Flight durations vs distances

  • 162 Replies
  • 31945 Views
*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #90 on: October 30, 2015, 02:03:17 PM »
Contact the company to answer your question.
So, you can't answer, so you're going to reference someone else and hope. Amazing how it's such a simple concept and you're incapable of justifying it.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #91 on: October 30, 2015, 03:46:41 PM »
at the same object
Are you going to prove this claim?
No I'm not. Why do I have to prove everything and you nothing.

I've asked you to prove your stupid Sun in the hemidisks or your stupid Aether. What do I get, wah, wah, wah, I don't have time or resources to prove my BS theory. Well I don't have the time or resources either. Well, until you get your rear end to prove something, I am not going to waste my time.

The big question therefore is 'What do all the dishes on the side of houses point at for receiving multichannel TV?'  Noting that they all point at an object in the sky over the equator.
Mm-hmm. You seem to be struggling with the difference between 'sky' and 'space.' It's a common problem of yours.
Please explain the difference, and about satellite tv.
They point to transmitters. These transmitters are at a certain altitude. You are aware that just because something is at an altitude, it is not in space? Otherwise I went to space on my last plane journey.
The altitude is 36000km above the equator.
Do you have a religious objection to justifying your claims?
Not claims, but facts.  You would benefit with a face to face discussion with a local physics teacher instead of here.

Look up geosynchronous orbit.
I am fully aware of geosynchronous orbit. How about you try and explain FOR ONCE how we know satellites are in space?
We point TV Dishes at geosynchronous satellites.

Dish network need to point their dishes at geosynchronous satellites. Here are details:

91W Galaxy 17 satellite (G-17):
  • Perigee: 35,779.9 km
  • Apogee: 35,807.4 km
  • Period: 1,436.1 minutes
  • Semi major axis: 42164 km
  • Launch date: May 4, 2007
From Denver, CO:
  • Latitude: 39.7392°
  • Longitude: -104.9903°
  • They point the dish at 41.8° Dish angle
  • Distance: 37,649 km
From El Paso, TX:
  • Latitude: 31.7776°
  • Longitude: -106.4425°
  • They point the dish at 49.4° Dish angle
  • Distance: 37,122 km

35,000+ km is OUTER SPACE and by HELL OF A LOT!
Using SintelSat calculator:

IntelSat IA-6 (93 W) satellite - 93rd Longitude

Denver, CO - 42.3929°
El Paso, TX - 50.2444°

hmmm... almost pointing at the same place (93W vs 91W longitude for the satellites)... The satellites must be in the same general area... Why would geosynchronous satellites do that?

It must be a conspiracy. Satellite dishes pointing at the sky really don't work. The dish companies are fooling all those millions of people putting up useless dishes pointing at the sky. There are really seagulls, balloons or planes up there (that we can't see with telescopes). How high can birds fly? How about balloons? How about planes? (SR-71 Blackbird Speed and Altitude Records - 25,929.031 meters - not KM!) Definitely airplanes - little round ones that are stationary 16.1 mi max up that can be seen from Denver and El Paso (600+ mi away) with dishes pointing up 42° and 50°... right...

Please let us know how Dish companies REALLY get the TV shows to peoples TVs.

Wait, it might be the mythical Aether that does everything but wash dishes in the kitchen sink - or does it do that too?...

Do the math, get a life...
« Last Edit: October 30, 2015, 03:59:31 PM by Jadyyn »
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #92 on: October 30, 2015, 03:57:04 PM »
The problem JRoweSkeptic is either you truly are an idiot who knows nothing about astronomy, cartography, math and dish receivers on TV dishes, or you are just playing dumb (a troll) and want people to spin their wheels. You are really a sick evil person. I feel sorry for you - really.

I play MMOS. I really hate PVP because there are sick evil individuals like you there. They take the fun out of games - out of life.

Just remember, "what goes around, comes around". Some day you will want help - other people to take you seriously. They won't. Don't be surprised when it happens to you - when you or others you care about get hurt. You will have only yourself to blame. Keep it up.

I would not want to be in your shoes.
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #93 on: October 30, 2015, 04:15:44 PM »
Contact the company to answer your question.
So, you can't answer, so you're going to reference someone else and hope. Amazing how it's such a simple concept and you're incapable of justifying it.
I can answer, but why should I?  What are you trying to prove?  The information is available from many sources, but you are obsessed with discussing with a random person on an internet forum.  Weird.  A bit like the rocket discussion that avoids links to full, accurate details.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #94 on: October 31, 2015, 01:22:12 AM »
Contact the company to answer your question.
So, you can't answer, so you're going to reference someone else and hope. Amazing how it's such a simple concept and you're incapable of justifying it.
I can answer, but why should I?  What are you trying to prove?  The information is available from many sources, but you are obsessed with discussing with a random person on an internet forum.  Weird.  A bit like the rocket discussion that avoids links to full, accurate details.
Because this is a forum where we discuss things. Put your money where your mouth is: either prove it or admit you can't.
The information may well be available, but how many sites do you believe put it in the correct context? Amazing how you ignore every argument made against you.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #95 on: October 31, 2015, 01:24:10 AM »
at the same object
Are you going to prove this claim?
No I'm not. Why do I have to prove everything and you nothing.

