SRT GPS formula
qbit
orbital speeds will tick more slowly than stationary ground
clocks by about 7,200 ns per day."
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System )
Which formula must be used to calculate this value?
Sam Wormley
Since the difference in gravitation cannot be ignored, general relativity,
not special relativity is required to calculate the difference.
Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html
qbit
> qbit wrote:
>
> > "Special relativity predicts that atomic clocks moving at GPS
> > orbital speeds will tick more slowly than stationary ground
> > clocks by about 7,200 ns per day."
> > ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System )
> >
> > Which formula must be used to calculate this value?
>
> Since the difference in gravitation cannot be ignored, general relativity,
> not special relativity is required to calculate the difference.
I read that there are 3 parts to consider: GR, SR, and Sagnac.
The sum of them gives about 38 microseconds per day.
The above 7.2 microseconds is just the SR part.
> Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
> http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html
Which formula is it there?
Eric Gisse
No such formula.
SR isn't valid in non-local environments like geosynchronous orbit.
It is simply that the GR correction, to first order, can be separated
into a "GR" and "SR" contribution.
Sam Wormley
This calculation gives the fifference in ground and satellite clocks.
For more about all corrections used in GPS, See:
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html#Relativity
Dirk Van de moortel
"qbit" <qb...@quantumworlds.com> wrote in message news:f9134l$of8$1...@aioe.org...
See http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
See Project 9 and equation [3]
You can use the approximation
d ts / d te = 1 - M/rs - 1/2 vs^2 + M/re + 1/2 ve^2
where
ts = time on satellite
te = time on ground
M = reduced mass of Earth
rs = satellite orbit radius
vs = satellite orbit speed
re = ground rotation radius
ve = ground rotation speed
This approximation can be split in two separate approximations:
d ts / d te = 1 + bL - bS
where
bL = M/re - M/rs (dependent on location only)
bS = 1/2 vs^2 - 1/2 ve^2 (dependent on speed only)
Filling in the relevant values of the variables, you find
bL = 5.252 10^(-10)
bS = 8.166 10^(-11)
86400 seconds being the number of seconds in 24 hours,
multiplying bL and bS with 86400, you get 45400 nanoseconds
for the so-called Gravitational Potential approximation,
minus 7055 nanoseconds.for the so-called Special Relativity
Orbit-only correction.
Note that this is just an approximation.
This splitting of the equation in two parts does not work
around a neutron star.
Check the entire chapter of the book.
Check the entire book :-)
Dirk Vdm
Dirk Van de moortel
See http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
See Project 9 and equation [3]
You can use the approximation
d ts / d te = 1 - M/rs - 1/2 vs^2 + M/re + 1/2 ve^2
where
ts = time on satellite
te = time on ground
M = mass of Earth (in geometric units)
rs = satellite orbit radius
vs = satellite orbit speed
re = ground rotation radius
ve = ground rotation speed
This approximation can be split in two separate approximations:
d ts / d te = 1 + bL - bS
where
bL = M/re - M/rs (dependent on location only)
bS = 1/2 vs^2 - 1/2 ve^2 (dependent on speed only)
Filling in the relevant values of the variables, you find
bL = 5.252 10^(-10)
bS = 8.166 10^(-11)
86400 seconds being the number of seconds in 24 hours,
multiplying bL and bS with 86400, you get 45400 nanoseconds
for the so-called Gravitational Potential approximation,
minus 7055 nanoseconds.for the so-called Special Relativity
Orbit-only correction.
Combining the values you get the 38320 nanoseconds per day.
Sue...
> "Special relativity predicts that atomic clocks moving at GPS
> orbital speeds will tick more slowly than stationary ground
> clocks by about 7,200 ns per day."
It says no such thing SR says:
"The [ ] Incompatibility of the Law of Propagation of
Light with the Principle of Relativity [is only] Apparent"
http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System
The 1905 paper is referenced in that article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
...not the paper used with GR.
>
> Which formula must be used to calculate this value?
Use GR to calculate how much a planet slows an
atomic clock. Then use GR again to allow for
motion of the planet under the clock.
<< For an atomic clock moving along some arbitrary
path, one can envision measuring the clock's
proper time increment ds / c, solving equation 3 for dt ,
and then integrating dt along the path to get the
elapsed coordinate time. Thus, for each atomic
clock, the GPS generates a "paper clock" that reads t.
