The Theory of General Relativity (GR) and Global Positional Satellites (GPS)
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Australopithecus Afarensis" <fossi...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:0Z8bb.1233$vj2.1161@fed1read06...
> Does GPS really prove GR right? Or does GPS actually proves GR wrong?
>
> According to GR, the time on the satellite is going to be faster than the
> time on earth by
>
> sqrt(- g_00 at satellite altitude) / sqrt(- g_00 on earth), where
>
> g_00 = e^(- 2 G M / (c^2 r))
> G = gravitational constant
> M = mass of earth
> c = speed of light
> r = distance from the center of earth, or
>
> GPS time is 45nSec per day faster than on earth. This is then
implemented
> to the GPS, and everything is so far so good.
>
> Now, draw a black box around any one of the GPS. The acceleration
> experienced by one such GPS is ZERO (gravitational force = centrifugal
> force). Thus according to the Equivalence principle, the time dilation
> should only be
>
> sqrt(- g_00 on earth), which would result to be much more than 45nSec per
> day.
>
> My conclusion is that GR is wrong.
Guess again. Curvature at that altitude is... Velocity at that altitude
to stay in orbit is...
You are being silly again. Have another beer.
David A. Smith
AndroclesInEngland
"dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
news:T29bb.3890$gv5.618@fed1read05...
correspond with the master clock at the Naval Observatory. It only makes
common sense to do so, from an engineering point of view. If one clock is
running slow or fast, as all clocks will do to some extent, the choice is to
replace it or reset it. Resetting is fairly inexpensive, you have but to
send a signal to it, and replacement requires a launch. Nobody is going to
wait around to check the time of each one and then reset it, or leave it
alone if it's ok, that requires too much intervention. The simple and
obvious solution is just to reset them as they pass overhead. Perturbation
of orbit is a far more serious problem, requiring thrust to correct.
All the argument about how accurate they run is futile, but I'll tell you
this: they all agree very closely with time here on the surface. :)
Androcles
Randy Poe
<fossi...@cox.net> wrote:
>Does GPS really prove GR right? Or does GPS actually proves GR wrong?
Neither. GPS provides confirmation that GR predictions are correct, to
the limits of our ability to measure time accuracy.
>GPS time is 45nSec per day faster than on earth. This is then implemented
>to the GPS, and everything is so far so good.
I thought the number was 28 microseconds per day.
- Randy
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"AndroclesInEngland" <jp006...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Irmbb.10$Kd...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
> news:T29bb.3890$gv5.618@fed1read05...
...
> > > My conclusion is that GR is wrong.
> >
> > Guess again. Curvature at that altitude is... Velocity at that
altitude
> > to stay in orbit is...
> >
> > You are being silly again. Have another beer.
> >
> Who actually knows?
Of the average joe on Earth, not many.
> GPS clocks are regularly (and automatically) reset to
> correspond with the master clock at the Naval Observatory. It only makes
> common sense to do so, from an engineering point of view. If one clock is
> running slow or fast, as all clocks will do to some extent, the choice is
to
> replace it or reset it. Resetting is fairly inexpensive, you have but to
> send a signal to it, and replacement requires a launch. Nobody is going
to
> wait around to check the time of each one and then reset it, or leave it
> alone if it's ok, that requires too much intervention. The simple and
> obvious solution is just to reset them as they pass overhead.
Perturbation
> of orbit is a far more serious problem, requiring thrust to correct.
> All the argument about how accurate they run is futile, but I'll tell you
> this: they all agree very closely with time here on the surface. :)
And this is not surprising, since most clocks for us average folk are set
by GPS.
David A. Smith
xxein
xxein: I'm glad Lucy asked and I'm glad you responded because Lucy
says 45 ns/day and others say 38 ns/day. I get 46~.4-6 ns/day
depending upon 23h56m and 24h. This discrepency is too large for
sidereal effects and ~M. What may cause this? Thx in advance.
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"xxein" <xx...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:cce403e3.03092...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
news:<T29bb.3890$gv5.618@fed1read05>...
...
> > > My conclusion is that GR is wrong.
> >
> > Guess again. Curvature at that altitude is... Velocity at that
altitude
> > to stay in orbit is...
> >
> > You are being silly again. Have another beer.
>
> xxein: I'm glad Lucy asked and I'm glad you responded because Lucy
> says 45 ns/day and others say 38 ns/day. I get 46~.4-6 ns/day
> depending upon 23h56m and 24h. This discrepency is too large for
> sidereal effects and ~M. What may cause this? Thx in advance.
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
scroll down to the paragraph starting "Relativistic effects on satellite
clocks can be combined ..." about halfway down the page.
I get 1,226 hits on AltaVista Advancd, using:
GPS and clock and (GR or "general relativity")
David A. Smith
Randy Poe
wrote:
OK, my memory was off: It's 38 microseconds per day.
http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp
You're 3 orders of magnitude off.
Here's one link that shows the actual calculation:
http://www.eftaylor.com/oersted/
- Randy
eugen negut
http://www.freephysics.org/en/gps.htm
In which you can see that GPS show that all, SR and GR are wrong.
AndroclesInEngland
unlike some of those here) of a little town out west, where there was a fort
nearby. Each day at noon the master sergeant fired a gun at exactly noon.
One day his watch failed, so he used his binoculars to look at the church
clock. This went on for a year or two, and the townspeople started to notice
that the sun wasn't overhead when they heard the gun. Realizing this, he
went to see the preacher, and explained how he was timing the firing of his
gun. The preacher replied, "Oh, I've been setting the church clock to 12.00
o'clock when I hear the gun go off...."
Androcles
Tom Roberts
> Does GPS really prove GR right? Or does GPS actually proves GR wrong?
Neither. It is not possible to "prove" any physical theory. Actual
mesurements using GPS satellites and ground stations are consistent with
the predictions of GR to excellent accuracy (i.e. within the intrinsic
accuracy of the apparatus).
> [...] My conclusion is that GR is wrong.
A MUCH better conclusion is that you do not know how to apply GR to the
problem. Your simplistic "analysis" is wrong -- the equivalence
principle does NOT imply what you claim. One must use g_00 WHERE THE
CLOCK IS LOCATED, and one must INTEGRATE IT ALONG THE CLOCK'S PATH.
Tom Roberts tjro...@lucent.com
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Australopithecus Afarensis" <fossi...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:xPwbb.1971$vj2.783@fed1read06...
> Although the centrifugal force is a Newtonian concept, at GPS level, it
is
> still a form of acceleration. Thus, according to GR, acceleation is
> indistiguishable between gravity and kinetic acceleration. That means
the
> centrifugal force would also uncurve the curved space created by the
earth!
Orbiting is free of any forces to maintain the orbit... in GR. So your
statement "according to GR" is false.
> In the meantime, I will have more cans of beer before you explain why
>
> ** On earth, we experience acceleration, so time is dilated
Our position in the Earth's, Moon's, Sun's and Milky Way's gravity "field"
to name the closer neighbors.
> ** On GPS, they experience no acceleration, time is dilated anyway
Still pretty close to all those bodies, hunh? Curvature still present, and
has "much" higher velocity. Still has reason to have a time dilation. And
is in a different frame than us, which is what the "calculation stuff" is
all about.
Explained. Have some coffee now. I have to go to work.
David A. Smith
xxein
xxein: Thanks. I get the right answer now. My mistake was thinking
that they were geo-stationary when in fact they have an orbital period
of ~12 hrs. Why didn't I KNOW that? Oh well, live and learn.
I had that link at one time. Maybe it got lost when I got a new
computer (although I thought I saved all that stuff). Maybe it has a
name I didn't recognise. Maybe I should go away now. Seriously
though, thanks and thanks again.
