I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?

  • 81 Replies
  • 6729 Views
*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #60 on: September 16, 2015, 06:48:51 AM »
I don't see why the transmitters would necessarily be ground based: and it wouldn't necessarily be true that one satellite corresponds to one transmitter. Their movements are predictable, and so can easily be taken into account, and often the receiver doesn't react smoothly: it can be jerky, discontinuous. While that could be explained by interference, it could also be explained by signals switching from one transmitter to another: which would happen anyway when one satellite moves too far.
I don't see why the false position model would necessarily fail. After all, every theoretical satellite signal would pass through the altitude where these transmitters would be. All that would be needed is a well-defined movement pattern. It might not be accurate down to the byte, but there are always error bars.

Funny,  I replied, but the server timed out when I posted the reply.   

Just to re-iterate, the signal cannot be faked for multiple receivers,  the signal timing tells us how far away the transmitter (satellite) is and while it might be possible to fake for one receiver in one fixed location,  it's not possible to fake the transmission for multiple receivers at the same time,  and still be able to get a correct location fix.

The reason I was referring to ground based transmitters, is that is the usual flat earther's point of view.

Rayzor, I've told you this before, when are you going to learn? GPS satellites do not exist. Morning Rayzor
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell

Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #61 on: September 16, 2015, 10:06:57 AM »
Just to re-iterate, the signal cannot be faked for multiple receivers,  the signal timing tells us how far away the transmitter (satellite) is and while it might be possible to fake for one receiver in one fixed location,  it's not possible to fake the transmission for multiple receivers at the same time,  and still be able to get a correct location fix.
Why is altitude such a key factor when it comes to a GPS system? I can't see any reason a net would fail whether it be kilometres higher or lower.

Quote
The reason I was referring to ground based transmitters, is that is the usual flat earther's point of view.
I believe ground based transmitters are taken to be part of the method, but from what I've seen it's often in conjunction with 'stratellites'.
Here for the scientific development of a Flat Earth model. Happy to be proven wrong, as I hope you are too.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #62 on: September 16, 2015, 10:17:01 AM »
GPS works because of 24 satellites which continuously broadcast the current time and their position, and then a reliever can pick up the signal.  The receiver has the current time and it compares it with the time relieved from the satellite to calculate signal delay and then it knows it's distance from the satellite, and if it has signals from 3 or more satellites it can triangulate it's position.  The only way for the Earth to be flat given this is for GPS manufacturers to be in on a conspiracy which is depemdent on people not poking around in GPS receivers.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #63 on: September 16, 2015, 11:20:25 AM »
GPS works because of 24 satellites which continuously broadcast the current time and their position, and then a reliever can pick up the signal.  The receiver has the current time and it compares it with the time relieved from the satellite to calculate signal delay and then it knows it's distance from the satellite, and if it has signals from 3 or more satellites it can triangulate it's position.  The only way for the Earth to be flat given this is for GPS manufacturers to be in on a conspiracy which is depemdent on people not poking around in GPS receivers.

Unless the data emitted by the satellites is offset just slightly to imply a greater distance than they are actually at. A couple of lines of code isn't a huge conspiracy, and would far more likely be done by those launching the satellite than by the GPS company.
Here for the scientific development of a Flat Earth model. Happy to be proven wrong, as I hope you are too.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #64 on: September 16, 2015, 11:57:56 AM »
Unless the data emitted by the satellites is offset just slightly to imply a greater distance than they are actually at. A couple of lines of code isn't a huge conspiracy, and would far more likely be done by those launching the satellite than by the GPS company.

If the satellites broadcasted incorrect location and time data then in most places the signals would give conflicting results.  In order to get any kind of accuracy with such a system you would need to have a receiver which takes into account that the transmitters are ground based.

I remember that a long time ago I used a GPS which could actually tell you the positions of individual satellites and sometimes when there were less then 2 visible satellites it would stop working and I had to wait a minute or two for another satellite to come into view.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

Pezevenk

  • 13585
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #65 on: September 16, 2015, 12:35:02 PM »
I don't see why the transmitters would necessarily be ground based: and it wouldn't necessarily be true that one satellite corresponds to one transmitter. Their movements are predictable, and so can easily be taken into account, and often the receiver doesn't react smoothly: it can be jerky, discontinuous. While that could be explained by interference, it could also be explained by signals switching from one transmitter to another: which would happen anyway when one satellite moves too far.
I don't see why the false position model would necessarily fail. After all, every theoretical satellite signal would pass through the altitude where these transmitters would be. All that would be needed is a well-defined movement pattern. It might not be accurate down to the byte, but there are always error bars.

