Fun but...Ins't it inaccurate?
The fact that the video says that the first GPS was incorrect due relativity...
Maybe earlier navigation systems may have had that problem(onestly..don't know), but as far as I remember the first GPS satellite was already built with general relativity in mind.
> Fun but...Ins't it inaccurate?
> The fact that the video says that the first GPS was incorrect due relativity...
> Maybe earlier navigation systems may have had that problem(onestly..don't know), but as far as I remember the first GPS satellite was already built with general relativity in mind.
"At a radius of 9550 km, about 3000 km above the ground, the
gravitational and Doppler effects cancel. Because the GPS orbits are
higher than that, the gravitational blueshift
is the largest contribution. So the net frequency correction for a GPS
satellite is negative, amounting to 4.4645 parts per ten billion.
Nowadays the rate of every orbiting GPS clock is adjusted by this
"factory offset" before launch. But before the first GPS satellite was
launched in 1977, although it was recognized that orbiting clocks
would require such a relativistic offset, there was uncertainty as to
its magnitude, and even its sign. So correcting frequency
synthesizers were built into the clocks, spanning a large enough range
around the nominal 10.23 MHz clock frequency to encompass all
possibilities. After the satellite's cesium atomic clock was turned
on, it was operated for three weeks to measure its rate. The frequency
shift measured during this initial period was found to be 4.425 parts
per ten billion, agreeing with the relativistic calculation to better
than 1%."
"There is an interesting story about this frequency offset. At the
time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977), which contained
the first Cesium atomic clock to be placed in orbit, it was recognized
that orbiting clocks would require a relativistic correction, but
there was uncertainty as to its magnitude as well as its sign. Indeed,
there were some who doubted that relativistic effects were truths that
would need to be incorporated [5]! A frequency synthesizer was built
into the satellite clock system so that after launch, if in fact the
rate of the clock in its final orbit was that predicted by general
relativity, then the synthesizer could be turned on, bringing the
clock to the coordinate rate necessary for operation. After the Cesium
clock was turned on in NTS-2, it was operated for about 20 days to
measure its clock rate before turning on the synthesizer [11]. The
frequency measured during that interval was +442.5 parts in 1012
compared to clocks on the ground, while general relativity predicted
+446.5 parts in 1012. The difference was well within the accuracy
capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then gave about a 1%
verification of the combined second-order Doppler and gravitational
frequency shift effects for a clock at 4.2 earth radii.
[5] Alley, C., “Proper time experiments in gravitational fields with
atomic clocks, aircraft, and laser light pulses”, in Meystre, P., and
Scully, M.O., eds., Quantum Optics, Experimental Gravitation, and
Measurement Theory, Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Study Institute
on Quantum Optics and Experimental General Relativity, August 1981,
Bad Windsheim, Germany, NATO Science Series: B, vol. 94, pp. 363–427,
(Plenum Press, New York, 1983).
[11] Buisson, J.A., Easton, R.L., and McCaskill, T.B., “Initial
Results of the NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 Satellite”, in Rueger, L.J. et al.,
ed., 9th Annual Precise Time and Time Interval (PTTI) Applications and
Planning Meeting, Proceedings of the meeting, held at NASA Goddard
Space Flight Center, November 29 – December 1, 1977, pp. 177–200,
(Technical Information and Administrative Support Division, Goddard
Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD, 1978)."
"NTS-II was launched on June 23, 1977, from Vandenberg Air Force Base.
Originally it was hoped that NTS-II would be a part of the initial GPS
test constellation. It could then have supplemented the satellites
being developed by Rockwell, providing another passive ranging signal
for the user equipment tests at Yuma Proving Ground. Unfortunately,
the NRL ranging transmitter in NTS-II failed prior to the launch of
the first JPO NDS satellites, rendering the NRL satellite unusable for
the Yuma Proving Ground testing."
> Fun but...Ins't it inaccurate?
> The fact that the video says that the first GPS was incorrect due relativity...
> Maybe earlier navigation systems may have had that problem(onestly..don't know), but as far as I remember the first GPS satellite was already built with general relativity in mind.
As I recall it, a physicist at NASA (or another agency) caught the GR issue during a review and raised the problem to the surprise (disbelief?) of the engineers present. To resolve it, the first POC satellite(s) had two (sets of) clocks which could be selected remotely. That quickly resolved the GR issue.
