GPS

Quote from: John Davis on March 27, 2020, 10:16:35 AM

To everyone that thinks you can't have ground based GPS, and that GPS refers to a particular system, what exactly are they claiming to do here?

A very poor article.
They even use things like GPS system, which when expanded would be Global Positioning System System.

They aren't even trying to make a global system, completely ignoring what the G in GPS stands for.

It is so wrong it isn't funny.

But it was probably written for "common folk" that don't understand the difference between GPS, GLONASS and other similar systems used for position determination, and instead just use GPS for it all, probably even Google's wifi based positioning system.

GNSS is the system that uses satellites explicitly. Not GPS.

Quote from: John Davis on March 27, 2020, 10:17:08 AM

But good job guys arguing against something that I wasn't even claiming for 3 pages now, and doing so against the facts. It's almost like you guys have no idea what you are talking about and are just arguing against me because I'm a flat earther.

No, it is more that you are trying to play semantics (and failing).
GPS does use satellites. But rather than try to address that argument you instead want to discuss hypothetical systems that could work without satellites.

GPS does not require satellites. Some GPSs might.

Quote from: John Davis on March 27, 2020, 11:57:23 AM

When did I say that commonly available GPS devices are not talking to satellites 20,000 km in the sky?

When you said GPS does not use satellites.
Again, that isn't just saying it doesn't require it. You said DOES NOT USE.

I have been pretty clear about the argument I'm making and what I'm trying to understand about the OP. It's pretty ballsy for you to play semantics and then accuse me of playing semantics when I am doing no such thing.

If you want to play a game of semantics, make sure you use the correct wording.
...
As for your claims of attacking a strawman, that sure seems to be what you are doing. Rather than attacking the actual argument discussing the system in use today you repeatedly want to go off to some hypothetical system which doesn't use satellites.

I am simply trying to understand why the OP would think satellites are required for GPS. Can you guys really be this dense?

Quote from: John Davis on March 27, 2020, 04:03:47 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on March 27, 2020, 01:13:31 PM

Quote from: John Davis on March 26, 2020, 09:19:59 AM

Incorrect. Pseudolites can do this job. Other methods can as well.

Please answer the following direct questions with no wishy-washy claims like "Pseudolites can do this job".

• Can pseudolites provide adequate vertical precision?
  The Dilution of Precision depends on the angular separation of the transmitters and with all transmitters
  
  

Yes

Quote

• How many pseudolites would be needed for worldwide coverage?
  
  

Irrelevant.

Quote

• Why are pseudolites not see or detected?
  
  

Irrelevant

Quote

• Are pseudolites used in the current GNSS, GPS (USA), GLONASS (Russia), Galileo (European GNSS) BeiDou (China)?

Irrelevant

Inadequate

Ask me relevant questions and I'll give you adequate answers.

Quote from: JackBlack on March 27, 2020, 03:09:37 PM

Quote from: John Davis on March 27, 2020, 10:16:35 AM

To everyone that thinks you can't have ground based GPS, and that GPS refers to a particular system, what exactly are they claiming to do here?

A very poor article.
They even use things like GPS system, which when expanded would be Global Positioning System System.

They aren't even trying to make a global system, completely ignoring what the G in GPS stands for.

It is so wrong it isn't funny.

But it was probably written for "common folk" that don't understand the difference between GPS, GLONASS and other similar systems used for position determination, and instead just use GPS for it all, probably even Google's wifi based positioning system.

GNSS is the system that uses satellites explicitly. Not GPS.

Quote

Quote from: John Davis on March 27, 2020, 10:17:08 AM

But good job guys arguing against something that I wasn't even claiming for 3 pages now, and doing so against the facts. It's almost like you guys have no idea what you are talking about and are just arguing against me because I'm a flat earther.

No, it is more that you are trying to play semantics (and failing).
GPS does use satellites. But rather than try to address that argument you instead want to discuss hypothetical systems that could work without satellites.

GPS does not require satellites. Some GPSs might.

Quote

Quote from: John Davis on March 27, 2020, 11:57:23 AM

When did I say that commonly available GPS devices are not talking to satellites 20,000 km in the sky?

When you said GPS does not use satellites.
Again, that isn't just saying it doesn't require it. You said DOES NOT USE.

I have been pretty clear about the argument I'm making and what I'm trying to understand about the OP. It's pretty ballsy for you to play semantics and then accuse me of playing semantics when I am doing no such thing.

