GPS

Quote from: markjo on March 30, 2020, 08:57:58 AM

Quote from: John Davis on March 30, 2020, 07:54:43 AM

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

John, I will freely admit that geolocation services in general do not require satellites.  However, if you want global coverage (as in GPS) in even the most remote locations, then there really is no viable alternative to using satellites.

Yes there is.

Why keep it a secret? Do tell us exactly what that "viable alternative to using satellites" is.

And it must be viable all the way across the large oceans and across remotes deserts where there are no cell-phone towers nor any other transmitters.
I have used GPS across the desert regions of Australia (no towers within cooie) and across parts of the Indian and Pacific Oceans.

Just remember that the location of all of these transmitters must be known to centimetre precision because surveyors are able to achieve that measurement accuracy fro the enhanced GNSS stations.

ICSM: Surveying Using GPS and Conclusion
The accuracy obtained from this method depends on the duration of the observations, but is typically about 1 part per million (1 millimetre per kilometre) so a difference in position can be measured over 30 kilometres with an uncertainty of about 30 mm, or about 100 mm over 100 kilometres. Because the GPS satellites are in a very high orbit (20,000 km) the ends of the GPS baseline can be hundreds, or even thousands of kilometres apart and still observe the same satellites.

You have no idea as to what is located in any "remote," location.

Really, and YOU do?

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

Irrelevant.

GPS uses them, and their number, locations and trajectories are known.

If it can't reach remote locations, why are pseudolites being considered to increase current GPS coverage?

If it can't reach remote locations, why are pseudolites being considered to increase current GPS coverage?

Who says that they are?  I know that ground based augmentation (WAAS) is a thing to help with accuracy, but I haven't heard about pseudolites being used to increase coverage.

If it can't reach remote locations, why are pseudolites being considered to increase current GPS coverage?

Coverage or accuracy? They are quite different and previously your claim was accuracy.

Or are you claiming putting them on Mars is increasing coverage?

The main locations were pseudolites could improve (not increase) coverage would be inside deep valleys where coverage may be spotty due to the walls of the valley blocking signals to satellites.
The locations where they could increase coverage is underground.

If it can't reach remote locations, why are pseudolites being considered to increase current GPS coverage?

I would think your question answers itself.
If GPS cannot reliably reach some locations, the South or North Poles come to mind, why wouldn't pseudolites be considered to increase current GPS coverage.

But note that pseudolites are not in general balloons but ground-based stations of quite limited coverage.

The Limits of Satellite Navigation: GPS Challenges in the Arctic[/b]]The Limits of Satellite Navigation: GPS Challenges in the Arctic
More human activity is expected in the Arctic region in the coming decades. However, satellite navigation remains inaccurate and difficult in this region.
More human activity is expected in the Arctic region in the coming decades. However, satellite navigation remains inaccurate and difficult in this region.

Note: This article was updated on August 7th to correct some inaccuracies and better characterize the reliability of GPS navigation in the Arctic.

Wherever you are likely reading this from, you can probably take for granted that you can use the Global Positioning System (GPS), probably even on your phone, to map out directions to a nearby destination.

However, GPS is not quite as global as its name suggests—the technology is unreliable in the Arctic, an area on Earth that is slowly seeing more human activity due to tourism, research, and industry. As the ice recedes in the Arctic, the region may also become a more common passageway for ships. Accurate navigation is important in the Arctic for all of these situations, made especially crucial by the negative impacts accidents could have on the environment and the difficulty of rescue missions in the case of emergencies.

And then: Army pseudolites: What, why and how?

But more commonly pseudolites are used along busy shipping channels or near the approaches of busy airports to improve positioning accuracy.

If it can't reach remote locations, why are pseudolites being considered to increase current GPS coverage?

Like many of the statements you make this is not supported by any facts.

If it can't reach remote locations...

Can't reach?

Submarines in the middle of the Arctic Sea, or in the middle of Indian Ocean rutinely receive signals from GPS satellites to determine own locations.

Not remote enough?

If it can't reach remote locations, why are pseudolites being considered to increase current GPS coverage?

Like other threads you are involved in John we need some clarification on what you actually believe as you can at times be rather vague. Do you believe that orbiting satellites actually exist and provide the GPS network ......OR.... do you believe that GPS is delivered through some kind of ground-based system?

Oh boy this will be a fun one. Off the the boxes of notebooks. They most certainly are.