If I can return the favor, just ask. (my math isn't great, but it's
enough to recognise valid from invalid)
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"xxein" <xx...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:cce403e3.03092...@posting.google.com...
> "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
news:<I1rbb.5721$gv5.3841@fed1read05>...
...
> If I can return the favor, just ask. (my math isn't great, but it's
> enough to recognise valid from invalid)
Just keep your tools sharp. Don't let anybody (even me) keep you from
asking questions.
David A. Smith
Androcles
"Randy Poe" <rpo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2dvrmvkddm9rq9r7a...@4ax.com...
Of course even this isn't true, The GPS system remains in synch with ground
time and its clocks are regularly reset to avoid any drift. Heck, even a
grandfather clock on a mountain will run faster than an identical clock at
sea level, and it doesn't take GR to figure out why.
Moreover, GPS clocks are in as close an inertial frame as we can achieve,
and there is no SR time dilation whatsoever, only time contraction.
Androcles
Dirk Van de moortel
"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:ohWbb.3827$yn2....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
Can we get you a glass of water or something?
Anything?
Dirk Vdm
Randy Poe
> Yes, this is one of my many typos. I meant 45 uSec from the effect of GR
> along. An additional -3 to -7 uSec is attributed to the Principle of
> Relativity, equatorial bulge of the earth, etc.
Technically, the whole thing is a consequence of general
relativity, but the two terms are additive (see the equations
in the second link I gave) and it is customary to call the
first term the "GR (or gravitational) correction" and the
second term the "SR (or velocity) correction".
- Randy
Paul Cardinale
Ignoramus. The GPS clock are not "regularly" reset, they are reset on
an as-needed basis, which turns out to be about once every month or
so. If the GR corrections were wrong, the GPS system would be
unusable less than an hour after having the clocks set.
You have demonstrated that you are ignorant about both GR & GPS.
Paul Cardinale
Dirk Van de moortel
"Randy Poe" <rpo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:nousmv47hb7omf5kd...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 21 Sep 2003 15:37:54 -0400, Randy Poe <rpo...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 20 Sep 2003 20:31:46 -0700, "Australopithecus Afarensis"
> ><fossi...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >>Does GPS really prove GR right? Or does GPS actually proves GR wrong?
> >
> >Neither. GPS provides confirmation that GR predictions are correct, to
> >the limits of our ability to measure time accuracy.
> >
> >>GPS time is 45nSec per day faster than on earth. This is then implemented
> >>to the GPS, and everything is so far so good.
> >
> >I thought the number was 28 microseconds per day.
>
> OK, my memory was off: It's 38 microseconds per day.
> http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp
Warning:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/wrong.html#gps
>
> You're 3 orders of magnitude off.
>
> Here's one link that shows the actual calculation:
> http://www.eftaylor.com/oersted/
Nice links for the calculations:
1) Eugen Negut's very nice (!) mathematica calculation of the
pure GR-Freefall (Schwarzschild metric) treatment:
http://www.freephysics.org/en/gps.htm
leading to 38.62 microseconds.
Safely ignore Negut's poor language and his erronous rant
at the end.
2) Eric Prebys' post with the combination of SR / GR-Gravity-only
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=3C164B7D...@fnal.gov
Providing 45 - 7 = 38 microseconds
With Negut's data (and a 12 hours period) this is
45.71 - 7.19 = 38.52 (microseconds)
Nice :-)
I have saved a copy of Eugen's page: when he realizes the
interpretation error he makes, he might promptly remove his
page, and that would really be a shame ;-)
Dirk Vdm
eugen negut
But my conclusions are right!
I have not intention to remove this page.
Eugen Negut.
"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> a écrit
dans le message de news:jg1cb.36350$l62.1...@phobos.telenet-ops.be...
Paul B. Andersen
"AndroclesInEngland" <jp006...@blueyonder.co.uk> skrev i melding news:Irmbb.10$Kd...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Who actually knows? GPS clocks are regularly (and automatically) reset to
> correspond with the master clock at the Naval Observatory. It only makes
> common sense to do so, from an engineering point of view. If one clock is
> running slow or fast, as all clocks will do to some extent, the choice is to
> replace it or reset it. Resetting is fairly inexpensive, you have but to
> send a signal to it, and replacement requires a launch. Nobody is going to
> wait around to check the time of each one and then reset it, or leave it
> alone if it's ok, that requires too much intervention. The simple and
> obvious solution is just to reset them as they pass overhead. Perturbation
> of orbit is a far more serious problem, requiring thrust to correct.
> All the argument about how accurate they run is futile, but I'll tell you
> this: they all agree very closely with time here on the surface. :)
The clocks are never "reset".
However, along with the GPS clock time, the clock offset is
transmitted. The receiver finds the time by adding this offset
to the clock time. This clock offset is regularly updated.
It is probably this updating you called "resetting the clocks."
But:
Correctional data can at the very most be uploaded only once
per orbit, that is once every 12 hours. During this time, the satellite
clocks drift off sync with only - at the most - a few tens of ns.
This is equivalent to ca. one part in 10^12, which is the precision
of the clocks.
If the clocks were not GR-corrected, they would drift off
sync by 19 us during the 12 hours they can not be corrected.
That is a thousand times more than what the real drift is.
Without the GR correction, the GPS wouldn't work.
(Please don't say that the GLANOSS prove that
the GR-correction isn't necessary. Of course it is possible
to account for the GR effect in a different way than it
is done in the GPS. But it must be accounted for somehow.
And the GPS - as it factually is designed - wouldn't
work without the GR-correction.)
So the GPS does indeed prove that the predictions of GR
for the GPS satellite clocks are correct within the precision
of the clocks.
You can find the actual data measured by the five ground
stations monitoring the GPS satellites at:
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gps_datafiles.html
There you can see for yourself what the drift of
the clocks is. With data only a few hours old.
Paul
Androcles
"Paul Cardinale" <pcard...@volcanomail.com> wrote in message
news:64050551.03092...@posting.google.com...
Useless Idiot. Obviously you have no concept of engineering. What do you
mean, as-need?
"Oh, hello clock, what time do you have?" 00.00.00 eh? Well, the right time
is 00:00:00, so I guess I don't need to reset you, sorry for disturbing you,
go back to work and I'll leave you alone."
You, dumbo, obviously don't realize that computers are used so that no human
intervention is required.
If the GR corrections were wrong, the GPS system would be
> unusable less than an hour after having the clocks set.
>
> You have demonstrated that you are ignorant about both GR & GPS.
>
>
> Paul Cardinale
And you have demonstrated that you have no concept of engineering, you
stupid theorists have never realised that engineers have always made things
work regardless of your stupid theories. Ignoramus.
Androcles
Dirk Van de moortel
"eugen negut" <neg...@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:Po2cb.36075$9n4.5...@wagner.videotron.net...
> May be my language is very poor! Sorry!
No problem - French speaking I guess?
> But my conclusions are right!
That's something else of course.
Having seen that workbook, I don't understand how it is possible
that you can make such a mistake.
> I have not intention to remove this page.
Good :-)
>
> Eugen Negut.
Bien a toi,
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no> wrote in message
news:bkqdgi$for$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
>
> "AndroclesInEngland" <jp006...@blueyonder.co.uk> skrev i melding
news:Irmbb.10$Kd...@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > Who actually knows? GPS clocks are regularly (and automatically) reset
to
> > correspond with the master clock at the Naval Observatory. It only makes
> > common sense to do so, from an engineering point of view. If one clock
is
> > running slow or fast, as all clocks will do to some extent, the choice
is to
> > replace it or reset it. Resetting is fairly inexpensive, you have but to
> > send a signal to it, and replacement requires a launch. Nobody is going
to
> > wait around to check the time of each one and then reset it, or leave it
> > alone if it's ok, that requires too much intervention. The simple and
> > obvious solution is just to reset them as they pass overhead.
Perturbation
> > of orbit is a far more serious problem, requiring thrust to correct.
> > All the argument about how accurate they run is futile, but I'll tell
you
> > this: they all agree very closely with time here on the surface. :)
>
> The clocks are never "reset".
around, and then restart it. All I do is make the big hand point to the
right time.
> However, along with the GPS clock time, the clock offset is
> transmitted. The receiver finds the time by adding this offset
> to the clock time. This clock offset is regularly updated.
> It is probably this updating you called "resetting the clocks."
Yep, exactly right. I call that resetting. I add an angular offset to the
position of the big hand, the angle being the difference between my master
clock and the clock I'm adjusting, and I call it resetting. You can call it
adding an offset if you like, I prefer 'resetting', but it amounts to the
same thing.
With my digital watch, I add a digital offset to the numbers, and I call
that resetting, too.
Clocks consist of a regular oscillator and a counter to count the 'ticks' of
the oscillator. If the count is in disagreement with the count of a master
clock, then the count is reset to match the master. Whether you call that
resetting or adding an offset doesn't matter in the slightest. If the
oscillator has a different rate to the master clock's oscillator, which, I
think, is your point, then the oscillation rate is 'corrected for GR' (or
simply corrected for altitude) .
> But:
> Correctional data can at the very most be uploaded only once
> per orbit, that is once every 12 hours. During this time, the satellite
> clocks drift off sync with only - at the most - a few tens of ns.
> This is equivalent to ca. one part in 10^12, which is the precision
> of the clocks.
> If the clocks were not GR-corrected, they would drift off
> sync by 19 us during the 12 hours they can not be corrected.
> That is a thousand times more than what the real drift is.
> Without the GR correction, the GPS wouldn't work.
I prefer to say "If the clocks were not altitude corrected...."
> (Please don't say that the GLANOSS prove that
> the GR-correction isn't necessary. Of course it is possible
> to account for the GR effect in a different way than it
> is done in the GPS. But it must be accounted for somehow.
> And the GPS - as it factually is designed - wouldn't
> work without the GR-correction.)
>
> So the GPS does indeed prove that the predictions of GR
> for the GPS satellite clocks are correct within the precision
> of the clocks.
>
> You can find the actual data measured by the five ground
> stations monitoring the GPS satellites at:
> http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gps_datafiles.html
> There you can see for yourself what the drift of
> the clocks is. With data only a few hours old.
>
> Paul
Since GPS clocks are in as close to an inertial frame of reference as it is
possible to achieve locally in our part of the Universe, and exhibit no time
dilation whatsoever, rather they exhibit time contraction, I'm compelled to
agree with Henri, SR is BULL!, as evidenced by GPS clocks (and, since GR is
based on SR, that is bull too). I've looked at a model of a cesium clock in
Flamsteed House, Greenwich, where physics and astronomy takes off, and it is
quite obvious that it is gravity dependent, just as a grandfather clock is.
If you want to convince me (or any other thinking man) that GR is a valid,
viable, working theory, then provide a mathematical proof that ISN'T full of
holes. I believe there are other, unexplored alternatives that really
explain the phenomena of Nature, and clinging to a worn-out, faulty theory
only detracts from real investigation. Heck, you are laughing at Ken Seto
for his clinging to the aether, the poor guy can't ever see past it, and you
are just as guilty as he, you cannot see past the antiquated fumbling of
Einstein.
Heck, I know I make an error now and then, I'm not perfect, but I do admit
the them, something you seem to be incapable of. Does it make you proud,
Paul, poking fun at true thinkers, or persisting in a ridiculous theory?
Androcles
Minor Crank
news:bkqdgi$for$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
> (Please don't say that the GLANOSS prove that
> the GR-correction isn't necessary. Of course it is possible
> to account for the GR effect in a different way than it
> is done in the GPS. But it must be accounted for somehow.
> And the GPS - as it factually is designed - wouldn't
> work without the GR-correction.)
As a matter of fact, GLONASS applies the same type of frequency bias to the
orbiting clocks as used by GPS.
From the GLONASS Interface Control Document, pp 8-9
"For each satellite, carrier frequencies of L1 and L2 sub-bands are
coherently derived from a common onboard time/frequency standard. The
nominal value of frequency, as observed on the ground, is equal to 5.0 MHz.
To compensate relativistic effects, the nominal value of the frequency, as
observed at satellite, is biased from 5.0 MHz by relative value Df/f
= -4.36*10^-10 or Df = -2.18*10^-3 Hz that is equal to 4.99999999782 MHz
(the value is given for nominal orbital height 19100 km)."
http://www.spatial.maine.edu/~leick/PDF-files/glonass.pdf
There are quite a number of interesting differences between GLONASS
operation and GPS operation. But ignoring relativistic effects is -not- one
of them.
Minor Crank
Paul Cardinale
Wow, you're dumber than dirt. Almost everybody can comprehend the
concept of an as-needed basis. The clocks in the GPS system are
always being monitored; when any one drifts off by more than a certain
amount, it is reset. These resets occur about once a month for each
clock. Whether this process is executed by humans or computers is
completely irrelevant.
Paul Cardinale
Androcles
get that neuron of yours to comprehend that the clock are in constant
communication.. ahhh, why bother with a stupid relativist that commences a
conversation by being abusive. You are a disgusting, ill-mannered and stupid
lout, and I can't be bothered with you. Poof, into the 'cant be seen' box
you go.
Androcles
Bruce Pew
You are an verbose ignorant airhead. Loose the lions.
Androcles
"Bruce Pew" <va...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:45534f09.03092...@posting.google.com...
Well, you can fuck off too, cunt.
Androcles
Bruce Pew
Conjecture: Androcles is a bigger idiot than Wilson. Do something to
disprove this conjecture and you might actually garner some respect.
So far you've made several pronouncements which are derived from
ignorance [yours] and behaved as an ill mannered disgusting lout [the
only thing you've said which is worth repeating]. Loose the lions.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Australopithecus Afarensis" <fossi...@cox.net> wrote in message news:DCQcb.18689$vj2.8062@fed1read06...
> Androdes' rational is actually very logical.
Very logical.
The complete Androcles is very logical in fact:
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Chuckle.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndersenLogic.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtAnswers.html
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff.html
The logic of an engineer.
>
> Before launching these GPS without actually betting lives on GR being
> correct or not, the most logical way is to allow GPS to be synchronized
> every so few hours, and it is the easiest and the cheapest way out.
>
> So, DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE ENGINEERS.
In five days the contest for Aerospace Engineer of
the Month will be open again. Patience.
http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=H9N0b.77035$F92....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be
Dirk Vdm
Minor Crank
news:DCQcb.18689$vj2.8062@fed1read06...
> Androdes' rational is actually very logical.
>
> correct or not, the most logical way is to allow GPS to be synchronized
> every so few hours, and it is the easiest and the cheapest way out.
>
> So, DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE ENGINEERS.
BECAUSE the clocks in GPS satellites have an applied correction to account
for GR effects, they only need correction every few days to take care of
random clock drift. Random clock drift is on the order on nanoseconds per
day. The GR effect is 3 or 4 orders of magnitude larger than random clock
drift.
If GPS clocks were not corrected for GR effects, they'd need to be adjusted
AT LEAST TWENTY TIMES AN HOUR for the system to maintain marginal accuracy.
A half-dozen nukes directed to the ground stations monitoring the GPS
satellites, and the GPS satellite system would be useless within minutes.
Incidentally, the GPS satellite system was designed so that if the ground
stations were vaporized, they would go into a special holding pattern where
all the satellites monitor each other's orbits and adjust their clocks and
ephemeris data according to the average of the entire system of orbiting
satellites. While in this mode, the GPS system is designed to be able to
maintain a useful level of accuracy for 180 days.
So, DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE MILITARY PLANNERS.
Minor Crank
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Australopithecus Afarensis" <fossi...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:_wQcb.18680$vj2.5629@fed1read06...
> So, you are telling me some bozo floating in space without experiencing
any
> acceleration effect may or may not have his time dilated relative to the
> rest of the universe.
Yes. I depends on bozo's motion wrt the rest of the Universe.
> The question is:
>
> Other than time dilation imposed, how can you tell if this bozo is just
> floating from free space or in orbit around a massive object?
There is no difference. The Universe is a big massive object, and the
space it "contains" is a product of its mass/energy.
> Is this another "Imhotep! Imhotep!" (from the move "The Mummy") episode
in
> which whatever Einstein said is always true regardless of reasoning?
I don't recall any mention of Einstein in that movie. Maybe 8 times wasn't
enough...
> You have not explained it to me clearly enough. Please try again and
stay
> off from that caffeine. Caffeine usually makes you tense and irrational.
> On the other hand, beer makes more relaxed and able to concentrate on the
> problems. Please have a few cans of beer before replying.
That would take years, since I only have a beer every three months or so.
I get tense after responding to Alexsandr and Sergey, and they have neither
one posted to me today.
>
> * * *
>
> "dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
> news:JADbb.6697$gv5.2797@fed1read05...
> Dear Australopithecus Afarensis:
>
> "Australopithecus Afarensis" <fossi...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:xPwbb.1971$vj2.783@fed1read06...
> > Although the centrifugal force is a Newtonian concept, at GPS level, it
> is
> > still a form of acceleration. Thus, according to GR, acceleation is
> > indistiguishable between gravity and kinetic acceleration. That means
> the
> > centrifugal force would also uncurve the curved space created by the
> earth!
>
> Orbiting is free of any forces to maintain the orbit... in GR. So your
> statement "according to GR" is false.
The statement to which you responded was not mine. So I agree with your
response.
> > In the meantime, I will have more cans of beer before you explain why
> >
> > ** On earth, we experience acceleration, so time is dilated
>
> Our position in the Earth's, Moon's, Sun's and Milky Way's gravity
"field"
> to name the closer neighbors.
What's to explain? The curvature of space is a function of the mass/energy
in it. Since the space in the Universe is a product of the mass/energy of
the Universe, then the curvature at any point in space is the net result of
all the mass/energy in the Universe. Acceleration upwards by the surface
of the Earth (to divert you from your free-fall orbit) is a *result* of the
curvature, and not itself a cause of time dilation.
> > ** On GPS, they experience no acceleration, time is dilated anyway
>
> Still pretty close to all those bodies, hunh? Curvature still present,
and
> has "much" higher velocity. Still has reason to have a time dilation.
And
> is in a different frame than us, which is what the "calculation stuff" is
> all about.
>
> Explained. Have some coffee now. I have to go to work.
Sounded good when I said it before.
Beer or coffee, you choose.
David A. Smith
Minor Crank
> In GPS system, the most vulnerable part is the satellites themselves.
There
> are ways to protect and to hide the ground stations,
Hide the ground stations, when they are stationary and their exact locations
on the earth are each known to within a few meters, and must necessarily
have exposed, highly vulnerable antennas?
Their are five Monitor Stations on Hawaii, Kwajalein, Ascension Island,
Diego Garcia, and Colorado Springs, and a Master Control Station located at
Schriever AFB in Colorado.
On the other hand, their are 24 operational GPS satellites plus several
spares in six orbital planes (four satellites in each plane) operating in
circular 20,200 km orbits (MEO).
I can name on the fingers of one amputated limb the number of nations that
have in place an operational ASAT system capable of knocking out the space
segment of the GPS system.
> but the satellites are
> just there. A direct hit would destroy the satellites. A near miss would
> render all semiconductor junctions into shorts. Then comes the neutrons.
> As military planners, you have to write off GPS when a serious war comes.
>
> So, DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE MILITARY PLANNERS.
You gotta be kidding.
Minor Crank
Randy Poe
<fossi...@cox.net> wrote:
>In GPS system, the most vulnerable part is the satellites themselves.
No, it's the communications link.
> There
>are ways to protect and to hide the ground stations, but the satellites are
>just there. A direct hit would destroy the satellites. A near miss would
>render all semiconductor junctions into shorts. Then comes the neutrons.
>As military planners, you have to write off GPS when a serious war comes.
It's a lot easier to jam the signal on the battlefield than to try to
chase down and destroy a satellite.
>
>So, DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE MILITARY PLANNERS.
This is part of the planning.
- Randy
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"Australopithecus Afarensis" <fossi...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:NEadb.26732$vj2.21605@fed1read06...
>
> "dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
> news:KUXcb.22665$gv5.19384@fed1read05...
> > Dear Australopithecus Afarensis:
> >
> > "Australopithecus Afarensis" <fossi...@cox.net> wrote in message
> > news:_wQcb.18680$vj2.5629@fed1read06...
> > > So, you are telling me some bozo floating in space without
experiencing
> > any
> > > acceleration effect may or may not have his time dilated relative to
the
> > > rest of the universe.
> >
> > Yes. I depends on bozo's motion wrt the rest of the Universe.
>
> Motion? I am not touching the Principle of Relativity which is velocity
> based. I am covering the realm of the supposed correct General Theory of
> Relativity which is acceleration based. Please try again.
You misunderstand:
GR with no curvature becomes SR. GR if velocity is much less than c
becomes Newton.
Please read again.
> > > The question is:
> > >
> > > Other than time dilation imposed, how can you tell if this bozo is
just
> > > floating from free space or in orbit around a massive object?
> >
> > There is no difference. The Universe is a big massive object, and the
> > space it "contains" is a product of its mass/energy.
>
> Are you conjuring up the good old Aether? Join the club.
Not really. I am identifying that the only illusion is distance/time. The
Universe is the aether.
> This is another paradox which should have been addressed long time ago.
> Yet, all just pay tributes to Einstein without using their intellects to
> think the problem through.
Einstein reiterated that bodies were extended in space. In other words all
the bodies are extended (to some extent) everywhere. Mach was right.
> GPS has proved GR wrong all along. Athough the time dilation due to the
> supposed to be correct GR is there, it can be explained in the right way.
You are incorrect here. Look again at what you said.
> > > Is this another "Imhotep! Imhotep!" (from the move "The Mummy")
episode
> > in
> > > which whatever Einstein said is always true regardless of reasoning?
> >
> > I don't recall any mention of Einstein in that movie. Maybe 8 times
> wasn't
> > enough...
>
> You still don't get it.
Apparently we both have this disease.
David A. Smith
Minor Crank
> It's a lot easier to jam the signal on the battlefield than to try to
> chase down and destroy a satellite.
Here is an interesting tidbit:
US Army equipment has already faced attacks on GPS functions-by allies.
In August 2000 the Greek government sponsored a tank competition at
Litokhoro to determine the Greek army's next tank-a deal worth $1.4 billion
for 250 tanks. Competitors included the British Challenger 2E, the US M1A1
Abrams, the German Leopard 2A5 and the French Leclerc. During the trials,
the British and US tanks had navigation problems despite using multiple GPS
satellites to determine their positions precisely. After the embarrassing
performance, officials discovered that the GPS satellites were being
jammed-by a French security agency. Less than a foot high, the jammers
transmitted stronger signals than satellites on the same frequency. The
jammers were reportedly hidden on the firing range and remotely activated as
US and British tanks were tested.
Greek defense officials found the jamming episode rather amusing and
discounted the associated technical problems. The threat remains: if an ally
can create such havoc during a test, what effect could hostile GPS jamming
have during combat?
http://www-cgsc.army.mil/milrev/English/MarApr01/adams.asp
Minor Crank
Gregory L. Hansen
Minor Crank <blue_whal...@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Randy Poe" <rpo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:gdfbnv8ou5cdlup0e...@4ax.com...
>
>> It's a lot easier to jam the signal on the battlefield than to try to
>> chase down and destroy a satellite.
>
>Here is an interesting tidbit:
>
>US Army equipment has already faced attacks on GPS functions-by allies.
>
>In August 2000 the Greek government sponsored a tank competition at
>Litokhoro to determine the Greek army's next tank-a deal worth $1.4 billion
>for 250 tanks. Competitors included the British Challenger 2E, the US M1A1
>Abrams, the German Leopard 2A5 and the French Leclerc. During the trials,
>the British and US tanks had navigation problems despite using multiple GPS
>satellites to determine their positions precisely. After the embarrassing
>performance, officials discovered that the GPS satellites were being
>jammed-by a French security agency. Less than a foot high, the jammers
>transmitted stronger signals than satellites on the same frequency. The
>jammers were reportedly hidden on the firing range and remotely activated as
>US and British tanks were tested.
Wow. It didn't affect the Germans?
>
>Greek defense officials found the jamming episode rather amusing and
>discounted the associated technical problems. The threat remains: if an ally
>can create such havoc during a test, what effect could hostile GPS jamming
>have during combat?
Assuming Iraq had some technically competent people interested in that
sort of thing, it must be a little more difficult. Tests happen in known,
limited locations at a predictable time.
--
"When the fool walks through the street, in his lack of understanding he
calls everything foolish." -- Ecclesiastes 10:3, New American Bible
HenriWilson
>"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>> > You are an verbose ignorant airhead. Loose the lions.
>> Oh, another jerk only here to insult and abuse, eh?
>> Well, you can fuck off too, cunt.
>> Androcles
>
>Conjecture: Androcles is a bigger idiot than Wilson.
You say the nicest things. Shall we dance?
>Do something to
>disprove this conjecture and you might actually garner some respect.
>So far you've made several pronouncements which are derived from
>ignorance [yours] and behaved as an ill mannered disgusting lout [the
>only thing you've said which is worth repeating]. Loose the lions.
The bloody GPS clocks change rates when in free fall. The change is observed
from the ground. It is a physical effect. GR has nothing to do with it.
Henri Wilson.
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
My latest: http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/movingrod.exe
HenriWilson
<blue_whal...@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Australopithecus Afarensis" <fossi...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:DCQcb.18689$vj2.8062@fed1read06...
>> Androdes' rational is actually very logical.
>>
>> Before launching these GPS without actually betting lives on GR being
>> correct or not, the most logical way is to allow GPS to be synchronized
>> every so few hours, and it is the easiest and the cheapest way out.
>>
>> So, DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE ENGINEERS.
>
>BECAUSE the clocks in GPS satellites have an applied correction to account
>for GR effects, they only need correction every few days to take care of
>random clock drift. Random clock drift is on the order on nanoseconds per
>day. The GR effect is 3 or 4 orders of magnitude larger than random clock
>drift.
>
>If GPS clocks were not corrected for GR effects, they'd need to be adjusted
>AT LEAST TWENTY TIMES AN HOUR for the system to maintain marginal accuracy.
They are corrected for the 'free fall' effect.
The same pre-launch offset would be correct for an orbiting clock at any
radius.
>
>A half-dozen nukes directed to the ground stations monitoring the GPS
>satellites, and the GPS satellite system would be useless within minutes.
>
>Incidentally, the GPS satellite system was designed so that if the ground
>stations were vaporized, they would go into a special holding pattern where
>all the satellites monitor each other's orbits and adjust their clocks and
>ephemeris data according to the average of the entire system of orbiting
>satellites. While in this mode, the GPS system is designed to be able to
>maintain a useful level of accuracy for 180 days.
>
>So, DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE MILITARY PLANNERS.
>
>Minor Crank
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dirk Van de moortel
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message news:m7finv0dij96onoc3...@4ax.com...
> On 25 Sep 2003 13:43:59 -0700, va...@cox.net (Bruce Pew) wrote:
>
> >"Androcles" <jp006...@blurbblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> > You are an verbose ignorant airhead. Loose the lions.
> >> Oh, another jerk only here to insult and abuse, eh?
> >> Well, you can fuck off too, cunt.
> >> Androcles
> >
> >Conjecture: Androcles is a bigger idiot than Wilson.
>
> You say the nicest things. Shall we dance?
>
> >Do something to
> >disprove this conjecture and you might actually garner some respect.
> >So far you've made several pronouncements which are derived from
> >ignorance [yours] and behaved as an ill mannered disgusting lout [the
> >only thing you've said which is worth repeating]. Loose the lions.
>
> The bloody GPS clocks change rates when in free fall. The change is observed
> from the ground. It is a physical effect. GR has nothing to do with it.
Another Wilson keeper:
"It is a physical effect. GR has nothing to do with it."
http://users.pandora.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PhysicalEffect.html
Dirk Vdm
HenriWilson
wrote:
>Dear Australopithecus Afarensis:
>
>"Australopithecus Afarensis" <fossi...@cox.net> wrote in message
>news:NEadb.26732$vj2.21605@fed1read06...
>>
>> "dl...@aol.com (formerly)" <dlzc1.cox@net> wrote in message
>> news:KUXcb.22665$gv5.19384@fed1read05...
>> > Dear Australopithecus Afarensis:
>> >
>> > "Australopithecus Afarensis" <fossi...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> > news:_wQcb.18680$vj2.5629@fed1read06...
>> > > So, you are telling me some bozo floating in space without
>experiencing
>> > any
>> > > acceleration effect may or may not have his time dilated relative to
>the
>> > > rest of the universe.
>> >
>> > Yes. I depends on bozo's motion wrt the rest of the Universe.
>>
>> Motion? I am not touching the Principle of Relativity which is velocity
>> based. I am covering the realm of the supposed correct General Theory of
>> Relativity which is acceleration based. Please try again.
>
>You misunderstand:
>GR with no curvature becomes SR. GR if velocity is much less than c
>becomes Newton.
And how might that 'velocity' be defined, Smith?
Are you now supporting absolute space?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Australopithecus Afarensis" <fossi...@cox.net> wrote in message news:afteb.44560$vj2.43709@fed1read06...
> Dirk, I know you hate my gut just because I have discovered how bad your
> math is. Naturally, your fumble list does not include a single one of my
> posts.
Because they are not sufficiently self-documenting.
One of these days you'll make it, I'm sure.
As I stopped reading most of your messages,
please let me knwo by e-mail when you write
something that might qualify. Thanks.
> Hey, that is OK because I have a list of a few of your fumbles.
> Here are two.
>
> >>"You inverted the equation and "safely tossed out that negative value".<<
>
> No, I did not invent that quadratic equation. I merely derived it.
I did not say that you "invented that quadratic equation."
I said that you "inverted the equation":
http://groups.google.com/groups?&threadm=in40b.73265$F92....@afrodite.telenet-ops.be
Maybe an ophthalmologist can help you, if not a good
spanking job from your daddy for telling naughty lies.
I also hear that psychiatrists nowadays can quite effectively
alleviate the symptoms of paranoid schizophrenia.
[remainder already dealt with in thread mentioned].
Dirk Vdm
Paul B. Andersen
"Australopithecus Afarensis" <fossi...@cox.net> skrev i melding news:DCQcb.18689$vj2.8062@fed1read06...
> Androdes' rational is actually very logical.
>
> Before launching these GPS without actually betting lives on GR being
> correct or not, the most logical way is to allow GPS to be synchronized
> every so few hours, and it is the easiest and the cheapest way out.
>
> So, DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE ENGINEERS.
You are underestimating the engineers.
They knew that if the 4.46*10^-10 GR-prediction were correct,
and they did NOT build it into the satellite clocks, they would have to correct
the clocks every minute or so to keep them in synch. They knew of course
that this was impossible, the satellites can only be corrected at the very most
once per the12 hours orbit.
OTOH, if the GR-prediction had been a fiction, and they DID build in
a correct for it, it would be equally wrong.
So what did the engineers - not wanting to bet their lives
(or the DoD's money) on GR being correct - actually do?
They built the very first satellite with the possibility to switch
the GR-adjustment on and off.
When the satellite was launched it became evident that
the GR-adjustment had to be on - and that the GR prediction
was exactly right.
It has been build into every GPS satellite clock ever since.
Paul
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
> >> Motion? I am not touching the Principle of Relativity which is
velocity
> >> based. I am covering the realm of the supposed correct General Theory
of
> >> Relativity which is acceleration based. Please try again.
> >
> >You misunderstand:
> >GR with no curvature becomes SR. GR if velocity is much less than c
> >becomes Newton.
>
> And how might that 'velocity' be defined, Smith?
Hi, HenriWilson. A measured (relative) distance in a measured (relative)
amount of time. Just like Newton would have done it; only with more
accurate and precise instruments.
> Are you now supporting absolute space?
No, I'm still on "the Universe is the aether", since all bodies are
spatially extended. And how are you today?
David A. Smith
Paul B. Andersen
> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:39:00 GMT, "Minor Crank"
> <blue_whal...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >If GPS clocks were not corrected for GR effects, they'd need to be adjusted
> >AT LEAST TWENTY TIMES AN HOUR for the system to maintain marginal accuracy.
>
> They are corrected for the 'free fall' effect.
Obviously.
Note that Henry's 'free fall theory' doesn't - as GR does -
suffer from the serious flaw that it predicts the value _before_
the experiment was done. That would of course have made
the theory highly suspectable. But we know now that Henry's
theory predicts that the clocks will speed up by exactly
the measured amount.
That GR predicts the correct value to a precision of 10^-12
is obviously accidental, and besides - GR predicted the value
_before_ the first satellite was launched. This fact alone
obviously disqualifies the theory.
If you to this add the fact that if the prediction of GR had
been 20% different from what it is, then GR would have
been 20% off, then it should be blatantly obvious to everybody
that GR is CRAP!
It is indeed a scandal that GR takes credit for the effect
that really is predicted by Henry Wilson's 'free fall' theory.
> The same pre-launch offset would be correct for an orbiting clock at any
> radius.
As demonstraded by the free falling gravity probe A?
Oooops.
Sorry. I forgot. Silly me.
Experimental evidence doesn't count.
And since Vessot knew the predictions _before_ the experiment
was done, it is faked anyway.
Henry Wilson is OBVIOUSLY right because Henry thinks he is right.
Paul
HenriWilson
wrote:
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:rcfinv0jiq78nognb...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:39:00 GMT, "Minor Crank"
>> <blue_whal...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >If GPS clocks were not corrected for GR effects, they'd need to be adjusted
>> >AT LEAST TWENTY TIMES AN HOUR for the system to maintain marginal accuracy.
>>
>> They are corrected for the 'free fall' effect.
>
>Obviously.
>
>Note that Henry's 'free fall theory' doesn't - as GR does -
>suffer from the serious flaw that it predicts the value _before_
>the experiment was done. That would of course have made
>the theory highly suspectable. But we know now that Henry's
>theory predicts that the clocks will speed up by exactly
>the measured amount.
>
Don't lie again aul. I have no theory as to why clocks change rates in free
fall. I can explain grandfather clocks but not cesium. Something to do with
young's modulus, was my only suggestion.
>That GR predicts the correct value to a precision of 10^-12
>is obviously accidental, and besides - GR predicted the value
> _before_ the first satellite was launched. This fact alone
>obviously disqualifies the theory.
>If you to this add the fact that if the prediction of GR had
>been 20% different from what it is, then GR would have
>been 20% off, then it should be blatantly obvious to everybody
>that GR is CRAP!
>
>It is indeed a scandal that GR takes credit for the effect
>that really is predicted by Henry Wilson's 'free fall' theory.
The fact that the GR prediction was within 20% of the obserevd free fall effect
is purely coincidental.
Please give me observed figures for clocks in different orbits. You will find
that they change by exactly the same amount.
ONE FREE FALL IS AS GOOD AS ANOTHER.
>
>> The same pre-launch offset would be correct for an orbiting clock at any
>> radius.
>
>As demonstraded by the free falling gravity probe A?
Do you mean the vessot rocket expt. It is another SRian joke.
>
>Oooops.
>Sorry. I forgot. Silly me.
>Experimental evidence doesn't count.
>And since Vessot knew the predictions _before_ the experiment
>was done, it is faked anyway.
>
>Henry Wilson is OBVIOUSLY right because Henry thinks he is right.
The doppler velocity measuring method is flawed.
>
>Paul
>
Henri Wilson.
"Whenever a relativist moves, half the universe shrinks and the other half expands".
HenriWilson
wrote:
>Dear HenriWilson:
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>news:osuknvoomgq99c03p...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 27 Sep 2003 10:11:42 -0700, "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)"
><dlzc1.cox@net>
>> wrote:
>...
>> >> Motion? I am not touching the Principle of Relativity which is
>velocity
>> >> based. I am covering the realm of the supposed correct General Theory
>of
>> >> Relativity which is acceleration based. Please try again.
>> >
>> >You misunderstand:
>> >GR with no curvature becomes SR. GR if velocity is much less than c
>> >becomes Newton.
>>
>> And how might that 'velocity' be defined, Smith?
>
>Hi, HenriWilson. A measured (relative) distance in a measured (relative)
>amount of time. Just like Newton would have done it; only with more
>accurate and precise instruments.
So the same space would have a different curvature for every observer?
>
>> Are you now supporting absolute space?
>
>No, I'm still on "the Universe is the aether", since all bodies are
>spatially extended. And how are you today?
Fine thank you.
So you admit to being an aetherist? What SRian isn't?
>
>David A. Smith
>
Henri Wilson.
"Whenever a relativist moves, half the universe shrinks and the other half expands".
See my animations at:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
dlzc@aol.com (formerly)
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
news:nffmnvcmb63ss2b3t...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 07:10:19 -0700, "dl...@aol.com \(formerly\)"
<dlzc1.cox@net>
> wrote:
...
> >> >You misunderstand:
> >> >GR with no curvature becomes SR. GR if velocity is much less than c
> >> >becomes Newton.
> >>
> >> And how might that 'velocity' be defined, Smith?
> >
> >Hi, HenriWilson. A measured (relative) distance in a measured
(relative)
> >amount of time. Just like Newton would have done it; only with more
> >accurate and precise instruments.
>
> So the same space would have a different curvature for every observer?
*Every* observer, no. Every different frame would ascribe a different
curvature to the space near a collection of mass/energy. Heck, depending
on direction of relative motion, they may not even agree where the area of
interest lies.
> >> Are you now supporting absolute space?
> >
> >No, I'm still on "the Universe is the aether", since all bodies are
> >spatially extended. And how are you today?
>
> Fine thank you.
> So you admit to being an aetherist? What SRian isn't?
Aether is not evident in the mathematics of SR, but something resembling
aether seems to underly GR. Not a "ponderable" aether, certainly. But the
bulk behaviour of the Universe at large. Which would be very stiff to
individual "members" of its population.
David A. Smith
Minor Crank
news:blelvh$rh6$1...@dolly.uninett.no...
> They knew that if the 4.46*10^-10 GR-prediction were correct,
> and they did NOT build it into the satellite clocks, they would have to
correct
> the clocks every minute or so to keep them in synch. They knew of course
> that this was impossible, the satellites can only be corrected at the very
most
> once per the12 hours orbit.
Also, please note that GLONASS satellites, which have different orbital
parameters than GPS satellites, require a different GR correction.
GPS satellites move in 20,200 km orbits at an average inclination of 55
degrees, completing an orbit every 12 hours.
GLONASS satellites move in 19,100 km orbits at an average inclination of
64.8 degrees, completing an orbit every 11 hours 15 minutes. They require a
GR correction factor of 4.36*10^-10, which is very easily distinguishable
from the correction factory required by GPS satellites, and which matches
the GR prediction.
Minor Crank
Minor Crank
news:oyLeb.10975$%h1.8535@sccrnsc02...
> Also, please note that GLONASS satellites, which have different orbital
> parameters than GPS satellites, require a different GR correction.
>
> GPS satellites move in 20,200 km orbits at an average inclination of 55
> degrees, completing an orbit every 12 hours.
>
> GLONASS satellites move in 19,100 km orbits at an average inclination of
> 64.8 degrees, completing an orbit every 11 hours 15 minutes. They require
a
> GR correction factor of 4.36*10^-10, which is very easily distinguishable
> from the correction factory required by GPS satellites, and which matches
> the GR prediction.
My approximate GR+SR calculation for GPS satellites in 20,200 km orbits is
that they would require a correction of 4.45x10^-10 or 38.5 microseconds/day
to their clocks
My approximate GR+SR calculation for GLONASS satellites in 19,100 km orbits
is that they would require a correction of 4.35x10^-10 or 37.6
microseconds/day to their clocks.
This is a huge difference between GR and GLONASS clocks, very easily
measured.
Minor Crank
Minor Crank
> My approximate GR+SR calculation for GPS satellites in 20,200 km orbits is
> that they would require a correction of 4.45x10^-10 or 38.5 microseconds/day
> to their clocks
>
> My approximate GR+SR calculation for GLONASS satellites in 19,100 km orbits
> is that they would require a correction of 4.35x10^-10 or 37.6
> microseconds/day to their clocks.
>
> This is a huge difference between GR and GLONASS clocks, very easily
> measured.
TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR
This is a huge difference between GPS and GLONASS clocks, very easily measured.
Minor Crank
HenriWilson
Well let's measure it.
What is the empirically required correction for both systems?
>
>Minor Crank
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:d1fmnvkvkd28sukn8...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:31:35 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
> wrote:
>
> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:rcfinv0jiq78nognb...@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:39:00 GMT, "Minor Crank"
> >> <blue_whal...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> >If GPS clocks were not corrected for GR effects, they'd need to be adjusted
> >> >AT LEAST TWENTY TIMES AN HOUR for the system to maintain marginal accuracy.
> >>
> >> They are corrected for the 'free fall' effect.
> >
> >Obviously.
> >
> >Note that Henry's 'free fall theory' doesn't - as GR does -
> >suffer from the serious flaw that it predicts the value _before_
> >the experiment was done. That would of course have made
> >the theory highly suspectable. But we know now that Henry's
> >theory predicts that the clocks will speed up by exactly
> >the measured amount.
> >
> Don't lie again aul. I have no theory as to why clocks change rates in free
> fall. I can explain grandfather clocks but not cesium. Something to do with
> young's modulus, was my only suggestion.
OK.
I stand corrected.
There is no "free fall theory", and thus no "free fall effect prediction".
> >That GR predicts the correct value to a precision of 10^-12
> >is obviously accidental, and besides - GR predicted the value
> > _before_ the first satellite was launched. This fact alone
> >obviously disqualifies the theory.
> >If you to this add the fact that if the prediction of GR had
> >been 20% different from what it is, then GR would have
> >been 20% off, then it should be blatantly obvious to everybody
> >that GR is CRAP!
> >
> >It is indeed a scandal that GR takes credit for the effect
> >that really is predicted by Henry Wilson's 'free fall' theory.
>
> The fact that the GR prediction was within 20% of the obserevd free fall effect
> is purely coincidental.
So the 'free fall effect' is 20% different from the GR prediction?
So we can conclude that the non existing "free fall prediction"
of the non existing "free fall theory" is wrong by 20%
- and that's purely coincidental!
That figures!
>
> Please give me observed figures for clocks in different orbits. You will find
> that they change by exactly the same amount.
>
> ONE FREE FALL IS AS GOOD AS ANOTHER.
Sure Henry.
Since what you are shouting so loudly isn't based on
any theory (there is no 'free fall theory', you know),
it must OBVIOUSLY be how it actually is.
> >> The same pre-launch offset would be correct for an orbiting clock at any
> >> radius.
> >
> >As demonstraded by the free falling gravity probe A?
>
> Do you mean the vessot rocket expt. It is another SRian joke.
Of course, Henry.
A real experiment in the real world does OBVIOUSLY not count
compared to an assertion by Henry Wilson. IN CAPITALS!
> >Oooops.
> >Sorry. I forgot. Silly me.
> >Experimental evidence doesn't count.
> >And since Vessot knew the predictions _before_ the experiment
> >was done, it is faked anyway.
> >
> >Henry Wilson is OBVIOUSLY right because Henry thinks he is right.
>
> The doppler velocity measuring method is flawed.
Sure, Henry. You are OBVIOUSLY right.
Counting every cycle doesn't help.
Those fairies screw it up, you know.
Paul
Minor Crank
> Please give me observed figures for clocks in different orbits. You will
find
> that they change by exactly the same amount.
>
> ONE FREE FALL IS AS GOOD AS ANOTHER.
FALSE.
GPS clocks, in 12 hour orbits, need to be corrected by 38.6
microseconds/day.
GLONASS clocks, in 11 hour 15 minute orbits, need to be corrected by 37.7
microseconds/day.
ISS clocks, in low earth orbit, need by be corrected by -24.7
microseconds/day.
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
These are easily measured differences. Your assertions are contradicted by
reality.
Minor Crank
YBM
> "HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> wrote in message
>>ONE FREE FALL IS AS GOOD AS ANOTHER.
>
> FALSE.
>
> GPS clocks, in 12 hour orbits, need to be corrected by 38.6
> microseconds/day.
> GLONASS clocks, in 11 hour 15 minute orbits, need to be corrected by 37.7
> microseconds/day.
> ISS clocks, in low earth orbit, need by be corrected by -24.7
> microseconds/day.
> http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
>
> These are easily measured differences. Your assertions are contradicted by
> reality.
Henri will probably response that they are not real free falls, that
there is a conspiration of Relativist to enslave falls that could be
free. Then he could lead the "Fall Liberation Movement".
Haven't all of us dreamed of a world where all falls would be free,
where any fall would be as good an any other one ?
Then we could go on to make all taxis free...
HenriWilson
wrote:
>
>"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:d1fmnvkvkd28sukn8...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 16:31:35 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@hia.no>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:rcfinv0jiq78nognb...@4ax.com...
>> >> On Fri, 26 Sep 2003 11:39:00 GMT, "Minor Crank"
>> >> <blue_whal...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> >> >If GPS clocks were not corrected for GR effects, they'd need to be adjusted
>> >> >AT LEAST TWENTY TIMES AN HOUR for the system to maintain marginal accuracy.
>> >>
>> >> They are corrected for the 'free fall' effect.
>> >
>> >Obviously.
>> >
>> >Note that Henry's 'free fall theory' doesn't - as GR does -
>> >suffer from the serious flaw that it predicts the value _before_
>> >the experiment was done. That would of course have made
>> >the theory highly suspectable. But we know now that Henry's
>> >theory predicts that the clocks will speed up by exactly
>> >the measured amount.
>> >
>> Don't lie again Paul. I have no theory as to why clocks change rates in free
>> fall. I can explain grandfather clocks but not cesium. Something to do with
>> young's modulus, was my only suggestion.
>
>OK.