I've asked you to prove your stupid Sun in the hemidisks or your stupid Aether. What do I get, wah, wah, wah, I don't have time or resources to prove my BS theory. Well I don't have the time or resources either. Well, until you get your rear end to prove something, I am not going to waste my time.

Done the math, it's meaningless until you demonstrate they're pointed at the same object. If this is so simple, why is it every REer outright refuses to answer? This isn't a matter of debate: none of you are so much as willing to explain the fundamental basis by which your argument works.

Here's the thing: you asked me to prove that, and yet the source of your knowledge came with an entire section called 'evidence' which you oh-so conveniently ignored. So this is just another case of your refusal to be remotely honest in discussion.

Justify your arguments, morons.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #96 on: October 31, 2015, 01:39:40 AM »
Contact the company to answer your question.
So, you can't answer, so you're going to reference someone else and hope. Amazing how it's such a simple concept and you're incapable of justifying it.
I can answer, but why should I?  What are you trying to prove?  The information is available from many sources, but you are obsessed with discussing with a random person on an internet forum.  Weird.  A bit like the rocket discussion that avoids links to full, accurate details.
Because this is a forum where we discuss things. Put your money where your mouth is: either prove it or admit you can't.
The information may well be available, but how many sites do you believe put it in the correct context? Amazing how you ignore every argument made against you.
You say tv broadcast satellites do not exist but do not explain what dishes point at.  Give some examples and then we can move on.  You are  disagreeing with the facts known and accepted by science and industry across the world, show your proof.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #97 on: October 31, 2015, 01:53:35 AM »
Contact the company to answer your question.
So, you can't answer, so you're going to reference someone else and hope. Amazing how it's such a simple concept and you're incapable of justifying it.
I can answer, but why should I?  What are you trying to prove?  The information is available from many sources, but you are obsessed with discussing with a random person on an internet forum.  Weird.  A bit like the rocket discussion that avoids links to full, accurate details.
Because this is a forum where we discuss things. Put your money where your mouth is: either prove it or admit you can't.
The information may well be available, but how many sites do you believe put it in the correct context? Amazing how you ignore every argument made against you.
You say tv broadcast satellites do not exist but do not explain what dishes point at.  Give some examples and then we can move on.  You are  disagreeing with the facts known and accepted by science and industry across the world, show your proof.
Transmitters. This has already been explained: balloons, planes, helicopters... any number of things. You just chose to ignore this answer to continue with a downright bizarre fixation with groundbased transmitters.

Now, I won't answer any more of your questions UNTIL YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW YOU PROVE THAT THE DISHES ARE POINTED AT OBJECTS IN SPACE
Why do you so consistently evade answering this question. You've claimed it's easy, prove it.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #98 on: October 31, 2015, 02:10:32 AM »
Contact the company to answer your question.
So, you can't answer, so you're going to reference someone else and hope. Amazing how it's such a simple concept and you're incapable of justifying it.
I can answer, but why should I?  What are you trying to prove?  The information is available from many sources, but you are obsessed with discussing with a random person on an internet forum.  Weird.  A bit like the rocket discussion that avoids links to full, accurate details.
Because this is a forum where we discuss things. Put your money where your mouth is: either prove it or admit you can't.
The information may well be available, but how many sites do you believe put it in the correct context? Amazing how you ignore every argument made against you.
You say tv broadcast satellites do not exist but do not explain what dishes point at.  Give some examples and then we can move on.  You are  disagreeing with the facts known and accepted by science and industry across the world, show your proof.
Transmitters. This has already been explained: balloons, planes, helicopters... any number of things. You just chose to ignore this answer to continue with a downright bizarre fixation with groundbased transmitters.

Now, I won't answer any more of your questions UNTIL YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW YOU PROVE THAT THE DISHES ARE POINTED AT OBJECTS IN SPACE
Why do you so consistently evade answering this question. You've claimed it's easy, prove it.
Just identify a balloon, plane or helicopter used for GPS transmissions.  How many are there? All documentation refers to satellites, why would there not be any information on other transmitters?

You prove the location with some maths.  Knowing dish angles from several locations.   
« Last Edit: October 31, 2015, 02:13:44 AM by inquisitive »

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #99 on: October 31, 2015, 02:46:32 AM »
Contact the company to answer your question.
So, you can't answer, so you're going to reference someone else and hope. Amazing how it's such a simple concept and you're incapable of justifying it.
I can answer, but why should I?  What are you trying to prove?  The information is available from many sources, but you are obsessed with discussing with a random person on an internet forum.  Weird.  A bit like the rocket discussion that avoids links to full, accurate details.
Because this is a forum where we discuss things. Put your money where your mouth is: either prove it or admit you can't.
The information may well be available, but how many sites do you believe put it in the correct context? Amazing how you ignore every argument made against you.
You say tv broadcast satellites do not exist but do not explain what dishes point at.  Give some examples and then we can move on.  You are  disagreeing with the facts known and accepted by science and industry across the world, show your proof.
Transmitters. This has already been explained: balloons, planes, helicopters... any number of things. You just chose to ignore this answer to continue with a downright bizarre fixation with groundbased transmitters.