All coordinate clocks generated in this way would
be self-consistently synchronized if one brought them
together--assuming that general relativity is correct.
That, in essence, is the procedure used in the GPS. >>
<< Historically, there has been much confusion
about properly accounting for relativistic effects. >>
--Neil Ashby, Relativity and GPS. Physics Today, May 2002.
http://www.ipgp.jussieu.fr/~tarantola/Files/Professional/GPS/Neil_Ashby_Relativity_GPS.pdf
Sue...
s...@microtec.net
You have it the wrong way. Atomic clocks moving at
GPS velocities are deemed to tick more slowly than
atomic clocks that would be stationary at the same
distance from the Earth. The velocity of GPS sats are
so far below relativistic velocities that the difference
can only be negligible.
Overall, atomic clocks moving at GPS altitudes tick
faster than similar stationary ground clocks. This is
what is being constantly monitored.
André Michaud
Androcles
I expect you want tau = t * sqrt(v^2/c^2)
To simplify the problem, consider first a geostationary satellite.
i) Altitude of geostationary satellite: 35,887 km
ii) Radius of Earth: 6378 km
iii) Radius of circular orbit: = i) + ii) = 42,265 km
iv) Circumference of orbit: 2pi * iii) = 265,559 km
v) Period of orbit: 24 hours
vi) Speed of geostationary satellite: iv)/(24 *3600) = 3.073 km/sec
vii) Speed of light: 299 792 km/s
Now you can work out the value of tau and how much
slower its clock runs per day.
There is one tiny problem. The Earth's surface turns
once every 24 hours too.
Geostationary satellites remain overhead, we point TV
dishes at them. That's why we put them there.
It ain't fucking moving, v = 0.
tau = t * sqrt (1 +0/c).
So work out where the fuckhead and his disciples went wrong:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
Einstein wanted to fuck with your head to the greater glory of fuckwits
everywhere.
The_Man
> "qbit" <q...@quantumworlds.com> wrote in message
Are you really that stupid???
GPS satellites aren't geosynchronous:
"The Space Segment, consists of a minimum of 24 operational satellites
in six circular orbits 20,200 km (10,900 NM) above the earth at an
inclination angle of 55 degrees with a 12 hour period. The satellites
are spaced in orbit so that at any time a minimum of 6 satellites will
be in view to users anywhere in the world. The satellites continuously
broadcast position and time data to users throughout the world."
qbit
> : orbital speeds will tick more slowly than stationary ground
> : clocks by about 7,200 ns per day."
> : ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System )
> :
> : Which formula must be used to calculate this value?
>
> I expect you want tau = t * sqrt(v^2/c^2)
I want to compute each of the 3 said relativistic effects myself:
SR = should give something about -7 microseconds per day
GR = should give something about -45 microseconds per day
Sagnac = ?
Total = something about -38 microseconds per day (cf. wiki)
> To simplify the problem, consider first a geostationary satellite.
>
> i) Altitude of geostationary satellite: 35,887 km
The altitude of GPS satellites is IMO about 20200 km.
> ii) Radius of Earth: 6378 km
> iii) Radius of circular orbit: = i) + ii) = 42,265 km
> iv) Circumference of orbit: 2pi * iii) = 265,559 km
> v) Period of orbit: 24 hours
> vi) Speed of geostationary satellite: iv)/(24 *3600) = 3.073 km/sec
> vii) Speed of light: 299 792 km/s
>
> Now you can work out the value of tau and how much
> slower its clock runs per day.
>
> There is one tiny problem. The Earth's surface turns
> once every 24 hours too.
>
> Geostationary satellites remain overhead, we point TV
> dishes at them. That's why we put them there.
> It ain't fucking moving, v = 0.
> tau = t * sqrt (1 +0/c).
But isn't a GPS satellite making 2 roundtrips in its orbit each day?
How's your math then?
.-- .- -... -. .. --. @.-----.DOT.-- H. Wabnig
--
> A Question for the anti-relativists:
> What is the GPS carrier frequency?