Funny,  I replied, but the server timed out when I posted the reply.   

Just to re-iterate, the signal cannot be faked for multiple receivers,  the signal timing tells us how far away the transmitter (satellite) is and while it might be possible to fake for one receiver in one fixed location,  it's not possible to fake the transmission for multiple receivers at the same time,  and still be able to get a correct location fix.

The reason I was referring to ground based transmitters, is that is the usual flat earther's point of view.

Rayzor, I've told you this before, when are you going to learn? GPS satellites do not exist. Morning Rayzor

Guys, I've told you a million times before, STOP PRETENDING SATELLITES DON'T EXIST!
It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Who wants to be a firefly and who wants to be a blue whale?
-Sceptimatic

Please do not jizz to win an argument.
-Crutonius

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from.
-Inty (again)

*

Pezevenk

  • 13585
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #66 on: September 16, 2015, 12:36:49 PM »
http://www.popastro.com/images/ISS_Discovery_Martin_Lewis.jpg

Is this considered "too blurred"??

I'd say so: it is quite poorly defined, especially at the edges. Though that might just be half a centimetre in a photo, it's a lot of space in reality. A lot could be happening there.
Again, it is possible that it is genuine.

You are in denial.
It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Who wants to be a firefly and who wants to be a blue whale?
-Sceptimatic

Please do not jizz to win an argument.
-Crutonius

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from.
-Inty (again)

*

Yendor

  • 1676
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #67 on: September 16, 2015, 12:49:08 PM »
I don't see why the transmitters would necessarily be ground based: and it wouldn't necessarily be true that one satellite corresponds to one transmitter. Their movements are predictable, and so can easily be taken into account, and often the receiver doesn't react smoothly: it can be jerky, discontinuous. While that could be explained by interference, it could also be explained by signals switching from one transmitter to another: which would happen anyway when one satellite moves too far.
I don't see why the false position model would necessarily fail. After all, every theoretical satellite signal would pass through the altitude where these transmitters would be. All that would be needed is a well-defined movement pattern. It might not be accurate down to the byte, but there are always error bars.

Funny,  I replied, but the server timed out when I posted the reply.   

Just to re-iterate, the signal cannot be faked for multiple receivers,  the signal timing tells us how far away the transmitter (satellite) is and while it might be possible to fake for one receiver in one fixed location,  it's not possible to fake the transmission for multiple receivers at the same time,  and still be able to get a correct location fix.

The reason I was referring to ground based transmitters, is that is the usual flat earther's point of view.

Rayzor, I've told you this before, when are you going to learn? GPS satellites do not exist. Morning Rayzor

Guys, I've told you a million times before, STOP PRETENDING SATELLITES DON'T EXIST!

I don't think it's been a million times. Actually, I believe GPS transmitters are hung from the underside of the glass dome.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
                              George Orwell

Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #68 on: September 16, 2015, 12:54:46 PM »
If the satellites broadcasted incorrect location and time data then in most places the signals would give conflicting results.  In order to get any kind of accuracy with such a system you would need to have a receiver which takes into account that the transmitters are ground based.

I remember that a long time ago I used a GPS which could actually tell you the positions of individual satellites and sometimes when there were less then 2 visible satellites it would stop working and I had to wait a minute or two for another satellite to come into view.
Why must the transmitters be ground based? Planes, balloons, helicopters... There are many ways for signals to be sent from above.
Incorrect data wouldn't be given out: the data would be entirely correct, it would merely simulate a satellite higher up.
Here for the scientific development of a Flat Earth model. Happy to be proven wrong, as I hope you are too.

