties even for fixed stations.

Anything else?

That seems to leave very, very high-altitude relay systems that are within LOS of large areas of ocean and at least some land at the same time as the most plausible possibility to date. Are there any other practical possibilities beside this?

How did you establish that SHF is limited to line-of-sight? This guy seems to dispute that:

< uWave DX info>

I'm not suggesting that this is evidence that satellites are bogus, but, if nothing else, it shows radio waves can travel large distances at microwave frequencies in the hands of amateurs.

In the hands of the military or other organisations with massive funds: who knows what's possible?

You did notice that I said "essentially limited to line of sight" didn't you? That wasn't to be a weasel, that was because sometimes this can be beaten. For practical purposes these freqs are treated as LOS, though. The lists you include show several dozen examples over decades. Note, also, that the second embedded article lists 'Mode', and what is shown is all CW or SSB - in other words, narrowband modes (CW [Morse Code] is about as narrow as you can get). Why is this meaningful here in microwave land where bandwidth is abundant? Because signal-to-noise ratio is inversely proportional to bandwidth, all else being equal. Pulling this off at all is a challenge, so narrowband modes have an advantage.

Military satellite capacity is limited, and even narrowband satellite authorizations are hard to get in most cases. If there were a workable alternative to SATCOM for reliable long range comms, I have no doubt they'd be all over it; they do have huge budgets for R&D.

We're not really getting anywhere, are we? Maybe it would be easier for you to prove that satellites exist. I'm seriously open to the idea. I have not yet managed to find evidence that proves it for me. Maybe you can? 
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

*

Socratic Amusement

  • 636
  • An Exercise in Witty Exploration
Re: Satellites and the Internet ?
« Reply #274 on: November 06, 2014, 02:34:14 PM »
I did not say that these radios were used for internet service across the ocean.  All I claimed was that data can be sent on these radios across the ocean.  ...

OK. Good. So here's what we seem to have established:

HF is known to work well beyond the horizon (like halfway around the world with the right wavelength and the right conditions) but doesn't support the necessary bandwidth for routine web browsing, especially with a shared connection.

The SINCGARS and PRC-77 radios that jroa says he used to transmit data halfway across the Pacific aren't usable for trans-oceanic Internet service.

The higher frequencies necessary to provide the necessary bandwidth are essentially limited to line of sight (LOS).

Tropo Scatter has some promise for non-LOS comms with high bandwidth, but doesn't appear reliable, has limited range, and operational difficulties even for fixed stations.

Anything else?

That seems to leave very, very high-altitude relay systems that are within LOS of large areas of ocean and at least some land at the same time as the most plausible possibility to date. Are there any other practical possibilities beside this?

How did you establish that SHF is limited to line-of-sight? This guy seems to dispute that:

< uWave DX info>

I'm not suggesting that this is evidence that satellites are bogus, but, if nothing else, it shows radio waves can travel large distances at microwave frequencies in the hands of amateurs.

In the hands of the military or other organisations with massive funds: who knows what's possible?

You did notice that I said "essentially limited to line of sight" didn't you? That wasn't to be a weasel, that was because sometimes this can be beaten. For practical purposes these freqs are treated as LOS, though. The lists you include show several dozen examples over decades. Note, also, that the second embedded article lists 'Mode', and what is shown is all CW or SSB - in other words, narrowband modes (CW [Morse Code] is about as narrow as you can get). Why is this meaningful here in microwave land where bandwidth is abundant? Because signal-to-noise ratio is inversely proportional to bandwidth, all else being equal. Pulling this off at all is a challenge, so narrowband modes have an advantage.

Military satellite capacity is limited, and even narrowband satellite authorizations are hard to get in most cases. If there were a workable alternative to SATCOM for reliable long range comms, I have no doubt they'd be all over it; they do have huge budgets for R&D.

We're not really getting anywhere, are we? Maybe it would be easier for you to prove that satellites exist. I'm seriously open to the idea. I have not yet managed to find evidence that proves it for me. Maybe you can?

Do you have $60 and a pair of eyes?
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."

*

legion

  • 1593
  • You are in my VR
Re: Satellites and the Internet ?
« Reply #275 on: November 06, 2014, 02:41:38 PM »
I did not say that these radios were used for internet service across the ocean.  All I claimed was that data can be sent on these radios across the ocean.  ...

OK. Good. So here's what we seem to have established:

HF is known to work well beyond the horizon (like halfway around the world with the right wavelength and the right conditions) but doesn't support the necessary bandwidth for routine web browsing, especially with a shared connection.