Quote

If you want to play a game of semantics, make sure you use the correct wording.
...
As for your claims of attacking a strawman, that sure seems to be what you are doing. Rather than attacking the actual argument discussing the system in use today you repeatedly want to go off to some hypothetical system which doesn't use satellites.

I am simply trying to understand why the OP would think satellites are required for GPS. Can you guys really be this dense?

GPS is the US owned GNSS.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System

If you are using GPS like someone might say Teflon, band aid, or Velcro just say so. We will all accept you meant either GNSS or a generic positioning system.

Quote from: rabinoz on March 27, 2020, 04:09:08 PM

Quote from: John Davis on March 27, 2020, 04:03:47 PM

Quote from: rabinoz on March 27, 2020, 01:13:31 PM

Quote from: John Davis on March 26, 2020, 09:19:59 AM

Incorrect. Pseudolites can do this job. Other methods can as well.

Please answer the following direct questions with no wishy-washy claims like "Pseudolites can do this job".

• Can pseudolites provide adequate vertical precision?
  The Dilution of Precision depends on the angular separation of the transmitters and with all transmitters
  

Yes

Quote

• How many pseudolites would be needed for worldwide coverage?
  

Irrelevant.

Quote

• Why are pseudolites not see or detected?
  

Irrelevant

Quote

• Are pseudolites used in the current GNSS, GPS (USA), GLONASS (Russia), Galileo (European GNSS) BeiDou (China)?

Irrelevant

Inadequate

Ask me relevant questions and I'll give you adequate answers.

I did. The topic is "GPS", Global Positioning System" and the OP is:

hey Guys
So GPS obviously is working as we all can use it. How does this work on a flat earth?

Since "Global" doesn't a flat Earth it could be interpreted as "Worldwide".
You claim that GPS doesn't need satellites but could uses pseudolites so I fail to see why any of the questions are irrelevant.

But, if you insist, please answer at least this: Are pseudolites used in the current GNSS implementations, GPS (USA), GLONASS (Russia), Galileo (European GNSS) BeiDou (China)?

Right here and now my tablet locks onto GPS, GLONASS, BeiDou plus a couple of Japanese local clock enhancement transmitters.

Please use the forum's search function. This question has definitely been asked (and "answered") before.

I'm not even a flattie, but you need to step your game up.

Quote from: John Davis on February 28, 2020, 01:28:14 PM

Why do you think GPS wouldn't work on a flat earth?

How do satellites orbit a flat earth? As GPS requires satellites to work.

Two other relevant posts in this thread.

GNSS is the system that uses satellites explicitly. Not GPS.

Again, notice how you skip basically everything that is said and then bring up a completley irrelavent point.
GPS is a specific positioning system which uses satellites to determine your position on the globe, which can be supplemented by ground based transmitters.
GNSS is a class of positioning/navigation systems which use satellites.
GPS and GLONASS are 2 examples of a GNSS.

GPS does not require satellites. Some GPSs might.

Again, you ignore what is said. In the comment you are quoting i said GPS USES satellites. Do you understand the difference between uses and requires?
And again, you are wrong, GPS is a specific system, not a type of system. GPS does use satellites. You can have a different positioning system which does not, but it would be quite difficult to get global coverage.

I have been pretty clear about the argument I'm making and what I'm trying to understand about the OP. It's pretty ballsy for you to play semantics and then accuse me of playing semantics when I am doing no such thing.

Yes, you have been pretty clear about the strawman you are making.
You are playing semantics.
It is quite easily understood that the current GPS system uses satellites. Rather than focus on this you want to play semantics about what GPS means and what uses/requires means to set up a straw-man about if a hypothetical positioning system would need to use satellites or not.

I am simply trying to understand why the OP would think satellites are required for GPS. Can you guys really be this dense?

It is quite simple.
The receivers are receiving data from transmitters allegedly on satellites, with their position at the time of transmission determined from their orbital parameters, with those positions and the time taken used to determine the location of the receiver.
How would this be achieved without satellites?

Again, you are playing semantics, trying to ignore the fact that GPS is a system which currently exists and is open to the public to use and understand and instead pretending it means any old positioning system which could cover the globe.

So how can GPS, a system currently in use which relies upon satellites, work without satellites?
How does it provide the global coverage from transmitters pretending to be satellites?
How does it provide an accurate elevation?

GNSS is the system that uses satellites explicitly. Not GPS.

GNSS is simply the generic for all Global navigation systems, the first of which was the Navigation System with Timing and Ranging (NAVSTAR GPS) satellite launched in 1978.