*

Pezevenk

  • 13585
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #69 on: September 16, 2015, 01:08:05 PM »
Quote
Hmmm... This source really doesn't say much...Neptunium seems very weird to me... I don't know if it should be trusted... Neptunium doesn't even occur in the Earth naturally. It seems very peculiar to me that any of it would happen to be on the moon. Then come researches like this: http://www.universetoday.com/33692/first-conclusive-signature-for-lunar-uranium/grs-data-set/ It reveals uranium, thorium and other elements, but not Neptunium.
That link may not be working, it doesn't give an account of any research to me, just a graphic in another language.
As you say, it is odd that it would be on the moon. This is what I'm getting at. I think it was found in rocks brought back.

Quote
In case you haven't noticed, there are LOADS of people who think the ISS etc. are holograms. And it's impossible that they are balloons or aircrafts, because they can be seen from locations thousands of miles apart, yet they appear to move really fast. How can a balloon travel around the Earth in 90 minutes? 24/7? And why does it look exactly like the ISS is supposed to look? Last time I checked, that's an extremely impractical shape for aircrafts or balloons. And it's not just the ISS (which is the easiest object to see with a telescope with a recognizable shape, it's much harder to see the shape of smaller satellites or the Mir space station or something). It's dozens of satellites easily visible with the naked eye. And I have no idea how long term space travel is supposed to work on a flat earth. Constant thrust upwards would be needed.
You cannot simply insist lots of people think that with no explanation given. Literally the only explanations I have seen on this forum anywhere are those I have given. Further, you can't deny there are a number of trolls here.
A balloon was one possibility. Satellites typically are only visible as lights: as you say, they are fast-moving, nearly impossible to view properly. The only images we have of the ISS from Earth are far to blurred to say that it isn't, for example, a sketch on the underside of a darker craft.
Again, I do not favor the conspiracy notion. Space travel on a FE is only hard if you copy RE physics: this wouldn't be the case. look at the Sun: we know that there is, if the world is flat, some mechanism or way for rotational motion above the Earth. There's no reason a satellite wouldn't be caught up in that.

Quote
Plus, parallax shows that the moon is definitely much closer than the sun, and, contrary to what you think, you don't need to know how far the sun is.
Parallax shows the moon is closer than the Sun, yes. Firm figures however do require the distance.

Quote
they say that the sun is 3000 miles away (which is completely baseless, If I wanted I could say it's 10 meters away for the angles during a sunset)
The 3000km figure is very justified. It comes from Eratosphenes and trigonometry: the shadows cast by any objects vary in length depending on location. This is explain by a RE by the surface being at different angles, with a distant Sun. If we take the same figures however and assume a flat plane, the Sun would need to be closer, so that the rays would hit the objects at different angles.
I could draw a diagram if you wanted?

Quote
We also know all the other planets are spherical. It doesn't look like me at all as if a flat shape is the most likely to form
Again, I am working with the hypothesis that the Earth is flat. Outside of the RE model you're used to, a flat shape is most likely. In addition, if we look up at the sky most things we see are stars: should we then assume the Earth is a star?

I'm fond of magnetic fields as an analogy. If you scatter metal filings around a magnet to see its field, you'll notice curves and round shapes are common. Introduce a second magnet however, you can quite easily gain a flat surface between the two.
Assuming the model where gravity and magnetism (and the strong nuclear force) are interconnected, if there is a star the other side of the Earth then a flat surface would form. The idea of a below-Earth star is also supported by geothermal energy which, without the UA model and its absurd energy requirements, needs another FE explanation.

Yeah, the link does not work, I don't know why. It was supposed to show an accurate research where they spotted exactly where uranium, thorium, and other radioactive elements can be found in the moon. No neptunium was found. And no, determining the distance to the moon does NOT require knowing the distance to the sun. If you know how far away the observers are one from each other, by observing an eclipse you can use trigonometry to determine how far away the moon is.

"Again, I do not favor the conspiracy notion. Space travel on a FE is only hard if you copy RE physics: this wouldn't be the case. look at the Sun: we know that there is, if the world is flat, some mechanism or way for rotational motion above the Earth. There's no reason a satellite wouldn't be caught up in that."

Lol good luck trying to explain that! Especially when shooting stars don't have a problem passing through that...

"The 3000km figure is very justified. It comes from Eratosphenes and trigonometry: the shadows cast by any objects vary in length depending on location."