The SINCGARS and PRC-77 radios that jroa says he used to transmit data halfway across the Pacific aren't usable for trans-oceanic Internet service.

The higher frequencies necessary to provide the necessary bandwidth are essentially limited to line of sight (LOS).

Tropo Scatter has some promise for non-LOS comms with high bandwidth, but doesn't appear reliable, has limited range, and operational difficulties even for fixed stations.

Anything else?

That seems to leave very, very high-altitude relay systems that are within LOS of large areas of ocean and at least some land at the same time as the most plausible possibility to date. Are there any other practical possibilities beside this?

How did you establish that SHF is limited to line-of-sight? This guy seems to dispute that:

< uWave DX info>

I'm not suggesting that this is evidence that satellites are bogus, but, if nothing else, it shows radio waves can travel large distances at microwave frequencies in the hands of amateurs.

In the hands of the military or other organisations with massive funds: who knows what's possible?

You did notice that I said "essentially limited to line of sight" didn't you? That wasn't to be a weasel, that was because sometimes this can be beaten. For practical purposes these freqs are treated as LOS, though. The lists you include show several dozen examples over decades. Note, also, that the second embedded article lists 'Mode', and what is shown is all CW or SSB - in other words, narrowband modes (CW [Morse Code] is about as narrow as you can get). Why is this meaningful here in microwave land where bandwidth is abundant? Because signal-to-noise ratio is inversely proportional to bandwidth, all else being equal. Pulling this off at all is a challenge, so narrowband modes have an advantage.

Military satellite capacity is limited, and even narrowband satellite authorizations are hard to get in most cases. If there were a workable alternative to SATCOM for reliable long range comms, I have no doubt they'd be all over it; they do have huge budgets for R&D.

We're not really getting anywhere, are we? Maybe it would be easier for you to prove that satellites exist. I'm seriously open to the idea. I have not yet managed to find evidence that proves it for me. Maybe you can?

Do you have $60 and a pair of eyes?

I have currency and two eyes, yes.
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

Re: Satellites and the Internet ?
« Reply #276 on: November 06, 2014, 02:48:33 PM »
Just understand how satellite tv and GPS work.  There is zero doubt.

*

legion

  • 1593
  • You are in my VR
Re: Satellites and the Internet ?
« Reply #277 on: November 06, 2014, 02:52:45 PM »
Just understand how satellite tv and GPS work.  There is zero doubt.

In your tiny mind, there is no doubt. For intelligent people, there is nothing but doubt. Should they choose to think about these things.
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".

*

Socratic Amusement

  • 636
  • An Exercise in Witty Exploration
Re: Satellites and the Internet ?
« Reply #278 on: November 06, 2014, 02:54:38 PM »
I did not say that these radios were used for internet service across the ocean.  All I claimed was that data can be sent on these radios across the ocean.  ...

OK. Good. So here's what we seem to have established:

HF is known to work well beyond the horizon (like halfway around the world with the right wavelength and the right conditions) but doesn't support the necessary bandwidth for routine web browsing, especially with a shared connection.

The SINCGARS and PRC-77 radios that jroa says he used to transmit data halfway across the Pacific aren't usable for trans-oceanic Internet service.

The higher frequencies necessary to provide the necessary bandwidth are essentially limited to line of sight (LOS).

Tropo Scatter has some promise for non-LOS comms with high bandwidth, but doesn't appear reliable, has limited range, and operational difficulties even for fixed stations.

Anything else?

That seems to leave very, very high-altitude relay systems that are within LOS of large areas of ocean and at least some land at the same time as the most plausible possibility to date. Are there any other practical possibilities beside this?

How did you establish that SHF is limited to line-of-sight? This guy seems to dispute that:

< uWave DX info>

I'm not suggesting that this is evidence that satellites are bogus, but, if nothing else, it shows radio waves can travel large distances at microwave frequencies in the hands of amateurs.

In the hands of the military or other organisations with massive funds: who knows what's possible?

You did notice that I said "essentially limited to line of sight" didn't you? That wasn't to be a weasel, that was because sometimes this can be beaten. For practical purposes these freqs are treated as LOS, though. The lists you include show several dozen examples over decades. Note, also, that the second embedded article lists 'Mode', and what is shown is all CW or SSB - in other words, narrowband modes (CW [Morse Code] is about as narrow as you can get). Why is this meaningful here in microwave land where bandwidth is abundant? Because signal-to-noise ratio is inversely proportional to bandwidth, all else being equal. Pulling this off at all is a challenge, so narrowband modes have an advantage.