The name Global Positioning System does not explicitly contain "Satellite" but its implementation  with global coverage would by near enough to impossible without satellites.

If you disagree, please explanation how a Global system would be feasible without satellites.

---

No one disagrees that local enhancements with pseudolites or some such are possible.
The European Galileo system has this included in the specification to allow seamless integration near airports and shipping channels.

GNSS is the system that uses satellites explicitly. Not GPS.

So you admit that "GNSS is the system that uses satellites explicitly".

But GPS is one of the GNSS implementations so if "GNSS is the system that uses satellites explicitly" then GPS uses satellites.

You might read:

esa navipedia Receiver Types
Multi-constellation
With the emergence of multiple satellite navigation systems (both regional and global), multi-constellation receivers are becoming widely available. This has been encouraged at system design level by working towards interoperability and compatibility among all systems, allowing for seamless combination of the different signal spectra and processing chains into a single, multi-constellation GNSS solution. This approach reflects on the four global GNSS receiver implementations:

• Galileo Receivers
• GPS Receivers
• GLONASS Receivers
• BeiDou Receivers

From the receiver perspective, multi-constellation brings a key added value on solution availability, especially in urban environments: with the increased number of constellations available, the number of satellites visible to the user is bound to increase. This allows several algorithm implementations to be further refined, and the final solution can be computed with higher accuracy and availability (for instance, see the improvements due to higher availability in Dilution of Precision (DOP)).

Quote from: JackBlack on March 27, 2020, 03:09:37 PM

Quote from: John Davis on March 27, 2020, 10:16:35 AM

To everyone that thinks you can't have ground based GPS, and that GPS refers to a particular system, what exactly are they claiming to do here?

A very poor article.
They even use things like GPS system, which when expanded would be Global Positioning System System.

They aren't even trying to make a global system, completely ignoring what the G in GPS stands for.

It is so wrong it isn't funny.

But it was probably written for "common folk" that don't understand the difference between GPS, GLONASS and other similar systems used for position determination, and instead just use GPS for it all, probably even Google's wifi based positioning system.

GNSS is the system that uses satellites explicitly. Not GPS.

Quote

Quote from: John Davis on March 27, 2020, 10:17:08 AM

But good job guys arguing against something that I wasn't even claiming for 3 pages now, and doing so against the facts. It's almost like you guys have no idea what you are talking about and are just arguing against me because I'm a flat earther.

No, it is more that you are trying to play semantics (and failing).
GPS does use satellites. But rather than try to address that argument you instead want to discuss hypothetical systems that could work without satellites.

GPS does not require satellites. Some GPSs might.

Quote

Quote from: John Davis on March 27, 2020, 11:57:23 AM

When did I say that commonly available GPS devices are not talking to satellites 20,000 km in the sky?

When you said GPS does not use satellites.
Again, that isn't just saying it doesn't require it. You said DOES NOT USE.

I have been pretty clear about the argument I'm making and what I'm trying to understand about the OP. It's pretty ballsy for you to play semantics and then accuse me of playing semantics when I am doing no such thing.

Quote

If you want to play a game of semantics, make sure you use the correct wording.
...
As for your claims of attacking a strawman, that sure seems to be what you are doing. Rather than attacking the actual argument discussing the system in use today you repeatedly want to go off to some hypothetical system which doesn't use satellites.

I am simply trying to understand why the OP would think satellites are required for GPS. Can you guys really be this dense?

Your thinking John goes something like this.

I believe the world is flat, therefore there can be no such thing as satellites that orbit a spherical earth.
GPS does work, billions of people use it, therefore it must come from a system that is ground-based...

John then looks up to see if there are any references to the possibility of such a system, which of course there are as but it's for a situation like Mars exploration. Putting a satellite-based GPS system into operation around Mars would be very expensive hence the ground-based approach. The problem is, however, there is no such system in operation on earth no matter how much John wishes there were. There is no evidence of such a system and such a system would by virtue of it being ground-based would not work at sea. Ask any mariner about GPS which is an integral part of the navigation system of every seagoing vessel.

The reference John posted:
https://web.stanford.edu/group/arl/projects/mars-rover-navigation-using-gps-self-calibrating-pseudolite-arrays
Really had me in stitches as it referenced a system for use in an interplanetary situation such as on Mars. I thought John didn't believe in space travel or trust the scientists at Stanford? I wonder how many of the scientists who work on the system John referenced would agree with him?