That is COMPLETELY flawed, because trigonometry also tells us that these objects would never go beneath the horizon. Even if you were on one edge of the disk and the sun was on the other (which supposedly never happens), it would still be about 3.5 degrees above the horizon! It also tells us that the sun would appear to be noticeably smaller during sunrises and sunsets. So, if trigonometry using the "standard" model of light disproves your hypothesis, why would you pretend it is useful to calculate something in your hypothesis?

"I'm fond of magnetic fields as an analogy. If you scatter metal filings around a magnet to see its field, you'll notice curves and round shapes are common. Introduce a second magnet however, you can quite easily gain a flat surface between the two."

Again, that is only true because magnets are dipoles. A monopole has a field identical to gravity. Are you implying that mass is a gravitational dipole? Because that is not remotely what we observe.

By the way, if you think pictures of the ISS from Earth are too blurred, here: https://www.google.gr/search?q=iss+with+telescope&client=safari&rls=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAWoVChMIwdXjm6v8xwIVQdQaCh0IFApx&biw=1440&bih=838#imgrc=_ Google away.

"Assuming the model where gravity and magnetism (and the strong nuclear force) are interconnected, if there is a star the other side of the Earth then a flat surface would form. The idea of a below-Earth star is also supported by geothermal energy which, without the UA model and its absurd energy requirements, needs another FE explanation."

Not sure how this is supposed to work.

"Again, I am working with the hypothesis that the Earth is flat. Outside of the RE model you're used to, a flat shape is most likely. In addition, if we look up at the sky most things we see are stars: should we then assume the Earth is a star?"

Stars are spherical objects as well. No, that's not what I said. Planets undeniably pose several similarities to Earth, and are in relatively close proximity with the Earth. This is also true for the moon and the sun. There is no observable flat celestial object, yet you assume that a flat object is more likely to form than a spherical object?
It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Who wants to be a firefly and who wants to be a blue whale?
-Sceptimatic

Please do not jizz to win an argument.
-Crutonius

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from.
-Inty (again)

Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #70 on: September 16, 2015, 01:52:47 PM »
If the satellites broadcasted incorrect location and time data then in most places the signals would give conflicting results.  In order to get any kind of accuracy with such a system you would need to have a receiver which takes into account that the transmitters are ground based.

I remember that a long time ago I used a GPS which could actually tell you the positions of individual satellites and sometimes when there were less then 2 visible satellites it would stop working and I had to wait a minute or two for another satellite to come into view.
Why must the transmitters be ground based? Planes, balloons, helicopters... There are many ways for signals to be sent from above.

You call yourself a scientist, but this is pure conspiracy theory.  There are over 2,700 satellites in orbit, owned by thousands of private entities and governments.  They serve up everything from soap operas to high definition meteorological data for thousands of different entities and billions of end users.

Quote
Incorrect data wouldn't be given out: the data would be entirely correct, it would merely simulate a satellite higher up.
Then it wouldn't work, the data simply wouldn't be correct - you are being wilfully ignorant.  To calculate a 2D position you need the exact timestamps and ephemeris data from 3 satellites and 4 for a 3D position.  They have to use atomic clocks and even take into account relativistic effects.  You cannot spoof this data and have the system still work.  Any GPS device has to know exactly when and where the signal is coming from to calculate your position.

I do quite a bit of walking, including remote areas like the Scottish highlands.  One of the walks last time involved walking half the day through a steep sided valley in the Black Cuillin.  There was, not surprisingly, zero mobile phone coverage all day.  Yet my GPS device gave me an exact lock on my position, including altitude, all day.  It would allow me to look at the constellation of satellites available and which ones I was locked onto.  There were no balloons or helicopters hovering over the valley as a part of some ridiculous hoax to fool the world.
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.

*

Serulian

  • 142
  • Flat Earthian
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #71 on: September 16, 2015, 04:06:08 PM »
  Watch ID discovery sometime. You will learn that the killers often get caught because of the location their cell phones were last active. No need for satellites.

Next take into account that accurate maps of almost every road in the world are now digital. Of course that would be fine enough, but next take into account that some guys with a couple cameras mounted to their cars drive down those roads often, so there are now even more accurate digital maps.

We have tracking technology. We have maps.

Seems logical to me.

Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #72 on: September 16, 2015, 04:19:39 PM »
Quote from: Jimmy
You call yourself a scientist, but this is pure conspiracy theory.  There are over 2,700 satellites in orbit, owned by thousands of private entities and governments.  They serve up everything from soap operas to high definition meteorological data for thousands of different entities and billions of end users.
It's a hypothesis which I don't really accept. I have said several times I favor the idea that satellites are genuine (and I'm engaging in a discussion in another thread which may disprove faked space travel, by judging the altitude of the ISS and the length of its route).
However, insisting that the sources of the signals are satellites is not an argument, even if you insist doing otherwise is a cosnpiracy theory.

Quote
Then it wouldn't work, the data simply wouldn't be correct - you are being wilfully ignorant.  To calculate a 2D position you need the exact timestamps and ephemeris data from 3 satellites and 4 for a 3D position.  They have to use atomic clocks and even take into account relativistic effects.  You cannot spoof this data and have the system still work.  Any GPS device has to know exactly when and where the signal is coming from to calculate your position.
It's not spoofing data: it's simulating. A correctly placed and offset transmitter would give the indication of a satellite from higher up: one way to think of it would be to assume there is a higher satellite, and that the transmitter merely relays that data. Then all you need to do is remove the higher satellite, as the data must be intelligible and predictable in order to be usable.

Quote
I do quite a bit of walking, including remote areas like the Scottish highlands.  One of the walks last time involved walking half the day through a steep sided valley in the Black Cuillin.  There was, not surprisingly, zero mobile phone coverage all day.  Yet my GPS device gave me an exact lock on my position, including altitude, all day.  It would allow me to look at the constellation of satellites available and which ones I was locked onto.  There were no balloons or helicopters hovering over the valley as a part of some ridiculous hoax to fool the world.
It wouldn't necessarily be a ridiculous hoax. If anything, it feels more like the classic lie gone out of control. Even so, it would be very hard to get a full image of the entire field of sky above and around you, much less to judge smaller objects likely developed with stealth in mind.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official
And no, determining the distance to the moon does NOT require knowing the distance to the sun. If you know how far away the observers are one from each other, by observing an eclipse you can use trigonometry to determine how far away the moon is.
That sounds similar to an Eratosphenes-type measurement: a large distance would involve curvature needing to be calculated too. I'm not certain which experiment you're referring to.

Quote
Lol good luck trying to explain that! Especially when shooting stars don't have a problem passing through that...
Why would the existence of a force mean nothing can get past said force?

Quote
That is COMPLETELY flawed, because trigonometry also tells us that these objects would never go beneath the horizon. Even if you were on one edge of the disk and the sun was on the other (which supposedly never happens), it would still be about 3.5 degrees above the horizon! It also tells us that the sun would appear to be noticeably smaller during sunrises and sunsets. So, if trigonometry using the "standard" model of light disproves your hypothesis, why would you pretend it is useful to calculate something in your hypothesis?
I don't. you were the one who brought up the 3000 figure, i simply explained where it came from.

Quote
Again, that is only true because magnets are dipoles. A monopole has a field identical to gravity. Are you implying that mass is a gravitational dipole? Because that is not remotely what we observe.
I was using a magnetic field as an analogy. Even so, repulsive gravity is an existing hypothesis. If it serves well in a model then it may well be what we observe: it should also be pointed out that, by definition, it would be very hard to observe matter that exerts repulsive gravity as it would have long since been repulsed from near us. This is a hastily explained, tenuous hypothesis, it's never going to be a complete accurate theory.

Quote
By the way, if you think pictures of the ISS from Earth are too blurred..
I've seen them. A lot of details are missing in most. The most persuasive image I've seen was of the ISS' shadow passing in front of the moon, and I've done calculations which could lead to disproving an in-atmosphere ISS depending on the readings. We'll see. I favoured the idea that space travel was real, anyway.

Quote
Stars are spherical objects as well. No, that's not what I said. Planets undeniably pose several similarities to Earth, and are in relatively close proximity with the Earth. This is also true for the moon and the sun. There is no observable flat celestial object, yet you assume that a flat object is more likely to form than a spherical object?
That's not what I'm saying. i'm developing a hypothesis based upon the notion that the world is not round. How am I to do that if I assume it's round?
Here for the scientific development of a Flat Earth model. Happy to be proven wrong, as I hope you are too.