Now, I won't answer any more of your questions UNTIL YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW YOU PROVE THAT THE DISHES ARE POINTED AT OBJECTS IN SPACE
Why do you so consistently evade answering this question. You've claimed it's easy, prove it.
Just identify a balloon, plane or helicopter used for GPS transmissions.  How many are there? All documentation refers to satellites, why would there not be any information on other transmitters?

You prove the location with some maths.  Knowing dish angles from several locations.
Why would there be? You seem to be struggling with the notion of a secret.
Wow, 'maths', such a clear and specific answer. What if I said you could prove they were at the altitude of a plane with math, would you believe me or would you suggest I actually prove it? If you're just copying Jadyyn's argument, you might want to acknowledge the assumption I've already pointed out, which ruins the whole argument.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #100 on: October 31, 2015, 07:31:15 AM »
Quote
Quote
at the same object
Are you going to prove this claim?
  • Take a dish TV installation.
  • You have an TV show on your TV.
  • Misalign the dish.
  • No TV show. This demonstrates that a signal from where the dish is pointing is providing the data.
  • Realign the dish.
  • You have an TV show on your TV. This demonstrates that a signal from where the dish is pointing is providing the data.
  • This REALLY happens sometimes because the dish gets moved by something.
  • Do this at many locations that have different angles of alignment but are pointing at the same geostationary satellite.
  • (41.5030° Dish angle) Ft. Collins
  • (42.3929° Dish angle) Denver
  • (43.3782° Dish angle) Colorado Springs
  • (44.0535° Dish angle) Pueblo
  • This proves they are getting data from something in the sky.
  • Per Trigonometry, this shows whatever it is, it is 30,000 KM away.
  • This proves there are no seagulls, balloons or planes that are transmitting the data. Especially (1) because they can't fly very high (2) and can not be viewed from all these locations at the same time (3) they are not stationary (the dish isn't moving to track them).
  • This disproves a dome or Aether shell a couple 1,000 KM high.
  • This disproves UFET and DET.
God, you're a troll. Again, nothing YOU have to prove. YOU don't provide any useful information.
« Last Edit: October 31, 2015, 07:34:44 AM by Jadyyn »
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #101 on: October 31, 2015, 07:43:51 AM »
JRoweSkeptic, I can play your game too...

I just started a new thread - "FE model - Height of Sun and Moon". Let's see how FEers - including you - are going to answer the same questions you are asking me.
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #102 on: October 31, 2015, 09:20:33 AM »
Contact the company to answer your question.
So, you can't answer, so you're going to reference someone else and hope. Amazing how it's such a simple concept and you're incapable of justifying it.
I can answer, but why should I?  What are you trying to prove?  The information is available from many sources, but you are obsessed with discussing with a random person on an internet forum.  Weird.  A bit like the rocket discussion that avoids links to full, accurate details.
Because this is a forum where we discuss things. Put your money where your mouth is: either prove it or admit you can't.
The information may well be available, but how many sites do you believe put it in the correct context? Amazing how you ignore every argument made against you.
You say tv broadcast satellites do not exist but do not explain what dishes point at.  Give some examples and then we can move on.  You are  disagreeing with the facts known and accepted by science and industry across the world, show your proof.
Transmitters. This has already been explained: balloons, planes, helicopters... any number of things. You just chose to ignore this answer to continue with a downright bizarre fixation with groundbased transmitters.

Now, I won't answer any more of your questions UNTIL YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW YOU PROVE THAT THE DISHES ARE POINTED AT OBJECTS IN SPACE
Why do you so consistently evade answering this question. You've claimed it's easy, prove it.
Just identify a balloon, plane or helicopter used for GPS transmissions.  How many are there? All documentation refers to satellites, why would there not be any information on other transmitters?

You prove the location with some maths.  Knowing dish angles from several locations.
Why would there be? You seem to be struggling with the notion of a secret.
Wow, 'maths', such a clear and specific answer. What if I said you could prove they were at the altitude of a plane with math, would you believe me or would you suggest I actually prove it? If you're just copying Jadyyn's argument, you might want to acknowledge the assumption I've already pointed out, which ruins the whole argument.
Why would transmitter locations be a secret and how could it be kept?  The details are necessary for receiver design and it's not difficult to spot a balloon and determine if it's a GPS transmitter with a directional aerial.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #103 on: October 31, 2015, 09:39:39 AM »
God, you're a troll. Again, nothing YOU have to prove. YOU don't provide any useful information.
I'm a troll and yet you completely ignore what I'm asking you to justify?
Once again, please demonstrate that the dishes are pointing at the same object. Your whole post falls apart until you justify that claim.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #104 on: October 31, 2015, 09:43:07 AM »
Contact the company to answer your question.
So, you can't answer, so you're going to reference someone else and hope. Amazing how it's such a simple concept and you're incapable of justifying it.
I can answer, but why should I?  What are you trying to prove?  The information is available from many sources, but you are obsessed with discussing with a random person on an internet forum.  Weird.  A bit like the rocket discussion that avoids links to full, accurate details.
Because this is a forum where we discuss things. Put your money where your mouth is: either prove it or admit you can't.
The information may well be available, but how many sites do you believe put it in the correct context? Amazing how you ignore every argument made against you.
You say tv broadcast satellites do not exist but do not explain what dishes point at.  Give some examples and then we can move on.  You are  disagreeing with the facts known and accepted by science and industry across the world, show your proof.
Transmitters. This has already been explained: balloons, planes, helicopters... any number of things. You just chose to ignore this answer to continue with a downright bizarre fixation with groundbased transmitters.

Now, I won't answer any more of your questions UNTIL YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW YOU PROVE THAT THE DISHES ARE POINTED AT OBJECTS IN SPACE
Why do you so consistently evade answering this question. You've claimed it's easy, prove it.
Just identify a balloon, plane or helicopter used for GPS transmissions.  How many are there? All documentation refers to satellites, why would there not be any information on other transmitters?

You prove the location with some maths.  Knowing dish angles from several locations.
Why would there be? You seem to be struggling with the notion of a secret.
Wow, 'maths', such a clear and specific answer. What if I said you could prove they were at the altitude of a plane with math, would you believe me or would you suggest I actually prove it? If you're just copying Jadyyn's argument, you might want to acknowledge the assumption I've already pointed out, which ruins the whole argument.
Why would transmitter locations be a secret and how could it be kept?  The details are necessary for receiver design and it's not difficult to spot a balloon and determine if it's a GPS transmitter with a directional aerial.
That would depend on the balloon: and the exact location of a transmitter isn't necessary for design, they just need the angle of alignment, in the satellite dish case. GPS-wise, the transmitter only needs to know its own relative position. The device is hardly programmed with the location of every satellite: it wouldn't be able to tell where it was in that case. the key is for it to be able to differentiate the transmitters: ie, interpret the signals transmitted.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #105 on: October 31, 2015, 10:58:27 AM »
Contact the company to answer your question.
So, you can't answer, so you're going to reference someone else and hope. Amazing how it's such a simple concept and you're incapable of justifying it.
I can answer, but why should I?  What are you trying to prove?  The information is available from many sources, but you are obsessed with discussing with a random person on an internet forum.  Weird.  A bit like the rocket discussion that avoids links to full, accurate details.
Because this is a forum where we discuss things. Put your money where your mouth is: either prove it or admit you can't.
The information may well be available, but how many sites do you believe put it in the correct context? Amazing how you ignore every argument made against you.
You say tv broadcast satellites do not exist but do not explain what dishes point at.  Give some examples and then we can move on.  You are  disagreeing with the facts known and accepted by science and industry across the world, show your proof.
Transmitters. This has already been explained: balloons, planes, helicopters... any number of things. You just chose to ignore this answer to continue with a downright bizarre fixation with groundbased transmitters.

Now, I won't answer any more of your questions UNTIL YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW YOU PROVE THAT THE DISHES ARE POINTED AT OBJECTS IN SPACE
Why do you so consistently evade answering this question. You've claimed it's easy, prove it.
Just identify a balloon, plane or helicopter used for GPS transmissions.  How many are there? All documentation refers to satellites, why would there not be any information on other transmitters?

You prove the location with some maths.  Knowing dish angles from several locations.
Why would there be? You seem to be struggling with the notion of a secret.
Wow, 'maths', such a clear and specific answer. What if I said you could prove they were at the altitude of a plane with math, would you believe me or would you suggest I actually prove it? If you're just copying Jadyyn's argument, you might want to acknowledge the assumption I've already pointed out, which ruins the whole argument.
Why would transmitter locations be a secret and how could it be kept?  The details are necessary for receiver design and it's not difficult to spot a balloon and determine if it's a GPS transmitter with a directional aerial.
That would depend on the balloon: and the exact location of a transmitter isn't necessary for design, they just need the angle of alignment, in the satellite dish case. GPS-wise, the transmitter only needs to know its own relative position. The device is hardly programmed with the location of every satellite: it wouldn't be able to tell where it was in that case. the key is for it to be able to differentiate the transmitters: ie, interpret the signals transmitted.
Just to be clear, are you saying that none of the signals I am receiving from 20 US and Russian satellites are actually from satellites, but from other moving objects?  As these objects, planes, balloons etc. are at low level it means there would have to be thousands to give full continuous coverage across the entire earth at all times, including in the middle of oceans, as the 1575.42 MHz signal has to be 'line of sight'.