Military satellite capacity is limited, and even narrowband satellite authorizations are hard to get in most cases. If there were a workable alternative to SATCOM for reliable long range comms, I have no doubt they'd be all over it; they do have huge budgets for R&D.

We're not really getting anywhere, are we? Maybe it would be easier for you to prove that satellites exist. I'm seriously open to the idea. I have not yet managed to find evidence that proves it for me. Maybe you can?

Do you have $60 and a pair of eyes?

I have currency and two eyes, yes.

Go to your nearest Wallmart or local equivalent, buy a $60 telescope, perform about five minutes fiddling with the thing after setup to verify that it has the magnification that it claims too, wait until nightfall, look up the path of any of the huge number of satellites or even the ISS, look through the telescope at the projected path. Behold a satellite with your own eyes, at the claimed distances (because you verified the magnification after all, remember?) and BAM. You now know for a fact that they exist.

A few ours of your time and you can know the truth. 
"As for me, all I know is that I know nothing."

Re: Satellites and the Internet ?
« Reply #279 on: November 06, 2014, 02:56:25 PM »
Just understand how satellite tv and GPS work.  There is zero doubt.

In your tiny mind, there is no doubt. For intelligent people, there is nothing but doubt. Should they choose to think about these things.
Those intelligent people know how satellites work.  Those who work building satellites know how they work.  Millions of people have satellite tv that works.

Where is the alternative technical solution described for designers and manufacturers?  I can align a dish using published angles to the satellite.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2014, 03:30:20 PM by inquisitive »

Re: Satellites and the Internet ?
« Reply #280 on: November 06, 2014, 03:31:31 PM »
We're not really getting anywhere, are we?
Well, we have a perfectly good explanation for the delivery of internet to a moving plane 35,000ft above the middle of the Atlantic.  It's just a technology you choose not to accept the existence of, while instead accepting the existence of a vast conspiracy to pretend this technology does exist.

Quote
Maybe it would be easier for you to prove that satellites exist.
I'll maybe start another thread.  Maybe you could start one detailing how the great satellite conspiracy works, as this is the alternative reality we have to accept if we don't accept satellites.

Quote
I'm seriously open to the idea. I have not yet managed to find evidence that proves it for me. Maybe you can?
What evidence would convince you?  What exactly is it about satellites that you find so unbelievable?
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

?

Goth

  • 220
Re: Satellites and the Internet ?
« Reply #281 on: November 07, 2014, 04:20:11 AM »
How can you receive TV in the middle of the desert or ocean?

Via; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skywave


And, as for GPS functions, there are known ground based positioning technologies such as Locata and Pseudolite which are more accurate than "GPS" and use no "satellites."

I mention these only to illustrate that satellites are not needed for global positioning -- all you need is a network of surface transmitters in known positions.

Which method do you suppose is cheaper and easier: launching satellites into space or positioning transmitters on the ground or sea?

Re: Satellites and the Internet ?
« Reply #282 on: November 07, 2014, 05:49:41 AM »
How can you receive TV in the middle of the desert or ocean?

Via; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skywave


And, as for GPS functions, there are known ground based positioning technologies such as Locata and Pseudolite which are more accurate than "GPS" and use no "satellites."

I mention these only to illustrate that satellites are not needed for global positioning -- all you need is a network of surface transmitters in known positions.

Which method do you suppose is cheaper and easier: launching satellites into space or positioning transmitters on the ground or sea?
Please provide links to broadcasters transmitting multi-channel HD TV using skywaves.

The existence of A does prove the non existence of B.  GPS uses satellites.  A GPS receiver lists the ones in view.

How many land based transmitters would be need to achieve the equivalent coverage?

Re: Satellites and the Internet ?
« Reply #283 on: November 07, 2014, 06:52:55 AM »
How can you receive TV in the middle of the desert or ocean?

Via; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skywave
The thread is discussing high bandwidth data transmission (not TV or radio) - this is impossible via "Skywave".

Quote
And, as for GPS functions, there are known ground based positioning technologies such as Locata
Locata is a company who don't appear to have actually sold any products, and from their own website:

Quote
Locata is not designed to replace GPS; it is a local extension and expansion of GPS. It works with GPS
You guys should really read your own links, you just end up providing evidence for the other side..

Quote
and Pseudolite which are more accurate than "GPS" and use no "satellites."
There is no world wide network of pseudolites, they are locally set up networks that often link up to satellites - unless you have to the contrary?