-- "I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.
> Fun but...Ins't it inaccurate?
> The fact that the video says that the first GPS was incorrect due
> relativity... > Maybe earlier navigation systems may have had that
> problem (onestly..don't know), but as far as I remember the first GPS
> satellite was already built with general relativity in mind.
Halfway correct.
It was built with a frequency synthesizer,
with the correct GRT given preset,
to allow for corrections in case GRT proved wrong.
> Halfway correct.
> It was built with a frequency synthesizer,
> with the correct GRT given preset,
> to allow for corrections in case GRT proved wrong.
> > Fun but...Ins't it inaccurate?
> > The fact that the video says that the first GPS was incorrect due relativity...
> > Maybe earlier navigation systems may have had that problem(onestly..don't know), but as far as I remember the first GPS satellite was already built with general relativity in mind.
> > Fun but...Ins't it inaccurate?
> > The fact that the video says that the first GPS was incorrect due relativity...
> > Maybe earlier navigation systems may have had that problem(onestly..don't know), but as far as I remember the first GPS satellite was already built with general relativity in mind.
> As I recall it, a physicist at NASA (or another agency) caught the GR
> issue during a review and raised the problem to the surprise
> (disbelief?) of the engineers present. To resolve it, the first POC
> satellite(s) had two (sets of) clocks which could be selected remotely.
> That quickly resolved the GR issue.
> --
> "I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
> I said I didn't know."
> -Samuel Clemens.
Here you go Browne,this is about right for you mental level -
The next time you idiots decide to leapfrog the Lat/Long system and
the AM/PM cycles with Ra/Dec reasoning be sure to check with an
astronomer first !.
Astonishment and disbelief indeed !,how the world follows a bunch of
completely useless individuals who can;t match one 24 hour day with
one rotation of the Earth will be a horror story taught to future
generations and you numskulls get the starring role.
"Much of the discussion about the theory was concerned with the
readings of clocks when they are moving relatively to each other, and
since I had a wide experience of comparing clocks and measuring time
it seemed to be almost a duty to take a closer interest in the
controversy especially as some of the so-called relativity effects
although very small were not becoming significant in the definition of
the atomic second and the use of atomic clocks." Louis Essen
The real fun hasn't even started yet given that the natural noon AM/PM
cycles keep the average 24 AM/PM cycles pinned to the 1461 days/
rotations enclosed in 4 orbital circuits.
Enjoy yourselves boys,you are all about to join an elite bunch of
individuals in trying to bypass the original Lat/Long system and the
specific references from which the AM/PM cycles are derived.That
groupthink propaganda of switching on and off gps mode can't save you
lot from the fact that relativity is an extension of Newton's agenda
and built on the assertion of right ascension reasoning which assigns
a 1465 rotation/1461 day imbalance,other than the disbelief that
Titanic couldn't sink,be prepared to watch a vicious strain of
empiricism vanish.
> "Much of the discussion about the theory was concerned with the
> readings of clocks when they are moving relatively to each other, and
> since I had a wide experience of comparing clocks and measuring time
> it seemed to be almost a duty to take a closer interest in the
> controversy especially as some of the so-called relativity effects
> although very small were not becoming significant in the definition of
> the atomic second and the use of atomic clocks." Louis Essen
Kind of pitiful, that you have to fall back on the ramblings
of a expirimentalist who did not understand what he was talking about,
--- more than 50 years ago---.
His presentation is also wilfully malicious.
He states for example:
===
> The famous paper published in 1905 does not appear to have attracted any
> attention until Eddington returned from an expedition to study the
> eclipse in 1919, and with great publicity announced to a meeting of the
> Astronomical Society in London that the results had proved Einstein's
> theory.
===
In fact Einstein was nominated for the 1910 Nobel prize
on basis of the 1905 relativity paper.
Every physicist of any importance was aware of it by then,
and relativity was -the- subject of discussion in physics
in the years in between.
It is really impossible to miss this,
even if you have only glanced at the subject.
The relativistic effects on atomic clocks
that Louis Essen was too incompetent to observe
have since been amply confirmed by others.