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #106 on: October 31, 2015, 12:00:50 PM »
God, you're a troll. Again, nothing YOU have to prove. YOU don't provide any useful information.
I'm a troll and yet you completely ignore what I'm asking you to justify?
Once again, please demonstrate that the dishes are pointing at the same object. Your whole post falls apart until you justify that claim.
If I prove they are pointing at the same object, will you acknowledge that DET is false - is total BS?
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #107 on: November 01, 2015, 01:17:32 AM »
God, you're a troll. Again, nothing YOU have to prove. YOU don't provide any useful information.
I'm a troll and yet you completely ignore what I'm asking you to justify?
Once again, please demonstrate that the dishes are pointing at the same object. Your whole post falls apart until you justify that claim.
If I prove they are pointing at the same object, will you acknowledge that DET is false - is total BS?
Stop wasting time and answer the damn question. What is your problem?!
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #108 on: November 01, 2015, 01:19:24 AM »
Contact the company to answer your question.
So, you can't answer, so you're going to reference someone else and hope. Amazing how it's such a simple concept and you're incapable of justifying it.
I can answer, but why should I?  What are you trying to prove?  The information is available from many sources, but you are obsessed with discussing with a random person on an internet forum.  Weird.  A bit like the rocket discussion that avoids links to full, accurate details.
Because this is a forum where we discuss things. Put your money where your mouth is: either prove it or admit you can't.
The information may well be available, but how many sites do you believe put it in the correct context? Amazing how you ignore every argument made against you.
You say tv broadcast satellites do not exist but do not explain what dishes point at.  Give some examples and then we can move on.  You are  disagreeing with the facts known and accepted by science and industry across the world, show your proof.
Transmitters. This has already been explained: balloons, planes, helicopters... any number of things. You just chose to ignore this answer to continue with a downright bizarre fixation with groundbased transmitters.

Now, I won't answer any more of your questions UNTIL YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW YOU PROVE THAT THE DISHES ARE POINTED AT OBJECTS IN SPACE
Why do you so consistently evade answering this question. You've claimed it's easy, prove it.
Just identify a balloon, plane or helicopter used for GPS transmissions.  How many are there? All documentation refers to satellites, why would there not be any information on other transmitters?

You prove the location with some maths.  Knowing dish angles from several locations.
Why would there be? You seem to be struggling with the notion of a secret.
Wow, 'maths', such a clear and specific answer. What if I said you could prove they were at the altitude of a plane with math, would you believe me or would you suggest I actually prove it? If you're just copying Jadyyn's argument, you might want to acknowledge the assumption I've already pointed out, which ruins the whole argument.
Why would transmitter locations be a secret and how could it be kept?  The details are necessary for receiver design and it's not difficult to spot a balloon and determine if it's a GPS transmitter with a directional aerial.
That would depend on the balloon: and the exact location of a transmitter isn't necessary for design, they just need the angle of alignment, in the satellite dish case. GPS-wise, the transmitter only needs to know its own relative position. The device is hardly programmed with the location of every satellite: it wouldn't be able to tell where it was in that case. the key is for it to be able to differentiate the transmitters: ie, interpret the signals transmitted.
Just to be clear, are you saying that none of the signals I am receiving from 20 US and Russian satellites are actually from satellites, but from other moving objects?  As these objects, planes, balloons etc. are at low level it means there would have to be thousands to give full continuous coverage across the entire earth at all times, including in the middle of oceans, as the 1575.42 MHz signal has to be 'line of sight'.
I don't know the exact number, but you cannot simply suppose they are at the lowest possible level.
Further, it isn't perfectly line of sight. If it were, no human could accurately measure the angle of a dish: there's a certain directional element, yes, but there is margin for error.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #109 on: November 01, 2015, 01:54:42 AM »
Contact the company to answer your question.
So, you can't answer, so you're going to reference someone else and hope. Amazing how it's such a simple concept and you're incapable of justifying it.
I can answer, but why should I?  What are you trying to prove?  The information is available from many sources, but you are obsessed with discussing with a random person on an internet forum.  Weird.  A bit like the rocket discussion that avoids links to full, accurate details.
Because this is a forum where we discuss things. Put your money where your mouth is: either prove it or admit you can't.
The information may well be available, but how many sites do you believe put it in the correct context? Amazing how you ignore every argument made against you.
You say tv broadcast satellites do not exist but do not explain what dishes point at.  Give some examples and then we can move on.  You are  disagreeing with the facts known and accepted by science and industry across the world, show your proof.
Transmitters. This has already been explained: balloons, planes, helicopters... any number of things. You just chose to ignore this answer to continue with a downright bizarre fixation with groundbased transmitters.

Now, I won't answer any more of your questions UNTIL YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW YOU PROVE THAT THE DISHES ARE POINTED AT OBJECTS IN SPACE
Why do you so consistently evade answering this question. You've claimed it's easy, prove it.
Just identify a balloon, plane or helicopter used for GPS transmissions.  How many are there? All documentation refers to satellites, why would there not be any information on other transmitters?