>I stand corrected.
>There is no "free fall theory", and thus no "free fall effect prediction".
One doesn't need a theory to make an empirical measurement.
The clock rates are OBSERVED to change when in orbit. Do you dispute this?
>
>> >That GR predicts the correct value to a precision of 10^-12
>> >is obviously accidental, and besides - GR predicted the value
>> > _before_ the first satellite was launched. This fact alone
>> >obviously disqualifies the theory.
>> >If you to this add the fact that if the prediction of GR had
>> >been 20% different from what it is, then GR would have
>> >been 20% off, then it should be blatantly obvious to everybody
>> >that GR is CRAP!
>> >
>> >It is indeed a scandal that GR takes credit for the effect
>> >that really is predicted by Henry Wilson's 'free fall' theory.
>>
>> The fact that the GR prediction was within 20% of the obserevd free fall effect
>> is purely coincidental.
>
>So the 'free fall effect' is 20% different from the GR prediction?
>So we can conclude that the non existing "free fall prediction"
>of the non existing "free fall theory" is wrong by 20%
>- and that's purely coincidental!
>
>That figures!
>
>>
>> Please give me observed figures for clocks in different orbits. You will find
>> that they change by exactly the same amount.
>>
>> ONE FREE FALL IS AS GOOD AS ANOTHER.
>
>Sure Henry.
>Since what you are shouting so loudly isn't based on
>any theory (there is no 'free fall theory', you know),
>it must OBVIOUSLY be how it actually is.
The reason there is no 'free fall' theory is that ever since Einstein hijacked
physics, nobody has been game enough to upgrade NM. They wouldn't get funding
anyway.
>
>> >> The same pre-launch offset would be correct for an orbiting clock at any
>> >> radius.
>> >
>> >As demonstraded by the free falling gravity probe A?
>>
>> Do you mean the vessot rocket expt. It is another SRian joke.
>
>Of course, Henry.
>A real experiment in the real world does OBVIOUSLY not count
>compared to an assertion by Henry Wilson. IN CAPITALS!
>
>> >Oooops.
>> >Sorry. I forgot. Silly me.
>> >Experimental evidence doesn't count.
>> >And since Vessot knew the predictions _before_ the experiment
>> >was done, it is faked anyway.
>> >
>> >Henry Wilson is OBVIOUSLY right because Henry thinks he is right.
>>
>> The doppler velocity measuring method is flawed.
>
>Sure, Henry. You are OBVIOUSLY right.
>Counting every cycle doesn't help.
>Those fairies screw it up, you know.
They forgot that light speed changes in gravity gradients.
HenriWilson
<blue_whal...@comcast.net> wrote:
>http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
Well this is surely just another relativist joke.
The paper is full of assumptions and other vagueries that enable almost any
conclusion to be reached.
Throughout, there is reference to the 'velocity correction' of the clock rates.
Now Paul asures us all that proper clock rates do NOT depend on velocity - and
it is the proper clock rates that are observed from Earth.
The same is claimed for the aeroplane experiments "Correction for velocity"
appear over and over. Yet Paul assures us that He and ALL relativists KNOW THAT
PROPER RATES DO NOT DEPEND ON VELOCITY.
oH! YOU PEOPle ARE REALLY soooo FUNNY.
Relativity is surely the greatest comedy of the 20th century.
Minor Crank
> "Whenever a relativist moves, half the universe shrinks and the other half
expands".
Whenever Henri Wilson moves, half his brain shrinks and the other half
decreases in volume.
Minor Crank
YBM
[...]
> Whenever Henri Wilson moves, half his brain shrinks and the other half
> decreases in volume.
;-)
A close one, with strong experimental validation here :
Whenever Henri Wilson *posts*, half his brain shrinks and the other half
decreases in volume.
HenriWilson
Listen YB, the figures quoted are not experimentally verified. They are just
the GR predictions.
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:ik71ovc1r1su0j1g7...@4ax.com...
Quite the contrary, Henry.
I agree.
The rate is OBSERVED to be exactly as predicted by GR.
So we agree.
There is no "free fall theory based on NM".
GR is thus the only theory correctly predicting the rate of
free falling clocks.
> >> >> The same pre-launch offset would be correct for an orbiting clock at any
> >> >> radius.
> >> >
> >> >As demonstraded by the free falling gravity probe A?
> >>
> >> Do you mean the vessot rocket expt. It is another SRian joke.
> >
> >Of course, Henry.
> >A real experiment in the real world does OBVIOUSLY not count
> >compared to an assertion by Henry Wilson. IN CAPITALS!
And Vessot's rocket was never launched,
because it was impossible to get funded.
The establishment couldn't risk an experiment with
the potential of falsifying GR.
> >> >Oooops.
> >> >Sorry. I forgot. Silly me.
> >> >Experimental evidence doesn't count.
> >> >And since Vessot knew the predictions _before_ the experiment
> >> >was done, it is faked anyway.
> >> >
> >> >Henry Wilson is OBVIOUSLY right because Henry thinks he is right.
> >>
> >> The doppler velocity measuring method is flawed.
> >
> >Sure, Henry. You are OBVIOUSLY right.
> >Counting every cycle doesn't help.
> >Those fairies screw it up, you know.
>
> They forgot that light speed changes in gravity gradients.
Ah.
So if we count every tick emitted from the rocket from
it was launched to it hits the ground, the total number
of ticks we count depend on the speed of light?
Paul
HenriWilson
wrote:
Why? Because one experiment run over 25 orbits proved it?
Do you realize that corresponds to an orbit error of only 1.75 metres?
Would you stake your house on someone on earth pinpointing a clock 26000 kms
away to within 1.75 metres accurate to 1 part in 100 as you claim?
Paul, I think even you could make up an NM free fall theory to suit a pendulum
clock.
>
>> >> >> The same pre-launch offset would be correct for an orbiting clock at any
>> >> >> radius.
>> >> >
>> >> >As demonstraded by the free falling gravity probe A?
>> >>
>> >> Do you mean the vessot rocket expt. It is another SRian joke.
>> >
>> >Of course, Henry.
>> >A real experiment in the real world does OBVIOUSLY not count
>> >compared to an assertion by Henry Wilson. IN CAPITALS!
>
>And Vessot's rocket was never launched,
>because it was impossible to get funded.
>The establishment couldn't risk an experiment with
>the potential of falsifying GR.
I haven't noticed it being launched a second time.
Hasn't anyone thought of checking the results?
I wonder why?
Sounds to me like a variation on 'If it ain't broke don't fix it'.
>
>> >> >Oooops.
>> >> >Sorry. I forgot. Silly me.
>> >> >Experimental evidence doesn't count.
>> >> >And since Vessot knew the predictions _before_ the experiment
>> >> >was done, it is faked anyway.
>> >> >
>> >> >Henry Wilson is OBVIOUSLY right because Henry thinks he is right.
>> >>
>> >> The doppler velocity measuring method is flawed.
>> >
>> >Sure, Henry. You are OBVIOUSLY right.
>> >Counting every cycle doesn't help.
>> >Those fairies screw it up, you know.
>>
>> They forgot that light speed changes in gravity gradients.
>
>Ah.
>So if we count every tick emitted from the rocket from
>it was launched to it hits the ground, the total number
>of ticks we count depend on the speed of light?
Positioning Paul, Positioning!
>
>Paul
>
Henri Wilson.
Relativity is based on WYGIWYS.
Physical reality implies WYGINWYS.
See the funny side of relativity:
http://www.users.bigpond.com/HeWn/index.htm
Paul B. Andersen
"HenriWilson" <He...@the.edge> skrev i melding news:cpgeov4vbi1eabg9q...@4ax.com...
OK, Henry.
You have documented your confusion thoroughly enough now.
You won't have to repeat it any more.
But you will, of course.
Paul