If John trusts the scientists only at Stanford then he must agree with one of their other projects:
https://web.stanford.edu/group/arl/projects/nano-satellite-attitude-determination

This is another interesting project for spacecraft navigation.

The problem flat earth believers have is referencing any scientific research to support their arguments just don't hold any water. Here is a link to a quarterly magazine that deals with new developments in GPS. Look through them and you will find nothing on John's earthbound mythical Pseudo- sats
https://link.springer.com/journal/10291/24/2

This one makes for interesting reading John. What do you think?
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10291-020-0967-3

I think that what John Davis believes, correct me if I am wrong, is that the Earth is an infinite plane and that we are living in some non-Euclidean space. And that that non-Euclidean space has properties so that it basically appears to us that the Earth is a sphere (ships disappearing bottom first, the distances on Earth being more-or-less the same as we would except if the Earth was a sphere), except that it somehow won't appear round if looked from a very high altitude (I don't know what he thinks a non-fake image from space would look like). And that the satellites staying above the Earth at 20'000 kilometers height are possible thanks to the non-Euclidean nature of space we live in. John Davis, I think, doesn't believe that the Moon, the Sun, the planets and the stars are 3'000 kilometers up in the sky, that they are very far away and that they, for some reason (maybe he can explain), can't be reached.
The Occam's Razor clearly favors the hypothesis that the Earth is round, and a reasonable person wouldn't even consider such ridiculous hypotheses.

Your thinking John goes something like this.

I believe the world is flat, therefore there can be no such thing as satellites that orbit a spherical earth.
GPS does work, billions of people use it, therefore it must come from a system that is ground-based...

When arguing with John you have to remember that he doesn't use the more traditional disc or flat plane models.  He supports a non-Euclidean flat earth that behaves an awful lot like a globe, so satellites may be possible in his model.

I think that what John Davis believes, correct me if I am wrong, is that the Earth is an infinite plane and that we are living in some non-Euclidean space.

Not quite. He believes the surface of Earth (at the large scale) is congruent to that of a roughly spherical object, but falsely appeals to relativity and non-Euclidean geometry to pretend it is flat.
His model is the RE model, with the surface of Earth just falsely called flat.

Quote from: Timeisup on March 28, 2020, 04:00:12 AM

Your thinking John goes something like this.

I believe the world is flat, therefore there can be no such thing as satellites that orbit a spherical earth.
GPS does work, billions of people use it, therefore it must come from a system that is ground-based...

When arguing with John you have to remember that he doesn't use the more traditional disc or flat plane models.  He supports a non-Euclidean flat earth that behaves an awful lot like a globe, so satellites may be possible in his model.

Non euc model is a globe using fancy math to translate the globe into flatness.

Why is it people try and give some idea of what John thinks?  Why not let him do that for himself. The problem as I see it no one really knows exactly what John thinks as he is pretty vague on some things and is in a minority of one. Possibly when he brings his book out his position will be made clear. He said it was already to hit the streets in 2016, so I’m assuming he must almost be there.

GPS has been around a long time, over 50 years, as has satellite TV. It’s clear beyond any doubt that both system have at their core networks of satellites in orbit. The internet is looking to be the next technology that will have a portion of its connectivity not in the cloud, but way beyond in low earth orbit. The numbers of satellites are causing astronomers great concern and there have been quite a few articles laying out their concerns.   

https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2020/1/7/21003272/space-x-starlink-astronomy-light-pollution

Why is it people try and give some idea of what John thinks?  Why not let him do that for himself.

Because John is one of those people who likes to give technically correct but completely useless answers to even the simplest of questions.

Why is it people try and give some idea of what John thinks?

Good question. Why did you try and give a completely incorrect idea of what John thinks?

Perhaps others say what John has indicated to correct that misinformation and try to paint a more accurate point of view of what he thinks?

It would be great if he just laid it out all nice and clearly, but obfuscation seems to be his main game.

I stopped reading a long way back, but this is just silly.


Triangulation and this thing called line of sight.

It's really simple.


Take a cellphone and powered off GPS device into the bottom of a deep mountain valley where there is no cellular signal.  Turn on the GPS device.  GPS will know exactly where you are.  Yet you will not have cellular signal.  Explain why you have no cell signal but the GPS still works.

There is only one explanation and it doesn't involve the earth being flat.

It would be great if he just laid it out all nice and clearly, but obfuscation seems to be his main game.

It's the only game he's got. He dare not reveal . . . . . . . . .