Jan
And now thet we meet again: do answer my simple question: (fifth try)
What is the period of Foucaults pendulum, (or Sam's gyro)
A) 24h
B) 23h56'
(at the pole, divided by the sine of the latitude elsewhere)
> > "Much of the discussion about the theory was concerned with the
> > readings of clocks when they are moving relatively to each other, and
> > since I had a wide experience of comparing clocks and measuring time
> > it seemed to be almost a duty to take a closer interest in the
> > controversy especially as some of the so-called relativity effects
> > although very small were not becoming significant in the definition of
> > the atomic second and the use of atomic clocks." Louis Essen
> Kind of pitiful, that you have to fall back on the ramblings
> of a expirimentalist who did not understand what he was talking about,
> --- more than 50 years ago---
You keep relativists around like house pets but at least the designer
of the first atomic clock wasn't fooled by silly propaganda.
Tell me that one about the Earth turning to the stars and then moving
on a little more and turning to the Sun in 24 hours !,What a bunch of
intellectual rednecks who don't have enough intelligence among
yourselves to realize that the 1461 natural noon AM/PM cycles
correlate to the equivalent amount of 24 hour AM/PM cycles enclosed on
4 orbital circuits of the Earth.I will go back even further if you
like and show you how the Lat/Long system works with the AM/PM
cycles.
Enjoy yourselves schoolboys,you can add an extension on to the Lat/
Long system called Ra/Dec which uses circumpolar motion as an
observation made using the 24 hour day within the format of 365/366
days of the calendar system but make sure that you do not try to re-
engineer the Ra/Dec system back into celestial references or try to
leapfrog over the Lat/Long system otherwise you end up as a GR redneck
with a 1465 rotation/1461 day imbalance.You couldn't write a comedy
script as good as the ones you follow but being schoolboys,you may as
well enjoy the Earth turning to the Sun in 24 hours no less -
If you behaved like men instead of schoolboys you would spare
yourselves complete dishonor but obviously you have severe
difficulties with the Lat/Long system and the 24 hour AM/PM system -
You see that image built on Ra/Dec,it exists only in the imagination
of rednecks who can't figure out why it is not a good idea to use Ra/
Dec to leapfrog over the Lat/Long system and the AM/PM cycles in order
to re-engineer observations to suit circumpolar motion.
Bury your heads in the sand schoolkids,even a flat Earther has more
intellectual heft than those who imagine a 1465 rotation/1461* 24 hour
day imbalance and that is not an insult,that is a 100% certainty.What
you lot practice is groupthink -
"Groupthink occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group
pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality
testing, and moral judgment” . Groups affected by groupthink ignore
alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other
groups. A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its
members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from
outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision
making."
You get to keep your lifestyles boys but a life with nothing
whatsoever to do with astronomy or the terrestrial sciences.
On one hand he was a superb experimentalist,
the builder of the first practical atomic clock,
and (with others) responsible for the redefinition of the second
and the introduction of atomic time.
(where would we be without it)
OTOH his anti-relativity pamphlet
is on the level of the usenet kooks one can still see today.
He completely lacked an understanding of the basic physics involved.
The Peter Principle in practice:
he grew into the level of his incompetence,
> On one hand he was a superb experimentalist,
> the builder of the first practical atomic clock,
> and (with others) responsible for the redefinition of the second
> and the introduction of atomic time.
> (where would we be without it)
It is amazing watching overgrown schoolkids try to make sense of
timekeeping systems and make up all sorts of stories based on stellar
circumpolar motion which tries to run the Earth's daily and orbital
motions off a single axis -
The original Lat/Long system in tandem with the AM/PM cycle maintain
the information what orbital motion varies while daily rotation has no
external reference as an independent motion and I wouldn't dignify the
'sidereal time' ideology of rotation of the Earth to the Sun in 24
hours as it is more or less up there with a flat Earth ideology.
I have to laugh at the relativity 'switch' which astonishes
engineers,if a child saw a magician do a party trick it wouldn't be
any less convincing but such are people easily fooled apart from
people who actually achieved something.
Lodder,you have no choice but to disappear into the anonymous
group,that is the way these things work,call them killfiles or
whatever,it is just another word for protective stupidity of
groupthink -
"
Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct,
at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of
not grasping analogies, of failing to perceive logical errors, of
misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to
Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which
is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short,
means protective stupidity" Orwell
> OTOH his anti-relativity pamphlet
> is on the level of the usenet kooks one can still see today.
> He completely lacked an understanding of the basic physics involved.