>[ ] 1.023000000000 MHz (theor. unaffected)
>[ ] 1.022999999543 MHz (rel. corrected)
Tom Roberts
> I read that there are 3 parts to consider: GR, SR, and Sagnac.
> The sum of them gives about 38 microseconds per day.
> The above 7.2 microseconds is just the SR part.
Some non-technical accounts attempt to discuss it that way. In actuality
that is wrong, because GR explains the entire effect.
What they are really trying to say is that in the lowest-order
approximation to the GR formula for the LOCAL tick rate of a satellite
clock ,one can identify two terms: one of which is related to the speed
of the satellite, and one of which is related to its gravitational
potential. These have been confusingly called "SR" and "GR"
respectively. That is a LOCAL formula, and in general one must also
account for its rotation around the earth (called "Sagnac").
srp wrote:
> The velocity of GPS sats are
> so far below relativistic velocities that the difference
> can only be negligible.
This is false. "negligible" is inherently a comparison, and one must
consider the high accuracy of the atomic clocks involved. The effects
due to the satellite's motion CANNOT be neglected -- for GPS satellites
they are on the order of 1/6 the effect due to their altitude in the
earth's gravitational potential.
The corrections due to GR are essential to the operation of the GPS. The
effect on the tick rate of the satellite clocks is the dominant one, but
about a dozen smaller corrections are used as well.
[Some idiots around here claim otherwise -- they simply
do not understand the ACTUAL ENGINEERING of the GPS, and
fancy themselves as system engineers when they have not
even bothered to look at the GPS system requirements.]
Tom Roberts
qbit
> "qbit" <qb...@quantumworlds.com> wrote
At the moment I'm interessted for such calcs only for ordinary planets.
But besides GPS, what about the other famous experiments
like Hafele&Keating; do the above formula give the same results?
Have you applied them also to other similar situations to verify the results?
If I remember correct the altitude in H&K was about 10 km, v=222 m/s,
and they got about -196 ns for the GR part and -255 ns for the SR part,
and a combined result something about -59 ns for the east flight around the world.
> Check the entire chapter of the book.
> Check the entire book :-)
>
> Dirk Vdm
Thanks, looks very promising :-)
Androcles
: "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote
: > "qbit" <qb...@quantumworlds.com> wrote in message
: >
: > : "Special relativity predicts that atomic clocks moving at GPS
: > : orbital speeds will tick more slowly than stationary ground
: > : clocks by about 7,200 ns per day."
: > : ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System )
: > :
: > : Which formula must be used to calculate this value?
: >
: > I expect you want tau = t * sqrt(v^2/c^2)
:
: I want to compute each of the 3 said relativistic effects myself:
Ok, start here:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
: SR = should give something about -7 microseconds per day
: GR = should give something about -45 microseconds per day
Learn to walk before you can run.
: Sagnac = ?
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Sagnac/Sagnac.htm
: Total = something about -38 microseconds per day (cf. wiki)
Wackypedia's relativity is controlled by Ed Schaffer, a dumb cluck who can't
even spell.
He doesn't have the balls to post to usenet anymore.
:
: > To simplify the problem, consider first a geostationary satellite.
: >
: > i) Altitude of geostationary satellite: 35,887 km
:
: The altitude of GPS satellites is IMO about 20200 km.
:
: > ii) Radius of Earth: 6378 km
: > iii) Radius of circular orbit: = i) + ii) = 42,265 km
: > iv) Circumference of orbit: 2pi * iii) = 265,559 km
: > v) Period of orbit: 24 hours
: > vi) Speed of geostationary satellite: iv)/(24 *3600) = 3.073 km/sec
: > vii) Speed of light: 299 792 km/s
: >
: > Now you can work out the value of tau and how much
: > slower its clock runs per day.
: >
: > There is one tiny problem. The Earth's surface turns
: > once every 24 hours too.
: >
: > Geostationary satellites remain overhead, we point TV
: > dishes at them. That's why we put them there.
: > It ain't fucking moving, v = 0.
: > tau = t * sqrt (1 +0/c).
:
: But isn't a GPS satellite making 2 roundtrips in its orbit each day?
: How's your math then?
Much better than your reading comprehension:
"To simplify the problem, consider ***** FIRST**** a geostationary
satellite",
you snipping idiot.
Go away and come back when you've learnt to read.