Maybe Leo Ferrari handled it better but he was Australian and had more resources and time to devote to his outrageously humorous treatment of the idea of a flat earth.

Have a look at Flat Earth General / Re: WHY? « Message by rabinoz on February 15, 2020, 07:31:27 AM »

Eric Dubay , that famous Flat Earth Guru claims in The Flat Earth Society is Controlled Opposition!, The Atlantean Conspiracy that

The Flat Earth Society is a controlled opposition group that mixes truth with lies and satire to discredit genuine flat Earth research, a job they have been doing for a long time now.  Founded in 1970 by Leo Ferrari, a suspected Freemason and philosophy professor at St. Thomas' University, Leo spent his life making a mockery of the legitimate subject of our flat Earth.  Though he passed away in 2010, his Flat Earth Society still exists today online as a website/forum which, still true to form, purports several false flat-Earth arguments and treats the entire subject as a dead-pan joke.

This Leo Ferrari

And would Eric Dubay lie ?. (Is the Pope Catholic ?) You've gotta be careful of us Aussies!

I stopped reading a long way back, but this is just silly.


Triangulation and this thing called line of sight.

It's really simple.

Actually, it's multilateration because the receiver doesn't know the angle to any given transmitter.  Not simple, especially when the transmitters and receiver are moving.

To everyone that thinks you can't have ground based GPS, and that GPS refers to a particular system, what exactly are they claiming to do here?
https://web.stanford.edu/group/arl/projects/mars-rover-navigation-using-gps-self-calibrating-pseudolite-arrays

Quote

It is possible to use GPS in a local area using small ground-based GPS transmitters called pseudolites (pseudo-satellites).

Wow. I guess GPS isn't one particular system, and I guess it is possible to implement it on the ground.

What about those who don't consider the systems to be mutually exclusive?
For the submarines in the middle of, say, South Atlantic, or Pacific they still use satellites as more practical solution.
There are no pseudolites there and cost of installing them and keeping them in position would be much higher.

To everyone that thinks you can't have ground based GPS, and that GPS refers to a particular system, what exactly are they claiming to do here?
https://web.stanford.edu/group/arl/projects/mars-rover-navigation-using-gps-self-calibrating-pseudolite-arrays

Quote

It is possible to use GPS in a local area using small ground-based GPS transmitters called pseudolites (pseudo-satellites).

Wow. I guess GPS isn't one particular system, and I guess it is possible to implement it on the ground.

Don't you mean ", and I guess It is possible to use GPS in a local area using small ground-based GPS transmitters called pseudolites (pseudo-satellites)."
You omitted a vital part!

And it might have been better still if you quoted a little more.

Self-Calibrating Pseudolite Arrays
There are currently no plans by NASA to place a full GPS system around Mars. It is possible to use GPS in a local area using small ground-based GPS transmitters called pseudolites (pseudo-satellites). A disadvantage with this approach is that all previous work with pseudolites required that the pseudolite locations be known to centimeter-level accuracy. This is unlikely when placing the devices on another planet.

Please explain how pseudolites could be positioned "to centimeter-level accuracy" over the ocean or were you ignoring ships at sea, submarines and international aircraft?

At this point in the discussion with no answers from Mr Davis, I think we can safely conclude, he has no answers.

Quote from: Timeisup on March 28, 2020, 04:00:12 AM

Your thinking John goes something like this.

I believe the world is flat, therefore there can be no such thing as satellites that orbit a spherical earth.
GPS does work, billions of people use it, therefore it must come from a system that is ground-based...

When arguing with John you have to remember that he doesn't use the more traditional disc or flat plane models.  He supports a non-Euclidean flat earth that behaves an awful lot like a globe, so satellites may be possible in his model.

Sometimes, in science, there are indeed competing theories that are about as likely, given what we see, all of them asking us to accept weird things and it's up to us to find one which we are the most comfortable with. Various interpretations of quantum mechanics is one example. But the John Davis'es Flat-Earth and Round Earth theory really aren't the same. The idea that gravity doesn't exist, but that we are living in a non-Euclidean space (obviously contradicting the theory of relativity) is significantly more complicated than the idea that we are living on a sphere. And it doesn't even properly explain the same observations. You can't derive the formula for the distance to the horizon or the angle at which you see the horizon from the John Davis'es theory, it makes no predictions as clear as that. Round-Earth theory, on the other hand, explains these things perfectly. Also, it fails to explain some observations at all. If there is no gravity and the reason things fall down is that the Earth is constantly accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s^2, how it is that, if you climb on a mountain, the force you are being pulled down with is measurably lower? The John Davis'es Flat-Earth theory is obviously more complicated than the theory that the Earth is round, and it doesn't explain the things we see equally well, and any reasonable person would reject it.