> The Peter Principle in practice:
> he grew into the level of his incompetence,
Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2012-04-26 09:20 , J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Alan Browne<alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >> On 2012-04-25 10:36 , J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>> Kind of pitiful, that...
> >> ... you reply to an obvious troll that the rest of us have KF'd.
> > Yes, of course, but
> The point is to not stimulate trolls by replying to them.
One should not let trolls dictate
what can be discussed by others,
Encountering a herd mentality is quite an experience for a number of
reasons.Genuine achievement is often spectacular and understood in an
individual way such as the reasons behind the Earth's motions,the
creation of the calendar system and the Lat/Long system in tandem with
the AM/PM cycles whereas a herd mentality often sets up individuals or
ideologies to represent the direction they wish to take,examples
ranging from Piltdown man to Nazi doctrine to Newton's theory of
gravity.Louis Essen appears to be among the rare type who looks past
the herd consensus and appeals to common sense for the nuts and bolts
of relativity were meant to cast Einstein's work as a supreme
intellectual achievement whereas what it actually does is expose the
attempt of mediocre minds to escape Newton's clockwork solar
system,even if it meant that they based their escape on the premises
found in a late 19th century science fiction novel -
"Really this is what is meant by the Fourth Dimension, though some
people who talk about the Fourth Dimension do not know they mean it.
It is only another way of looking at Time. There is no difference
between time and any of the three dimensions of space except that our
consciousness moves along it"
"The non-mathematician is seized by a mysterious shuddering when he
hears of “four-dimensional” things, by a feeling not unlike that
awakened by thoughts of the occult. And yet there is no more common-
place statement than that the world in which we live is a four-
dimensional space-time continuum."
You all get to decide which statement belongs to Einstein and one from
the 1898 sci-fi narrative.
The issue is huge,how individual achievement is accepted because it is
clearly understood as opposed to dubious 'achievement' which is a herd
driven thing and often assimilates genuine achievement into supporting
conceptual junk which promotes impossible hypothesis under the guise
of intellectual superiority.It is not wrong,it is criminal.
It lacks any sort of depth of understanding between premise A and
conclusion B
> Alan Browne<alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2012-04-26 09:20 , J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> Alan Browne<alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>> On 2012-04-25 10:36 , J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>> Kind of pitiful, that...
>>>> ... you reply to an obvious troll that the rest of us have KF'd.
>>> Yes, of course, but
>> The point is to not stimulate trolls by replying to them.
> One should not let trolls dictate
> what can be discussed by others,
One should be a good neighbor in the newsgroups and not reply to trolls as it stimulates them to come back again and again ruining the experience for everyone.
-- "I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.
Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 2012-04-27 05:44 , J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Alan Browne<alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >> On 2012-04-26 09:20 , J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>> Alan Browne<alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >>>> On 2012-04-25 10:36 , J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>> Kind of pitiful, that...
> >>>> ... you reply to an obvious troll that the rest of us have KF'd.
> >>> Yes, of course, but
> >> The point is to not stimulate trolls by replying to them.
> > One should not let trolls dictate
> > what can be discussed by others,
> One should be a good neighbor in the newsgroups and not reply to trolls
> as it stimulates them to come back again and again ruining the > experience for everyone.
I post on what I find interesting,
irrespective of the origin.
Surely the curious case of Louis Nessen,
inventor/builder of the first atomic clock ever,
and at the same time a fanatic opponent of relativity,
is something that is on-topic here.
There is more to the subject than what interests you.
> Alan Browne<alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>> On 2012-04-27 05:44 , J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>> Alan Browne<alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>> On 2012-04-26 09:20 , J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>> Alan Browne<alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2012-04-25 10:36 , J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>>>>> Kind of pitiful, that...
>>>>>> ... you reply to an obvious troll that the rest of us have KF'd.
>>>>> Yes, of course, but
>>>> The point is to not stimulate trolls by replying to them.
>>> One should not let trolls dictate
>>> what can be discussed by others,
>> One should be a good neighbor in the newsgroups and not reply to trolls
>> as it stimulates them to come back again and again ruining the
>> experience for everyone.
> I post on what I find interesting,
> irrespective of the origin.
> Surely the curious case of Louis Nessen,
> inventor/builder of the first atomic clock ever,
> and at the same time a fanatic opponent of relativity,
> is something that is on-topic here.
