Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

It is often claimed that large errors will result from the use of c+v in
GPS calculations. This is wrong and the opposite is true. The use of
constant light speed will cause large errors.

Consider the linear situation for one clock.
Moving source S will send a time signal to observer O.
At any absolute instant, S and O are absolute distance Da apart.

S--->v Da O

v is known approx.. Assume all clocks are in absolute synch.

S sends time signal at time t when O is at true distance D.
O receives signal at his time t'. Time diff = t'-t.
According to BaTh: D = (c+v)(t'-t) 'distance to where S was.
Since then, S has moved v(t'-t).
Therefore Da = D - v(t'-t) = c(t'-t)
For triangulation, an arc with radius Da, is drawn around the source's
known position at the instant of signal receipt.
___________________________________________________________-
Alternatively:
In S frame. O is approaching at v.

According to BaTh,
S sends signal at speed c and at time t when O is at true distance D. It
is received at O at time t',
after O has moved v(t'-t)
Therefore Da = [D-(v(t'-t)]

S calculates that t' = t + [D-(v(t'-t)]/c
Again, Da = c(t'-t)

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 25.09.2016 22:22, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> It is often claimed that large errors will result from the use of c+v in
> GPS calculations. This is wrong and the opposite is true. The use of
> constant light speed will cause large errors.

So the GPS doesn't work, then. :-D

> Consider the linear situation for one clock.
> Moving source S will send a time signal to observer O.
> At any absolute instant, S and O are absolute distance Da apart.
>
> S--->v Da O
>
> v is known approx.. Assume all clocks are in absolute synch.
>
> S sends time signal at time t when O is at true distance D.
> O receives signal at his time t'. Time diff = t'-t.
> According to BaTh: D = (c+v)(t'-t) 'distance to where S was.
> Since then, S has moved v(t'-t).
> Therefore Da = D - v(t'-t) = c(t'-t)
> For triangulation, an arc with radius Da, is drawn around the source's
> known position at the instant of signal receipt.
> ___________________________________________________________-
> Alternatively:
> In S frame. O is approaching at v.
>
> According to BaTh,
> S sends signal at speed c and at time t when O is at true distance D. It
> is received at O at time t',
> after O has moved v(t'-t)
> Therefore Da = [D-(v(t'-t)]
>
> S calculates that t' = t + [D-(v(t'-t)]/c
> Again, Da = c(t'-t)

It is interesting to see that you desperately are trying to prove
that if the speed of light were (c+v) it would give the same result
as when the speed of light is c.

You must have lost your mind completely.

'nuff said!

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu niedziela, 25 września 2016 22:22:07 UTC+2 użytkownik HGWilson, DSc. napisał:
> It is often claimed that large errors will result from the use of c+v in
> GPS calculations. This is wrong and the opposite is true. The use of
> constant light speed will cause large errors.

GPS doesn't use ANY transforms. No frames,
no points of view.
GPS is a serious construction. It has just one
coordinate set, as a serious construction should.

[HGW]

Are you having trouble reading messages now? Or are simple equations too
hard for you these days.

I have shown that if a source is moving radially, such as in GPS or
Cassini, the use of c+v corrects out the source's movement during the
signal's travel time automatically. If c+v is not used, for instance
when the GPS clock is near the horizon, a positioning error will result.



--

[HGW]

Harnagel claimed that errors wold result if light speed was source
dependent. I have shown why he is an idiot.....but we already knew...



--

[Gary Harnagel]

On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 4:17:58 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote:
>
> Harnagel claimed that errors wold result if light speed was source
> dependent. I have shown why he is an idiot.....but we already knew...

Au contraire, cochon, all you have demonstrated is that YOU are an idiot,
and a dishonest one at that.

I must be really getting to you that you reference me in a post in which
I wasn't even involved :-))

[al...@interia.pl]

W dniu poniedziałek, 26 września 2016 11:20:42 UTC+2 użytkownik Paul B.

> It is interesting to see that you desperately are trying to prove
> that if the speed of light were (c+v) it would give the same result
> as when the speed of light is c.

That's the key!

Simply:

A. if you use: c' = c = inv then you get: t' = k(t-xv); [using unit c = 1]
B. but if you use the standar convention:
t = inv, then you get just the: c' = 1 - v (it's c-v)


In the SR's fallacy you can get directly the equation:
r' = t' = k(t - xv) = c'

[Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato]

You make two different calculations. The first assuming a frame where O (the
GPS receptor) is at rest, the second assuming a frame where S (satellite
transmitter) is at rest. In neither of these two frames the Newtonian equations
that you are showing hold good, making all your calculations totally wrong,
without any valid mathematical or physical meaning.

In the operative GPS there exists a UNIQUE frame where Newtonian equations hold
good, with a UNIQUE space and also a UNIQUE time, the one all the synchronized
clocks are always showing simultaneously at any instant. Euclidean geometry and
Cartesian coordinates are used, and EVERY moving entity (satellite, receptor or
any other entity) in that frame has a SINGLE space position and velocity v at
any instant considered.

I showed you already in my first post to your thread "Question for Relativity
'Expert'" the system of Newtonian equations that all GPS receptors are resolving
continuously from already almost four decades, experimentally supporting the
same isotropic velocity c for all time signals broadcasted from GPS operative
satellites. I remain waiting for your answers in all your threads.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

[HGWilson, DSc.]

It is partly because of your stupid previous claims about Cassini and
GPS that I made this very important discovery.
The GPS algorithms actually USE (c+v)t-vt to get ct.....and nobody noticed.
If they use ct-vt, GPS would be out by the amounts you previously claimed.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

I have shown, for instance, why it is OK to use a GPS clock near the
horizon if c+v is assumed for its signal speed.
My calculations are for the radial component only.
It means the clock's position at the instant of signal ARRIVAL can be
used in the positioning process, making things a lot easier.

> In the operative GPS there exists a UNIQUE frame where Newtonian equations hold
> good, with a UNIQUE space and also a UNIQUE time, the one all the synchronized
> clocks are always showing simultaneously at any instant. Euclidean geometry and
> Cartesian coordinates are used, and EVERY moving entity (satellite, receptor or
> any other entity) in that frame has a SINGLE space position and velocity v at
> any instant considered.

All the clocks are in absolute synch and their orbit ephemerides
accurately known, relative to the ECI. The individual movements of the
clocks change nothing.

> I showed you already in my first post to your thread "Question for Relativity
> 'Expert'" the system of Newtonian equations that all GPS receptors are resolving
> continuously from already almost four decades, experimentally supporting the
> same isotropic velocity c for all time signals broadcasted from GPS operative
> satellites. I remain waiting for your answers in all your threads.

The algorithms effectively use c multiplied by the difference between
the received time signal and the time reading of the receiver's clock to
calculate the distance to the satellite.
That is very ingenious because, as I have now shown, it covers up the
use of (c+v)t by automatically subtracting the vt bit (clock movement
during signal travel).


> RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
>

[Gary Harnagel]

:-)))))

Stupid Ralphie-boy sees a term (c - v)*t and he immediately and stupidly
believes it means c is not invariant. Only a mathematically-incompetent
fool would jump to such a feckless conclusion.

Take a light source whose location is xls = d + v*t. Take a stationary
receiver at x = 0 which receives the light pulse and returns it to the
light source. The light source emits a light pulse at t = 0 which
travels at -c wrt the stationary receiver. Set up the equation of
motion of the light pulse:

x_pulse1 = d - c*t

Which specifies that the speed of the pulse is c in the receiver's frame.

The position of the pulse when it reaches the receiver is x = 0, so

t1 = d/c

x_return = d + v*t1 + v*t2 = d + v*d/c + v*t2

But x_return is also c*t2, so

c*t2 = d + v*d/c + v*t2

Oh oh! t2 is a function of itself, what are we going to DO? :-))

Simple:

(c - v)*t2 = d*(1 + v/c)

t2 = d*(1 + v/c)/(c - v)

We specified the light pulse traveled at c wrt the receiver, yet we have
a c - v anyway when all calculations were performed in the receiver's
frame. How could this be, oh mathematically-incompetent dunce?

[Paul B. Andersen]

> Are you having trouble reading messages now? Or are simple equations too
> hard for you these days.
>
> I have shown that if a source is moving radially, such as in GPS or
> Cassini, the use of c+v corrects out the source's movement during the
> signal's travel time automatically. If c+v is not used, for instance
> when the GPS clock is near the horizon, a positioning error will result.
>

This is still my response:

>> You must have lost your mind completely.
>>
>> 'nuff said!

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato]

I proved already wrong all your calculations, based in total inadequate frames
and the rejection of the isotropic signal velocity c used in all GPS receptors
very successfully for already almost four decades.

> > In the operative GPS there exists a UNIQUE frame where Newtonian equations hold
> > good, with a UNIQUE space and also a UNIQUE time, the one all the synchronized
> > clocks are always showing simultaneously at any instant. Euclidean geometry and
> > Cartesian coordinates are used, and EVERY moving entity (satellite, receptor or
> > any other entity) in that frame has a SINGLE space position and velocity v at
> > any instant considered.
>
> All the clocks are in absolute synch and their orbit ephemerides
> accurately known, relative to the ECI. The individual movements of the
> clocks change nothing.
>

Exactly, all the clocks are synchronized on the operative GPS ECI with the same
time; what implies that every signal broadcasted from a moving satellite at
time t is received in a receptor at time t', running always a c(t'-t) distance
at the same isotropic speed c, independent on any satellite, receptor or any
other velocity.

Yes, all is relative to the ECI, including the time. By the way, why you denote
"absolute" the relative to the ECI time? Not problem at all, denote if you want
also "absolute" the ECI space.

Maybe you need to build a GPS in the Moon to understand well why time and space
are both relatives, determined by the bodies themselves.

> > I showed you already in my first post to your thread "Question for Relativity
> > 'Expert'" the system of Newtonian equations that all GPS receptors are resolving
> > continuously from already almost four decades, experimentally supporting the
> > same isotropic velocity c for all time signals broadcasted from GPS operative
> > satellites. I remain waiting for your answers in all your threads.
>
> The algorithms effectively use c multiplied by the difference between
> the received time signal and the time reading of the receiver's clock to
> calculate the distance to the satellite.

Very right, but remember that the position of the satellite source corresponds
to a different time from the one in which the receptor receives the signal.

> That is very ingenious because, as I have now shown, it covers up the
> use of (c+v)t by automatically subtracting the vt bit (clock movement
> during signal travel).
>

Your last assertion is wrong, due to your inadequate use of frames where
Newtonian equations do not hold good, as I pointed to you already before.
>
> > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
> >

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

[HGW]

On 27/09/16 06:16, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> El lunes, 26 de septiembre de 2016, 13:56:12 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc.

>> The algorithms effectively use c multiplied by the difference
>> between the received time signal and the time reading of the
>> receiver's clock to calculate the distance to the satellite.
>
> Very right, but remember that the position of the satellite source
> corresponds to a different time from the one in which the receptor
> receives the signal.
>
>> That is very ingenious because, as I have now shown, it covers up
>> the use of (c+v)t by automatically subtracting the vt bit (clock
>> movement during signal travel).
>>
> Your last assertion is wrong, due to your inadequate use of frames
> where Newtonian equations do not hold good, as I pointed to you
> already before.

You are raising irrelevancies.

What I am saying applies to Radar, GPS, Cassini and any range finding
technique that involves a moving source which sends some kind of time
signal. (radar does that indirectly)

If an object is approaching an observer at c, its light moves at c+v
relative to the observer.
If it sends a time signal to the observer, that signal moves at (c+v)
relative to the observer and takes time t = D/(c+v) to reach him, where
D is the distance between the two at the instant the signal was sent. So
D = (c+v)t.
During the time taken for the signal to reach the observer, the source
move a distance vt. Therefore when the observer receives the signal, the
source is located (c+v)t - vt away. ...or just ct.
Isn't that convenient? ...and it appears to support constant light speed
when in fact it certainly does the opposite.




--

[al...@interia.pl]

W dniu wtorek, 27 września 2016 00:29:38 UTC+2 użytkownik HGW napisał:

> What I am saying applies to Radar, GPS, Cassini and any range finding
> technique that involves a moving source which sends some kind of time
> signal.(radar does that indirectly)

Indeed.
But any radar measurement includes an error of order:
V_radar/c^2, due to the SR convention which assumes: V = 0 for any source.

> If an object is approaching an observer at c, its light moves at c+v
> relative to the observer.
> If it sends a time signal to the observer, that signal moves at (c+v)
> relative to the observer and takes time t = D/(c+v) to reach him, where
> D is the distance between the two at the instant the signal was sent. So
> D = (c+v)t.
> During the time taken for the signal to reach the observer, the source
> move a distance vt. Therefore when the observer receives the signal, the
> source is located (c+v)t - vt away. ...or just ct.
> Isn't that convenient? ...and it appears to support constant light speed
> when in fact it certainly does the opposite.

Very poor math.

The real time period is simply an inverse of the frequency,
due to the fact:
T = 1/f.

So, in any measurement of the impulses you just get the time period:
T' = 1/f' = T * sqrt(1+v / 1-v), never 1/(c+v).

And in a radar ranging type measurement you get a square:
T'/T = (1+v / 1-v),

what assumes still the radar is stationary: v_radar = 0, of course,
therefore, an unavoidable, error of any radar is equal to:
dv/v =~ v_radar^2/c^2.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

Very poor theory and explanation. You seem to be confusing the period of
the signal at the source with the travel time of the signal. no wonder
you get everything wrong.

> And in a radar ranging type measurement you get a square:
> T'/T = (1+v / 1-v),
>
> what assumes still the radar is stationary: v_radar = 0, of course,
> therefore, an unavoidable, error of any radar is equal to:
> dv/v =~ v_radar^2/c^2.

Radar certainly has an error due to the fact that the return signal is
assumed to move at c. The error can be corrected out if c+v is accepted.

[Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato]

El lunes, 26 de septiembre de 2016, 18:29:38 (UTC-4), HGW escribió:
> On 27/09/16 06:16, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> > El lunes, 26 de septiembre de 2016, 13:56:12 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc.
>
> >> The algorithms effectively use c multiplied by the difference
> >> between the received time signal and the time reading of the
> >> receiver's clock to calculate the distance to the satellite.
> >
> > Very right, but remember that the position of the satellite source
> > corresponds to a different time from the one in which the receptor
> > receives the signal.
> >
> >> That is very ingenious because, as I have now shown, it covers up
> >> the use of (c+v)t by automatically subtracting the vt bit (clock
> >> movement during signal travel).
> >>
> > Your last assertion is wrong, due to your inadequate use of frames
> > where Newtonian equations do not hold good, as I pointed to you
> > already before.
>
> You are raising irrelevancies.
>

What I say is very relevant. In the operative GPS we have all the clocks
synchronized with a single ECI time, and all moving entities (including
satellite sources and receptors) with a single velocity and position on a
single ECI space at each ECI time instant. You have no right at all to consider
at rest what is moving, as you do with satellites and receptors, pretending to
obtain valid deductions.

> What I am saying applies to Radar, GPS, Cassini and any range finding
> technique that involves a moving source which sends some kind of time
> signal. (radar does that indirectly)
>

We are considering here only the operative GPS case, with a huge experimental
evidence showing that the broadcasted signals from the moving satellites have
always an isotropic speed c, not depending on the source (or any other)
velocity.

> If an object is approaching an observer at c, its light moves at c+v
> relative to the observer.
> If it sends a time signal to the observer, that signal moves at (c+v)
> relative to the observer and takes time t = D/(c+v) to reach him, where
> D is the distance between the two at the instant the signal was sent. So
> D = (c+v)t.
> During the time taken for the signal to reach the observer, the source
> move a distance vt. Therefore when the observer receives the signal, the
> source is located (c+v)t - vt away. ...or just ct.
> Isn't that convenient? ...and it appears to support constant light speed
> when in fact it certainly does the opposite.
>

You are only repeating what you did already before, considering Newtonian
equations in reference systems where they do not hold good.

A moving satellite or receptor CANNOT be considered at rest in the GPS ECI
without implying a flagrant violation of the 1686NM laws holding good by
definition in any 1905 Einstein stationary system, as the ECI Newtonian Center
of Mass (CM) system where only the stationary space points where the Earth is
rotating can be considered at rest.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

[al...@interia.pl]

W dniu wtorek, 27 września 2016 22:30:58 UTC+2 użytkownik HGWilson, DSc.

> > So, in any measurement of the impulses you just get the time period:
> > T' = 1/f' = T * sqrt(1+v / 1-v), never 1/(c+v).
>
> Very poor theory and explanation. You seem to be confusing the period of
> the signal at the source with the travel time of the signal. no wonder
> you get everything wrong.

There is no any special explanation needed.

T = 1/f;

What this means?

Simply: if you send a serie of singnals with a time separation:
dt = T,
then this is in fact a one signal with a frequency 1/T;
thus the Doppler shift for freq. still applies to this scenario.

> Radar certainly has an error due to the fact that the return signal is
> assumed to move at c. The error can be corrected out if c+v is accepted.

Indeed.
A two way average of: c-v and c-v is just: c * (1-v^2/c^2).

[HGW]

On 28/09/16 08:20, al...@interia.pl wrote:

>> Very poor theory and explanation. You seem to be confusing the period of
>> the signal at the source with the travel time of the signal. no wonder
>> you get everything wrong.
>
> There is no any special explanation needed.
>
> T = 1/f;
>
> What this means?
>
> Simply: if you send a serie of singnals with a time separation:
> dt = T,
> then this is in fact a one signal with a frequency 1/T;
> thus the Doppler shift for freq. still applies to this scenario.
>
>> Radar certainly has an error due to the fact that the return signal is
>> assumed to move at c. The error can be corrected out if c+v is accepted.
>
> Indeed.
> A two way average of: c-v and c-v is just: c * (1-v^2/c^2).

For radar, the outgoing signal moves at c wrt the source. The return
signal moves at c+v, at least in remote space.
There are two reasons for using radar. 1) for measuring an object's
speed and 2) for determining an object's location (usually at the
instant at which the signal is received).

For 1) Doppler can be used. For 2), the two way time is all there is to
go on so the speed as determined in 1) has to be incorporated.
There will be errors in both cases if constant signal speed is assumed.

I will work it out one day..





--

[HGW]

On 28/09/16 08:03, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> El lunes, 26 de septiembre de 2016, 18:29:38 (UTC-4), HGW escribió:

>>>>
>>> Your last assertion is wrong, due to your inadequate use of frames
>>> where Newtonian equations do not hold good, as I pointed to you
>>> already before.
>>
>> You are raising irrelevancies.
>>
> What I say is very relevant. In the operative GPS we have all the clocks
> synchronized with a single ECI time, and all moving entities (including
> satellite sources and receptors) with a single velocity and position on a
> single ECI space at each ECI time instant. You have no right at all to consider
> at rest what is moving, as you do with satellites and receptors, pretending to
> obtain valid deductions.
>
>> What I am saying applies to Radar, GPS, Cassini and any range finding
>> technique that involves a moving source which sends some kind of time
>> signal. (radar does that indirectly)
>>
> We are considering here only the operative GPS case, with a huge experimental
> evidence showing that the broadcasted signals from the moving satellites have
> always an isotropic speed c, not depending on the source (or any other)
> velocity.

There is no such evidence...and as I have just pointed out, the
algorithm terms used, ie., c(t'-t) give the current range automatically,
without having to correct for the satellite's movement.
The trick was to use (c+v)t and then subtract vt. Neat,eh? ...and nobody
realizes that c+v was assumed.

>> If an object is approaching an observer at c, its light moves at c+v
>> relative to the observer.
>> If it sends a time signal to the observer, that signal moves at (c+v)
>> relative to the observer and takes time t = D/(c+v) to reach him, where
>> D is the distance between the two at the instant the signal was sent. So
>> D = (c+v)t.
>> During the time taken for the signal to reach the observer, the source
>> move a distance vt. Therefore when the observer receives the signal, the
>> source is located (c+v)t - vt away. ...or just ct.
>> Isn't that convenient? ...and it appears to support constant light speed
>> when in fact it certainly does the opposite.
>>
> You are only repeating what you did already before, considering Newtonian
> equations in reference systems where they do not hold good.
>
> A moving satellite or receptor CANNOT be considered at rest in the GPS ECI
> without implying a flagrant violation of the 1686NM laws holding good by
> definition in any 1905 Einstein stationary system, as the ECI Newtonian Center
> of Mass (CM) system where only the stationary space points where the Earth is
> rotating can be considered at rest.

Nobody with any sense cares about anything Einstein said.

> RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
>


--

[Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato]

YOUR trick is a totally invalid one, as explained immediately.

vt means the space run by a moving entity with velocity v in time t, ONLY in a
frame where Newtonian equations hold good, and a one where an operative
satellite or receptor is considered at rest is NOT such a frame according to
1686NM.

The c(t’-t) is the unique valid distance in a Newtonian frame (the GPS ECI
system, a Newtonian Center of Mass one); not at all yours (c+v)t, vt and ct.

> >> If an object is approaching an observer at c, its light moves at c+v
> >> relative to the observer.
> >> If it sends a time signal to the observer, that signal moves at (c+v)
> >> relative to the observer and takes time t = D/(c+v) to reach him, where
> >> D is the distance between the two at the instant the signal was sent. So
> >> D = (c+v)t.
> >> During the time taken for the signal to reach the observer, the source
> >> move a distance vt. Therefore when the observer receives the signal, the
> >> source is located (c+v)t - vt away. ...or just ct.
> >> Isn't that convenient? ...and it appears to support constant light speed
> >> when in fact it certainly does the opposite.
> >>
> > You are only repeating what you did already before, considering Newtonian
> > equations in reference systems where they do not hold good.
> >
> > A moving satellite or receptor CANNOT be considered at rest in the GPS ECI
> > without implying a flagrant violation of the 1686NM laws holding good by
> > definition in any 1905 Einstein stationary system, as the ECI Newtonian Center
> > of Mass (CM) system where only the stationary space points where the Earth is
> > rotating can be considered at rest.
>
> Nobody with any sense cares about anything Einstein said.
>

I am taking for granted that you accept the validity of 1686 Newtonian
Mechanics (1686NM), as 1905 Einstein does.

Your problem is with 1686 Newton, having you not at all the right to violate
1686NM laws only because 1905 Einstein accepts the validity of them, no matter
at all your opinion (or any other one) about his work.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

[al...@interia.pl]

W dniu środa, 28 września 2016 06:07:01 UTC+2 użytkownik HGW napisał:

> For radar, the outgoing signal moves at c wrt the source. The return
> signal moves at c+v, at least in remote space.

Very fantastic idea. :)

> For 1) Doppler can be used. For 2), the two way time is all there is to
> go on so the speed as determined in 1) has to be incorporated.
> There will be errors in both cases if constant signal speed is assumed.
>
> I will work it out one day..

You are very funny.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Sunday, September 25, 2016 at 3:22:07 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> It is often claimed that large errors will result from the use of c+v in
> GPS calculations. This is wrong and the opposite is true. The use of
> constant light speed will cause large errors.

Oh, come on, Henry! You are being silly.

Much of the core software, possibly *most* of the core software underlying GPS
receivers is open source, having been branched, forked, and otherwise greatly
enhanced from software samples originally released to the public by the DoD.

I am somewhat familiar with one of these packages, having made specialized
adaptations for a personal project of mine. (I won't divulge details, but it is
built with an Arduino at its core, and it draws upon my three years experience
programming advanced prosthetic devices.)

Anyway, complete source code for this package is located at
http://gnsstk.sourceforge.net/index.html

Core functionality is contained in the file gps.c
http://gnsstk.sourceforge.net/gps_8c-source.html
This file includes the basic code for computing
- Satellite Clock Correction And Drift
- Satellite Position And Velocity
- User To Satellite Range
- Satellite Position, Velocity, Azimuth, Elevation, and Doppler
- Raw GPS Ephemeris elements from frame data
... and so on and so forth

The core computations assume constant light speed.

Since GPS works, the assumption of constant light speed must be correct.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 8:10:41 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>
> I am somewhat familiar with one of these packages, having made specialized
> adaptations for a personal project of mine. (I won't divulge details, but it is
> built with an Arduino at its core, and it draws upon my three years experience
> programming advanced prosthetic devices.)

(Although one GPS device may display a positioning error of around 10 meters
or so, two GPS devices will agree within each other to within centimeters,
the agreement being best if it can be guaranteed that the two devices are
using the same satellite selection and if tests exist to detect possible
spurious ranges resulting from reflections, etc. Indoors can present a
challenging environment for obtaining matched readings.)

[HGW]

New facts usually amuse...but this is probably too hard for you....

>

--

[HGW]

On 29/09/16 00:51, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> El miércoles, 28 de septiembre de 2016, 0:14:54 (UTC-4), HGW escribió:

>>
>> There is no such evidence...and as I have just pointed out, the
>> algorithm terms used, ie., c(t'-t) give the current range automatically,
>> without having to correct for the satellite's movement.
>> The trick was to use (c+v)t and then subtract vt. Neat,eh? ...and nobody
>> realizes that c+v was assumed.
>>
> YOUR trick is a totally invalid one, as explained immediately.
>
> vt means the space run by a moving entity with velocity v in time t, ONLY in a
> frame where Newtonian equations hold good, and a one where an operative
> satellite or receptor is considered at rest is NOT such a frame according to
> 1686NM.

Newton's equations hold good in all situations.

> The c(t’-t) is the unique valid distance in a Newtonian frame (the GPS ECI
> system, a Newtonian Center of Mass one); not at all yours (c+v)t, vt and ct.

c(t'-t), vt and ct are absolute distances. A rod can be placed across
them......and rods never change.

>> Nobody with any sense cares about anything Einstein said.
>>
> I am taking for granted that you accept the validity of 1686 Newtonian
> Mechanics (1686NM), as 1905 Einstein does.
>
> Your problem is with 1686 Newton, having you not at all the right to violate
> 1686NM laws only because 1905 Einstein accepts the validity of them, no matter
> at all your opinion (or any other one) about his work.

Einstein didn't accept them at all. He was a first rate hypocrite.

[HGW]

...and I have just shown you how constant light speed is made to appear
to be used when in fact, it is c+v that is assumed.
Another way to look at this is to always do the calculations in the
clock's frame. There, the signal moves at c relative to the clock...and
as I showed, again tells exactly the distance between clock and ground
receiver, at the instant the signal is received.
The ground observer uses c+v and gets the same answer.



--

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

***READ THE SOURCE CODE!!!***

Your notion of drawing a circle of radius Da around the satellite's position
at time of signal *receipt* corresponds to nothing in the source code. The
code does not perform extrapolations of satellite path to figure out
satellite position at time of signal receipt.
http://gnsstk.sourceforge.net/index.html

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu czwartek, 29 września 2016 03:10:41 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał:

> Since GPS works, the assumption of constant light speed must be correct.

If GPS engineers obeyed your moronic assumptions,
it wouldn't work at all.

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

That is a basic assumption in the source code that I have provided a link to.

Read it and show me otherwise.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

Practically, the only assumption that matters in your
relativistic mumbo jumbo is: proper clocks are
unsynchronized clocks.
Samely, as most of revolutional assumptions - it looks
good only in a theory.
But, oppositely to most of them, it is so idiotic, that
even most brainwashed relativistic moron won't even try
to apply it for real.
GPS engineers also didn't try to apply it. Their clocks
are synchronized. If they weren't - GPS wouldn't work.

[HGW]

That misses my point entirely.
What are xn, yn and zn?
Are they satellite coordinates when the signals are sent or when they
are received?

Also, what is wrong with considering the calculations from the clocks
themselves. After all, the location on Earth is given by effectively
drawing four solid arcs around each clock at a measured radius. The
vectors are drawn from the clocks not the receiver. ..and the signals
move at c relative to the clocks.
However, the receiver could move 4 or 5 metres while the signal is
traveling and that must be corrected out.

When it is, the answer you get is the same as that calculated at the
receiver using c+v, where v is the radial speed of the clock.


--

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 5:25:18 AM UTC-5, HGW wrote:
> On 29/09/16 16:06, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:

> > ***READ THE SOURCE CODE!!!***
> >
> > Your notion of drawing a circle of radius Da around the satellite's
> > position at time of signal *receipt* corresponds to nothing in the
> > source code. The code does not perform extrapolations of satellite
> > path to figure out satellite position at time of signal receipt.
> > http://gnsstk.sourceforge.net/index.html
>
> That misses my point entirely.
> What are xn, yn and zn?
> Are they satellite coordinates when the signals are sent or when they
> are received?

***READ THE CODE***

The ranges are based on when they are sent, making appropriate corrections
for the Sagnac effect and assuming constant c.

> Also, what is wrong with considering the calculations from the clocks
> themselves. After all, the location on Earth is given by effectively
> drawing four solid arcs around each clock at a measured radius. The
> vectors are drawn from the clocks not the receiver. ..and the signals
> move at c relative to the clocks.
> However, the receiver could move 4 or 5 metres while the signal is
> traveling and that must be corrected out.

The GPS code does not extrapolate satellite positions and it does not need
to. That is because c+v is nonsense.

> When it is, the answer you get is the same as that calculated at the
> receiver using c+v, where v is the radial speed of the clock.

In your dreams.

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu czwartek, 29 września 2016 08:17:58 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał:
> > If GPS engineers obeyed your moronic assumptions,
> > it wouldn't work at all.
>
> That is a basic assumption in the source code that I have provided a link to.
>
> Read it and show me otherwise.

Easy one.
You used ECEF. ECEF is cartesian. I.e. euclidean.
You calculate distances the way your Shit and your
idiot guru assumed incorrect.
End of the proof, poor, puffed halfbrain.

[al...@interia.pl]

Sorry, but such stupid transformation is immposible,
due to the general symmetry.

c-v -> c+v,
because the v is just: -v in the... say: mirror image. :)

understand?

[Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato]

El jueves, 29 de septiembre de 2016, 1:22:32 (UTC-4), HGW escribió:
> On 29/09/16 00:51, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> > El miércoles, 28 de septiembre de 2016, 0:14:54 (UTC-4), HGW escribió:
>
> >>
> >> There is no such evidence...and as I have just pointed out, the
> >> algorithm terms used, ie., c(t'-t) give the current range automatically,
> >> without having to correct for the satellite's movement.
> >> The trick was to use (c+v)t and then subtract vt. Neat,eh? ...and nobody
> >> realizes that c+v was assumed.
> >>
> > YOUR trick is a totally invalid one, as explained immediately.
> >
> > vt means the space run by a moving entity with velocity v in time t, ONLY in a
> > frame where Newtonian equations hold good, and a one where an operative
> > satellite or receptor is considered at rest is NOT such a frame according to
> > 1686NM.
>
> Newton's equations hold good in all situations.
>

That is a totally false assertion, putting in evidence your insufficient 1686
Newtonian Mechanics (1686NM) knowledge. As a simple example, in the Ptolemy's
system of coordinates with an assumed Earth at rest, 1686NM laws and equations
do not hold good.

> > The c(t’-t) is the unique valid distance in a Newtonian frame (the GPS ECI
> > system, a Newtonian Center of Mass one); not at all yours (c+v)t, vt and ct.
>
> c(t'-t), vt and ct are absolute distances. A rod can be placed across
> them......and rods never change.
>

Your vt assumes a receptor at rest and a satellite with velocity v, and your ct
a satellite at rest and a signal with velocity c; both situations never exist
in the operative GPS, representing flagrant violations of 1686NM axioms or
laws. Only the c(t'-t) is a valid absolute distance in the ECI Newtonian frame,
compatible with the synchronization of all operative clocks.

By the way, who says that a rod never changes? Have you also insufficient
Thermodynamics knowledge?

>
> >> Nobody with any sense cares about anything Einstein said.
> >>
> > I am taking for granted that you accept the validity of 1686 Newtonian
> > Mechanics (1686NM), as 1905 Einstein does.
> >

I interpret your silence as an affirmative comment.

> > Your problem is with 1686 Newton, having you not at all the right to violate
> > 1686NM laws only because 1905 Einstein accepts the validity of them, no matter
> > at all your opinion (or any other one) about his work.
>
> Einstein didn't accept them at all. He was a first rate hypocrite.
>

Einstein’s first 1905R postulate (denoted by him "Principle of Relativity")
says (between [ ]):

[ the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of
reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good ]

Are you pretending to change the History? On this group exists persons even
affirming that 1905R never existed as a different from today SR theory, that it
is only my personal wrong interpretation. Perhaps what you are trying to say is
that Einstein changes later his way of think? If that is the case, we are in
total agreement about this point.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

[HGW]

Idiot! The outgoing signal SPEED relative to the source is c.
The incoming SPEED after reflection is c+v.
Speeds don't have directions. Velocities do.

> understand?

I do..but you obviously don't.

My use of the word 'return' implies the opposite direction... but that
is irrelevant anyway.

In calculating the time taken each way, only positive speeds can be
used,. Otherwise you would get negative times.


--

[HGW]

On 30/09/16 03:00, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> El jueves, 29 de septiembre de 2016, 1:22:32 (UTC-4), HGW escribió:
>> On 29/09/16 00:51, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
>>> El miércoles, 28 de septiembre de 2016, 0:14:54 (UTC-4), HGW escribió:
>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no such evidence...and as I have just pointed out, the
>>>> algorithm terms used, ie., c(t'-t) give the current range automatically,
>>>> without having to correct for the satellite's movement.
>>>> The trick was to use (c+v)t and then subtract vt. Neat,eh? ...and nobody
>>>> realizes that c+v was assumed.
>>>>
>>> YOUR trick is a totally invalid one, as explained immediately.
>>>
>>> vt means the space run by a moving entity with velocity v in time t, ONLY in a
>>> frame where Newtonian equations hold good, and a one where an operative
>>> satellite or receptor is considered at rest is NOT such a frame according to
>>> 1686NM.
>>
>> Newton's equations hold good in all situations.
>>
> That is a totally false assertion, putting in evidence your insufficient 1686
> Newtonian Mechanics (1686NM) knowledge. As a simple example, in the Ptolemy's
> system of coordinates with an assumed Earth at rest, 1686NM laws and equations
> do not hold good.

Actually they do...but the calculations immediately become too messy to
handle.

>>> The c(t’-t) is the unique valid distance in a Newtonian frame (the GPS ECI
>>> system, a Newtonian Center of Mass one); not at all yours (c+v)t, vt and ct.
>>
>> c(t'-t), vt and ct are absolute distances. A rod can be placed across
>> them......and rods never change.
>>
> Your vt assumes a receptor at rest and a satellite with velocity v, and your ct
> a satellite at rest and a signal with velocity c; both situations never exist
> in the operative GPS, representing flagrant violations of 1686NM axioms or
> laws. Only the c(t'-t) is a valid absolute distance in the ECI Newtonian frame,
> compatible with the synchronization of all operative clocks.

HAHAHHAHHA! I have just told you the truth but you wont listen. c(t'-t)
is really derived from (c+v(t'-t) -vt....the correct ballistic equation
for GPS signals.

> By the way, who says that a rod never changes? Have you also insufficient
> Thermodynamics knowledge?

You are very juvenile. The 'Perfect' rods used in thought experiments
have zero coefficients of thermal expansion. They also have infinite Y.M.

>>> Your problem is with 1686 Newton, having you not at all the right to violate
>>> 1686NM laws only because 1905 Einstein accepts the validity of them, no matter
>>> at all your opinion (or any other one) about his work.
>>
>> Einstein didn't accept them at all. He was a first rate hypocrite.
>>
> Einstein’s first 1905R postulate (denoted by him "Principle of Relativity")
> says (between [ ]):
>
> [ the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of
> reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good ]

Yes, he pretended to accept Newton's relativity idea but then went on to
violate it by claiming that many absolute quantities were frame dependent.

> Are you pretending to change the History? On this group exists persons even
> affirming that 1905R never existed as a different from today SR theory, that it
> is only my personal wrong interpretation. Perhaps what you are trying to say is
> that Einstein changes later his way of think? If that is the case, we are in
> total agreement about this point.

SR is based on Einstein' second postulate. His first was stolen from
Poincare and is irrelevant.

[HGW]

On 29/09/16 21:35, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 5:25:18 AM UTC-5, HGW wrote:
>> On 29/09/16 16:06, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:

>> That misses my point entirely. What are xn, yn and zn? Are they
>> satellite coordinates when the signals are sent or when they are
>> received?
>
> ***READ THE CODE***

It does not relate to what matters here.

> The ranges are based on when they are sent, making appropriate
> corrections for the Sagnac effect and assuming constant c.

>> Also, what is wrong with considering the calculations from the
>> clocks themselves. After all, the location on Earth is given by
>> effectively drawing four solid arcs around each clock at a measured
>> radius. The vectors are drawn from the clocks not the receiver.
>> ..and the signals move at c relative to the clocks. However, the
>> receiver could move 4 or 5 metres while the signal is traveling and
>> that must be corrected out.
>
> The GPS code does not extrapolate satellite positions and it does not
> need to. That is because c+v is nonsense.

What are you talking about? The GPS has to know precisely where each
satellite is at the instant a time signal is received....not when it was
sent.
The use of c+v automatically corrects for the satellite's radial
movement and the fictitious Sagnac effect.

GPS exemplifies the way the name Einstein has been linked to every
physics achievement when it really has nothing to do with it.
It again proves the existence of a gigantic conspiracy of which you seem
to be part.

>> When it is, the answer you get is the same as that calculated at
>> the receiver using c+v, where v is the radial speed of the clock.
>
> In your dreams.
>

--

[HGW]

...Hey, that's a very generous description! Prokaryotic organisms do not
have brains at all.



--

[Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog]

On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 7:17:49 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote:
> On 29/09/16 21:35, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 5:25:18 AM UTC-5, HGW wrote:
> >> On 29/09/16 16:06, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>
> >> That misses my point entirely. What are xn, yn and zn? Are they
> >> satellite coordinates when the signals are sent or when they are
> >> received?
> >
> > ***READ THE CODE***
>
> It does not relate to what matters here

Of course it matters. Satellites regularly broadcast signals that pinpoint their
positions at precisely defined moments of satellite time; in other words, they
regularly specify events in the satellite coordinate system. Receivers compute
their pseudoranges to these events using the assumption of a constant speed of
light. Quartz clocks are generally only accurate to about 1 ppm. If fewer than
four satellites acquisitions are available, then, if we multiply one millionth
of a second per second clock error by c, it should be evident that uncorrected
pseudorange computations can easily misinterpret stationary objects as zooming
along at 300 meters per second at a distance hundreds of thousands of kilometers
distant from their true positions. With four or more satellites, the receiver
clock error can be computed, and the more satellites you have to work with, the
the better your your position estimation.

The important thing to note when reading the source code, is that the
pseudorange computations are made to x, y, z, t events in the satellite
coordinate system assuming constant speed of light, not to some complicated
x+dx, y+dy, z+dz, t+dt position where the magnitudes of dx, dy, dz, dt are
calculated on the basis of how far the satellite would have moved in the time
it would have taken for light to have traveled from satellite to receiver.

There is a calculation to compensate for the Sagnac effect, i.e. relativity of
simultaneity, but that is a different computation entirely, and also assumes
constant speed of light.

***READ THE SOURCE CODE.***

> > The ranges are based on when they are sent, making appropriate
> > corrections for the Sagnac effect and assuming constant c.
>
> >> Also, what is wrong with considering the calculations from the
> >> clocks themselves. After all, the location on Earth is given by
> >> effectively drawing four solid arcs around each clock at a measured
> >> radius. The vectors are drawn from the clocks not the receiver.
> >> ..and the signals move at c relative to the clocks. However, the
> >> receiver could move 4 or 5 metres while the signal is traveling and
> >> that must be corrected out.
> >
> > The GPS code does not extrapolate satellite positions and it does not
> > need to. That is because c+v is nonsense.
>
> What are you talking about? The GPS has to know precisely where each
> satellite is at the instant a time signal is received....not when it was
> sent.

No, the pseudorange computations are to the satellite positions at the time
when the signals were sent. ***READ THE SOURCE CODE.***

> The use of c+v automatically corrects for the satellite's radial
> movement and the fictitious Sagnac effect.

The source code makes use of c, not c+v. ***READ THE SOURCE CODE.***

[mlwo...@wp.pl]

W dniu piątek, 30 września 2016 11:21:42 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał:
> On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 7:17:49 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote:
> > On 29/09/16 21:35, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > > On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 5:25:18 AM UTC-5, HGW wrote:
> > >> On 29/09/16 16:06, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> >
> > >> That misses my point entirely. What are xn, yn and zn? Are they
> > >> satellite coordinates when the signals are sent or when they are
> > >> received?
> > >
> > > ***READ THE CODE***
> >
> > It does not relate to what matters here
>
> Of course it matters. Satellites regularly broadcast signals that pinpoint their
> positions at precisely defined moments of satellite time; in other words, they
> regularly specify events in the satellite coordinate system.

And, unfortunately, this coordinate system
has nothing in common with the revolutional,
one and only proper path of creating coordinate
systems invented by Great Guru.

[Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato]

El jueves, 29 de septiembre de 2016, 20:08:12 (UTC-4), HGW escribió:
> On 30/09/16 03:00, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> > El jueves, 29 de septiembre de 2016, 1:22:32 (UTC-4), HGW escribió:
> >> On 29/09/16 00:51, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> >>> El miércoles, 28 de septiembre de 2016, 0:14:54 (UTC-4), HGW escribió:
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> There is no such evidence...and as I have just pointed out, the
> >>>> algorithm terms used, ie., c(t'-t) give the current range automatically,
> >>>> without having to correct for the satellite's movement.
> >>>> The trick was to use (c+v)t and then subtract vt. Neat,eh? ...and nobody
> >>>> realizes that c+v was assumed.
> >>>>
> >>> YOUR trick is a totally invalid one, as explained immediately.
> >>>
> >>> vt means the space run by a moving entity with velocity v in time t, ONLY in a
> >>> frame where Newtonian equations hold good, and a one where an operative
> >>> satellite or receptor is considered at rest is NOT such a frame according to
> >>> 1686NM.
> >>
> >> Newton's equations hold good in all situations.
> >>
> > That is a totally false assertion, putting in evidence your insufficient 1686
> > Newtonian Mechanics (1686NM) knowledge. As a simple example, in the Ptolemy's
> > system of coordinates with an assumed Earth at rest, 1686NM laws and equations
> > do not hold good.
>
> Actually they do...but the calculations immediately become too messy to
> handle.
>

Calculations are not involved at all here. You simply have not idea at all
about what means that 1686NM does not hold good in the Ptolemy's system of
coordinates with an assumed Earth at rest. I will try to explain it for you in
a simple manner.

1686NM follows the same development way than the Euclidean geometry, starting
from the assumed validity of few Axioms or Postulates and deriving then from
them the theorems. The fact is that the assumed by Ptolemy rest Earth is
already in contradiction with the three 1686NM Axioms (or Laws of Motion).

To make compatible Ptolemy's view with 1686 Newton's one, we need a not
existing at all infinite massive Earth.

> >>> The c(t’-t) is the unique valid distance in a Newtonian frame (the GPS ECI
> >>> system, a Newtonian Center of Mass one); not at all yours (c+v)t, vt and ct.
> >>
> >> c(t'-t), vt and ct are absolute distances. A rod can be placed across
> >> them......and rods never change.
> >>
> > Your vt assumes a receptor at rest and a satellite with velocity v, and your ct
> > a satellite at rest and a signal with velocity c; both situations never exist
> > in the operative GPS, representing flagrant violations of 1686NM axioms or
> > laws. Only the c(t'-t) is a valid absolute distance in the ECI Newtonian frame,
> > compatible with the synchronization of all operative clocks.
>
> HAHAHHAHHA! I have just told you the truth but you wont listen. c(t'-t)
> is really derived from (c+v(t'-t) -vt....the correct ballistic equation
> for GPS signals.
>

That is a totally false derivation. v(t'-t) assumes already a rest receptor in
contradiction with the 1686NM Axioms valid in the GPS ECI. The c(t'-t) is the
unique valid distance compatible with 1686NM, with already the extraordinary
HUGE experimental support of the GPS operation.

I know that it will be very difficult for you to accept the experimental
reality of today GPS, in total contradiction with the BaTh that you defend.

> > By the way, who says that a rod never changes? Have you also insufficient
> > Thermodynamics knowledge?
>
> You are very juvenile. The 'Perfect' rods used in thought experiments
> have zero coefficients of thermal expansion. They also have infinite Y.M.
>

In the 1905R thought experiments, it is derived for a moving rod a little less
length than a rest one, and for a moving clock a little slower running than a
rest one. No mention at all of any 'Perfect' rod with zero coefficients of
thermal expansion and infinite Young Module. The derivations are done starting
from the validity of the two 1905R postulates, the same ones having today the
already mentioned extraordinary HUGE experimental support of the GPS operation.

> >>> Your problem is with 1686 Newton, having you not at all the right to violate
> >>> 1686NM laws only because 1905 Einstein accepts the validity of them, no matter
> >>> at all your opinion (or any other one) about his work.
> >>
> >> Einstein didn't accept them at all. He was a first rate hypocrite.
> >>
> > Einstein’s first 1905R postulate (denoted by him "Principle of Relativity")
> > says (between [ ]):
> >
> > [ the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of
> > reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good ]
>
> Yes, he pretended to accept Newton's relativity idea but then went on to
> violate it by claiming that many absolute quantities were frame dependent.
>

Until now, you are here the unique one violating 1686NM Axioms, including then
the 1686NM Corollary V (Galileo's Principle of Relativity). More probably, you
have not idea at all about what Corollary V says, surely confusing it with the
today SR symmetric equivalence of inertial frames.

> > Are you pretending to change the History? On this group exists persons even
> > affirming that 1905R never existed as a different from today SR theory, that it
> > is only my personal wrong interpretation. Perhaps what you are trying to say is
> > that Einstein changes later his way of think? If that is the case, we are in
> > total agreement about this point.
>
> SR is based on Einstein' second postulate. His first was stolen from
> Poincare and is irrelevant.

I am talking here only about 1905R, very different from the later developed SR.

Poincare managed the luminiferous ether that 1905 Einstein derived superfluous,
precisely applying his first postulate that today finds the extraordinary HUGE
support of GPS. It is a complete absurdity to credit Poincare with the holding
good of 1864 Maxwell's electrodynamics (including the isotropic vacuum light
speed c) in all Center of Mass Newtonian systems.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

[al...@interia.pl]

W dniu piątek, 30 września 2016 01:48:30 UTC+2 użytkownik HGW napisał:

> Idiot! The outgoing signal SPEED relative to the source is c.
> The incoming SPEED after reflection is c+v.
> Speeds don't have directions. Velocities do.
>
> > understand?
>
> I do..but you obviously don't.

You are talking about the SR numerology.

There in the SR the signal goes with the fixed c speed wrt the source,
so, the signal moves in fact with a speed c - v for any moving body.

Stupid idea, but it can be even correct..
in a one single special case:
the source speed is null - it stays just in the ether frame..
............

The moving source:

c<------------S---> v ---------> c

the both signals moves with c, but wrt the S this is c-v - forvard and c+v backward.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 30/09/16 19:21, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 7:17:49 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote:

>>>
>>> The GPS code does not extrapolate satellite positions and it does not
>>> need to. That is because c+v is nonsense.
>>
>> What are you talking about? The GPS has to know precisely where each
>> satellite is at the instant a time signal is received....not when it was
>> sent.

> No, the pseudorange computations are to the satellite positions at the time
> when the signals were sent. ***READ THE SOURCE CODE.***

....and that is no good to anyone. Clearly, the data has to be corrected
to the satellite positions at time of receipt.

...The analysis is based on the assumption that the signals travel at c
relative to the satellites. Subsequently, corrections are made to
accommodate the movements of the satellites during signal transits and
as I have pointed out, those corrections amount to using c+v directly.

>> The use of c+v automatically corrects for the satellite's radial
>> movement and the fictitious Sagnac effect.
>
> The source code makes use of c, not c+v. ***READ THE SOURCE CODE.***

It uses c as the signal speed relative to the satellites...which is
correct. Relative to the receiver, the signals travel at c+v... and that
assumption becomes apparent when one looks closely at how the
corrections are applied.

[Tom Roberts]

On 9/30/16 9/30/16 3:25 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 30/09/16 19:21, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>> the pseudorange computations are to the satellite positions at the time
>> when the signals were sent. ***READ THE SOURCE CODE.***
>
> ....and that is no good to anyone. Clearly, the data has to be corrected to the
> satellite positions at time of receipt.

NONSENSE! The radio signal traveled satellite->receiver, and ALL that matters
(for the calculation of the pseudorange between this satellite and this
receiver) are the satellite position at transmission, the receiver position at
reception, and the time between transmission and reception. Where the satellite
happens to be when the receiver hears the signal has nothing whatsoever to do
with anything.

Just THINK about it -- the satellite knows when it sends its time
mark, and knows where it is located when it sends it. It cannot
possibly know its position when any given receiver receives that
time mark, as there are MANY different receivers at MANY different
distances from the satellite. So the satellite position at the
time of reception cannot possibly matter.

Just COMPUTE it -- the pseudo range does not depend in any way on
where the satellite happens to be when the receiver receives the
time mark. All that is needed for that calculation is the location
of the satellite when it sent its time mark, the time contained in
the time mark, and the time the receiver receives it (which is
determined by a fit to 4 or more pseudoranges and time marks from
4 or more satellites). As PCH says, READ THE SOURCE CODE.

> ...The analysis is based on the assumption that the signals travel at c relative
> to the satellites.

NO! The calculation is based on the FACT that that radio signals travel with
speed c RELATIVE TO THE ECI COORDINATES. No matter how much you try to deny this
fact, it remains a fact, and this _IS_ how GPS receivers calculate pseudoranges
to satellites, and derive their position from them.

If c+v was used, where v is the velocity of the satellite, the
GPS simply would not have the accuracy it does. Moreover, YOU
WOULD SEE THAT IN THE SOURCE CODE, but it isn't there....


> [... further fantasies and misconceptions]


Tom Roberts

[HGW]

Idiot, that is aether theory.

In the real world, the speed is c in both directions.



--

[HGW]

On 01/10/16 03:32, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> El jueves, 29 de septiembre de 2016, 20:08:12 (UTC-4), HGW escribió:
>> On 30/09/16 03:00, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:

>>>> Newton's equations hold good in all situations.
>>>>
>>> That is a totally false assertion, putting in evidence your insufficient 1686
>>> Newtonian Mechanics (1686NM) knowledge. As a simple example, in the Ptolemy's
>>> system of coordinates with an assumed Earth at rest, 1686NM laws and equations
>>> do not hold good.
>>
>> Actually they do...but the calculations immediately become too messy to
>> handle.
>>
> Calculations are not involved at all here. You simply have not idea at all
> about what means that 1686NM does not hold good in the Ptolemy's system of
> coordinates with an assumed Earth at rest. I will try to explain it for you in
> a simple manner.
>
> 1686NM follows the same development way than the Euclidean geometry, starting
> from the assumed validity of few Axioms or Postulates and deriving then from
> them the theorems. The fact is that the assumed by Ptolemy rest Earth is
> already in contradiction with the three 1686NM Axioms (or Laws of Motion).

The Earth's frame is constantly accelerating t different rates and in
different directions. If that could be included in the calculations,
then it would, in theory, be possible to predict the movements of other
bodies in the universe. Of course it is impossible except maybe for very
short periods.

You should realize however that your own arguments are assuming the sun
is 'at rest'....which is not true. It too experiences constant
accelerations.

> To make compatible Ptolemy's view with 1686 Newton's one, we need a not
> existing at all infinite massive Earth.
>
>>>>> The c(t’-t) is the unique valid distance in a Newtonian frame (the GPS ECI
>>>>> system, a Newtonian Center of Mass one); not at all yours (c+v)t, vt and ct.
>>>>
>>>> c(t'-t), vt and ct are absolute distances. A rod can be placed across
>>>> them......and rods never change.
>>>>
>>> Your vt assumes a receptor at rest and a satellite with velocity v, and your ct
>>> a satellite at rest and a signal with velocity c; both situations never exist
>>> in the operative GPS, representing flagrant violations of 1686NM axioms or
>>> laws. Only the c(t'-t) is a valid absolute distance in the ECI Newtonian frame,
>>> compatible with the synchronization of all operative clocks.
>>
>> HAHAHHAHHA! I have just told you the truth but you wont listen. c(t'-t)
>> is really derived from (c+v(t'-t) -vt....the correct ballistic equation
>> for GPS signals.
>>
> That is a totally false derivation. v(t'-t) assumes already a rest receptor in
> contradiction with the 1686NM Axioms valid in the GPS ECI. The c(t'-t) is the
> unique valid distance compatible with 1686NM, with already the extraordinary
> HUGE experimental support of the GPS operation.

I agree....but you cannot see that the term c(t'-t) is actually derived
from (c+v)(t'-t)-vt.

> I know that it will be very difficult for you to accept the experimental
> reality of today GPS, in total contradiction with the BaTh that you defend.

The experimental reality proves that c+v is used before the satellite's
movement vt is corrected out.
I just showed you why.

[al...@interia.pl]

Not in any real world, but in the SR domain only.

if you introduce a fictitious time idea:
t' = c'/c t = ..

then you just get the c = const... in an operational sense.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 01/10/16 07:54, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 9/30/16 9/30/16 3:25 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>> On 30/09/16 19:21, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>> the pseudorange computations are to the satellite positions at the time
>>> when the signals were sent. ***READ THE SOURCE CODE.***
>>
>> ....and that is no good to anyone. Clearly, the data has to be
>> corrected to the
>> satellite positions at time of receipt.
>
> NONSENSE! The radio signal traveled satellite->receiver, and ALL that
> matters (for the calculation of the pseudorange between this satellite
> and this receiver) are the satellite position at transmission, the
> receiver position at reception, and the time between transmission and
> reception. Where the satellite happens to be when the receiver hears the
> signal has nothing whatsoever to do with anything.


> Just THINK about it -- the satellite knows when it sends its time
> mark, and knows where it is located when it sends it. It cannot
> possibly know its position when any given receiver receives that
> time mark, as there are MANY different receivers at MANY different
> distances from the satellite. So the satellite position at the
> time of reception cannot possibly matter.

Tom, Firstly, please read my original post and then consider its
relevance to the principle of triangulation.
Let R be moving randomly relative to three fixed points. (For our
purpose here, only radial speeds are relevant and the 'v' used below
will refer to radial speed relative to R)

P2
P3
P1

>
R

R's location can be specified by its precise distance from the three
points at any INSTANT. Those distances are truly represented by three
vectors drawn between R and the points.

In the case of the GPS, R and the points are all moving relatively and
communication between them is not instantaneous. The ECI coordinates of
the points is known accurately at any instant. The time signals emitted
by the points do not arrive at R at the same instant so R cannot know
its exact distance to each point at any one particular instant. The
consequence is that calculated vectors drawn from the points never meet
precisely at one point. Accuracy is improved in a number of ways, the
use of four or more points being one.

The argument I have raised is that the signals travel at c+v rather than
c and the accuracy of the system is actually improved as a result.
If R could establish its INSTANTANEOUS distance to each point the
vectors would meet.

Consider that R is at rest with P1 and P3 but that P2 is moving at v.

R can rightly establish its fixed distances to P1 and P3 by using
c(t'-t), where t' is time of receipt of time signal t. For P2 however,
the same calculation will produce the distance to the known location of
P2 when the signal was sent. That presents no problem since all three
distances and point coordinates are known at one instant (since those to
P1 and P2 are constant).
However if all three points are moving, because common time signals do
not arrive simultaneously, the instantaneous distances cannot be
determined, even though the coordinates are all known the time of emission.

My revelation is that because the signals really travel at c+v and the
clocks move a distance vt during signal travel, the use of c(t'-t) which
is just [(c+v)(t'-t) - vt] does effectively produce three distances at
the SAME instant.
Einstein's error is very conveniently canceled out through the use of c
rather than c+v.
Clever, eh?.

(The above facts might be easier to understand if the situation is
viewed from the point of view of each clock, in which case the signals
DO move at c relative to each and R moves at different speeds and
directions in each frame.}


<religious propaganda snipped>

[Michael Moroney]

"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes:

>My revelation is that because the signals really travel at c+v and the
>clocks move a distance vt during signal travel, the use of c(t'-t) which
>is just [(c+v)(t'-t) - vt] does effectively produce three distances at
>the SAME instant.
>Einstein's error is very conveniently canceled out through the use of c
>rather than c+v.
>Clever, eh?.

Ralph Malcolm, explain your math. (c+v)(t'-t) is c(t'-t)+v(t'-t), or can
be written as c(t'-t)+vt'-vt. So your [(c+v)(t'-t) - vt] becomes
c(t'-t)+vt'-2vt. This is not equal to c(t'-t). How is that any sort of
"revelation" or "clever" in any way, Ralph?

[HGW]

When you say 'a moving source' you should make clear what you mean.
Moving relative to what?



--

[HGW]

On 02/10/16 12:02, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes:
>
>> My revelation is that because the signals really travel at c+v and the
>> clocks move a distance vt during signal travel, the use of c(t'-t) which
>> is just [(c+v)(t'-t) - vt] does effectively produce three distances at
>> the SAME instant.
>> Einstein's error is very conveniently canceled out through the use of c
>> rather than c+v.
>> Clever, eh?.
>

> Dr Wilson, explain your math. (c+v)(t'-t) is c(t'-t)+v(t'-t), or can

> be written as c(t'-t)+vt'-vt. So your [(c+v)(t'-t) - vt] becomes
> c(t'-t)+vt'-2vt. This is not equal to c(t'-t). How is that any sort of

> "revelation" or "clever" in any way, Dr Wilson?

Poor idiot can't even understand what I wrote.....

It means, poor Irish clown, that by using c rather than true c+v, one
automatically corrects for the source's movement during communication time.
--

[al...@interia.pl]

A motion withing the light frame of course...
means the sourece moves wrt the frame where c = const (anisotropic).

Thus the light speed wrt a moving body is just always: c - v,
due to the standard math/geometry rules.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

>>>>>
>>>>> The moving source:
>>>>>
>>>>> c<------------S---> v ---------> c
>>>>>
>>>>> the both signals moves with c, but wrt the S this is c-v -
>>>>> forvard and c+v backward.
>>>>
>>>> Idiot, that is aether theory.
>>>>
>>>> In the real world, the speed is c in both directions.
>>>
>>> Not in any real world, but in the SR domain only.
>>>
>>> if you introduce a fictitious time idea: t' = c'/c t = ..
>>>
>>> then you just get the c = const... in an operational sense.
>>
>> When you say 'a moving source' you should make clear what you
>> mean. Moving relative to what?
>
> A motion withing the light frame of course... means the sourece moves
> wrt the frame where c = const (anisotropic).

There is no 'light frame'

What are you talking about?

You could say that a pulse of light in remote space defines an inertial
frame and that everything is moving relative tom it at a wide range of
speeds.

Thus the light speed wrt a moving body is just always: c - v,
> due to the standard math/geometry rules.

That's what I told you. Why are you arguing?

[Michael Moroney]

HGW <hw@....> writes:

>On 02/10/16 12:02, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes:
>>
>>> My revelation is that because the signals really travel at c+v and the
>>> clocks move a distance vt during signal travel, the use of c(t'-t) which
>>> is just [(c+v)(t'-t) - vt] does effectively produce three distances at
>>> the SAME instant.
>>> Einstein's error is very conveniently canceled out through the use of c
>>> rather than c+v.
>>> Clever, eh?.
>>
>> Dr Wilson, explain your math. (c+v)(t'-t) is c(t'-t)+v(t'-t), or can
>> be written as c(t'-t)+vt'-vt. So your [(c+v)(t'-t) - vt] becomes
>> c(t'-t)+vt'-2vt. This is not equal to c(t'-t). How is that any sort of
>> "revelation" or "clever" in any way, Dr Wilson?

>Poor idiot can't even understand what I wrote.....

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, that is because you keep messing with my posts,
Ralph, by making it look like I was speaking to some nonexistent
Dr. Wilson, Ralph Rabbidge. Ralph, as I just showed you, Ralph Malcolm
Rabbidge, your math is all screwed up, Ralph.

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, first of all, Ralph, the GPS receiver needs to
know the exact time and position of the satellite when it sends the
data, Ralph. Ralph Rabbidge, the position of the satellite some time
later is irrelevant, Ralph.

Ralph, secondly, I showed you that c(t'-t) is most certainly *not* equal
to [(c+v)(t'-t) - vt] as you foolishly claim, Ralph. So Ralph Rabbidge,
yet another attempt at proving light moves at c+v has failed, Ralph.

And as was pointed out to you many times, Ralph, *read the source code*,
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.

>It means, poor Irish clown, that by using c rather than true c+v, one
>automatically corrects for the source's movement during communication time.

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, why attack your own ethnicity, Ralph? Rabbidge is
a fine Irish name, Ralph. And once again, Ralph, the GPS source's
movement after the signal broadcast is irrelevant, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, what if a positioning thruster accidentally fired
at full strength after the signal was sent, Ralph? It would not affect
the calculations based on that signal one bit, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.
Ralph, of course, all signals *after* the accidental firing would be
corrupted, Ralph.


>

[Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato]

You are only putting in evidence here your ignorance about basic 1686NM,
centuries before 1905 Einstein.

See what says Corollary VI of 1686NM , a generalization of the V (Galileo's
Principle of Relativity from zero acceleration (any uniform velocity) to any
variable acceleration (centuries before GR):

(1686 Newton’s literal words between [ ]) [ COROLLARY VI.

"If bodies, any how moved among themselves, are urged in the direction of
parallel lines by equal accelerative forces, they will all continue to move
among themselves, after the same, manner as if they had been urged by no such
forces."

For these forces acting equally (with respect to the quantities of the bodies
to be moved), and in the direction of parallel lines, will (by Law II) move all
the bodies equally (as to velocity), and therefore will never produce any
change in the positions or motions of the bodies among themselves. ]

The requirement of parallel equal accelerative forces hold very good for the
Solar system accelerated as a whole entity in the Galaxy system. This is why we
can apply 1686NM to the Solar system considering it as the whole Universe,
ignoring completely the presence of all bodies external to it (Newton did it).
A similar procedure is done with the Earth frame, where even the presence of
he Moon can be ignored in the original GPS design.

> > To make compatible Ptolemy's view with 1686 Newton's one, we need a not
> > existing at all infinite massive Earth.
> >

According to 1686NM, any finite massive entity cannot be considered at rest if
we want to describe its interaction with other external entities; but thanks to
Corollary VI, that is not at all a problem if we are interested to describe the
interactions among its internal parts, as in the Solar system case or the GPS
ECI one.

> >>>>> The c(t’-t) is the unique valid distance in a Newtonian frame (the GPS ECI
> >>>>> system, a Newtonian Center of Mass one); not at all yours (c+v)t, vt and ct.
> >>>>
> >>>> c(t'-t), vt and ct are absolute distances. A rod can be placed across
> >>>> them......and rods never change.
> >>>>
> >>> Your vt assumes a receptor at rest and a satellite with velocity v, and your ct
> >>> a satellite at rest and a signal with velocity c; both situations never exist
> >>> in the operative GPS, representing flagrant violations of 1686NM axioms or
> >>> laws. Only the c(t'-t) is a valid absolute distance in the ECI Newtonian frame,
> >>> compatible with the synchronization of all operative clocks.
> >>
> >> HAHAHHAHHA! I have just told you the truth but you wont listen. c(t'-t)
> >> is really derived from (c+v(t'-t) -vt....the correct ballistic equation
> >> for GPS signals.
> >>
> > That is a totally false derivation. v(t'-t) assumes already a rest receptor in
> > contradiction with the 1686NM Axioms valid in the GPS ECI. The c(t'-t) is the
> > unique valid distance compatible with 1686NM, with already the extraordinary
> > HUGE experimental support of the GPS operation.
>
> I agree....but you cannot see that the term c(t'-t) is actually derived
> from (c+v)(t'-t)-vt.
>

That derivation is also a wrong one, implying 1686NM Axioms violations, because
vt is NOT a valid 1686NM distance in the GPS ECI (assumes a not existing
receptor at rest).

> > I know that it will be very difficult for you to accept the experimental
> > reality of today GPS, in total contradiction with the BaTh that you defend.
>
> The experimental reality proves that c+v is used before the satellite's
> movement vt is corrected out.
> I just showed you why.

Neither c+v nor vt are in the GPS ECI valid 1686NM distances, as I showed to
you already in all detail (with the additional support in this post of 1686
Newton's literal words).

The experimentally reality of GPS supports c(t'-t) as the unique valid 1686NM
distance, in total agreement with the two 1905R original postulates.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 30.09.2016 02:17, HGW wrote:
> On 29/09/16 21:35, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>
>> The GPS code does not extrapolate satellite positions and it does not
>> need to. That is because c+v is nonsense.
>
> What are you talking about? The GPS has to know precisely where each
> satellite is at the instant a time signal is received....not when it was
> sent.

One can but wonder how it is possible to discuss the GPS
for so many years and still be so utterly ignorant about how it works.

I have seen many versions of Ralph Malcom Rabbidge's wrong claims
about the GPS, but this is one of the most stupid.

It isn't even funny, only sad.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[al...@interia.pl]

W dniu poniedziałek, 3 października 2016 00:18:22 UTC+2 użytkownik HGWilson,

> > A motion withing the light frame of course... means the sourece moves
> > wrt the frame where c = const (anisotropic).
>
> There is no 'light frame'

You are talking nonsense - self contradiction!

The evident fact:
c - v for any moving body would be impossible in your logics - at all!

[Michael Moroney]

Exactly. What Ralph Rabbidge doesn't realize is it's the (x,y,z,t)
coordinates of an exact position/time of the satellite that the GPS
receiver needs to know. An event, using the physicists' definition.
Why would its position at some possibly unknown time later be at all
helpful? We don't have any signal from the new position.

[HGW]

What are you trying to imply when you say 'light frame'?

Light moves at c relative to its source and at c+v relative to an
observer approaching the source at v.
Could I make that any clearer?
>


--

[HGW]

On 03/10/16 23:38, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> El viernes, 30 de septiembre de 2016, 18:50:32 (UTC-4), HGW escribió:

> You are only putting in evidence here your ignorance about basic 1686NM,
> centuries before 1905 Einstein.
>
> See what says Corollary VI of 1686NM , a generalization of the V (Galileo's
> Principle of Relativity from zero acceleration (any uniform velocity) to any
> variable acceleration (centuries before GR):
>
> (1686 Newton’s literal words between [ ]) [ COROLLARY VI.
>
> "If bodies, any how moved among themselves, are urged in the direction of
> parallel lines by equal accelerative forces, they will all continue to move
> among themselves, after the same, manner as if they had been urged by no such
> forces."
>
> For these forces acting equally (with respect to the quantities of the bodies
> to be moved), and in the direction of parallel lines, will (by Law II) move all
> the bodies equally (as to velocity), and therefore will never produce any
> change in the positions or motions of the bodies among themselves. ]
>
> The requirement of parallel equal accelerative forces hold very good for the
> Solar system accelerated as a whole entity in the Galaxy system. This is why we
> can apply 1686NM to the Solar system considering it as the whole Universe,
> ignoring completely the presence of all bodies external to it (Newton did it).
> A similar procedure is done with the Earth frame, where even the presence of
> he Moon can be ignored in the original GPS design.

That is true for inertial frames but if the sun is accelerating, what
you are saying is wrong.

>>> To make compatible Ptolemy's view with 1686 Newton's one, we need a not
>>> existing at all infinite massive Earth.
>>>
> According to 1686NM, any finite massive entity cannot be considered at rest if
> we want to describe its interaction with other external entities; but thanks to
> Corollary VI, that is not at all a problem if we are interested to describe the
> interactions among its internal parts, as in the Solar system case or the GPS
> ECI one.

GPS clock orbits are constantly adjusted using empirical methods. After
that, the man concern is keeping all the clocks in absolute synch with
each other.

>> I agree....but you cannot see that the term c(t'-t) is actually derived
>> from (c+v)(t'-t)-vt.
>>
> That derivation is also a wrong one, implying 1686NM Axioms violations, because
> vt is NOT a valid 1686NM distance in the GPS ECI (assumes a not existing
> receptor at rest).

It is not wrong. It is simple maths that applies to any situation where
a time signal is sent from a relatively moving source. It gives the
distance to the source at the instant the signal is received.

>>> I know that it will be very difficult for you to accept the experimental
>>> reality of today GPS, in total contradiction with the BaTh that you defend.
>>
>> The experimental reality proves that c+v is used before the satellite's
>> movement vt is corrected out.
>> I just showed you why.
>
> Neither c+v nor vt are in the GPS ECI valid 1686NM distances, as I showed to
> you already in all detail (with the additional support in this post of 1686
> Newton's literal words).
>
> The experimentally reality of GPS supports c(t'-t) as the unique valid 1686NM
> distance, in total agreement with the two 1905R original postulates.

GPS needs 4 such equations to pinpoint a location on Earth. No four time
signals arrive at any receiver at the same instant. The receiver has to
correct for that and it is very conveniently achieved by subtracting vt
from (c+v)(t'-t).

That makes it only appear that c rather than c+v is used in the system.

[HGW]

On 03/10/16 11:50, Michael Moroney wrote:

"I'm so stupid I did not realize that all GPS 1.00.000000am time signals
did NOT arrive at a ground receiver at the same instant. They might be
milliseconds apart. In fact no 4 time signals arrive at the same instant
and so the receiver has to correct for that. Without people as clever as
Henry Wilson the system would never work"

[HGW]

On 04/10/16 04:48, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 30.09.2016 02:17, HGW wrote:
>> On 29/09/16 21:35, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>>
>>> The GPS code does not extrapolate satellite positions and it does not
>>> need to. That is because c+v is nonsense.
>>
>> What are you talking about? The GPS has to know precisely where each
>> satellite is at the instant a time signal is received....not when it was
>> sent.
>
> One can but wonder how it is possible to discuss the GPS
> for so many years and still be so utterly ignorant about how it works.
>

> I have seen many versions of the good Doctor's wrong claims

> about the GPS, but this is one of the most stupid.
>
> It isn't even funny, only sad.

Paul, you just cannot understand this.
Each signal contains the time it was sent and indirectly the fixed ECI
coordinates of the satellite at that instant. In the ECI frame, the
signal moves at c+vn relative to each point, where vn is each clock's
radial velocity. While the signal is traveling, the receiver moves
radial distance vntn RELATIVE TO EACH POINT. When the signal reaches the
receiver, it has to calculate where it now is relative to where the
satellite was.
However, identical time signals DO NOT arrive at the same instant. In
the fixed points frame, the receiver moves radially v1t1,v2t2,v3t3 and
v4t4, where the t's are the respective signal travel times.

It should now be obvious to you that subtracting vtn from the respective
(c+v)tn will give the receiver distances from the fixed points at the
time encoded on the signal (good enough for most situations). How else
could it be done? So, the use of c rather than c+v is an automatic
correction and a clever diversion.

(note, my statement that the receiver needed to know where the satellite
IS rather than WAS is misleading because it relates to the receiver
frame. The use of the 'fixed points' implies that the satellite is only
EFFECTIVELY at those locations.)

Of course it would be more sensible to use four time signals that arrive
over the shortest time interval, in which case the 'vt' corrections are
much smaller.


--

[al...@interia.pl]

W dniu wtorek, 4 października 2016 22:24:25 UTC+2 użytkownik HGW napisał:

> > You are talking nonsense - self contradiction!
> >
> > The evident fact:
> > c - v for any moving body would be impossible in your logics - at all!
>
> What are you trying to imply when you say 'light frame'?
>
> Light moves at c relative to its source and at c+v relative to an
> observer approaching the source at v.
> Could I make that any clearer?

Oh! Another stupid...

Your naive: c -> c+v implies the 'light frame' existence!
Understand?

[Michael Moroney]

Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, I see you have no answer to my factual statement
that the GPS receiver needs multiple (x,y,z,t) coordinates of the exact
positions/times of the satellites to solve the equations to determine its
location, Ralph. Ralph Rabbidge, the (x,y,z,t) parameters transmitted by
the satellites are EXACT (as exact as the clocks/orbital data the
satellites have), and they are not ESTIMATES as you (Ralph Malcolm
Rabbidge) would have it use, an ESTIMATE of a current position based on
an ESTIMATE on some v, which you (Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge) and your dirty
BaThwater claim affects the speed of the signal. Of what use is this
ESTIMATED satellite position, Ralph? Ralph, we have no signal from it
telling us what time it is when the satellite is at the ESTIMATED
position, assuming it actually gets there, Ralph Rabbidge. After all,
Ralph Rabbidge, there are three position variables, Ralph, and even if
your BaThwater crock was true, Ralph, and we happened to know v, Ralph,
that isn't enough information to compute three position variables, Ralph
Rabbidge. And Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, an error of just 1 nanosecond
in the time you derive from your estimates, Ralph, produce an error of
30 cm, Ralph Rabbidge.

Also, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, it does not matter whether the multiple
satellite signals are received at different times, Ralph Rabbidge.
Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, the receiver has to solve multiple 4 equations
in 4 unknowns for the receivers (x,y,z,t) with equations
c^2(t-tj)^2 = (x-xj)^2 + (y-yj)^2 + (z-zj)^2 for multiple j's.
Ralph Rabbidge, note that the receiver gets EXACT values since the
(xj,yj,zj,tj) from the satellites are known exactly, as is the speed of
the signal to the receiver, c, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Ralph Rabbidge, why
would its position at some possibly unknown time later be at all helpful,
Ralph?

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 05.10.2016 00:06, HGW wrote:
> On 04/10/16 04:48, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> On 30.09.2016 02:17, HGW wrote:
>>> On 29/09/16 21:35, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The GPS code does not extrapolate satellite positions and it does not
>>>> need to. That is because c+v is nonsense.
>>>
>>> What are you talking about? The GPS has to know precisely where each
>>> satellite is at the instant a time signal is received....not when it was
>>> sent.
>>
>> One can but wonder how it is possible to discuss the GPS
>> for so many years and still be so utterly ignorant about how it works.
>>

>> I have seen many versions of Ralph Malcom Rabbidge's wrong claims

Defending an idiotic claim can only make it worse.


--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 04.10.2016 22:50, HGW wrote:
>
> ".. all GPS 1.00.000000am time signals

> did NOT arrive at a ground receiver at the same instant. They might be
> milliseconds apart. In fact no 4 time signals arrive at the same instant
> and so the receiver has to correct for that. Without people as clever as
> Henry Wilson the system would never work"

Who is so stupid that he believes this? :-D

The GPS signals are continuous, so the receiver is at any time
simultaneously receiving the times of transmission of the signals
from several satellites (>=4).

Each satellite is transmitting the time signal at regular intervals,
but the PRN signal is synced to this time and is transmitted
continuously. Since the satellites are identified by the PRN
signals which are known by the receiver, and is locked to the PRN
in a phase locked loop, the receiver will by counting the PRN bits
always know the time of transmission of the signal it is receiving
now.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato]

I am saying absolutely nothing about the *inertial frames* of today SR. The
point that we are just debating has nothing to do with SR, but only with
1686NM, and you seem not understanding the meaning of its Cor. VI, the one with
the literal text that I just gave you.

I will try to explain it to you again with additional details.

1686NM Cor. VI refer to Newtonian Center of Mass (CM) systems, sets of
interacting bodies sufficiently far away from other bodies to be modeled (each
different set) by a single material point on its corresponding CM determined
following 1686 Newton's three Axioms or Laws. By Cor. VI, we can then consider
such CM system as if it were the whole Universe, with its CM at absolute rest
and a single absolute time to describe the trajectories of all involved
interacting bodies. The 1905R stationary systems are then the 1686NM CM ones.

The Solar system is the more typical CM one, considering 1686 Newton that it CM
(today barycenter) is at absolute rest. Our today GPS ECI system is also a CM
one.

Each CM is then (without any contradiction at all) at the relative absolute
rest of its own system, and also an absolute moving whole entity with a
relative velocity and acceleration in some higher hierarchy CM system.

The Solar system barycenter is at rest on its own system, and accelerated as
part of the higher hierarchy Galaxy system. The Earth's CM is at rest on the
GPS ECI, and accelerated in the higher hierarchy Solar system.

> >>> To make compatible Ptolemy's view with 1686 Newton's one, we need a not
> >>> existing at all infinite massive Earth.
> >>>
> > According to 1686NM, any finite massive entity cannot be considered at rest if
> > we want to describe its interaction with other external entities; but thanks to
> > Corollary VI, that is not at all a problem if we are interested to describe the
> > interactions among its internal parts, as in the Solar system case or the GPS
> > ECI one.
>
> GPS clock orbits are constantly adjusted using empirical methods. After
> that, the man concern is keeping all the clocks in absolute synch with
> each other.
>

Total agreement, the important point is just to have always a single absolute
time in all the corresponding stationary space points of a CM system.

For practical reasons, the GPS clocks are not constantly physically adjusted,
but the same result is obtained including part of the adjusting data included
in what the receptors receive. The necessary periodical adjustment due to the
non-perfect circular orbit of the satellites is managed in this way.

>
> >> I agree....but you cannot see that the term c(t'-t) is actually derived
> >> from (c+v)(t'-t)-vt.
> >>
> > That derivation is also a wrong one, implying 1686NM Axioms violations, because
> > vt is NOT a valid 1686NM distance in the GPS ECI (assumes a not existing
> > receptor at rest).
>
> It is not wrong. It is simple maths that applies to any situation where
> a time signal is sent from a relatively moving source. It gives the
> distance to the source at the instant the signal is received.
>

You are totally wrong in this point. The satellite source is moving accelerated
in a circular orbit (not a linear movement), being only necessary for the good
GPS operation to take into account its position at the transmission instant,
not at all its position at the reception one. The distance to the moving source
at the instant the signal is received is not computed or used at all in any way
on the GPS. Your argument trying to justify the BaTh is then completely false.

> >>> I know that it will be very difficult for you to accept the experimental
> >>> reality of today GPS, in total contradiction with the BaTh that you defend.
> >>
> >> The experimental reality proves that c+v is used before the satellite's
> >> movement vt is corrected out.
> >> I just showed you why.
> >
> > Neither c+v nor vt are in the GPS ECI valid 1686NM distances, as I showed to
> > you already in all detail (with the additional support in this post of 1686
> > Newton's literal words).
> >
> > The experimentally reality of GPS supports c(t'-t) as the unique valid 1686NM
> > distance, in total agreement with the two 1905R original postulates.
>
> GPS needs 4 such equations to pinpoint a location on Earth. No four time
> signals arrive at any receiver at the same instant. The receiver has to
> correct for that and it is very conveniently achieved by subtracting vt
> from (c+v)(t'-t).
>

The transmission instants are the 4 different ones, the reception instant is
the same unique one. Revise the system of Newtonian equations that all GPS
receptors resolve. You seem very bad informed about basic GPS function.

> That makes it only appear that c rather than c+v is used in the system.
>

Revise the GPS receptor software. Your satellite source speed v never appears.
Only appears the isotropic signal speed c, as a very well established
EXPERIMENTAL FACT.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

[Michael Moroney]

"Paul B. Andersen" <relat...@paulba.no> writes:

>The GPS signals are continuous, so the receiver is at any time
>simultaneously receiving the times of transmission of the signals
>from several satellites (>=4).

>Each satellite is transmitting the time signal at regular intervals,
>but the PRN signal is synced to this time and is transmitted
>continuously. Since the satellites are identified by the PRN
>signals which are known by the receiver, and is locked to the PRN
>in a phase locked loop, the receiver will by counting the PRN bits
>always know the time of transmission of the signal it is receiving
>now.

I forgot about this. The GPS knows the time of each satellite just
by adding the time from the last broadcast of the time to the time
corresponding to the PRN bit count since then (all delayed by the
distance over c, of course).

[HGW]

There no general frame for light. Only an aether supporter would believe
there was one.

However, a pulse of inertially moving light in remote space does define
a frame. Its source moves at c in that frame and everything other object
in the universe moves at c+v, where v is the object's speed relative to
the source.

Get it now?



--

[HGW]

On 05/10/16 23:40, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> El martes, 4 de octubre de 2016, 16:41:07 (UTC-4), HGW escribió:

>
> 1686NM Cor. VI refer to Newtonian Center of Mass (CM) systems, sets of
> interacting bodies sufficiently far away from other bodies to be modeled (each
> different set) by a single material point on its corresponding CM determined
> following 1686 Newton's three Axioms or Laws. By Cor. VI, we can then consider
> such CM system as if it were the whole Universe, with its CM at absolute rest
> and a single absolute time to describe the trajectories of all involved
> interacting bodies. The 1905R stationary systems are then the 1686NM CM ones.
>
> The Solar system is the more typical CM one, considering 1686 Newton that it CM
> (today barycenter) is at absolute rest. Our today GPS ECI system is also a CM
> one.
>
> Each CM is then (without any contradiction at all) at the relative absolute
> rest of its own system, and also an absolute moving whole entity with a
> relative velocity and acceleration in some higher hierarchy CM system.
>
> The Solar system barycenter is at rest on its own system, and accelerated as
> part of the higher hierarchy Galaxy system. The Earth's CM is at rest on the
> GPS ECI, and accelerated in the higher hierarchy Solar system.

That is what I have been saying.