Dirk Van de moortel
"qbit" <qb...@quantumworlds.com> wrote in message news:f928tl$vu9$1...@aioe.org...
Yes, see an old post of mine:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/e0231fa2e83534e0
>> Check the entire chapter of the book.
>> Check the entire book :-)
>>
>> Dirk Vdm
>
> Thanks, looks very promising :-)
Indeed, worth every single cent!
Dirk Vdm
The_Man
> "qbit" <q...@quantumworlds.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f927gd$sca$1...@aioe.org...
> : "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote
> : > "qbit" <q...@quantumworlds.com> wrote in message
You can simplify ANY problem by picking an easy, irrelevant problem to
"solve" first. It won't lead to a solution of the true problem,
though.
Dirk Van de moortel
"qbit" <qb...@quantumworlds.com> wrote in message news:f927gd$sca$1...@aioe.org...
His math is like this:
Boolean algebra:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Gibberish.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XOROnceMore.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORrevisited.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORContinued.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORpersistence.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORWildStab.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LooksBoolean.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/XORforever.html
differentials:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DiffConst.html
integrals:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Integral.html
geometry:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SimpleEnough.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/FullyAware.html
transformations:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroTransform.html
calculations:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Percentages.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/FALSE.html
groups:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroGroups.html
logs:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/LogsHuh.html
vectors:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/IdiotVectors.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroVec.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorLength.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/VectorSpaces.html
polar coordinates:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PolarManager.html
limits:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Limit.html
equations:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GOGI-GIGO.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Doofus.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve2.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Persuasive.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/AndroDistri.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Pythagoras.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/ToothlessBite.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Competent.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/UseTrans.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Sheesh.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SetSolve.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/DivZero.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Think.html
square roots:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GoodTeachers.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/TwoTurds.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/STILL.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/CanSpecify.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Nearly.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Quadratic.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GrowUp.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Tautology.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Material.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/GIVEN.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PythagoRescue.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtRev.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NegSqrt.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/Humour.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/SqrtAnswers.html
partial differential equations:
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff2.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff3.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/PartialDiff4.html
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/dirk/Physics/Fumbles/NotFxy.html
Enjoy ;-)
Dirk Vdm
qbit
Thank you very much for all the info.
That's exactly the info and the formulae I was looking for.
> >> Check the entire chapter of the book.
> >> Check the entire book :-)
> >>
> >> Dirk Vdm
> >
> > Thanks, looks very promising :-)
>
> Indeed, worth every single cent!
The chapter(s) you gave me the link for are indeed very good.
But unfortunately I've not been able to locate your mentioned book
(I admit today is not my best day on the net :-).
Can you please post a link or ISBN or title etc. of your,
and probably other such interessting books about this theme,
ie. celestial mechanics for spherical objects/earth-like (rotating) bodies,
of course with some explanation and of course with mathematical formulas.
My main interest is precession time dilation calculations and
GPS-like position determination under real or near-real conditions,
and also for ideal symmetric/homogenous rotating spheres of
dimensions of the earth for example.
Just one more question:
Do you think it would be possible to develop a positioning system
(ie. similar to the GPS functionality) using just ONE satellite in the orbit? :-)
Maybe a silly idea, but I think this should be, at least theoretically,
possible, if done right. By this I'm of course thinking of only a limited region,
for example for a relatively small country like Italy or Turkey,
ie. for an area of maybe about 3000km x 3000km.
I was thinking of sending from this one satellite multiple beams
to 5 directions (W,N,S,E and Center), and then on the earth
to use the timing info of these signals to determine the own position.
As said, by using just one satellite; that's the challenge! :-)
Doable or not? Practical or not? Accuracy good or not?
Dirk Van de moortel
"qbit" <qb...@quantumworlds.com> wrote in message news:f92l0j$v3r$1...@aioe.org...
Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Exploring-Black-Holes-Introduction-Relativity/dp/020138423X
> and probably other such interessting books about this theme,
> ie. celestial mechanics for spherical objects/earth-like (rotating) bodies,
> of course with some explanation and of course with mathematical formulas.