*

JerkFace

  • 10156
  • Looking for Occam
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #73 on: September 16, 2015, 06:02:36 PM »
  Watch ID discovery sometime. You will learn that the killers often get caught because of the location their cell phones were last active. No need for satellites.

Next take into account that accurate maps of almost every road in the world are now digital. Of course that would be fine enough, but next take into account that some guys with a couple cameras mounted to their cars drive down those roads often, so there are now even more accurate digital maps.

We have tracking technology. We have maps.

Seems logical to me.

Not logical at all.

Cell tower triangulation,   is not that accurate,   wheras gps can be accurate down to cm level accuracy.   
GPS works in the middle of the ocean,   thousands of miles from land.   

Finally,   as I already pointed out,  the signals themselves tell the true location of the transmitters,  and those signals cannot be faked.

The GPS satellites are in fact in orbit.    Exactly where they are supposed to be.    Sorry the earth is not flat.




Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #74 on: September 17, 2015, 08:58:36 AM »
  Watch ID discovery sometime. You will learn that the killers often get caught because of the location their cell phones were last active. No need for satellites.

Next take into account that accurate maps of almost every road in the world are now digital. Of course that would be fine enough, but next take into account that some guys with a couple cameras mounted to their cars drive down those roads often, so there are now even more accurate digital maps.

We have tracking technology. We have maps.

Seems logical to me.

Not logical at all.

Cell tower triangulation,   is not that accurate,
That's an understatement, in fact they're often complete bollocks:

Quote
Rather than pinpoint a suspect’s whereabouts, cell-tower records can put someone within an area of several hundred square miles or, in a congested urban area, several square miles. Yet years of prosecutions and plea bargains have been based on a misunderstanding of how cell networks operate. No one knows how often this occurs, but each year police make more than a million requests for cell-phone records. “We think the whole paradigm is absolutely flawed at every level, and shouldn’t be used in the courtroom,” Michael Cherry, the C.E.O. of Cherry Biometrics, a consulting firm in Falls Church, Virginia, told me. “This whole thing is junk science, a farce.”
http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/what-your-cell-phone-cant-tell-the-police

And in my example there was no cell phone coverage and I was using a specialist GPS device.

Quote
Finally,   as I already pointed out,  the signals themselves tell the true location of the transmitters,  and those signals cannot be faked.
And this is the bit FEScientist keeps sticking her fingers in her ears and going "nnn...nnnn...nnnn"


Quote from: FEScientist
It's not spoofing data: it's simulating. A correctly placed and offset transmitter would give the indication of a satellite from higher up: one way to think of it would be to assume there is a higher satellite, and that the transmitter merely relays that data. Then all you need to do is remove the higher satellite, as the data must be intelligible and predictable in order to be usable.
lol what?  This is borderline gibberish.

What I think you are tying to say is that you could relay data from a satellite, which of course you can.  Then you are saying "all you need to do is remove the higher satellite".  So all you are left with is a relay, and no GPS data. ::)

You going  to look a lot better if you just say "I've no idea how GPS works on a flat earth" rather than coming up with this tortuous shit.
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.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #75 on: September 17, 2015, 09:45:50 AM »
Why must the transmitters be ground based? Planes, balloons, helicopters... There are many ways for signals to be sent from above.
Incorrect data wouldn't be given out: the data would be entirely correct, it would merely simulate a satellite higher up.

Actually that's still impossible.  Because of the nature of the system you can actually use it in revere by setting up at least 3 recievers and triangulating the position of a satellite.  It's impossible to mimic a GPS satellite with anything that's not at the same altitude as a satellite.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

*

Pezevenk

  • 13585
  • Militant aporfyrodrakonist
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #76 on: September 17, 2015, 10:37:58 AM »
I don't see why the transmitters would necessarily be ground based: and it wouldn't necessarily be true that one satellite corresponds to one transmitter. Their movements are predictable, and so can easily be taken into account, and often the receiver doesn't react smoothly: it can be jerky, discontinuous. While that could be explained by interference, it could also be explained by signals switching from one transmitter to another: which would happen anyway when one satellite moves too far.
I don't see why the false position model would necessarily fail. After all, every theoretical satellite signal would pass through the altitude where these transmitters would be. All that would be needed is a well-defined movement pattern. It might not be accurate down to the byte, but there are always error bars.