Since GPS necessarily compensates for relativity in at least 2 ways Nessen's "opposition" to relativity is an odd factoid of no use to discussion here. Give him due credit for building one of the first atomic clocks (and most accurate determination of c at the time he did it) and move on.
But he is not the "troll". Oriel is.
-- "I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.
> > Alan Browne<alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >> On 2012-04-27 05:44 , J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>> Alan Browne<alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >>>> On 2012-04-26 09:20 , J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>> Alan Browne<alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2012-04-25 10:36 , J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>>>>> Kind of pitiful, that...
> >>>>>> ... you reply to an obvious troll that the rest of us have KF'd.
> >>>>> Yes, of course, but
> >>>> The point is to not stimulate trolls by replying to them.
> >>> One should not let trolls dictate
> >>> what can be discussed by others,
> >> One should be a good neighbor in the newsgroups and not reply to trolls
> >> as it stimulates them to come back again and again ruining the
> >> experience for everyone.
> > I post on what I find interesting,
> > irrespective of the origin.
> > Surely the curious case of Louis Nessen,
> > inventor/builder of the first atomic clock ever,
> > and at the same time a fanatic opponent of relativity,
> > is something that is on-topic here.
> Since GPS necessarily compensates for relativity in at least 2 ways
> Nessen's "opposition" to relativity is an odd factoid of no use to
> discussion here. Give him due credit for building one of the first
> atomic clocks (and most accurate determination of c at the time he did
> it) and move on.
> But he is not the "troll". Oriel is.
> --
> "I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
> I said I didn't know."
> -Samuel Clemens.
The astronomical equivalent of 2+2=4 is that the Earth turns through
360 degrees in 24 hours by virtue of a specific process underpinned by
the correspondence between the 1461 natural noon AM/PM cycles enclosed
in 4 orital circuits with the equivalent amount of 24 hour AM/PM
cycles.
Newton/relativity is the equivalent of 2+2=5 for a story was
fabricated to make it appear that relativity replaced Newton's
agenda,it amounted to nothing more than a variations such as 3+1=5
but ultimately it is all a form of groupthink
How,for goodness sake,in an era where technological achievement is
unquestioned and there is no lack of confidence in our abilities in
this respect,central to any topic of astronomy and terrestrial
sciences,both separate and linked,there is this hideous,awful idea
that there are 1465 rotations in 1461 days.I can appreciate
unfamiliarity for a short period but this is mindnumbingly ridiculous.
Is there one intelligent person capable of understanding that
retention of the civil timekeeping system is not an issue,it is
actually a good idea to get rid of leap second adjustments as
astronomically they are creating havoc.The problem is the reasons for
the appearance of leap seconds based on circumpolar motion was always
invalid as it originates in Flamsteed's errant conclusion that stellar
circumpolar motion proved the Earth's rotation is constant.It is Not,I
repeat,it does not prove rotation is constant as it comes up against
the original AM/PM system tied to the Lat/Long system.
Beautiful isn't it ?,somewhere on the equator it is 8AM sunrise and
180 degrees on the other side of the Earth it is 8PM sunset and about
12 hours later it will be reversed as one 24 hour day progresses into
the next 24 hour day and maintains the correspondence with the Lat/
Long system.Sure there is the natural noon inequalities which
represent the separate quasi-rotation arising from the orbital motion
of the Earth yet interpreters are supposed to treat daily rotation
separately and consider how the constant progression of 24 hour days
substitutes for constant rotation through 360 degrees.
This is the system your GPS is built on,the effort of so many great
men stretching back to remote antiquity and so what if Flamsteed went
too far and decided that daily rotation is linked directly to
circumpolar motion,it is an error this era doesn't have to live with
as it creates a notorious 1465 rotation/1461 day imbalance.
How does it happen that men knowingly shut out the most basic fact of
all,the astronomical equivalent of 2+2=4 because like it or not
guys,the system you are working off,at least when applied to planetary
dynamics,is a late 17th century parasitic thing attached to the Lat/
Long system and the AM/PM cycles that contain all the information on
the daily and orbital characteristics of the Earth.
Maybe there is one intelligent person,maybe one in a thousand,who
realizes the advantage of keeping civil timekeeping separate to
planetary dynamics so everyone can do their work properly and that it
is not an attack on a community,it is men behaving like men with
technical and historical details,nothing more or nothing less.