> My main interest is precession time dilation calculations and
> GPS-like position determination under real or near-real conditions,
> and also for ideal symmetric/homogenous rotating spheres of
> dimensions of the earth for example.
perhaps this could be helpful:
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/
The Wiki-article now has a pointer to it as well :-)
>
> Just one more question:
> Do you think it would be possible to develop a positioning system
> (ie. similar to the GPS functionality) using just ONE satellite in the orbit? :-)
> Maybe a silly idea, but I think this should be, at least theoretically,
> possible, if done right. By this I'm of course thinking of only a limited region,
> for example for a relatively small country like Italy or Turkey,
> ie. for an area of maybe about 3000km x 3000km.
> I was thinking of sending from this one satellite multiple beams
> to 5 directions (W,N,S,E and Center), and then on the earth
> to use the timing info of these signals to determine the own position.
> As said, by using just one satellite; that's the challenge! :-)
> Doable or not? Practical or not? Accuracy good or not?
heh... if they could have done it with one, they would have, trust me ;-)
Cheers,
Dirk Vdm
Koobee Wublee
> What they are really trying to say is that in the lowest-order
> approximation to the GR formula for the LOCAL tick rate of a satellite
> clock ,one can identify two terms: one of which is related to the speed
> of the satellite, and one of which is related to its gravitational
> potential. These have been confusingly called "SR" and "GR"
> respectively.
No, Professor Roberts. The confusion seems to be only confined to
yourself. Mathematically, you can easily identify the speed term and
the gravitational potential term. It does not matter how you try to
interpret the system. You still have to deal separately with the
speed term and the gravitational potential term. This is all in the
mathematics. You can BS with word salad, but you can never BS through
the mathematics. <shrug>
> srp wrote:
> > The velocity of GPS sats are
> > so far below relativistic velocities that the difference
> > can only be negligible.
>
> This is false. "negligible" is inherently a comparison, and one must
> consider the high accuracy of the atomic clocks involved. The effects
> due to the satellite's motion CANNOT be neglected -- for GPS satellites
> they are on the order of 1/6 the effect due to their altitude in the
> earth's gravitational potential.
According to your hypothesis which is false, you have to synchronize
the satellite clocks with the ground station clocks. Now, how are you
going to achieve that with the Lorentz transformation clearly
indicates relative simultaneity that mean no absolute simultaneity.
No absolute simultaneity means you can never synchronize clocks of two
moving bodies despite BS coming out of Poincare and Einstein.
<shrug>
> The corrections due to GR are essential to the operation of the GPS. The
> effect on the tick rate of the satellite clocks is the dominant one, but
> about a dozen smaller corrections are used as well.
This is total nonsense. All a receiver has to do is the following.
** Acquire the local satellite time and position of four different
satellites.
** Solve the matrix with four equations and four unknowns according
to the following.
http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/theory.htm
Or in a layman's term,
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
The solved four parameters are
** Receiver time relative to Satellite times.
** Receiver position relative to Satellite positions.
> [Some idiots around here claim otherwise -- they simply
> do not understand the ACTUAL ENGINEERING of the GPS, and
> fancy themselves as system engineers when they have not
> even bothered to look at the GPS system requirements.]
This is laughable because you are truly talking about yourself. So,
show me the specification that indicates a 38uSec per day correction
indeed necessary for GPS operation. <shrug>
I have started a thread just dedicated for this topic of discussion.
Why are you not manly to discuss this topic in that thread where Not
Man (PhD in Chemistry), Professor Andersen (from Norway), and others
have dug out NASA specifications on GPS but none indicates this 38uSec
per day of requirement. In the past, Hobba, Bilge, and moortel were
hiding under your skirt and take turn harassing scholars like myself
from time to time. Now, you are hiding under someone else's skirt and
doing the harassing. I welcome you to comment on the thread I
started. Thanks.
va...@icmf.inf.cu
> qbit wrote:
> > I read that there are 3 parts to consider: GR, SR, and Sagnac.
> > The sum of them gives about 38 microseconds per day.
> > The above 7.2 microseconds is just the SR part.
>
> Some non-technical accounts attempt to discuss it that way. In actuality
> that is wrong, because GR explains the entire effect.
>
REALLY used for that purpose in the GPS? What are you denoting "wrong"
here?