Quote
I mention these only to illustrate that satellites are not needed for global positioning -- all you need is a network of surface transmitters in known positions.
What network?  What positions?  How to they calculate altitude?

Quote
Which method do you suppose is cheaper and easier: launching satellites into space or positioning transmitters on the ground or sea?
Satellites.  GPS only uses 24 satellites - you are suggesting a network of millions of transceivers, many of them mid ocean, with all the set up costs, maintenance, upgrades and power demands would be cheaper than this? 
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Satellites and the Internet ?
« Reply #284 on: November 07, 2014, 08:38:17 AM »
Which method do you suppose is cheaper and easier: launching satellites into space or positioning transmitters on the ground or sea?

Obviously a handful of satellites is a far better option that thousands of ground- and ocean-based transmitters.  Cheaper, less maintenance, more reliability etc.  How would you propose mounting, powering and servicing transmitters in the Indian, Atlantic or Pacific oceans?  A flock of trained seagulls equipped with little toolkits?

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Satellites and the Internet ?
« Reply #285 on: November 07, 2014, 08:44:55 AM »
How are flying trash cans more plausible than antennas?  Let alone, how are they easier or more cost efficient to maintain? 

Re: Satellites and the Internet ?
« Reply #286 on: November 07, 2014, 08:56:07 AM »
How are flying trash cans more plausible than antennas?  Let alone, how are they easier or more cost efficient to maintain?
If you give me the details of the global ground/sea global network of high bandwidth antennas then I will be happy to do oblige.  For example, how many antennas are there?  Which organisations maintain them?  Where are they?  Who installed them?


As it is you are asking me to cost out a real system compared with an imaginary one.  You might as well ask me who was a worse leader: Hitler or Sauron?


GPS costs about $700m a year to maintain, now you tell me the costs of your system.
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Satellites and the Internet ?
« Reply #287 on: November 07, 2014, 08:59:04 AM »
$700m per year?  I wonder where that money is going? 

*

Rama Set

  • 6877
  • I am also an engineer
Re: Satellites and the Internet ?
« Reply #288 on: November 07, 2014, 09:19:15 AM »
$700m per year?  I wonder where that money is going?

I thought Jimmy said: mainintaing the GPS network.  Try to keep up, or if you have something explicit to say, do so.
Aether is the  characteristic of action or inaction of charged  & noncharged particals.

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 42317
Re: Satellites and the Internet ?
« Reply #289 on: November 07, 2014, 09:41:11 AM »
$700m per year?  I wonder where that money is going?
How much do you think it should cost to maintain the countless "GPS" buoys floating around the ocean?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Satellites and the Internet ?
« Reply #290 on: November 07, 2014, 10:06:20 AM »
How are flying trash cans more plausible than antennas?  Let alone, how are they easier or more cost efficient to maintain?

You really need to get over this silly "flying trash cans" notion jroa.  It makes it look as though you're not at all familiar with the workings of communications satellites.  And satellites are easier and cheaper to maintain because.......... there is no maintenance.


?

Goth

  • 220
Re: Satellites and the Internet ?
« Reply #291 on: November 09, 2014, 07:13:57 AM »
How can you receive TV in the middle of the desert or ocean?

Via; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skywave
The thread is discussing high bandwidth data transmission (not TV or radio) - this is impossible via "Skywave".

Quote

Could it be, that'' FM is a mode and HF is a band as I'm sure you know. Did you mean the FM broadcast band? If so I'm sure you know about hybrid digital and the various other subcarrier techniques that have been used to deliver various services "invisibly and underneath" ordinary FM broadcast. I'm sure you know about the various spread spectrum technologies that are now in service.

Nobody here is trying to force you to believe anything.

But the fact remains that all of the "satellite" technologies out there could be delivered by ground stations. Much work has been done with GHz band radio and the ionosphere and it is now certain that the ' ionosphere and the magnetosphere,''do indeed reflect these ultra-short bands to some degree.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2014, 07:38:20 AM by Goth »

Re: Satellites and the Internet ?
« Reply #292 on: November 09, 2014, 08:21:54 AM »
Sort out your quotes and I might be able to work out what the hell you are on about.


However if you are trying to say that 70 Mbps of internet is delivered to an aircraft flying at 600mph over the Atlantic using FM radio, then you must be on crack.
« Last Edit: November 09, 2014, 08:23:42 AM by JimmyTheCrab »
Quote from: mikeman7918
a single photon can pass through two sluts

Quote from: Chicken Fried Clucker
if Donald Trump stuck his penis in me after trying on clothes I would have that date and time burned in my head.