Oh boy this will be a fun one. Off the the boxes of notebooks. They most certainly are.

So where are all these ground based GPS transmitters across the ocean?

Oh boy this will be a fun one. Off the the boxes of notebooks. They most certainly are.

If you really do like the facts John it’s very easy to check how GPS is delivered rather than just making stuff up. Go examine the companies that make them, it’s no secret unless you subscribe to some gps lizard tin foil hat conspiracy.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/gps.html

All roads lead to conspiracy

Quote from: John Davis on April 10, 2020, 08:39:39 PM

Oh boy this will be a fun one. Off the the boxes of notebooks. They most certainly are.

So where are all these ground based GPS transmitters across the ocean?

I never made any such claim.

All roads lead to conspiracy

Odd, I'm not sure where I mentioned conspiracy in regards to GPS. Or is this just the normal bigotry that flat earthers should be used to? Reducing our entire world view into "dur hur conspiracy."

As far as evidence for pseudolites being able to increase coverage, here is one of many papers on the subject. Again, a simple look into the IEEE database should provide plenty from over the last 15 years.

https://web.stanford.edu/group/scpnt/gpslab/pubs/papers/Stone_IONNTM_1999_GPS_PL_apps.pdf

ABSTRACT
There are an increasing number of applications requiring precise relative position and clock offset information.
The Global Positioning System has demonstrated precise and drift free position and timing information using Code- Division-Multiple-Access (CDMA) spread spectrum technology. This technology is widely used and relatively inexpensive, making it attractive in applications beyond the scope of typical satellite based GPS.
J. David Powell, Prof. Stephen Rock, Stanford University
In situations with limited or no visibility of the GPS satellites, ground transmitters that emulate the signal structure of the GPS satellites (pseudolites) can be used as additional or replacement signal sources.
Transceivers (which transmit and receive GPS signals) can be used to improve standard pseudolite positioning systems. If their locations are known, transceivers can be used to remove the need for the reference antenna typically necessary in standard differential systems. By using either the GPS satellite signals or other transceiver signals, a self-surveying transmitter array can be implemented, eliminating the need for a priori knowledge of pseudolite locations. In addition, transceivers mounted on vehicles can allow continuous inter-vehicle positioning without the presence of signals from GPS satellites.
This paper provides an overview of the issues associated with GPS transceiver systems. This includes transceiver architectures, capabilities, and limitations. This paper also discusses several transceiver applications being studied at Stanford University including open pit mining, Mars exploration, and multiple-vehicle space-based interferometry.

One should also note that the previous arguments that what I posted from Standford were pointed towards an uneducated audience and therefore misused GPS are debunked as well.

This technology is widely used and relatively inexpensive, making it attractive in applications beyond the scope of typical satellite based GPS.

Typical satellite based GPS? As opposed to what?

As far as evidence for pseudolites being able to increase coverage

No, what we wanted evidence for was that GPS is not available in remote locations.
What your paper indicates is in mines, and not on Earth.

One should also note that the previous arguments that what I posted from Standford were pointed towards an uneducated audience and therefore misused GPS are debunked as well.

Really? Where?

Typical satellite based GPS? As opposed to what?

How about as opposed to non-satellite based LORAN?
Or other CDMA based positioning systems that don't use satellites?

For example, one such system would be Self-Calibrating Pseudolite Array, such as the one discussed here:
https://www.ion.org/publications/abstract.cfm?articleID=3134
https://web.stanford.edu/group/scpnt/gpslab/pubs/papers/LeMaster_IONGPS_1998.pdf

Notice how they don't say they are bringing GPS to Mars, and instead are developing a new system.
Yes, that system will use GPS signals and GPS transcievers, but it wont be GPS.

Quote from: John Davis on April 11, 2020, 03:17:37 PM

As far as evidence for pseudolites being able to increase coverage, here is one of many papers on the subject.

John, that paper is talking about improving accuracy, not increasing coverage.

It does also talk about areas not currently covered, like Mars.

Quote from: markjo on April 11, 2020, 04:23:14 PM

Quote from: John Davis on April 11, 2020, 03:17:37 PM

As far as evidence for pseudolites being able to increase coverage, here is one of many papers on the subject.

John, that paper is talking about improving accuracy, not increasing coverage.

It does also talk about areas not currently covered, like Mars.

I believe it mentoned other areas not covered; such as on earth using ad hoc positioning via pseudolites attached to moving vehicles.