> What they are really trying to say is that in the lowest-order
> approximation to the GR formula for the LOCAL tick rate of a satellite
> clock ,one can identify two terms: one of which is related to the speed
> of the satellite, and one of which is related to its gravitational
> potential. These have been confusingly called "SR" and "GR"
> respectively. That is a LOCAL formula, and in general one must also
> account for its rotation around the earth (called "Sagnac").
>
co-ordinate system used in GPS is the Inertial System corresponding to
the centre of mass of the involved bodies (Earth and satellites, with
Earth as the completely dominant body, of course). That system is
denoted as ECI if I don't remember bad. ALL velocities used in GPS
refer to that system, included the ones corresponding to clocks fixed
at the rotating Earth's surface (considered rotating in the ECI). In
GPS ALL relative velocities are completely useless. The ECI system is
the UNIQUE compatible with all measured clock time rate changes owed
to velocity or gravitational potential. Neither a single real clock in
all GPS can be considered at rest in an inertial system (excluding the
virtual one at the Earth's centre, of course, that by the way is the
UNIQUE showing the UNIQUE time corresponding to the ECI, and the
UNIQUE adjusting reference for all other real atomic clocks in GPS
that show ECI time).
The clock time rate diminution owed to velocity is always calculated
with the 1905 Relativity factor sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)(I think so, correct me
if necessary), where v is always the velocity in ECI and c VACUUM
light speed (the presence of the Earth with its gravitational field
and atmosphere are totally ignored here). The clock time rate
increment owed to the (rotating) Earth's gravitational potential is
always calculated with total independence on the clock velocity. And
all positions are always referred to the ECI system. In other words,
the gravitational field is described IN a UNIQUE Inertial System (no
relation at all with the local inertial frames associated with GR).
What "LOCALITY" are you talking about? ALL LOCAL entities are totally
useless in GPS. Only are used the GLOBAL ones corresponding to the
UNIQUE ECI system, that has a UNIQUE time in ALL infinite Euclidean
space. This hasn't any relation at all with a universal ether, we can
make similar GPS in any part of the Universe, only we need to remember
that the UNIQUE Inertial System that we can use is the corresponding
to the centre of mass one of the bodies involved.
The principal problem resolved for the very successful function of GPS
was precisely to obtain clocks that NEVER show LOCAL time, but ALWAYS
GLOBAL one, corresponding to a 1905 Relativity UNIQUE INERTIAL SYSTEM
with the presence of gravity (and all the other Nature forces)!
By the way, the increase in clock time rate owed to gravitational
potential CAN be calculated using only 1905 Relativity. The following
factor is derived from 1905 Relativity (up to an homogeneous,
spherical and non-rotating Earth, modelled by a material point of mass
M in its centre). For a clock situated at distance r from the centre,
its time rate can be calculated multiplying the time rate of a
reference virtual clock at r infinite by the following factor (G is
the Newtonian gravitational constant and c vacuum light speed):
1/(1+GM/rc^2)
Notice that the factor runs from 0 to 1 when r runs from 0 to
infinite, covering all infinite Euclidean space without any
singularity at all.
If you want to know how the factor was derived from 1905 Relativity,
see my first post of the following thread in the group that I opened
some time ago:
Gravitational time effects explained with Einstein's 1905 Relativity
http://groups.google.com.cu/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/21961de826abb587/2889a8d9c4d72ac4?hl=es#2889a8d9c4d72ac4
Surely comparing the 1905R and GR approaches will be very interesting.
Which of the two will have the better behaviour describing Nature?
(Skipping the rest, but having total agreement with the answer, with
the exception of some not too much important insult at the end that I
never use or take into account)
>
> Tom Roberts
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
Dirk Van de moortel
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1186296280.5...@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
-4,4647E-10 * 24*60*60 seconds = -38.575 microseconds, imbecile.
Dirk Vdm
va...@icmf.inf.cu
> On Aug 4, 9:05 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > What they are really trying to say is that in the lowest-order
> > approximation to the GR formula for the LOCAL tick rate of a satellite
> > clock ,one can identify two terms: one of which is related to the speed
> > of the satellite, and one of which is related to its gravitational
> > potential. These have been confusingly called "SR" and "GR"
> > respectively.
>
> No, Professor Roberts. The confusion seems to be only confined to
> yourself. Mathematically, you can easily identify the speed term and
> the gravitational potential term. It does not matter how you try to
> interpret the system. You still have to deal separately with the
> speed term and the gravitational potential term. This is all in the
> mathematics. You can BS with word salad, but you can never BS through
> the mathematics. <shrug>
>
Relativity (1905R) reached a Special Relativity adapted to the new GR
and the word "special" was coined. Gravity was definitively taken out
from SR (indeed, GR creation was the natural consequence of Einstein's
unsuccessful intent to obtain a relativistic gravity after he accepted
Minkowski 1907 work unifying space with time an abandon Euclidean
geometry).
Tom Roberts is very right supporting that GR alone can be used to
derive all GPS necessary corrections, because SR was conceived as part
of GR. But don't think that I am accepting all what he says (see my
answer to him in a neighbour post).
My opinion is that GR is not a generalization of 1905R (not considered
today different from SR), but that SR is the final part of a
transformation of 1905R in order to make it compatible with the new GR
created over principles different from the original 1905R ones.
I know that you accept neither SR nor GR. But what do you think about
1905R? Of course, you must start knowing first what the differences
are between 1905R and SR. I can advance you that the endless paradoxes
of SR and GR are not present in 1905R. Unfortunately, almost all the
world started knowing Relativity in its SR version.
> > srp wrote:
> > > The velocity of GPS sats are
> > > so far below relativistic velocities that the difference
> > > can only be negligible.
>
> > This is false. "negligible" is inherently a comparison, and one must
> > consider the high accuracy of the atomic clocks involved. The effects
> > due to the satellite's motion CANNOT be neglected -- for GPS satellites
> > they are on the order of 1/6 the effect due to their altitude in the
> > earth's gravitational potential.
>
> According to your hypothesis which is false, you have to synchronize
> the satellite clocks with the ground station clocks. Now, how are you
> going to achieve that with the Lorentz transformation clearly
> indicates relative simultaneity that mean no absolute simultaneity.
synchronized with extremely great accuracy for GPS proper function.
But you are also very right! Lorentz transformation can't be used here
by the reason you say.
> No absolute simultaneity means you can never synchronize clocks of two
> moving bodies despite BS coming out of Poincare and Einstein.
> <shrug>
>
UNIQUE Inertial System, the centre of mass one corresponding to the
bodies involved, the Earth's centre of mass as the very dominant body
(satellites mass are insignificant compared with Earth's one). With a
unique Inertial System, a Lorentz transform is not needed (has no
sense at all), but the clocks can be synchronized! And with all clocks
showing the same time in a unique Inertial Frame, if this is not
absolute simultaneity it is pretty close! Are you worried about the
observers in some hypothetic different inertial system saying that GPS
clocks are not synchronized?
> > The corrections due to GR are essential to the operation of the GPS. The
> > effect on the tick rate of the satellite clocks is the dominant one, but
> > about a dozen smaller corrections are used as well.
>
> This is total nonsense. All a receiver has to do is the following.
>
> ** Acquire the local satellite time and position of four different
> satellites.
>
alone) are used to obtain the very delicate four different clock
synchronization that you are taking here for granted.
> ** Solve the matrix with four equations and four unknowns according
> to the following.
>
> http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/theory.htm
>
> Or in a layman's term,
>
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
>
> The solved four parameters are
>
> ** Receiver time relative to Satellite times.
> ** Receiver position relative to Satellite positions.
>
> > [Some idiots around here claim otherwise -- they simply
> > do not understand the ACTUAL ENGINEERING of the GPS, and
> > fancy themselves as system engineers when they have not
> > even bothered to look at the GPS system requirements.]
>
> This is laughable because you are truly talking about yourself. So,
> show me the specification that indicates a 38uSec per day correction
> indeed necessary for GPS operation. <shrug>
>
Using Relativity predictions the GPS engineers know with accuracy the
time rate change of a satellite clock when in orbit. They make then
the opposite correction in ground before launching, and that's all.
The users don't need to know about it in any specification.
> I have started a thread just dedicated for this topic of discussion.