You prove the location with some maths.  Knowing dish angles from several locations.
Why would there be? You seem to be struggling with the notion of a secret.
Wow, 'maths', such a clear and specific answer. What if I said you could prove they were at the altitude of a plane with math, would you believe me or would you suggest I actually prove it? If you're just copying Jadyyn's argument, you might want to acknowledge the assumption I've already pointed out, which ruins the whole argument.
Why would transmitter locations be a secret and how could it be kept?  The details are necessary for receiver design and it's not difficult to spot a balloon and determine if it's a GPS transmitter with a directional aerial.
That would depend on the balloon: and the exact location of a transmitter isn't necessary for design, they just need the angle of alignment, in the satellite dish case. GPS-wise, the transmitter only needs to know its own relative position. The device is hardly programmed with the location of every satellite: it wouldn't be able to tell where it was in that case. the key is for it to be able to differentiate the transmitters: ie, interpret the signals transmitted.
Just to be clear, are you saying that none of the signals I am receiving from 20 US and Russian satellites are actually from satellites, but from other moving objects?  As these objects, planes, balloons etc. are at low level it means there would have to be thousands to give full continuous coverage across the entire earth at all times, including in the middle of oceans, as the 1575.42 MHz signal has to be 'line of sight'.
I don't know the exact number, but you cannot simply suppose they are at the lowest possible level.
Further, it isn't perfectly line of sight. If it were, no human could accurately measure the angle of a dish: there's a certain directional element, yes, but there is margin for error.
Which means there is no evidence that the GPS systems we use are transmitted from anything other than satellites as shown in the documentation.  Unless you can show otherwise.

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #110 on: November 01, 2015, 06:42:33 AM »
God, you're a troll. Again, nothing YOU have to prove. YOU don't provide any useful information.
I'm a troll and yet you completely ignore what I'm asking you to justify?
Once again, please demonstrate that the dishes are pointing at the same object. Your whole post falls apart until you justify that claim.
If I prove they are pointing at the same object, will you acknowledge that DET is false - is total BS?
Stop wasting time and answer the damn question. What is your problem?!
In the "FE model - Height of Sun and Moon" thread, you say "all a theory needs is to describe observations". Like you not providing measurable proof the Sun and Moon are in the Earth, why should we have to provide measurable proof the dishes point at the same object? I am "describing" the observation that dishes point at the satellite - no measurements needed. Like the Sun/Moon "we know it is in the Earth" so "we know it is the same object" (hey, I can hand-wave too).
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #111 on: November 02, 2015, 08:11:51 AM »
Contact the company to answer your question.
So, you can't answer, so you're going to reference someone else and hope. Amazing how it's such a simple concept and you're incapable of justifying it.
I can answer, but why should I?  What are you trying to prove?  The information is available from many sources, but you are obsessed with discussing with a random person on an internet forum.  Weird.  A bit like the rocket discussion that avoids links to full, accurate details.
Because this is a forum where we discuss things. Put your money where your mouth is: either prove it or admit you can't.
The information may well be available, but how many sites do you believe put it in the correct context? Amazing how you ignore every argument made against you.
You say tv broadcast satellites do not exist but do not explain what dishes point at.  Give some examples and then we can move on.  You are  disagreeing with the facts known and accepted by science and industry across the world, show your proof.
Transmitters. This has already been explained: balloons, planes, helicopters... any number of things. You just chose to ignore this answer to continue with a downright bizarre fixation with groundbased transmitters.

Now, I won't answer any more of your questions UNTIL YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW YOU PROVE THAT THE DISHES ARE POINTED AT OBJECTS IN SPACE
Why do you so consistently evade answering this question. You've claimed it's easy, prove it.
Just identify a balloon, plane or helicopter used for GPS transmissions.  How many are there? All documentation refers to satellites, why would there not be any information on other transmitters?

