[geocentrism] Re: Satellites and TV
- From: "Glover, Rob" <Rob.Glover@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 17:31:18 +0100
(subject renamed from Voyager thread)
>Yes, you are exactly right about the TV - the reason Dad doesn't have one
is
>because there are so many dreadful programmes and 'dramas' now which he
>would rather not watch! I feel the same!
Let's clarify here - I have no problem with anyone choosing not to have a
TV. I've no beef with Neville on that score, I am fed up of make-over
programmes myself. However I would miss BBC4.
>You are also right in saying that Dad's reasoning for debating the
>satellites is NOT due to the fact that he no longer keeps a TV in the
house.
>Rather, he questions the extent of satellite capabilities
He does more than that, he questions their very existence! What an insult to
the thousands of dedicated engineers from companies all over the world
(including the company I work for, though we just do the software) who have
worked on and built these machines throughout their careers.
>based on various
>different facts (one example being that aeroplanes do not use satellites
>when they land because they are not accurate enough),
The main reason aircraft don't use GPS for their final runway approach and
landing, it because they don't need it and GPS is still quite new. At runway
approach range, they get good enough resolution and glide path information
from the older ILS (Instrumented Landing System) using radio beacons mounted
round the perimeter of the runway, and GCA (Ground Control Approach) radars.
But nowadays the FAA is considering the use of global positioning system
instead of, or in addition to, the existing microwave systems for this job.
The reason being that GPS uses satellites for navigation between airports
(this was my original point) and it is exceedingly precise. But don't take
my word for it. Do your own research at the library or on the net.
>and also based on his extensive knowledge of Physics!
Which reminds me, there is a problem with his Stellar distances paper I need
to get round to mentioning to him.
>Kind Regards,
>Elizabeth Jones.
Best regards, Rob.
This e-mail and any attachment is for authorised use by the intended
recipient(s) only. It may contain proprietary material, confidential
information and/or be subject to legal privilege. It should not be copied,
disclosed to, retained or used by, any other party. If you are not an intended
recipient then please promptly delete this e-mail and any attachment and all
copies and inform the sender. Thank you.
Other related posts:
