EARTH ISN'T FLAT

lol, very true, hands up there

You're an okay guy in my book. Truce on spelling and grammar, my friend?

Quote from: TSEE on June 09, 2007, 09:59:37 AM

lol, very true, hands up there

You're an okay guy in my book. Truce on spelling and grammar, my friend?

I'll go with that one 

Quote from: Mr. Ireland on June 08, 2007, 04:18:22 PM

That's a pic, it can be made.

We'd like a demonstration. How about a similar picture of the flat earth as viewed by the same position? Remember that we're smart enough to detect Photoshop artifacts.

Which position is that?

Quote from: Gulliver on June 08, 2007, 04:25:25 PM

Quote from: Mr. Ireland on June 08, 2007, 04:18:22 PM

That's a pic, it can be made.

We'd like a demonstration. How about a similar picture of the flat earth as viewed by the same position? Remember that we're smart enough to detect Photoshop artifacts.

Which position is that?

The same position as the camera in the questioned photo.

But that is not a photo according to FE-ers. It's a fake image. Hence, no real camera is positioned.

But that is not a photo according to FE-ers. It's a fake image. Hence, no real camera is positioned.

Correct! If so, then FEers don't need to go into space to create their own version, thereby demonstrating their claim, right? They just simulate the camera position as they allege a REers must have done.

Quote from: Bushido on June 09, 2007, 10:38:03 AM

But that is not a photo according to FE-ers. It's a fake image. Hence, no real camera is positioned.

Correct! If so, then FEers don't need to go into space to create their own version, thereby demonstrating their claim, right? They just simulate the camera position as they allege a REers must have done.

What are you talking about???

No, the only time four signals is required is on start up, in order to sync the receiver's on board clock, or if you wish to determine your altitude, if you are not on the surface of the earth.  You only need three to determine your position.

First of all they use way more then 4 so they get the error down.  I don't know about you but my spot here on earth has 3 coordinates x,y,z. 

And you skipped half my argument.  Good job you. 

First of all they use way more then 4 so they get the error down.  I don't know about you but my spot here on earth has 3 coordinates x,y,z. 

So what if they use more, I said the only need three.  Perhaps you need to take a remedial reading along class along with your English and chemistry.  And so what about you having 3 coordinates?  What does that have to do with only needing three signals?

Quote from: sokarul on June 09, 2007, 10:56:48 AM

First of all they use way more then 4 so they get the error down.  I don't know about you but my spot here on earth has 3 coordinates x,y,z. 

So what if they use more, I said the only need three.  Perhaps you need to take a remedial reading along class along with your English and chemistry.  And so what about you having 3 coordinates?  What does that have to do with only needing three signals?

You need 4 signals to get 3 coordinates. 
You need to go back to high school and take CS debate of something.  Ignoring posts means you give up that argument.  O and since you say I need to take English I will point out how you should go back and learn  what the word "cause" means.     

You need 4 signals to get 3 coordinates. 

No, you don't. You need 3.

EDIT:

For the mechanically and geometrically challenged:

The signals are used to measure travel time, and, when multiplied with the speed of light in vacuum, distance between points. So, imagine that you know the distance from one definite point (the first emitter). That means that you are positioned on a sphere with the radius equal to the distance end the emitter at its center. This is a 2-dimensional continuum. Now, let’s say you also know the distance from a second definite point (the second emitter). This also determines another sphere. The intersection of the two spheres is generally a circle or a point in the extreme cases. Now, if you know the distance from a third definite point (the third emitter), then the set of the possible positions narrows down to the intersection of the third sphere and the circle, and that is a point. In other words, you determined your position uniquely. Put in another way. Try moving a body that is fixed with three rigid rods.

You need 4 signals to get 3 coordinates. 

As I stated before, if you are on the surface of the earth, you only need three. If you want altitude information, and you are not on the earth then you need four.  Like I said already.



Ignoring stupid arguments is just that, ignoring stupid arguments.

Quote from: TheEngineer on June 08, 2007, 10:49:53 PM

Please do a search.  I've posted all this stuff before. 

I read all 46 of your posts that contain "GPS".