You prove the location with some maths.  Knowing dish angles from several locations.
Why would there be? You seem to be struggling with the notion of a secret.
Wow, 'maths', such a clear and specific answer. What if I said you could prove they were at the altitude of a plane with math, would you believe me or would you suggest I actually prove it? If you're just copying Jadyyn's argument, you might want to acknowledge the assumption I've already pointed out, which ruins the whole argument.
Why would transmitter locations be a secret and how could it be kept?  The details are necessary for receiver design and it's not difficult to spot a balloon and determine if it's a GPS transmitter with a directional aerial.
That would depend on the balloon: and the exact location of a transmitter isn't necessary for design, they just need the angle of alignment, in the satellite dish case. GPS-wise, the transmitter only needs to know its own relative position. The device is hardly programmed with the location of every satellite: it wouldn't be able to tell where it was in that case. the key is for it to be able to differentiate the transmitters: ie, interpret the signals transmitted.
Just to be clear, are you saying that none of the signals I am receiving from 20 US and Russian satellites are actually from satellites, but from other moving objects?  As these objects, planes, balloons etc. are at low level it means there would have to be thousands to give full continuous coverage across the entire earth at all times, including in the middle of oceans, as the 1575.42 MHz signal has to be 'line of sight'.
I don't know the exact number, but you cannot simply suppose they are at the lowest possible level.
Further, it isn't perfectly line of sight. If it were, no human could accurately measure the angle of a dish: there's a certain directional element, yes, but there is margin for error.
Which means there is no evidence that the GPS systems we use are transmitted from anything other than satellites as shown in the documentation.  Unless you can show otherwise.
Not how it works, no matter how much you'd like it to be. You're attempting to mount a proof by contradiction of FET, it falls to you to justify your claim, which you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are incaapble of. You need to prove your argument right, before it's worth proving it wrong.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #112 on: November 02, 2015, 08:12:28 AM »
God, you're a troll. Again, nothing YOU have to prove. YOU don't provide any useful information.
I'm a troll and yet you completely ignore what I'm asking you to justify?
Once again, please demonstrate that the dishes are pointing at the same object. Your whole post falls apart until you justify that claim.
If I prove they are pointing at the same object, will you acknowledge that DET is false - is total BS?
Stop wasting time and answer the damn question. What is your problem?!
In the "FE model - Height of Sun and Moon" thread, you say "all a theory needs is to describe observations". Like you not providing measurable proof the Sun and Moon are in the Earth, why should we have to provide measurable proof the dishes point at the same object? I am "describing" the observation that dishes point at the satellite - no measurements needed. Like the Sun/Moon "we know it is in the Earth" so "we know it is the same object" (hey, I can hand-wave too).
So, you're incapanle of anything that isn't a bastardization of what I'm saying, I see.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #113 on: November 02, 2015, 09:19:27 AM »
Quote
So, you're incapable of anything that isn't a bastardization of what I'm saying, I see.
"all a theory needs is to describe observations" - What are you saying then?
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #114 on: November 02, 2015, 09:21:57 AM »
Contact the company to answer your question.
So, you can't answer, so you're going to reference someone else and hope. Amazing how it's such a simple concept and you're incapable of justifying it.
I can answer, but why should I?  What are you trying to prove?  The information is available from many sources, but you are obsessed with discussing with a random person on an internet forum.  Weird.  A bit like the rocket discussion that avoids links to full, accurate details.
Because this is a forum where we discuss things. Put your money where your mouth is: either prove it or admit you can't.
The information may well be available, but how many sites do you believe put it in the correct context? Amazing how you ignore every argument made against you.
You say tv broadcast satellites do not exist but do not explain what dishes point at.  Give some examples and then we can move on.  You are  disagreeing with the facts known and accepted by science and industry across the world, show your proof.
Transmitters. This has already been explained: balloons, planes, helicopters... any number of things. You just chose to ignore this answer to continue with a downright bizarre fixation with groundbased transmitters.

Now, I won't answer any more of your questions UNTIL YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW YOU PROVE THAT THE DISHES ARE POINTED AT OBJECTS IN SPACE
Why do you so consistently evade answering this question. You've claimed it's easy, prove it.
Just identify a balloon, plane or helicopter used for GPS transmissions.  How many are there? All documentation refers to satellites, why would there not be any information on other transmitters?

You prove the location with some maths.  Knowing dish angles from several locations.
Why would there be? You seem to be struggling with the notion of a secret.
Wow, 'maths', such a clear and specific answer. What if I said you could prove they were at the altitude of a plane with math, would you believe me or would you suggest I actually prove it? If you're just copying Jadyyn's argument, you might want to acknowledge the assumption I've already pointed out, which ruins the whole argument.
Why would transmitter locations be a secret and how could it be kept?  The details are necessary for receiver design and it's not difficult to spot a balloon and determine if it's a GPS transmitter with a directional aerial.
That would depend on the balloon: and the exact location of a transmitter isn't necessary for design, they just need the angle of alignment, in the satellite dish case. GPS-wise, the transmitter only needs to know its own relative position. The device is hardly programmed with the location of every satellite: it wouldn't be able to tell where it was in that case. the key is for it to be able to differentiate the transmitters: ie, interpret the signals transmitted.
Just to be clear, are you saying that none of the signals I am receiving from 20 US and Russian satellites are actually from satellites, but from other moving objects?  As these objects, planes, balloons etc. are at low level it means there would have to be thousands to give full continuous coverage across the entire earth at all times, including in the middle of oceans, as the 1575.42 MHz signal has to be 'line of sight'.
I don't know the exact number, but you cannot simply suppose they are at the lowest possible level.
Further, it isn't perfectly line of sight. If it were, no human could accurately measure the angle of a dish: there's a certain directional element, yes, but there is margin for error.
Which means there is no evidence that the GPS systems we use are transmitted from anything other than satellites as shown in the documentation.  Unless you can show otherwise.
Not how it works, no matter how much you'd like it to be. You're attempting to mount a proof by contradiction of FET, it falls to you to justify your claim, which you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are incaapble of. You need to prove your argument right, before it's worth proving it wrong.
Yet you have provided no details of how you believe GPS works with supporting evidence.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #115 on: November 02, 2015, 09:33:04 AM »
Quote
So, you're incapable of anything that isn't a bastardization of what I'm saying, I see.
"all a theory needs is to describe observations" - What are you saying then?