Aside from this, there are plenty of papers I've cited in the past around it improving coverage. Honestly, all I have to show is that there is a place that is not covered on earth; we all know this is the case. Okay, add a pseudolite (air or land based or otherwise) and that area now has coverage.

Aside from this, there are plenty of papers I've cited in the past around it improving coverage. Honestly, all I have to show is that there is a place that is not covered on earth; we all know this is the case. Okay, add a pseudolite (air or land based or otherwise) and that area now has coverage.

So what? No one denies that pseudolites can be used to "fill in" regions with poor coverage or give better accuracy in critical situations such as airfield approaches and busy ports.

But none of this is even slightly relevant to the question of whether the main Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) do or do not use satellites.

If GNSS does not use satellites then there must be a massive global conspiracy involving USA (GPS), Europe (Galileo), Russia (GLONASS), China (Biedou), Japan (QZSS) and India (IRNSS).

I find that very hard to believe but for flat Earthers, I guess it's no problem:

Quote from: John Davis on April 11, 2020, 06:31:12 PM

Aside from this, there are plenty of papers I've cited in the past around it improving coverage. Honestly, all I have to show is that there is a place that is not covered on earth; we all know this is the case. Okay, add a pseudolite (air or land based or otherwise) and that area now has coverage.

So what? No one denies that pseudolites can be used to "fill in" regions with poor coverage

I don't know man. I have to be honest. That's seems to have been the argument so far. Aside from a misunderstanding of what GPS stands for - the S is not satellites folks.

So I have to ask the OG - what is your point; that we can track things using triangulation? Or if being semantic trilateralation? Z

There is nothing impossible about tracking your location on a flat earth vs. a round one. If anything the solution space is smaller and it would be easier to find second solutions to any particular instance.

For fun, let's all google "gps coverage map". Then let's ignore that the whole fucking earth is mountains and valleys.

Quote from: rabinoz on April 11, 2020, 07:11:28 PM

Quote from: John Davis on April 11, 2020, 06:31:12 PM

Aside from this, there are plenty of papers I've cited in the past around it improving coverage. Honestly, all I have to show is that there is a place that is not covered on earth; we all know this is the case. Okay, add a pseudolite (air or land based or otherwise) and that area now has coverage.

So what? No one denies that pseudolites can be used to "fill in" regions with poor coverage

I don't know man. I have to be honest. That's seems to have been the argument so far. Aside from a misunderstanding of what GPS stands for - the S is not satellites folks.

So I have to ask the OG - what is your point; that we can track things using triangulation? Or if being semantic trilateralation?

There is nothing impossible about tracking your location on a flat earth vs. a round one. If anything the solution space is smaller and it would be easier to find second solutions to any particular instance.

Why may I ask did you omit this?

But none of this is even slightly relevant to the question of whether the main Global Navigation Satellite Systems (GNSS) do or do not use satellites.

If GNSS does not use satellites then there must be a massive global conspiracy involving USA (GPS), Europe (Galileo), Russia (GLONASS), China (Biedou), Japan (QZSS) and India (IRNSS).

The generic name GNSS or Global Navigation Satellite Systems does explicitly refer to Satellite Systems.

So wouldn't you care to respond to "If GNSS does not use satellites then there must be a massive global conspiracy involving USA (GPS), Europe (Galileo), Russia (GLONASS), China (Biedou), Japan (QZSS) and India (IRNSS)."

Or are you more intent on showing the deficiencies in the OP?

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

For fun, let's all google "gps coverage map". Then let's ignore that the whole fucking earth is mountains and valleys.

Mountains and valleys?
But Lackless told us earth was flat because it looks flat.

As far as evidence for pseudolites being able to increase coverage, here is one of many papers on the subject. Again, a simple look into the IEEE database should provide plenty from over the last 15 years.

https://web.stanford.edu/group/scpnt/gpslab/pubs/papers/Stone_IONNTM_1999_GPS_PL_apps.pdf

Quote

ABSTRACT
There are an increasing number of applications requiring precise relative position and clock offset information.
The Global Positioning System has demonstrated precise and drift free position and timing information using Code- Division-Multiple-Access (CDMA) spread spectrum technology. This technology is widely used and relatively inexpensive, making it attractive in applications beyond the scope of typical satellite based GPS.
J. David Powell, Prof. Stephen Rock, Stanford University
In situations with limited or no visibility of the GPS satellites, ground transmitters that emulate the signal structure of the GPS satellites (pseudolites) can be used as additional or replacement signal sources.
Transceivers (which transmit and receive GPS signals) can be used to improve standard pseudolite positioning systems. If their locations are known, transceivers can be used to remove the need for the reference antenna typically necessary in standard differential systems. By using either the GPS satellite signals or other transceiver signals, a self-surveying transmitter array can be implemented, eliminating the need for a priori knowledge of pseudolite locations. In addition, transceivers mounted on vehicles can allow continuous inter-vehicle positioning without the presence of signals from GPS satellites.
This paper provides an overview of the issues associated with GPS transceiver systems. This includes transceiver architectures, capabilities, and limitations. This paper also discusses several transceiver applications being studied at Stanford University including open pit mining, Mars exploration, and multiple-vehicle space-based interferometry.

One should also note that the previous arguments that what I posted from Standford were pointed towards an uneducated audience and therefore misused GPS are debunked as well.

Quote

This technology is widely used and relatively inexpensive, making it attractive in applications beyond the scope of typical satellite based GPS.

Typical satellite based GPS? As opposed to what?

Yes John it’s a great system but only if you wanted to find your way around Mars or a strip mine! a fact that has already been pointed out to you. Go read the paper that points out many facts about the satellite based GPS system currently in use. Or is it John, you ignore those parts of the paper you don’t like? What actually is it you are trying to prove?

You love to cherry pick John throwing up an irrelevant Martian smokescreen while ignoring all the facts. I’m beginning to doubt you like facts John, I'm starting to think you have some kind of aversion to them.

You appear to ignore the Lockheed Martin link, the company that actually makes ‘the nuts and bolts’ of the system, along with all the other GPS output from Stanford.
Here let me remind you:
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/gps.html
https://gps.stanford.edu/

I think the establish facts are from the paper you linked to:

The earth currently has a satellite GPS system
A ground based GPS system is possible for certain specialised applications and locations, like Mars, strip mining and for formation flying spacecraft and NOT for a complete global coverage. These are the facts of the matter according to the paper you elected to present. Do you dispute them?

Going back to your alleged love of facts, I think it’s more like your love of ignoring them. Here are two quotes that just about sum you up.


As Hume saw it, the real basis of human belief is not reason, but custom or habit. We are hard-wired by nature to trust, say, our memories or inductive reasoning, and no skeptical arguments, however powerful, can dislodge those beliefs.

In the sciences, denialism is the rejection of basic facts and concepts that are undisputed, well-supported parts of the scientific consensus on a subject, in favor of radical and controversial ideas.

I believe it mentoned other areas not covered; such as on earth using ad hoc positioning via pseudolites attached to moving vehicles.

No, it talked about improving accuracy.

Honestly, all I have to show is that there is a place that is not covered on earth

This latest bit started due to your implication that it cannot reach remote locations.
So it isn't just a case of some place on Earth, like in a mine or inside a building you need to show it for, you need to show that it would be remote and should be covered by the satellites.

But I suppose the real issue is if they were already using pseudolites, why would it be increasing coverage using pseudolites?

I'm asking why GPS would require satellites (and more generally why GPS wouldn't work on a flat earth). So far you haven't given any reason except saying "satellites!"

Giving no coherent reason why GPS would necessary need satellites does not prove your point that satellites are supposedly necessary for GPS to function. Facts matter.

Going back to one of your earlier statements. Of course, we could have constructed a very limited ground-based GPS system that would have covered a tiny part of the world. But we didn't do that instead we opted for a satellite-based system that gives almost global coverage. People obviously thought a ground-based system on a world with 2/3 of its surface covered in water created a bit of a problem.

Face it John the current GPS system you may use in your boat or car or light aircraft is Satelite based. As you said facts matter and those are facts.

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

Since this astronomer and satellite observer has seen many GPS and GLONASS satellites, right where predicted, in his large scope, they are in space.

And I have verified in two ways, that the GPS radio signals are coming from them in the sky, not elsewhere.

www.newsweek.com/flat-earthers-quarantined-wrong-route-trying-find-end-world-1528943

Might they have been more successful had they used used GPS?

www.newsweek.com/flat-earthers-quarantined-wrong-route-trying-find-end-world-1528943

Might they have been more successful had they used used GPS?

Using their brains would have been an even better option.