You only read 46 posts?  There should be about 46 pages, as this is brought up hundreds of times, or at least it feels like it.

Were we not talking about stratellites?  Why would you do a search on GPS?

Quote from: Gulliver on June 09, 2007, 07:38:35 AM

Quote from: TheEngineer on June 08, 2007, 10:49:53 PM

Please do a search.  I've posted all this stuff before. 

I read all 46 of your posts that contain "GPS".

You only read 46 posts?  There should be about 46 pages, as this is brought up hundreds of times, or at least it feels like it.

Were we not talking about stratellites?  Why would you do a search on GPS?

I have to wonder about the advanced search function. I searched on "GPS" posted by "TheEngineer"  from 0 to 9999 days ago, most recent first, display as message.

I'm only concerned about GPS right now, and I thought you argued that stratellites were the solution for offshore positioning.

Quote from: sokarul on June 09, 2007, 11:08:20 AM

You need 4 signals to get 3 coordinates. 

As I stated before, if you are on the surface of the earth, you only need three. If you want altitude information, and you are not on the earth then you need four.  Like I said already.



Ignoring stupid arguments is just that, ignoring stupid arguments.

I didn't know climbing A mountain took you off the earth.  Idiot

Lol you ignored the stratellites argument because you dont't have an answer. 

I didn't know climbing A mountain took you of the earth.  Idiot

It doesn't, and I didn't say it did.  Would you like me to help you sign up for those remedial reading classes next semester?

Quote from: sokarul on June 09, 2007, 02:59:24 PM

I didn't know climbing A mountain took you of the earth.  Idiot

It doesn't, and I didn't say it did.  Would you like me to help you sign up for those remedial reading classes next semester?

Yes please.
In other news if you think spell check will catch "of" not being "off" then you are retarded. 

I don't expect spell check to catch it.  I expect a junior in college to know the correct usage of the words.  But don't worry, we can get you into a remedial English class, too.  That, by the way, was your error.  You keep using "to" in places that call for the word "too".

Quote from: sokarul on June 09, 2007, 11:08:20 AM

You need 4 signals to get 3 coordinates. 

No, you don't. You need 3.

EDIT:

For the mechanically and geometrically challenged:

The signals are used to measure travel time, and, when multiplied with the speed of light in vacuum, distance between points. So, imagine that you know the distance from one definite point (the first emitter). That means that you are positioned on a sphere with the radius equal to the distance end the emitter at its center. This is a 2-dimensional continuum. Now, let’s say you also know the distance from a second definite point (the second emitter). This also determines another sphere. The intersection of the two spheres is generally a circle or a point in the extreme cases. Now, if you know the distance from a third definite point (the third emitter), then the set of the possible positions narrows down to the intersection of the third sphere and the circle, and that is a point. In other words, you determined your position uniquely. Put in another way. Try moving a body that is fixed with three rigid rods.

That's mostly right. Three signals at one moment gets it down to two points. One can usually be eliminated. Regardless, a moment later the same three signals give two points again and only one will overlap with the first two. The reason three signals gives two points is hard to understand. Each signal gives you the distance from the transmitter, but not the direction. With two signals create two intersecting spheres. Their intersection, as a rule, defines a circle, an infinite number of points. Adding a third signal provides in general just two points of intersection of all three spheres. Adding a fourth signal (or the tricks I mentioned before) gives just one point of intersection, as a rule, for all four spheres.

So in the battle of 3 versus 4, I'd say we have a draw.

Ok I will take an English class and you can take Modern Physics or what ever they call it around you.  Here is covers General Relativity along with some other stuff like the Schrödinger equation and the uncertainty principle.

So in the battle of 3 versus 4, I'd say we have a draw.

Like I stated before, you only need three if you are on the surface of the earth.  Why?  Because the earth acts as your fourth sphere.  If your receiver has geographic data for your region, it can determine your ASL altitude based on the ASL altitude of you location.  If you are not on the surface, you need four to get your altitude.  You also need four to sync the onboard clock of the receiver to the transmitter.

Ok I will take an English class and you can take Modern Physics or what ever they call it around you.  Here is covers General Relativity along with some other stuff like the Schrödinger equation and the uncertainty principle.

I have taken a Modern Physics class.  General Relativity is not part of it.

Quote from: Bushido on June 09, 2007, 11:12:48 AM

Quote from: sokarul on June 09, 2007, 11:08:20 AM

You need 4 signals to get 3 coordinates. 

No, you don't. You need 3.

EDIT:

For the mechanically and geometrically challenged:

The signals are used to measure travel time, and, when multiplied with the speed of light in vacuum, distance between points. So, imagine that you know the distance from one definite point (the first emitter). That means that you are positioned on a sphere with the radius equal to the distance end the emitter at its center. This is a 2-dimensional continuum. Now, let’s say you also know the distance from a second definite point (the second emitter). This also determines another sphere. The intersection of the two spheres is generally a circle or a point in the extreme cases. Now, if you know the distance from a third definite point (the third emitter), then the set of the possible positions narrows down to the intersection of the third sphere and the circle, and that is a point. In other words, you determined your position uniquely. Put in another way. Try moving a body that is fixed with three rigid rods.

That's mostly right. Three signals at one moment gets it down to two points. One can usually be eliminated. Regardless, a moment later the same three signals give two points again and only one will overlap with the first two. The reason three signals gives two points is hard to understand. Each signal gives you the distance from the transmitter, but not the direction. With two signals create two intersecting spheres. Their intersection, as a rule, defines a circle, an infinite number of points. Adding a third signal provides in general just two points of intersection of all three spheres. Adding a fourth signal (or the tricks I mentioned before) gives just one point of intersection, as a rule, for all four spheres.

So in the battle of 3 versus 4, I'd say we have a draw.

Looks like they updated Howstuffworks.com but here

The Earth itself can act as a fourth sphere -- only one of the two possible points will actually be on the surface of the planet, so you can eliminate the one in space. Receivers generally look to four or more satellites, however, to improve accuracy and provide precise altitude information.

I have taken a Modern Physics class.  General Relativity is not part of it.

It is where I go to school. Its also in my book which is sitting next to me. "Modern Physics" By Jeremy Bernstein, Paul Fishbane, and Stephen Gasiorowicz.

Quote from: TheEngineer on June 09, 2007, 05:20:57 PM

I have taken a Modern Physics class.  General Relativity is not part of it.

It is where I go to school. Its also in my book which is sitting next to me. "Modern Physics" By Jeremy Bernstein, Paul Fishbane, and Stephen Gasiorowicz.

It was in my book also.  It was not taught, and has never been, in that class.

Quote from: sokarul on June 09, 2007, 05:23:59 PM

Quote from: TheEngineer on June 09, 2007, 05:20:57 PM

I have taken a Modern Physics class.  General Relativity is not part of it.

It is where I go to school. Its also in my book which is sitting next to me. "Modern Physics" By Jeremy Bernstein, Paul Fishbane, and Stephen Gasiorowicz.

It was in my book also.  It was not taught, and has never been, in that class.

I don't know what to say.  They taught it to us, but then again the physics department is based at CU Denver(there are three school on one campus).
   

Maybe they should have spent more time on the Special Relativity stuff, 'cause, um...acceleration in a diagram about SR...wow. 

Maybe they should have spent more time on the Special Relativity stuff, 'cause, um...acceleration in a diagram about SR...wow. 

Yeah because um gravitation is acceleration...wow.   

Yes, it sure is.  You didn't learn this in your Modern Physics class, even though they taught it to you?  Did you just smoke weed the entire time you were in that class?

Yes, it sure is.  You didn't learn this in your Modern Physics class, even though they taught it to you?  Did you just smoke weed the entire time you were in that class?

I guess I missed the part where they said the name of the action of two masses being attracted to each other is called acceleration.  O thats right, because it not.  I'm still waiting for you to post something saying Gravitation is acceleration.

Remember how I told you you don't know what the word "cause" means.  According to your logic, when I push down on my accelerator pedal to make my car move the pedal magically becomes the engine.  The pedal doesn't "cause" the engine to accelerate the car because the pedal because the engine to accelerate the car.