Funny,  I replied, but the server timed out when I posted the reply.   

Just to re-iterate, the signal cannot be faked for multiple receivers,  the signal timing tells us how far away the transmitter (satellite) is and while it might be possible to fake for one receiver in one fixed location,  it's not possible to fake the transmission for multiple receivers at the same time,  and still be able to get a correct location fix.

The reason I was referring to ground based transmitters, is that is the usual flat earther's point of view.

Rayzor, I've told you this before, when are you going to learn? GPS satellites do not exist. Morning Rayzor

Guys, I've told you a million times before, STOP PRETENDING SATELLITES DON'T EXIST!

I don't think it's been a million times. Actually, I believe GPS transmitters are hung from the underside of the glass dome.

There is only one correct response to this:  ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
It is not a scientific fact, it is a scientific fuck!
-Intikam

Who wants to be a firefly and who wants to be a blue whale?
-Sceptimatic

Please do not jizz to win an argument.
-Crutonius

Read a bit psicology and stick your imo to where it comes from.
-Inty (again)

Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #77 on: September 17, 2015, 11:24:36 AM »
Why must the transmitters be ground based? Planes, balloons, helicopters... There are many ways for signals to be sent from above.
Incorrect data wouldn't be given out: the data would be entirely correct, it would merely simulate a satellite higher up.

Actually that's still impossible.  Because of the nature of the system you can actually use it in revere by setting up at least 3 recievers and triangulating the position of a satellite.  It's impossible to mimic a GPS satellite with anything that's not at the same altitude as a satellite.

That would be true: and it is also true that you could not accurately gain the position of the satellites in the offset model unless you already knew where they were/how long they were offset. So, the question is, what would happen if you tried to triangulate the same signal?
The claim that it is impossible is a very strong one, and very hard to prove. GPS signals are based on "A implies B," that is the satellite A gives off the signals B. The fact A implies B does not mean A is the only thing that implies B, however: as I've said before, the signals pass through the lower altitudes. All that would be needed is to offset the transmitters to what would be expected at those altitudes, and to provide the signals B.
Here for the scientific development of a Flat Earth model. Happy to be proven wrong, as I hope you are too.

*

mikeman7918

  • 5431
  • Round Earther
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #78 on: September 17, 2015, 12:39:36 PM »
That would be true: and it is also true that you could not accurately gain the position of the satellites in the offset model unless you already knew where they were/how long they were offset. So, the question is, what would happen if you tried to triangulate the same signal?
The claim that it is impossible is a very strong one, and very hard to prove. GPS signals are based on "A implies B," that is the satellite A gives off the signals B. The fact A implies B does not mean A is the only thing that implies B, however: as I've said before, the signals pass through the lower altitudes. All that would be needed is to offset the transmitters to what would be expected at those altitudes, and to provide the signals B.

The government can't control the speed of light, so that means that no matter what the offset is the time measured by recievers will change with distance as expected.  If you get an additional 10 feet away from the transmitter then the receiver cannot be tricked into thinking that the change is anything other then 10 feet.  That is where the probelem lies.

On a flat Earth if all the transmitters were the same distance from a receiver then the numbers would more or less agree but if there are transmitters at varying distances like we see more often in real life then the results would often conflict with each other.  This is because the way that the distance from satellites changes as you go across the surface of the Earth is something that's highly sensitive to the shape of the Earth.  I could provide diagrams and graphs to prove my point of you want.
I am having a video war with Jeranism.
See the thread about it here.

Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #79 on: September 17, 2015, 01:08:50 PM »
Why must the transmitters be ground based? Planes, balloons, helicopters... There are many ways for signals to be sent from above.
Incorrect data wouldn't be given out: the data would be entirely correct, it would merely simulate a satellite higher up.

Actually that's still impossible.  Because of the nature of the system you can actually use it in revere by setting up at least 3 recievers and triangulating the position of a satellite.  It's impossible to mimic a GPS satellite with anything that's not at the same altitude as a satellite.

That would be true: and it is also true that you could not accurately gain the position of the satellites in the offset model
What the is the "offset model"?