Re: Satellites and the Internet ?
« Reply #293 on: November 09, 2014, 10:38:10 AM »
The fact remains that satellite services are delivered by satellites.  That is what the dishes point at.

*

ausGeoff

  • 6091
Re: Satellites and the Internet ?
« Reply #294 on: November 09, 2014, 01:01:11 PM »
But the fact remains that all of the "satellite" technologies out there could be delivered by ground stations.
Nope.  This is demonstrably wrong.  The GPS requires line of sight to four satellites as a fundamental principle of its operation, as per this diagram:



Obviously ground-based transmitters would be unable to perform the necessary positioning triangulation.



?

robintex

  • Ranters
  • 5322
Re: Satellites and the Internet ?
« Reply #295 on: November 09, 2014, 03:35:19 PM »
But the fact remains that all of the "satellite" technologies out there could be delivered by ground stations.
Nope.  This is demonstrably wrong.  The GPS requires line of sight to four satellites as a fundamental principle of its operation, as per this diagram:



Obviously ground-based transmitters would be unable to perform the necessary positioning triangulation.

In the first places it is obvious that there are satellites for GPS.
Also it has been pointed out that ground based systems cannot provide altitude information. The old denial of facts is just another bit of the silliness of the Flat Earth Society. And moderators such as jroa only make the Flat Earth Society even more the laughing stock of the earth - the globe, that is.

But that IMHO is one of the main attractions of The Flat Earth Society Forum. : To see what kind of nonsense the Flat Earth Society is going to come up with next. Keep up the good work, FES. It's nice to come here for some laughs if you've been working on some serious research on the Internet. LO.
Stick close , very close , to your P.C.and never go to sea
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Look out your window , see what you shall see
And you all may be Rulers of The Flat Earth Society

Chorus:
Yes ! Never, never, never,  ever go to sea !

?

Goth

  • 220
Re: Satellites and the Internet ?
« Reply #296 on: November 10, 2014, 06:51:20 AM »
But the fact remains that all of the "satellite" technologies out there could be delivered by ground stations.
Nope.  This is demonstrably wrong.  The GPS requires line of sight to four satellites as a fundamental principle of its operation, as per this diagram:



Obviously ground-based transmitters would be unable to perform the necessary positioning triangulation.
             

He's wrong. Again

By ,LocataLite Locata

Ground-Based Version of Satellite GPS Could Make Positioning Technology Accurate to Inches Anywhere

GPS is currently accurate to something like 9 feet. An Australian company says its new geolocation technology could shave that down to a few centimeters, if its hardware is rolled out across the world. The company, Locata, envisions a constellation of local "satellites"--known as "LocataLites"--installed in known locations across an area that allow devices to get a super-accurate fix on their locations.

Locata's vision works more or less just like the existing GPS system, except that the transmitters are ground-based rather than orbiting

*

Son of Orospu

  • Jura's b*tch and proud of it!
  • Planar Moderator
  • 37834
  • I have artificial intelligence
Re: Satellites and the Internet ?
« Reply #297 on: November 10, 2014, 06:55:13 AM »
But the fact remains that all of the "satellite" technologies out there could be delivered by ground stations.
Nope.  This is demonstrably wrong.  The GPS requires line of sight to four satellites as a fundamental principle of its operation, as per this diagram:



Obviously ground-based transmitters would be unable to perform the necessary positioning triangulation.




lol, yeah, I am sure that all the GPS satellites just point their dishes at your receiver when you try to figure out where you are.  This is so funny. 

Re: Satellites and the Internet ?
« Reply #298 on: November 10, 2014, 07:31:56 AM »
Understand that the GPS frequency does not require dishes like broadcasting, as you know.

*

legion

  • 1593
  • You are in my VR
Re: Satellites and the Internet ?
« Reply #299 on: November 10, 2014, 01:27:29 PM »
But the fact remains that all of the "satellite" technologies out there could be delivered by ground stations.
Nope.  This is demonstrably wrong.  The GPS requires line of sight to four satellites as a fundamental principle of its operation, as per this diagram:



Obviously ground-based transmitters would be unable to perform the necessary positioning triangulation.

geoffrey, I don't know what this graphic is supposed to prove, but bullet point two contains a massive error. What other errors are in the graphic, I wonder?
"Indoctrination [...] is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned".