info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
New thread for GPS, Galileo satellites and relativistic corrections.
138 views
Skip to first unread message
Richard Hertz
Sep 6, 2021, 3:30:42 PM9/6/21
to
I think that this post (derived from another) deserves a thread, to analyze
it deeper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roberts, that's not the link to the original 2015 paper from Mudrak (which I downloaded last Saturday), but is
an analysis over Mudrak paper and consequences, probably from the same year 2015.
I've tried to find a free download link, but I wasn't able.
The equations Mudrak used are:
Δf/f = −μ/(c².Rs) + μ/(c².Re) - J2 . μ/(c².Re) , for gravitational shift.
Δf/f = −Vs²/(2.c²) + (a.Ωe)²/(2.c²) , for SR time dilation.
where
μ = G.ME = 3.986004418×10^14 m³/s²
c = 299792458 m/s
Rs = 26936715 m (Galileo satellite orbit radius)
Re = 6378136.55 m (Earth radius)
J2 = 0.0010826267 (Oblate Earth gravity coefficient)
Vs = 3669.6 m/s (Galileo satellite average velocity)
a = 63.83678 m/s (Undisclosed coefficient)
Ωe = 7.2921151467 rad/s (mean angular rotation rate of the Earth)
When applied into the formulae, it gives:
Δf/f(Galileo Total) = 5.3146E-10 -7.37090E-11 , and this produces a daily time drift
Δt(Galileo Total)/day = 47.1982 μsec - 6.3685 μsec = 40.8298 μsec
If GPS coefficients are applied:
Rs = 26936715 m (GPS satellite orbit radius)
Vs = 3669.6 m/s (GPS satellite average velocity)
it gives
Δt(GPS Total)/day = 45.9177 μsec - 7.2141 μsec = 38.7036 μsec
Still, the "a" factor is unexplained on the paper, and I don't understand its origin. If you eliminate the
2nd. order Ωe part, a difference of less than 1.5% occurs in the SR formula, which reduces to a first
degree approximation of Lorentz transform:
Δt/t = −Vs²/(2.c²)
Excerpt from 2015 Mudrak paper:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Relativistic Corrections Implemented in Galileo
The relativistic effects analysed so far would introduce significant errors in the ranging and consequently
positioning accuracies of a GNSS system, unless they are carefully taken into account in the system design
and user algorithms.
In GPS and GLONASS the systematic relativistic net effect (i.e. the combination of the gravitational
frequency shift and the time dilation due to the orbital motion of the satellite) is compensated by adequately
offsetting the onboard clocks before launch, while time-varying effects are corrected at user receiver level.
It is anticipated that THIS IS NOT the approach in the Galileo system. As explained in detail in the following
paragraphs, the correction of relativistic errors is performed at user receiver level, on the basis of information
broadcasted through the navigation message.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, by year 2015, Mudrak, De Simone, and Lisi were writing the paper "Relativistic Corrections in the European
GNSS Galileo" and were critics of the decision about not to implement a solution of pre-tuning like in GPS.
As far as I could find, this critic was ignored and Galileo doesn't use fixed pre-launch corrections, and leave
the compensation to the manufacturers of Galileo receivers (for industrial, scientific or commercial use).
Do the manufacturers implement such corrections? It's what really matter to find out, because in the GPS world
the truth about this is obscured by Terabytes of data since 1985 (and still some data is confidential). It can be
to protect IP or to hide the truth.
*******************************************************************
More data and thoughts:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) In 1945, Isidor Rabi first publicly suggested that atomic beam magnetic
resonance might be used as the basis of a clock.
2) First functional atomic clock: It was an ammonia absorption line device
at 23870.1 MHz built in 1949 at the U.S. National Bureau of Standards
(NBS, now NIST). It was less accurate than existing quartz clocks, but
served to demonstrate the concept.
3) In 1955 Louis Essen and Jack Parry produced the first practical cesium
atomic frequency standard.
Einstein, with help of friends at Berlin and Princeton, invested 30+ years
of his late life trying to unify gravitational theory with QM theories.
And yet, not one single scientist between 1913 and 1975 questioned
the influence of gravity on emission of spectral lines? Maybe, between
1925 and 1945, the physics community wasn't exactly aware of
hyperfine transitions. After all, they had enough problems with fine
transitions that plagued the QM world, and make Schrodinger to
abandon his own work by mid 1930's, tired of such occurrences.
But there is no excuse, since 1945, for any physicist for not having
thinking about atomic clocks and height, in particular after 30 years
of General Relativity being around.
After all, since 1907, Einstein anticipated Gravitational time dilation, as
a consequence of special relativity in accelerated frames of reference.
So, where is the truth on this GNSS(GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, etc.)
problem with relativity? True or false?
it deeper.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roberts, that's not the link to the original 2015 paper from Mudrak (which I downloaded last Saturday), but is
an analysis over Mudrak paper and consequences, probably from the same year 2015.
I've tried to find a free download link, but I wasn't able.
The equations Mudrak used are:
Δf/f = −μ/(c².Rs) + μ/(c².Re) - J2 . μ/(c².Re) , for gravitational shift.
Δf/f = −Vs²/(2.c²) + (a.Ωe)²/(2.c²) , for SR time dilation.
where
μ = G.ME = 3.986004418×10^14 m³/s²
c = 299792458 m/s
Rs = 26936715 m (Galileo satellite orbit radius)
Re = 6378136.55 m (Earth radius)
J2 = 0.0010826267 (Oblate Earth gravity coefficient)
Vs = 3669.6 m/s (Galileo satellite average velocity)
a = 63.83678 m/s (Undisclosed coefficient)
Ωe = 7.2921151467 rad/s (mean angular rotation rate of the Earth)
When applied into the formulae, it gives:
Δf/f(Galileo Total) = 5.3146E-10 -7.37090E-11 , and this produces a daily time drift
Δt(Galileo Total)/day = 47.1982 μsec - 6.3685 μsec = 40.8298 μsec
If GPS coefficients are applied:
Rs = 26936715 m (GPS satellite orbit radius)
Vs = 3669.6 m/s (GPS satellite average velocity)
it gives
Δt(GPS Total)/day = 45.9177 μsec - 7.2141 μsec = 38.7036 μsec
Still, the "a" factor is unexplained on the paper, and I don't understand its origin. If you eliminate the
2nd. order Ωe part, a difference of less than 1.5% occurs in the SR formula, which reduces to a first
degree approximation of Lorentz transform:
Δt/t = −Vs²/(2.c²)
Excerpt from 2015 Mudrak paper:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Relativistic Corrections Implemented in Galileo
The relativistic effects analysed so far would introduce significant errors in the ranging and consequently
positioning accuracies of a GNSS system, unless they are carefully taken into account in the system design
and user algorithms.
In GPS and GLONASS the systematic relativistic net effect (i.e. the combination of the gravitational
frequency shift and the time dilation due to the orbital motion of the satellite) is compensated by adequately
offsetting the onboard clocks before launch, while time-varying effects are corrected at user receiver level.
It is anticipated that THIS IS NOT the approach in the Galileo system. As explained in detail in the following
paragraphs, the correction of relativistic errors is performed at user receiver level, on the basis of information
broadcasted through the navigation message.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, by year 2015, Mudrak, De Simone, and Lisi were writing the paper "Relativistic Corrections in the European
GNSS Galileo" and were critics of the decision about not to implement a solution of pre-tuning like in GPS.
As far as I could find, this critic was ignored and Galileo doesn't use fixed pre-launch corrections, and leave
the compensation to the manufacturers of Galileo receivers (for industrial, scientific or commercial use).
Do the manufacturers implement such corrections? It's what really matter to find out, because in the GPS world
the truth about this is obscured by Terabytes of data since 1985 (and still some data is confidential). It can be
to protect IP or to hide the truth.
*******************************************************************
More data and thoughts:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) In 1945, Isidor Rabi first publicly suggested that atomic beam magnetic
resonance might be used as the basis of a clock.
2) First functional atomic clock: It was an ammonia absorption line device
at 23870.1 MHz built in 1949 at the U.S. National Bureau of Standards
(NBS, now NIST). It was less accurate than existing quartz clocks, but
served to demonstrate the concept.
3) In 1955 Louis Essen and Jack Parry produced the first practical cesium
atomic frequency standard.
Einstein, with help of friends at Berlin and Princeton, invested 30+ years
of his late life trying to unify gravitational theory with QM theories.
And yet, not one single scientist between 1913 and 1975 questioned
the influence of gravity on emission of spectral lines? Maybe, between
1925 and 1945, the physics community wasn't exactly aware of
hyperfine transitions. After all, they had enough problems with fine
transitions that plagued the QM world, and make Schrodinger to
abandon his own work by mid 1930's, tired of such occurrences.
But there is no excuse, since 1945, for any physicist for not having
thinking about atomic clocks and height, in particular after 30 years
of General Relativity being around.
After all, since 1907, Einstein anticipated Gravitational time dilation, as
a consequence of special relativity in accelerated frames of reference.
So, where is the truth on this GNSS(GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, etc.)
problem with relativity? True or false?
Dirk Van de moortel
Sep 6, 2021, 3:34:44 PM9/6/21
to
Op 06-sep.-2021 om 21:30 schreef Richard Hertz:
Dirk Vdm
> I think that this post (derived from another) deserves a thread, to
> analyze it deeper.
Since when does a pile of crap deserve a thread?
> analyze it deeper.
Dirk Vdm
Richard Hertz
Sep 6, 2021, 3:38:32 PM9/6/21
to
On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 4:34:44 PM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
<snip>
> Since when does a pile of crap deserve a thread?
>
> Dirk Vdm
Since such pile of crap is claimed as the ultimate proof of both relativity theories, and are sold as such
in every corner of the world and by any unimaginable variation of multimedia for the last 30 years.
<snip>
> Since when does a pile of crap deserve a thread?
>
> Dirk Vdm
in every corner of the world and by any unimaginable variation of multimedia for the last 30 years.
Dono.
Sep 6, 2021, 3:38:41 PM9/6/21
to
On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 12:30:42 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz brain farted:
>
> And yet, not one single scientist between 1913 and 1975 questioned
> the influence of gravity on emission of spectral lines?
You are lying again, piece of shit: look up Pound - Rebka.
> And yet, not one single scientist between 1913 and 1975 questioned
> the influence of gravity on emission of spectral lines?
Dirk Van de moortel
Sep 6, 2021, 3:40:25 PM9/6/21
to
Op 06-sep.-2021 om 21:38 schreef Richard Hertz:
As I said elsewhere, next time you take a plane, ask for
one that uses a GPS version without relativity.
Dirk Vdm
one that uses a GPS version without relativity.
Dirk Vdm
C
Sep 6, 2021, 4:44:08 PM9/6/21
to
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> Since such pile of crap is claimed as the ultimate proof of both
>> relativity theories, and are sold as such in every corner of the world
>> and by any unimaginable variation of multimedia for the last 30 years.
>
> As I said elsewhere, next time you take a plane, ask for one that uses a
> GPS version without relativity.
done, baidoo uses no corrections.
>> Since such pile of crap is claimed as the ultimate proof of both
>> relativity theories, and are sold as such in every corner of the world
>> and by any unimaginable variation of multimedia for the last 30 years.
>
> As I said elsewhere, next time you take a plane, ask for one that uses a
> GPS version without relativity.
Odd Bodkin
Sep 6, 2021, 5:00:50 PM9/6/21
to
Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 4:34:44 PM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Since when does a pile of crap deserve a thread?
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> Since such pile of crap is claimed as the ultimate proof of both relativity theories,
Nonsense
> On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 4:34:44 PM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Since when does a pile of crap deserve a thread?
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> Since such pile of crap is claimed as the ultimate proof of both relativity theories,
> and are sold as such
> in every corner of the world and by any unimaginable variation of
> multimedia for the last 30 years.
>
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Richard Hertz
Sep 6, 2021, 5:43:33 PM9/6/21
to
On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 4:40:25 PM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
<snip>
<snip>
> As I said elsewhere, next time you take a plane, ask for
> one that uses a GPS version without relativity.
Nah!, Sagnac effect FOI do the job for inertial guidance, as it has being doing
> one that uses a GPS version without relativity.
for the last 35 years in civilian and military aircrafts and, in particular, guiding
cruise missiles when GPS doesn't work due to electronic jamming.
With S-FOI plus visual terrain guidance (3D maps are on the onboard computer),
a cruise missile can hit a target within 1 mt. CER (circular error radius).
C6H12O6
Sep 6, 2021, 6:33:57 PM9/6/21
to
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
protect human from covid_19. It make Hitler look like an angel.
Plans Are In Place-U.S State Law - Everyone Will Be Vaccinated- [6_9_2021]
https://www.bitchute.com/video/B5COinpk63bq/
C6H12O6
Sep 6, 2021, 7:13:15 PM9/6/21
to
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
>> Since such pile of crap is claimed as the ultimate proof of both
>> relativity theories, and are sold as such in every corner of the world
>> and by any unimaginable variation of multimedia for the last 30 years.
>
> As I said elsewhere, next time you take a plane, ask for one that uses a
> GPS version without relativity.
speaking the witch, fauci used your money to fund not less than 65 bio-
>> Since such pile of crap is claimed as the ultimate proof of both
>> relativity theories, and are sold as such in every corner of the world
>> and by any unimaginable variation of multimedia for the last 30 years.
>
> As I said elsewhere, next time you take a plane, ask for one that uses a
> GPS version without relativity.
weapon projects at Wuhan alone.
Taxpayer funded experiments in Chinese labs ‘far more extensive’ than
first thought 9-5-21 Sky News
https://www.bitchute.com/video/r4dFcf24FmKy/
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Sep 6, 2021, 10:32:36 PM9/6/21
to
did not need GR corrections. Beidou-1 used a two-way protocol for
position location. The transceiver might be a backpack-sized unit
carried by an individual field worker, or it might be a large unit
mounted on (say) an agricultural tractor or a piece of construction
equipment. The transceiver would send out a signal to at least two
ground stations which would relay the signals to a geostationary
satellite(s). The geostationary satellite(s) noted the time of receipt of
each signal and would relay the information back to the ground
stations. Since the position of the satellites were accurately known,
as were the position of the ground stations, the differential time of
receipt of the signals at the geostationary satellite(s) would be used
to work out the distance of the portable transceiver from each
ground station, enabling a position fix. Only a relatively limited
number of Beidou-1 transceivers could be simultaneously serviced.
Beidou-2 and Beidou-3 use a very similar strategy to other GNSS
systems, but in addition to a world-wide constellation of satellites in
MEO, they include geosynchronous and geostationary satellites for
improved regional coverage.
Maciej Wozniak
Sep 7, 2021, 2:05:39 AM9/7/21
to
On Monday, 6 September 2021 at 21:40:25 UTC+2, Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> As I said elsewhere, next time you take a plane, ask for
> one that uses a GPS version without relativity.
Do you mean - one using your "elapsed proper time" nonsense?
> As I said elsewhere, next time you take a plane, ask for
> one that uses a GPS version without relativity.
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Sep 7, 2021, 4:15:44 AM9/7/21
to
On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 9:32:36 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> The transceiver might be a backpack-sized unit
> carried by an individual field worker, or it might be a large unit
> mounted on (say) an agricultural tractor or a piece of construction
> equipment.
Actually not much larger, but ruggedized.
> The transceiver might be a backpack-sized unit
> carried by an individual field worker, or it might be a large unit
> mounted on (say) an agricultural tractor or a piece of construction
> equipment.
Prokaryotic Capase Homolog
Sep 7, 2021, 7:37:04 AM9/7/21
to
On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 9:32:36 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> Beidou-1 (discontinued) did not need accurate clocks and certainly
> did not need GR corrections. Beidou-1 used a two-way protocol for
> position location. The transceiver might be a backpack-sized unit
> carried by an individual field worker, or it might be a large unit
> mounted on (say) an agricultural tractor or a piece of construction
> equipment. The transceiver would send out a signal to at least two
> ground stations which would relay the signals to a geostationary
> satellite(s). The geostationary satellite(s) noted the time of receipt of
> each signal and would relay the information back to the ground
> stations. Since the position of the satellites were accurately known,
> as were the position of the ground stations, the differential time of
> receipt of the signals at the geostationary satellite(s) would be used
> to work out the distance of the portable transceiver from each
> ground station, enabling a position fix. Only a relatively limited
> number of Beidou-1 transceivers could be simultaneously serviced.
I seem to have garbled some of my description, which was based
> did not need GR corrections. Beidou-1 used a two-way protocol for
> position location. The transceiver might be a backpack-sized unit
> carried by an individual field worker, or it might be a large unit
> mounted on (say) an agricultural tractor or a piece of construction
> equipment. The transceiver would send out a signal to at least two
> ground stations which would relay the signals to a geostationary
> satellite(s). The geostationary satellite(s) noted the time of receipt of
> each signal and would relay the information back to the ground
> stations. Since the position of the satellites were accurately known,
> as were the position of the ground stations, the differential time of
> receipt of the signals at the geostationary satellite(s) would be used
> to work out the distance of the portable transceiver from each
> ground station, enabling a position fix. Only a relatively limited
> number of Beidou-1 transceivers could be simultaneously serviced.
on ancient memory. Basically, the round-trip times of the signals
allowed the transceiver to determine its distance from each
ground station and thereby to get a location fix.
I do not find any current descriptions on the Internet of how
Beidou-1 worked or of any photos to illustrate what I remember
from many years ago. I remember vividly a photo of a young
soldier carrying a backpack-sized version of the transceiver;
I wish that I could have included a link. :-(
Michael Moroney
Sep 7, 2021, 12:11:10 PM9/7/21
to
https://kompendium.infotip.de/files/wdb/GRAFIK/2700_KOMMUNIKATIONSTECHNIK/2750_GNSS/ABB_2750_03_76_BeiDou-1_Terminal.jpg
Paul B. Andersen
Sep 7, 2021, 3:14:27 PM9/7/21
to
Den 06.09.2021 21:30, skrev Richard Hertz:
> I think that this post (derived from another) deserves a thread, to analyze
> it deeper.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Roberts, that's not the link to the original 2015 paper from Mudrak (which I downloaded last Saturday), but is
> an analysis over Mudrak paper and consequences, probably from the same year 2015.
>
> I've tried to find a free download link, but I wasn't able.
An "unofficial" link:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Roberts, that's not the link to the original 2015 paper from Mudrak (which I downloaded last Saturday), but is
> an analysis over Mudrak paper and consequences, probably from the same year 2015.
>
> I've tried to find a free download link, but I wasn't able.
https://paulba.no/temp/RelativisticCorrectionsInTheEu.pdf
>
> The equations Mudrak used are:
>
> Δf/f = −μ/(c².Rs) + μ/(c².Re) - J2 . μ/(c².Re) , for gravitational shift.
Δf/f = −μ/(c²⋅r) + μ/(c²⋅a) + J2⋅μ/(2⋅c²⋅a)
Where r is the radius of the satellite orbit (your Rs)
and a is the equatorial radius of the Earth (your Re)
https://paulba.no/pdf/GPS_clock_rate.pdf
See equation (8)
This is the first term in equation (8) with an extra term
for the oblateness of the Earth. (Quadrupole term)
(See: https://paulba.no/paper/Ashby.pdf)
>
> Δf/f = −Vs²/(2.c²) + (a.Ωe)²/(2.c²) , for SR time dilation.
a is the radius of the Earth,
a⋅Ωe = Ve, the speed of a clock on the ground in ECI frame.
I will correct some of the values below according to
https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/5/1695/pdf
referred to as "Andrei" in the following.
>
> where
>
> μ = G.ME = 3.986004418×10^14 m³/s²
> c = 299792458 m/s
> Rs = 26936715 m (Galileo satellite orbit radius)
Andrei: Rs = 29600318 m (newer value)
> Re = 6378136.55 m (Earth radius)
> J2 = 0.0010826267 (Oblate Earth gravity coefficient) > Vs = 3669.6 m/s (Galileo satellite average velocity)
> a = 63.83678 m/s (Undisclosed coefficient)
a = 6378136.55 m (= your Re)
> Ωe = 7.2921151467 rad/s (mean angular rotation rate of the Earth)
Ωe = 7.292123516990375E-05 rad/s
(Ωe = 2⋅π⋅Re/T where according to Andrei T = 50680.7 s)
T is the orbital time of the satellite.
Ve = Rs*Ωe = 465.10 m/s
These values inserted in my equation (8) yields:
Δf/f = (GM/(c*c))*(1/Re - 1/Rs) + (Ve*Ve-Vs*Vs)/(2*c*c)
Δf/f = 4.7181e-10
We have not yet included the quadrupole term.
Qpole = J2*GM/(2*c*c*Re) = 3.7640e-13
Adding this term yields:
Δf/f = 4.7218e-10 (clock runs fast)
Equivalent to 40.08 μs/day
which is very close to the "official" value:
Δf/f = -4.7219e-10 (clock must be slowed down)
>
> So, where is the truth on this GNSS(GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, etc.)
> problem with relativity? True or false?
>
The GPS, GlONASS and Galileao satellite clocks in orbit
are slowed down by the factors 4.4647E-10, 4.461E-10 and 4.7219e-10
respectively, as predicted by GR.
It is now settled that the Galileo satellites are corrected
by the factor -4.7219e-10 when they are in orbit.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Paul B. Andersen
Sep 8, 2021, 3:22:56 AM9/8/21
to
But this is nonsense:
> (Ωe = 2⋅π⋅Re/T where according to Andrei T = 50680.7 s)
> T is the orbital time of the satellite.
??? Where did this come from?
> T is the orbital time of the satellite.
Must have been sleeping when copying from my scratch-pad.
Ωe = 2⋅π/T where T is a sidereal day.
Ωe = 2⋅π⋅/86164 = 7.292123516990375e-05
> Ve = Rs*Ωe = 465.10 m/s
Maciej Wozniak
Sep 8, 2021, 3:43:26 AM9/8/21
to
On Tuesday, 7 September 2021 at 21:14:27 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> It is now settled that the Galileo satellites are corrected
> by the factor -4.7219e-10 when they are in orbit.
And that's what your idiot guru haven't predicted; he somehow
> It is now settled that the Galileo satellites are corrected
> by the factor -4.7219e-10 when they are in orbit.
imagined that his ingenious concept of letting the clocks
desynchronize will be perfect. Poor idiot.
Richard Hertz
Sep 8, 2021, 11:23:55 AM9/8/21
to
On Tuesday, September 7, 2021 at 4:14:27 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
<snip>
> There is no problem. The truth is:
> The GPS, GlONASS and Galileao satellite clocks in orbit are slowed down by the factors
> 4.4647E-10, 4.461E-10 and 4.7219e-10 respectively, as predicted by GR.
Besides fighting with yourself and dealing with some typos that didn't modify the final values
given by Mudrak on his paper, the values from the paragraph above are detailed in Table 2
(Frequency shift of the satellite clocks in GPS, GLONASS and Galileo), except a minor difference
for GLONASS: Your value of 4.461E-10 vs. the published value of 4.3582E-10, and this change
nothing in the general concepts and details of the Mudrak's paper, which target Galileo.
It seems that you enjoyed the math ride, while comparing your 2010 calculation with the 2015 Mudrak paper.
> It is now settled that the Galileo satellites are corrected
> by the factor -4.7219e-10 when they are in orbit.
Nothing is settled except in your imagination. The fact that Galileo satellites ARE NOT corrected by such value
is the reason by which Mudrak et. all wrote that paper in 2015.
Galileo organization has decided TO NOT change master frequencies sources on board, and HAVE LEFT
corrections to Galileo receiver manufacturers. And this is what made Mudrak to write a detailed rant, which
has been ignored so far.
<snip>
> There is no problem. The truth is:
> The GPS, GlONASS and Galileao satellite clocks in orbit are slowed down by the factors
> 4.4647E-10, 4.461E-10 and 4.7219e-10 respectively, as predicted by GR.
given by Mudrak on his paper, the values from the paragraph above are detailed in Table 2
(Frequency shift of the satellite clocks in GPS, GLONASS and Galileo), except a minor difference
for GLONASS: Your value of 4.461E-10 vs. the published value of 4.3582E-10, and this change
nothing in the general concepts and details of the Mudrak's paper, which target Galileo.
It seems that you enjoyed the math ride, while comparing your 2010 calculation with the 2015 Mudrak paper.
> It is now settled that the Galileo satellites are corrected
> by the factor -4.7219e-10 when they are in orbit.
is the reason by which Mudrak et. all wrote that paper in 2015.
Galileo organization has decided TO NOT change master frequencies sources on board, and HAVE LEFT
corrections to Galileo receiver manufacturers. And this is what made Mudrak to write a detailed rant, which
has been ignored so far.
Dono.
Sep 8, 2021, 2:27:46 PM9/8/21
to
On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:23:55 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz brainfarted again:
>
> Galileo organization has decided TO NOT change master frequencies sources on board, and HAVE LEFT
> corrections to Galileo receiver manufacturers.
The point is crank, that the GR corrections have been made. It doesn't matter that they are done in the receivers, the important thing is that they must be made in order for the system to work.
> Galileo organization has decided TO NOT change master frequencies sources on board, and HAVE LEFT
> corrections to Galileo receiver manufacturers.