I'm saying just that. You've apparently twisted it, in your normal fashion, into "We must directly observe, with our own eyes, every single aspect of a theory, right down to the core of the Earth. if we do not, there's no reason to accept it."
Bullshit, like usual, from you.
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #116 on: November 02, 2015, 09:34:17 AM »
Contact the company to answer your question.
So, you can't answer, so you're going to reference someone else and hope. Amazing how it's such a simple concept and you're incapable of justifying it.
I can answer, but why should I?  What are you trying to prove?  The information is available from many sources, but you are obsessed with discussing with a random person on an internet forum.  Weird.  A bit like the rocket discussion that avoids links to full, accurate details.
Because this is a forum where we discuss things. Put your money where your mouth is: either prove it or admit you can't.
The information may well be available, but how many sites do you believe put it in the correct context? Amazing how you ignore every argument made against you.
You say tv broadcast satellites do not exist but do not explain what dishes point at.  Give some examples and then we can move on.  You are  disagreeing with the facts known and accepted by science and industry across the world, show your proof.
Transmitters. This has already been explained: balloons, planes, helicopters... any number of things. You just chose to ignore this answer to continue with a downright bizarre fixation with groundbased transmitters.

Now, I won't answer any more of your questions UNTIL YOU EXPLAIN TO ME HOW YOU PROVE THAT THE DISHES ARE POINTED AT OBJECTS IN SPACE
Why do you so consistently evade answering this question. You've claimed it's easy, prove it.
Just identify a balloon, plane or helicopter used for GPS transmissions.  How many are there? All documentation refers to satellites, why would there not be any information on other transmitters?

You prove the location with some maths.  Knowing dish angles from several locations.
Why would there be? You seem to be struggling with the notion of a secret.
Wow, 'maths', such a clear and specific answer. What if I said you could prove they were at the altitude of a plane with math, would you believe me or would you suggest I actually prove it? If you're just copying Jadyyn's argument, you might want to acknowledge the assumption I've already pointed out, which ruins the whole argument.
Why would transmitter locations be a secret and how could it be kept?  The details are necessary for receiver design and it's not difficult to spot a balloon and determine if it's a GPS transmitter with a directional aerial.
That would depend on the balloon: and the exact location of a transmitter isn't necessary for design, they just need the angle of alignment, in the satellite dish case. GPS-wise, the transmitter only needs to know its own relative position. The device is hardly programmed with the location of every satellite: it wouldn't be able to tell where it was in that case. the key is for it to be able to differentiate the transmitters: ie, interpret the signals transmitted.
Just to be clear, are you saying that none of the signals I am receiving from 20 US and Russian satellites are actually from satellites, but from other moving objects?  As these objects, planes, balloons etc. are at low level it means there would have to be thousands to give full continuous coverage across the entire earth at all times, including in the middle of oceans, as the 1575.42 MHz signal has to be 'line of sight'.
I don't know the exact number, but you cannot simply suppose they are at the lowest possible level.
Further, it isn't perfectly line of sight. If it were, no human could accurately measure the angle of a dish: there's a certain directional element, yes, but there is margin for error.
Which means there is no evidence that the GPS systems we use are transmitted from anything other than satellites as shown in the documentation.  Unless you can show otherwise.
Not how it works, no matter how much you'd like it to be. You're attempting to mount a proof by contradiction of FET, it falls to you to justify your claim, which you have repeatedly demonstrated that you are incaapble of. You need to prove your argument right, before it's worth proving it wrong.
Yet you have provided no details of how you believe GPS works with supporting evidence.
I don't need to when you're the one making the claim. Everything i say is based on my model, the evidence for which is nearly impossible to go into in any concise fashion. And it's still irrelevant.

You are making the claim. How many pages have you been refusing to justify it for?
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #117 on: November 02, 2015, 09:43:20 AM »
The design and operation of the GPS system is well documented and recognised across academics, industry, governments and users.

If you disagree then provide some evidence.

*

JRoweSkeptic

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 5407
  • DET Developer
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #118 on: November 02, 2015, 09:54:19 AM »
The design and operation of the GPS system is well documented and recognised across academics, industry, governments and users.

If you disagree then provide some evidence.

So, you're incapable of actually providing evidence.

IF YOU ARE MAKING THE CLAIM YOU NEED TO FUCKING JUSTIFY THEM YOU IGNORANT penguin
http://fet.wikia.com
dualearththeory.proboards.com/
On the sister site if you want to talk.

?

Jadyyn

  • 1533
Re: Flight durations vs distances
« Reply #119 on: November 02, 2015, 09:58:06 AM »
Quote
So, you're incapable of anything that isn't a bastardization of what I'm saying, I see.
"all a theory needs is to describe observations" - What are you saying then?

I'm saying just that. You've apparently twisted it, in your normal fashion, into "We must directly observe, with our own eyes, every single aspect of a theory, right down to the core of the Earth. if we do not, there's no reason to accept it."
Bullshit, like usual, from you.
I am referring to "the same object" that you want me to prove. Isn't my ability "to describe observations" sufficient?

Per your post in the "FE model - Height of Sun and Moon" thread:
Quote
People have seen brains. So what? They have not seen yours. Again, do they need to directly observe yours, or could they just deduce from what they know the consequence of a brain to be?
Do I need to directly observe "the same object"? Can I "deduce from what we know" that THOUSANDS of dishes are pointing to the same part of the sky at very high angles (42°-50°), and probably not at THOUSANDS of objects but a single one? This object, based on the angles from the THOUSANDS of dishes is FAR away (35,000+ km)? The "consequence" of that object is that we have been to outer space. This disproves UFET and DET models.
“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.” W.C. Fields.
"The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."