Quote
The claim that it is impossible is a very strong one, and very hard to prove. GPS signals are based on "A implies B," that is the satellite A gives off the signals B. The fact A implies B does not mean A is the only thing that implies B, however: as I've said before, the signals pass through the lower altitudes. All that would be needed is to offset the transmitters to what would be expected at those altitudes, and to provide the signals B.
As with many of your posts, it's very hard to tell what the hell you are on about...which I suspect is intentional.  The words are fine, but the sentences dissolve into meaninglessness.   The simple fact is that a GPS satellites broadcast their position and a timestamp.  Using this information a GPS device work out the lag between the broadcast and receiving the signal - with 3 satellites it can then calculate a 2D position and with 4 satellites a 3D position.



If the satellites aren't where they say they are, then it won't work.

Instead of talking in riddles, if you have an alternative system, then draw a diagram and take us through how it would work, step by step.
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.

?

XaeXae

  • 132
  • Mountain Lions.
Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #80 on: September 17, 2015, 01:13:57 PM »
Good work guys, but what don't you understand in "Please don't post anything else on this topic." ? :D

The idea is that you resume all of your arguments here, and that this allows everybody to know what arguments were already proposed, and maybe refuted  ;)

Re: I arleady asked this, but could we please have a list of all FE arguments ?
« Reply #81 on: September 17, 2015, 02:13:46 PM »
Quote from: mikeman
The government can't control the speed of light, so that means that no matter what the offset is the time measured by recievers will change with distance as expected.  If you get an additional 10 feet away from the transmitter then the receiver cannot be tricked into thinking that the change is anything other then 10 feet.  That is where the probelem lies.
I'm not blaming the government, just a few administrators and engineers at space agencies.
They don't need to change the speed of light, just the speed of the transmission. Add a few 'pause' markers between the landmarks the GPS uses to interpret the data, you'll get the same effect.

Quote
This is because the way that the distance from satellites changes as you go across the surface of the Earth is something that's highly sensitive to the shape of the Earth.  I could provide diagrams and graphs to prove my point of you want.
Distance from airplanes, balloons, helicopters... will change as you go over the surface of the Earth, even on a FE. To my knowledge, multiple satellites are used to gauge position: not just one or two for the globe. Curvature shouldn't be too major a factor if the nearest satellite is used.

Quote from: Jimmy
What the is the "offset model"?
This may be why you later express difficulty in understanding what I'm saying: you're coming in, in the middle of a conversation. It's never going to be clear what's going on them.
As was explained earlier, GPS reportedly works by data being emitted by satellites, and the GPS expecting certain data, and measuring the difference between the two: the delay in receiving the signal is how distance is measured. The offset model supposes the signal comes from lower transmitters, which are 'offset': the data the emit is a little ahead of the GPS, thus giving the illusion the signal comes from higher up.
This has all been explained, and as such directly answers your question. Please don't enter into the middle of a conversation without reading what's been written before. Maybe you're unsatisifed with my answer, but for your query mean anything you should at least be able to understand the model that I am referring to, and have been outlining throughout this thread. The fact is you haven't even tried to understand what's being discussed, you openly ask about the basics of the conversation we're having clearly showing you have not even begun to read the conversation. I take quite an issue with your insulting tone for this reason because it is clear you do not know what you're talking about.
If you have a problem with my model, you should at least know what the modle is; you should have at least read about it rather than blithely assuming that just because I am a flat Earther I must be incapable of answering the most basic questions posed (and did you really think you were the first and only person to ask those questions, or for that matter that I would blithely mention a mysterious offset model and that only you would be bothered by that?)
Please read a conversation before chiming in.

Quote
Instead of talking in riddles, if you have an alternative system, then draw a diagram and take us through how it would work, step by step.
This is once more something I have done over the progress of this thread.
Imagine a satellite. Its signal is sent down to the Earth.
Now, pick a certain altitude, and place a transmitter at that altitude intersecting the satellite's signal: as the signal must be predictable if it is to be interpreted, have that transmitter emit the same signal. Remove the satellite, the same signal will reach the GPS unit on the Earth: offset timestamp to give the illusion of duration, and a similar effect. Having more than one of these for an area would remove most, if not all, error.

For a final note, which you would also know had you read the conversation, I do not believe this. I do favor the hypothesis that space travel, including satellites, are genuine.
Here for the scientific development of a Flat Earth model. Happy to be proven wrong, as I hope you are too.