Quote from: NotSoSkeptical on March 28, 2020, 05:14:24 PM

I stopped reading a long way back, but this is just silly.


Triangulation and this thing called line of sight.

It's really simple.

Actually, it's multilateration because the receiver doesn't know the angle to any given transmitter.  Not simple, especially when the transmitters and receiver are moving.

Ok. Yes, "tri/multilateration" doesn't use angles but the concept is similar.  And it's complexity is not within its concept, but it's implementation. 

Quote from: markjo on March 28, 2020, 09:55:10 AM

Quote from: Timeisup on March 28, 2020, 04:00:12 AM

Your thinking John goes something like this.

I believe the world is flat, therefore there can be no such thing as satellites that orbit a spherical earth.
GPS does work, billions of people use it, therefore it must come from a system that is ground-based...

When arguing with John you have to remember that he doesn't use the more traditional disc or flat plane models.  He supports a non-Euclidean flat earth that behaves an awful lot like a globe, so satellites may be possible in his model.

Sometimes, in science, there are indeed competing theories that are about as likely, given what we see, all of them asking us to accept weird things and it's up to us to find one which we are the most comfortable with. Various interpretations of quantum mechanics is one example. But the John Davis'es Flat-Earth and Round Earth theory really aren't the same. The idea that gravity doesn't exist, but that we are living in a non-Euclidean space (obviously contradicting the theory of relativity) is significantly more complicated than the idea that we are living on a sphere. And it doesn't even properly explain the same observations. You can't derive the formula for the distance to the horizon or the angle at which you see the horizon from the John Davis'es theory, it makes no predictions as clear as that. Round-Earth theory, on the other hand, explains these things perfectly. Also, it fails to explain some observations at all. If there is no gravity and the reason things fall down is that the Earth is constantly accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s^2, how it is that, if you climb on a mountain, the force you are being pulled down with is measurably lower? The John Davis'es Flat-Earth theory is obviously more complicated than the theory that the Earth is round, and it doesn't explain the things we see equally well, and any reasonable person would reject it.

Firstly you can not put what John Davis thinks on the same level as any theory conventional science may have. The scientific understanding we have has come through a pretty tortuous route of discovery. The ideas that formed it produced by many talented and gifted scientists. To put Davis in that company I think would be not just a great disservice but an abomination to the men and women who have brought our level of understanding to where we are now. As far as I can see Davis has contributed less than nothing as far as  scientific endeavor is concerned, that is unless you think claiming moonlight is dangerous, dinosaurs don't exist, or that we live on an infinite plane or penguins were produced by rouge Nazi scientists. Though he does have the option of proving me wrong by listing his proven scientific achievements.

How would a Pseudolite work in remote locations or out to sea and still support multi-constellation/multi-frequency GPS units?  This would imply the multi-constellation pseudolite system transceivers would exist side by side.

While a pseudolite system might be technically feasible the number of transceivers needed to cover the entire surface of the earth, maintain line of sight, work at sea, and support multi-constellation/multi-frequency GPS units seems to be highly improbable from financial, infrastructure, and technical support point of view.

Mike

One also has to remember that there is a lot more to the GPS signal than just the signal.  There is quite a lot of data contained within those signals that contain information like a unique identifier for each satellite, ephemeris data that describes the rest of the satellite constellation, and more.  I don't see how all of this data describing a constellation of 24-36 satellites can be simulated by countless pseudolites.
http://www.gisresources.com/fundamentals-of-gps-signal-and-data_2/

This thread:  I dOn'T wAnT tO aDmIt ThE sImPlE fAcT tHaT GpS dOeS nOt ReQuIrE SaTeLiTes.

I don't really see any need to address your strawmen. It has been well established at this point. You can take that knowledge or not. If you want to see more discussion on the matter, there are a ton of threads you can pursue using search or via google.

A generic global positioning system is currently not feasible without the use of satellites.

Now, that's just bad engineering sokarul.

36000000 would be the yearly price tag, and who knows for initial setup; and one can engineer within that price to a certain accuracy. I find it hard to believe you can make such a statement without a lot of work.

It is also interesting to know that since satellites don't transmit their actual positions, their accuracy is questionable and has to be adjusted using ground based transmitters anyways if a certain level of accuracy is desired.