Maciej Wozniak
Sep 9, 2021, 12:47:28 AM9/9/21
to
On Wednesday, 8 September 2021 at 20:27:46 UTC+2, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:23:55 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz brainfarted again:
> >
> > Galileo organization has decided TO NOT change master frequencies sources on board, and HAVE LEFT
> > corrections to Galileo receiver manufacturers.
> The point is crank, that the GR corrections have been made.
Sure, sure, GR corrections, violating the Holiest Postulate
> On Wednesday, September 8, 2021 at 8:23:55 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz brainfarted again:
> >
> > Galileo organization has decided TO NOT change master frequencies sources on board, and HAVE LEFT
> > corrections to Galileo receiver manufacturers.
> The point is crank, that the GR corrections have been made.
and ISO standard.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Sep 10, 2021, 4:46:15 PM9/10/21
to
Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
> Op 06-sep.-2021 om 21:38 schreef Richard Hertz:
>> On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 4:34:44 PM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel
>> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> Since when does a pile of crap deserve a thread?
>>
> Op 06-sep.-2021 om 21:38 schreef Richard Hertz:
>> On Monday, September 6, 2021 at 4:34:44 PM UTC-3, Dirk Van de moortel
>> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> Since when does a pile of crap deserve a thread?
>>
>> Since such pile of crap is claimed as the ultimate proof of both
>> relativity theories, and are sold as such in every corner of the
>> world and by any unimaginable variation of multimedia for the last 30
>> years.
>
> As I said elsewhere, next time you take a plane, ask for
> one that uses a GPS version without relativity.
EPIC response :-D
>> relativity theories, and are sold as such in every corner of the
>> world and by any unimaginable variation of multimedia for the last 30
>> years.
>
> As I said elsewhere, next time you take a plane, ask for
> one that uses a GPS version without relativity.
PointedEars
--
Q: What did the nuclear physicist order for lunch?
A: Fission chips.
(from: WolframAlpha)
Maciej Wozniak
Sep 10, 2021, 5:12:18 PM9/10/21
to
On Friday, 10 September 2021 at 22:46:15 UTC+2, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> >
> > As I said elsewhere, next time you take a plane, ask for
> > one that uses a GPS version without relativity.
> EPIC response :-D
So next time you take a plane ask for one that uses GPS
> >
> > As I said elsewhere, next time you take a plane, ask for
> > one that uses a GPS version without relativity.
> EPIC response :-D
with proper, symmetrical clocks matching your ISO idiocy.
Richard Hertz
Sep 10, 2021, 6:04:56 PM9/10/21
to
On Friday, September 10, 2021 at 5:46:15 PM UTC-3, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
<snip>
> Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
<snip>
> > As I said elsewhere, next time you take a plane, ask for one that uses a GPS version without relativity.
> EPIC response :-D
>
> PointedEars
If that crappy sentence is EPIC for you, then relativity must be a monumental, colossal theory for you and
> EPIC response :-D
>
> PointedEars
maybe you feel not worthy to be enlightened with it. Isn't it?
mitchr...@gmail.com
Sep 10, 2021, 6:28:27 PM9/10/21
to
Man's satellite would be subject to more than one gravity field
and orbital motions...
orbiting earth and going around the Sun with it...
also the solar system is in the Milky way field.
The gravity strength's of all would slow time.
And the orbital speeds would all slow time.
There is gravity-motion time dilation.
Mitchell Raemsch
Python
Sep 10, 2021, 6:38:51 PM9/10/21
to
smitchr...@gmail.com schwrote:
>
> Man's satellite would be subject to more than one gravity field
> and orbital motions...
So let's ask women to build them. Problem solved.
> Man's satellite would be subject to more than one gravity field
> and orbital motions...
mitchr...@gmail.com
Sep 10, 2021, 6:50:42 PM9/10/21
to
Unless they are on the space station
or sky diving...
Ross A. Finlayson
Sep 10, 2021, 9:58:24 PM9/10/21
to
For clocks -
Heh, "Oblate Earth spheroid gravity coefficient, subtracted".
Sure, that makes for computing out the drift.
I had a software once what makes for any orbit what its orbit is
or plots its trajectory.
Earth orbit -
Ross A. Finlayson
Sep 10, 2021, 10:03:30 PM9/10/21
to
I can fit in a pretty small box,
hopefully leaving most of the room for my head.
Astronauts are pretty epic,
not sure what space sickness is, though.
0 new messages