>> GPS clock orbits are constantly adjusted using empirical methods. After
>> that, the man concern is keeping all the clocks in absolute synch with
>> each other.
>>
> Total agreement, the important point is just to have always a single absolute
> time in all the corresponding stationary space points of a CM system.
>
> For practical reasons, the GPS clocks are not constantly physically adjusted,
> but the same result is obtained including part of the adjusting data included
> in what the receptors receive. The necessary periodical adjustment due to the
> non-perfect circular orbit of the satellites is managed in this way.
>
>>
>>>> I agree....but you cannot see that the term c(t'-t) is actually derived
>>>> from (c+v)(t'-t)-vt.
>>>>
>>> That derivation is also a wrong one, implying 1686NM Axioms violations, because
>>> vt is NOT a valid 1686NM distance in the GPS ECI (assumes a not existing
>>> receptor at rest).
>>
>> It is not wrong. It is simple maths that applies to any situation where
>> a time signal is sent from a relatively moving source. It gives the
>> distance to the source at the instant the signal is received.
>>
> You are totally wrong in this point. The satellite source is moving accelerated
> in a circular orbit (not a linear movement), being only necessary for the good
> GPS operation to take into account its position at the transmission instant,
> not at all its position at the reception one. The distance to the moving source
> at the instant the signal is received is not computed or used at all in any way
> on the GPS. Your argument trying to justify the BaTh is then completely false.

You people are forgetting that all the time signals of, say, 12.00000
from the satellites arrive at different instants at a particular
receiver. They might arrive milliseconds apart. My point is relevant to
the way corrections are made to bring them into line.

> The transmission instants are the 4 different ones, the reception instant is
> the same unique one. Revise the system of Newtonian equations that all GPS
> receptors resolve. You seem very bad informed about basic GPS function.
>
>> That makes it only appear that c rather than c+v is used in the system.
>>
> Revise the GPS receptor software. Your satellite source speed v never appears.
> Only appears the isotropic signal speed c, as a very well established
> EXPERIMENTAL FACT.

It is there but it disappears in the correction.
Anyway my original post was more about determining the distance of an
object that is moving towards an observer. If its time signal moves at
c+v, its original distance was c+v(t'-t). Meanwhile it has moved
v(t'-t). Therefore its current distance from the observer is c(t'-t), at
the instant of receipt of signal.

Do you understand that?

[HGW]

On 05/10/16 20:23, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 04.10.2016 22:50, HGW wrote:
>>
>> ".. all GPS 1.00.000000am time signals
>> did NOT arrive at a ground receiver at the same instant. They might be

>

> The GPS signals are continuous, so the receiver is at any time
> simultaneously receiving the times of transmission of the signals
> from several satellites (>=4).
>
> Each satellite is transmitting the time signal at regular intervals,
> but the PRN signal is synced to this time and is transmitted
> continuously. Since the satellites are identified by the PRN
> signals which are known by the receiver, and is locked to the PRN
> in a phase locked loop, the receiver will by counting the PRN bits
> always know the time of transmission of the signal it is receiving
> now.

Even so, 'now' is never the same for each signal.



--

[HGW]

...and since it is the distance that you are trying to determine, you
are in a bit of trouble....



--

[Michael Moroney]

No, Ralph. We are trying to determine our position (and the time).
From the broadcast position and time (which we know is the broadcast
time plus the PRN bit count time) from 4 satellites, we solve four
equations and four unknowns to get the position and time.

[Michael Moroney]

Ralph, Paul just got through explaining (in what you quoted) how tracking
the PRN bit is used to make 'now' the same for all signals.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 06/10/16 14:55, Michael Moroney wrote:

> HGW <hw@....> writes:
know the time of transmission of the signal it is receiving
>>>> now.
>>>
>>> I forgot about this. The GPS knows the time of each satellite just
>>> by adding the time from the last broadcast of the time to the time
>>> corresponding to the PRN bit count since then (all delayed by the
>>> distance over c, of course).
>
>> ...and since it is the distance that you are trying to determine, you
>> are in a bit of trouble....
>

> No, Doctor. We are trying to determine our position (and the time).

> From the broadcast position and time (which we know is the broadcast
> time plus the PRN bit count time) from 4 satellites, we solve four
> equations and four unknowns to get the position and time.

You said "all delayed by the distance over c". The distances are all
different. Until you know the distance, you cannot determine the delays
of each signal. No two signals will arrive at the same instant and so
the positions of each clock will have to be corrected to bring them all
into line with a common time.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 04/10/16 04:48, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> On 30.09.2016 02:17, HGW wrote:
>> On 29/09/16 21:35, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>>
>>> The GPS code does not extrapolate satellite positions and it does not
>>> need to. That is because c+v is nonsense.
>>
>> What are you talking about? The GPS has to know precisely where each
>> satellite is at the instant a time signal is received....not when it was
>> sent.
>
> One can but wonder how it is possible to discuss the GPS
> for so many years and still be so utterly ignorant about how it works.
>

> I have seen many versions of Dr. Wilson's wrong claims

> about the GPS, but this is one of the most stupid.
>
> It isn't even funny, only sad.

...and another error exists because the satellite orbit ephemerides are
wrongly assessed through using c rather than c+v.

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 06/10/16 14:55, Michael Moroney wrote:
> HGW <hw@....> writes:

>

>> ...and since it is the distance that you are trying to determine, you
>> are in a bit of trouble....

>.
> No, Dr. We are trying to determine our position (and the time).

> From the broadcast position and time (which we know is the broadcast
> time plus the PRN bit count time) from 4 satellites, we solve four
> equations and four unknowns to get the position and time.

...and in the time it takes to do all that, the receiver will have moved
considerably.
>

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 05.10.2016 23:30, HGW wrote:
> On 06/10/16 02:52, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> "Paul B. Andersen" <relat...@paulba.no> writes:
>>
>>> The GPS signals are continuous, so the receiver is at any time
>>> simultaneously receiving the times of transmission of the signals
>>> from several satellites (>=4).
>>
>>> Each satellite is transmitting the time signal at regular intervals,
>>> but the PRN signal is synced to this time and is transmitted
>>> continuously. Since the satellites are identified by the PRN
>>> signals which are known by the receiver, and is locked to the PRN
>>> in a phase locked loop, the receiver will by counting the PRN bits
>>> always know the time of transmission of the signal it is receiving
>>> now.
>>
>> I forgot about this. The GPS knows the time of each satellite just
>> by adding the time from the last broadcast of the time to the time
>> corresponding to the PRN bit count since then

Exactly.
So at any time the receiver will know the times of transmission
of all the signals it is receiving 'now'. And since the receiver
knows the nominal position of the SVs as a function of time,
and it has received the orbit correction data from the SVs,
it will know the exact [*] position of all the SVs when they
transmitted the signals it is receiving 'now'.

[*] within the precision of the SV clock


>> (all delayed by thedistance over c, of course).

Yes, but not quite. c is the speed of light in vacuum,
but the signal is not in vacuum. It has to pass the ionosphere
which is a plasma, and the speed of light in a plasma is lower
than c. So the signal will be delayed in the ionosphere.
This delay varies between daytime and nighttime, it varies
with latitude, it varies with season, and it varies with
solar activity (the ionosphere is ionized by the solar wind).
The diurnal variation is strongest, a typical variation in
the delay will be ~ 10 ns at night, and 50 - 80 ns during
the day. This delay must be corrected for, which is done
as follows:
The receiver has a model of the ionosphere to calculate
the delay. This model has a number of parameters which
depend on the conditions in the ionosphere. The GPS
monitoring stations will monitor the ionosphere and
calculate the values of these parameters and upload
them to the SVs, which will transmit them to the receiver.

>
> ...and since it is the distance that you are trying to determine, you
> are in a bit of trouble....

What are you babbling about?

All you have to do is to solve the four equations
with respect to the time of reception t and
the position of the receiver (x,y,z):
(with the correction mentioned above)

(tn-t) = sqrt((x_n - x)^2 + (y_n - y)^2 + (z_n - z)^2)/c
n = 1,2,3,4

where tn is the known time of transmission of the signal from SV n,
and (x_n, y_n, z_n) is its known position at the time t_n.

All coordinates in the ECI-frame.

And note:

The radial speed of the satellites at 45 degrees from vertical
is ~ +/- 600m/s = +/- 2E-6 c.
If the speed of light were source dependent this would
give a variation in the delay of +/- 133ns as the satellite
passed from +45 degrees to -45 degrees.
The GPS wouldn't work.
But the GPS does work so the speed of light doesn't depend
on the speed of the source.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[al...@interia.pl]

W dniu środa, 5 października 2016 23:04:09 UTC+2 użytkownik HGW napisał:

> There no general frame for light. Only an aether supporter would believe
> there was one.

The frame is evident, because the: c + v alone.

> However, a pulse of inertially moving light in remote space does define
> a frame. Its source moves at c in that frame and everything other object
> in the universe moves at c+v, where v is the object's speed relative to
> the source.
>
> Get it now?

You propose a fantastic self-contradiction again.

So, You are probably an expert in the self-contradiction..
but be aware: in a common speech it's just a stupidity!

[Thomas]

On Sunday, 25 September 2016 20:22:07 UTC, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> It is often claimed that large errors will result from the use of c+v in
> GPS calculations.

This is not the claim relativity is making. The claim is that large errors result from ignoring the relative clock drift between the satellite and ground clocks. But ground clocks are not actually used in practice for GPS, only differences between satellite clocks. And for that completely ignoring relativity only gives a non-accumulating error of about 1 cm (see http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/gps.htm for more).

[HGW]

Maybe you have a comprehension problem.



--

[HGW]

In reality, this provides a neat way of empirically correcting out the
use of c rather than c+v without actually telling anyone. (not to
mention the infamous 'GR corretion' and all the other bogus SR based
corrections)

>> ...and since it is the distance that you are trying to determine, you
>> are in a bit of trouble....
>
> What are you babbling about?
>
> All you have to do is to solve the four equations
> with respect to the time of reception t and
> the position of the receiver (x,y,z):
> (with the correction mentioned above)
>
> (tn-t) = sqrt((x_n - x)^2 + (y_n - y)^2 + (z_n - z)^2)/c
> n = 1,2,3,4
>
> where tn is the known time of transmission of the signal from SV n,
> and (x_n, y_n, z_n) is its known position at the time t_n.
>
> All coordinates in the ECI-frame.
>
> And note:
>
> The radial speed of the satellites at 45 degrees from vertical
> is ~ +/- 600m/s = +/- 2E-6 c.
> If the speed of light were source dependent this would
> give a variation in the delay of +/- 133ns as the satellite
> passed from +45 degrees to -45 degrees.
> The GPS wouldn't work.

> But the GPS does work so the speed of light doesn't depend
> on the speed of the source.

In the frame of a satellite, the clock is at rest, the signal departs at
speed c and the receiver is moving. The signal leaves at time t and
arrives at t'. Both are recorded as numbers on presynched clocks. From
the satellite's POV, the term c(t'-t) is the length of a line between it
and the current position of the moving receiver.
From the receiver's POV, the satellite has moved so the same line
c(t'-t) must be the distance from IT to the CURRENT position of the
satellite.




--

[HGW]

....No argument with that. It has been well explained here many times.
However if the use of c rather than c+v for signal speed is even partly
valid then I want to know more about it because my version of BaTh
includes the possibility that an 'aetherlike sphere' exists around all
large masses and light speed is modified accordingly in that region.




--

[Paul B. Andersen]

On 07.10.2016 00:15, HGW wrote:
> On 07/10/16 01:23, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>> All you have to do is to solve the four equations
>> with respect to the time of reception t and
>> the position of the receiver (x,y,z):
>>

>> (t-tn) = sqrt((x_n - x)^2 + (y_n - y)^2 + (z_n - z)^2)/c

>> n = 1,2,3,4
>>
>> where tn is the known time of transmission of the signal from SV n,
>> and (x_n, y_n, z_n) is its known position at the time t_n.
>>
>> All coordinates in the ECI-frame.
>>
>> And note:
>>
>> The radial speed of the satellites at 45 degrees from vertical
>> is ~ +/- 600m/s = +/- 2E-6 c.
>> If the speed of light were source dependent this would
>> give a variation in the delay of +/- 133ns as the satellite
>> passed from +45 degrees to -45 degrees.
>> The GPS wouldn't work.
>
>> But the GPS does work so the speed of light doesn't depend
>> on the speed of the source.

This is one falsification of the emission theory, and thanks
for giving yet another falsification of the emission theory:

> In the frame of a satellite, the clock is at rest, the signal departs at
> speed c and the receiver is moving. The signal leaves at time t and
> arrives at t'. Both are recorded as numbers on presynched clocks. From
> the satellite's POV, the term c(t'-t) is the length of a line between it
> and the current position of the moving receiver.
> From the receiver's POV, the satellite has moved so the same line
> c(t'-t) must be the distance from IT to the CURRENT position of the
> satellite.
>

The reason why the c(t'-t) is the distance between the satellite
and receiver at the time of reception is obviously based on
the assumptions that Galilean relativity applies and that
the speed of light is c in the source frame and thus c+/-v
in the receiver frame. (v is the radial speed)

The fact that the GPS works when the equations I showed above
are used prove that c(t'-t) is the distance between the position
of the satellite at the time of emission and the position of
the receiver at the time of reception.
Your scenario is thus a falsification of the emission theory.

Thanks again, Ralph.
Well done!


--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[Tom Roberts]

On 10/6/16 10/6/16 4:13 AM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> ...and another error exists because the satellite orbit ephemerides are wrongly
> assessed through using c rather than c+v.

If that were true, the resulting orbit would NOT satisfy Newton's laws.

It is quite amazing how appallingly ignorant you actually are. And how
steadfastly you ignore your own failures and ascribe them to others.

Tom Roberts

[al...@interia.pl]

You are perfectly stupid in the math, physics, ect.

The Lorentz ether has been long ago proved
(by Fizeau, and many others) to be in a solid fixed state;
so, any 'aetherlike sphere' is possible.

[Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato]

El miércoles, 5 de octubre de 2016, 17:18:20 (UTC-4), HGW escribió:
> On 05/10/16 23:40, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> > El martes, 4 de octubre de 2016, 16:41:07 (UTC-4), HGW escribió:
>
> >
> > 1686NM Cor. VI refer to Newtonian Center of Mass (CM) systems, sets of
> > interacting bodies sufficiently far away from other bodies to be modeled (each
> > different set) by a single material point on its corresponding CM determined
> > following 1686 Newton's three Axioms or Laws. By Cor. VI, we can then consider
> > such CM system as if it were the whole Universe, with its CM at absolute rest
> > and a single absolute time to describe the trajectories of all involved
> > interacting bodies. The 1905R stationary systems are then the 1686NM CM ones.
> >
> > The Solar system is the more typical CM one, considering 1686 Newton that it CM
> > (today barycenter) is at absolute rest. Our today GPS ECI system is also a CM
> > one.
> >
> > Each CM is then (without any contradiction at all) at the relative absolute
> > rest of its own system, and also an absolute moving whole entity with a
> > relative velocity and acceleration in some higher hierarchy CM system.
> >
> > The Solar system barycenter is at rest on its own system, and accelerated as
> > part of the higher hierarchy Galaxy system. The Earth's CM is at rest on the
> > GPS ECI, and accelerated in the higher hierarchy Solar system.
>
> That is what I have been saying.
>

I take note of what you say.

You are the one that seem not knowing that the signal a GPS operative satellite
broadcasts and each receptor receives is a continuous one, not existing at all
in the receptor an atomic clock able to detect with precision the arriving
time of any thing.

What is denoted reception instant t on the system of Newtonian equations that
the receptor resolves is an unknown to find with a single possible value,
depending on the coded and decoded data in the continuous signal containing the
precise positions (x_i, y_i, z_i) at time t_i of the involved (at least 4) i
satellites. I repeat for you the system of equations:

(x-x_i)^2+ (y-y_i)^2+ (z-z_i)^2= (ct-ct_i)^2

As you can see, your arriving events at different instants (with supposed huge
milliseconds apart) in the receptor do not exist at all in the GPS. The unique
velocity that appears in the receptor software is the signal isotropic velocity
c; the satellite velocity v (changing direction continuously) does not appear
on any part.

>
> > The transmission instants are the 4 different ones, the reception instant is
> > the same unique one. Revise the system of Newtonian equations that all GPS
> > receptors resolve. You seem very bad informed about basic GPS function.
> >
> >> That makes it only appear that c rather than c+v is used in the system.
> >>
> > Revise the GPS receptor software. Your satellite source speed v never appears.
> > Only appears the isotropic signal speed c, as a very well established
> > EXPERIMENTAL FACT.
>
> It is there but it disappears in the correction.

But you are referring to a correction that does not exist at all on the open
software.

> Anyway my original post was more about determining the distance of an
> object that is moving towards an observer. If its time signal moves at
> c+v, its original distance was c+v(t'-t). Meanwhile it has moved
> v(t'-t). Therefore its current distance from the observer is c(t'-t), at
> the instant of receipt of signal.
>

Yes, IF its time signal moves at c+v, but the EXPERIMENTAL FACT is that in the
GPS ECI the moving at velocity v satellite continuous signal moves at c, not at
all at c+v. That is already more than sufficient to knock out your BaTh.

> Do you understand that?
>
I understand all what you say (at least I think so), including your very strong
motivation defending BaTh.

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

[al...@interia.pl]

W dniu piątek, 7 października 2016 18:31:59 UTC+2 użytkownik Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato napisał:

> You are the one that seem not knowing that the signal a GPS operative satellite
> broadcasts and each receptor receives is a continuous one, not existing at all
> in the receptor an atomic clock able to detect with precision the arriving
> time of any thing.
>
> What is denoted reception instant t on the system of Newtonian equations that
> the receptor resolves is an unknown to find with a single possible value,
> depending on the coded and decoded data in the continuous signal containing the
> precise positions (x_i, y_i, z_i) at time t_i of the involved (at least 4) i
> satellites. I repeat for you the system of equations:
>
> (x-x_i)^2+ (y-y_i)^2+ (z-z_i)^2= (ct-ct_i)^2
>
> As you can see, your arriving events at different instants (with supposed huge
> milliseconds apart) in the receptor do not exist at all in the GPS. The unique
> velocity that appears in the receptor software is the signal isotropic velocity
> c; the satellite velocity v (changing direction continuously) does not appear
> on any part.

Ah! You ignores completely the moving clock effect,
therefore you can omit the speeds modification: c-v;
thus you conclude finally the speed of signal is preserved - the c = inv.

Yes?

You are very stupid. :)

[Thomas]

The problem lies not with the invariance of c here, but with the consequences derived incorrectly by Einstein from this. Einstein used in fact c+v and c-v as well, and then retrospectively had to rescale his length and time units in order to pretend the speed of light postulate still applies.

Using c+v here would indeed introduce a HUGE error for the distance determination, about 10^5 times larger than the alleged relativistic effect, so about 1 km. What you have done here in the OP by subtracting the distance the source travels during time t'-t is in fact incorrect, as the time stamp of the signal that is received has been emitted when the source is at distance D, not Da.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

This is based on the assumption that you can measure the velocity of light.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

If you do not know what the velocity of light is how did you know if it can or cannot propagate faster than the ostensible value of c? The velocity of light has not been accurately measured. Roemer (1676) did not calculate the velocity of light. Huygens (1690) measures the velocity of light using the earth's orbital diameter KL (fig 23) and a 22 minute time delay (Huygens, p. 9) but.......................which proves Huygens measurement of the velocity of light is physically invalid. Fizeau (1849) uses a rotating cogwheel to form a series of light pulses to generated an intensity that is used to measure the velocity of light but to measure the velocity of light requires the time a single light pulse propagates a specific distance which is not possible using Fizeau cogwheel; consequently, Fabry-Perot (1989) interferometer is used to measure the velocity of light using the interferometer's diffraction pattern to obtain a wavelength that is used in the wave equation (λf = c) to determine the velocity of light but the optical ether, composed of matter, that forms the light wave represented with the wave equation does not physically exist (vacuum). Kerr's shutter is used to measure the velocity of light but a Kerr shutter also forms a series of light pulses which is experimental proof the velocity of light has not been accurately measured

[Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato]

El viernes, 7 de octubre de 2016, 12:47:35 (UTC-4), al...@interia.pl escribió:
> W dniu piątek, 7 października 2016 18:31:59 UTC+2 użytkownik Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato napisał:
>
> > You are the one that seem not knowing that the signal a GPS operative satellite
> > broadcasts and each receptor receives is a continuous one, not existing at all
> > in the receptor an atomic clock able to detect with precision the arriving
> > time of any thing.
> >
> > What is denoted reception instant t on the system of Newtonian equations that
> > the receptor resolves is an unknown to find with a single possible value,
> > depending on the coded and decoded data in the continuous signal containing the
> > precise positions (x_i, y_i, z_i) at time t_i of the involved (at least 4) i
> > satellites. I repeat for you the system of equations:
> >
> > (x-x_i)^2+ (y-y_i)^2+ (z-z_i)^2= (ct-ct_i)^2
> >
> > As you can see, your arriving events at different instants (with supposed huge
> > milliseconds apart) in the receptor do not exist at all in the GPS. The unique
> > velocity that appears in the receptor software is the signal isotropic velocity
> > c; the satellite velocity v (changing direction continuously) does not appear
> > on any part.
>
> Ah! You ignores completely the moving clock effect,

I am referring to a GPS operative satellite, what implies that all clocks are
already synchronized showing simultaneously the same time defined by 1905
Einstein for a stationary system, as the today denoted GPS ECI one is. It is
common practice in today GPS to apply the adequate relativistic correction for
the 1905R moving clock effect (and also the GR gravitational one) when still at
ground before the launching.

> therefore you can omit the speeds modification: c-v;

That modification does not exist all in the GPS. In 1905 Relativity (1905R), in total agreement with its second postulate (an EXPERIMENTAL FACT since the successful 1977 GPS first satellite launching), the isotropic signal velocity c is independent of the operative satellite source velocity v.

> thus you conclude finally the speed of signal is preserved - the c = inv.

The isotropic signal velocity c has always the same constant value according to
the 1905R first postulate, an EXPERIMENTAL FACT also since 1977, confirming also
the character superfluous of any luminiferous ether.

A unique 1905R stationary system is used in GPS, what implies that we have NOT
any symmetric transformation between two different systems involved here. The
symmetric c=invariant is present in SR, but not in 1905R where the running
slower is always the moving clock, never the rest one.

>
> Yes?
>
No, all your deductions are contrary to the well established EXPERIMENTAL FACTS
since 1977.

> You are very stupid. :)

I do not consider stupid to follow the scientific method; maybe you yes?

RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

IF you do not know what the velocity of light is how did you know if it can or cannot propagate faster than the ostensible value of c? The velocity of light has not been accurately measured. Roemer (1676) did not calculate the velocity of light. Huygens (1690) measures the velocity of light using the earth's orbital diameter KL (fig 23) and a 22 minute time delay (Huygens, p. 9) but.......................which proves Huygens measurement of the velocity of light is physically invalid. Fizeau (1849) uses a rotating cogwheel to form a series of light pulses to generated an intensity that is used to measure the velocity of light but to measure the velocity of light requires the time a single light pulse propagates a specific distance which is not possible using Fizeau cogwheel; consequently, Fabry-Perot (1989) interferometer is used to measure the velocity of light using the interferometer's diffraction pattern to obtain a wavelength that is used in the wave equation (λf = c) to determine the velocity of light but the optical ether, composed of matter, that forms the light wave represented with the wave equation does not physically exist (vacuum). Kerr's shutter is used to measure the velocity of light but a Kerr shutter also forms a series of light pulses which is experimental proof the velocity of light has not been accurately measured. Can something propagate faster than the velocity of light? Absolutely but it would be some unknown entity. Also, you know the recent Noble prize for physics was not physics since superconductivity is chem or engn. but they probably thanking me. Ha. Ha. Caltech and MIT.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

or maybe the Chiles though they would win.

[numbernu...@gmail.com]

BIG BANG: The Big Bang expansion theory of the universe is justified using the image of a spiral galaxiy but the image of a spiral galaxy is arbitrarily created by manipulating the photographic plate. The image of the Milky Way spiral galaxy that contains the sun and the earth would require that the photographer be many millions of light years away from the earth which is not physically possible which proves the photographs of the Milky way galaxy are fictional. Furthermore, astronomers state that there are numerous (thousands) of spiral galaxies in the stellar universe. The symmetry and ostensible motion of the stars within a single spiral galaxy is being used to justify that the entire stellar universe originates from a central point of the Big Bang theory but the celestial universe is stationary which proves the Big Bang theory of the universe is physically invalid. Furthermore, the red shift is used to justify the Big Bang expansion theory but every star in the universe at different times and positions forms both red and blue shifts since the stellar universe is stationary.The red and blue shifts are formed by the earth's daily and yearly rotational motions. When the observer on the surface of the earth propagates towards a star, the earth's daily and yearly motions produce the blue shift and when the observer is propagating away from the star, the red shift is observed which is experimental proof the red and blue shifts are formed by the earth's daily and yearly motions not by the expansion of the universe, as you think you know it.

[HGW]

BaTh speculates that 'Fields' are a bit like aether.
When light passes through a strong field, things might happens to it,
particularly a speed change.
The effect is not to be confused with gravitational attraction.
.


--

[HGW]

On 08/10/16 03:31, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> El miércoles, 5 de octubre de 2016, 17:18:20 (UTC-4), HGW escribió:
>> On 05/10/16

> What is denoted reception instant t on the system of Newtonian equations that
> the receptor resolves is an unknown to find with a single possible value,
> depending on the coded and decoded data in the continuous signal containing the
> precise positions (x_i, y_i, z_i) at time t_i of the involved (at least 4) i
> satellites. I repeat for you the system of equations:
>
> (x-x_i)^2+ (y-y_i)^2+ (z-z_i)^2= (ct-ct_i)^2
>
> As you can see, your arriving events at different instants (with supposed huge
> milliseconds apart) in the receptor do not exist at all in the GPS. The unique
> velocity that appears in the receptor software is the signal isotropic velocity
> c; the satellite velocity v (changing direction continuously) does not appear
> on any part.

Yes, The receiver clock time is not important....which proves the GR
'rate correction' is totally unnecessary and bogus.

>>
>>> The transmission instants are the 4 different ones, the reception instant is
>>> the same unique one. Revise the system of Newtonian equations that all GPS
>>> receptors resolve. You seem very bad informed about basic GPS function.
>>>
>>>> That makes it only appear that c rather than c+v is used in the system.
>>>>
>>> Revise the GPS receptor software. Your satellite source speed v never appears.
>>> Only appears the isotropic signal speed c, as a very well established
>>> EXPERIMENTAL FACT.
>>
>> It is there but it disappears in the correction.
>
> But you are referring to a correction that does not exist at all on the open
> software.

The use of c rather than c+v automatically corrects the error....so the
correction appears to be nonexistent.

>> Anyway my original post was more about determining the distance of an
>> object that is moving towards an observer. If its time signal moves at
>> c+v, its original distance was c+v(t'-t). Meanwhile it has moved
>> v(t'-t). Therefore its current distance from the observer is c(t'-t), at
>> the instant of receipt of signal.
>>
> Yes, IF its time signal moves at c+v, but the EXPERIMENTAL FACT is that in the
> GPS ECI the moving at velocity v satellite continuous signal moves at c, not at
> all at c+v. That is already more than sufficient to knock out your BaTh.
>
>> Do you understand that?
>>
> I understand all what you say (at least I think so), including your very strong
> motivation defending BaTh.

It is the correct theory. There is no aether, like you seem to believe.

> RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
>


--

[HGWilson, DSc.]

Paul, four lines are effectively drawn from the clock coordinates at
signal emission time and their arcs intersect on Earth. Their lengths
are c(t'-t). The speed of the signals is c relative to the clocks. That
is why the the GPS works. GPS prove BaTh.