> Why are you not manly to discuss this topic in that thread where Not
> Man (PhD in Chemistry), Professor Andersen (from Norway), and others
> have dug out NASA specifications on GPS but none indicates this 38uSec
> per day of requirement. In the past, Hobba, Bilge, and moortel were
> hiding under your skirt and take turn harassing scholars like myself
> from time to time. Now, you are hiding under someone else's skirt and
> doing the harassing. I welcome you to comment on the thread I
> started. Thanks.
I am now active in the two threads.
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
Sam Wormley
Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html
This calculation gives the difference in ground and satellite clocks.
Tom Roberts
> On 4 ago, 11:05, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> qbit wrote:
>>> I read that there are 3 parts to consider: GR, SR, and Sagnac.
>>> The sum of them gives about 38 microseconds per day.
>>> The above 7.2 microseconds is just the SR part.
>> Some non-technical accounts attempt to discuss it that way. In actuality
>> that is wrong, because GR explains the entire effect.
>>
> GR can explains the entire effect, I don't put it in doubt, but GR is
> REALLY used for that purpose in the GPS? What are you denoting "wrong"
> here?
What is wrong is calling these terms by names like "SR" and "GR", when
in truth the entire formula is an approximation to the GR result. SR is
PART OF GR, not some "separate" theory.
>> What they are really trying to say is that in the lowest-order
>> approximation to the GR formula for the LOCAL tick rate of a satellite
>> clock ,one can identify two terms: one of which is related to the speed
>> of the satellite, and one of which is related to its gravitational
>> potential. These have been confusingly called "SR" and "GR"
>> respectively. That is a LOCAL formula, and in general one must also
>> account for its rotation around the earth (called "Sagnac").
>>
> A LOCAL GR formula? A LOCAL tick rate?
That's the best words I could find to describe it.
> That I remember, the more basic
> co-ordinate system used in GPS is the Inertial System corresponding to
> the centre of mass of the involved bodies
Yes, the GPS uses the ECI frame with clocks corrected for their altitude
and motion relative to the ECI. So The GPS coordinates are equivalent to
an inertial frame in the SR sense, covering the entire earth and the
satellites. The earth rotates relative to the ECI, of course.
> The clock time rate diminution owed to velocity is always calculated
> with the 1905 Relativity factor sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
Hmmm. The actual formulas of GR are used. That is only an approximation
(though it may be good enough, I don't know). In particular, the "speed
term" and the "gravitational potential term" are only separable in an
APPROXIMATION.
> What "LOCALITY" are you talking about?
The satellite clock tick rate measured in the satellite, compared to the
non-local ECI time coordinate.
> ALL LOCAL entities are totally
> useless in GPS.
Yes. I was trying to explain where the correction in the satellite
clocks comes from. That is just a single clock, and LOCALLY its rate
comes from the two terms mentioned by the original poster (called
erroneously "SR" and "GR" terms); the Sagnac effect comes in only for
non-local effects.
Tom Roberts
Tom Roberts
> According to your hypothesis which is false, you have to synchronize
> the satellite clocks with the ground station clocks.
That is not my "hypothesis", that is THE ACTUAL WAY THE GPS HAS BEEN
ENGINEERED. Don't complain to me, complain to its designers. You will
fail, however, because YOU did not take into account all of the
requirements of the GPS (see below). <shrug>
> how are you
> going to achieve that with the Lorentz transformation
Lorentz transformations are not used and are irrelevant. One must use
GR, not SR.
> indicates relative simultaneity that mean no absolute simultaneity.
The ECI coordinates of the GPS have a consistent simultaneity throughout
their region of validity, just like any inertial coordinates. There is
indeed no "absolute simultaneity": in a different inertial frame the
simultaneity would be different -- that's irrelevant because the GPS
uses only the single ECI coordinate system (except possibly during
computations of some small corrections like position of sun and moon).
> No absolute simultaneity means you can never synchronize clocks of two
> moving bodies despite BS coming out of Poincare and Einstein.
But the GPS uses CORRECTED CLOCKS, and the corrections are PRECISELY
what is required to make them all synchronized IN THE ECI COORDINATES
(and only in those coordinates -- nothing "absolute" here). I'm
considering idealized clocks here; the real clocks drift due to numerous
tiny variabilities and are corrected for them, too (but the tiny
corrections for variabilities are uploaded, not an intrinsic
modification of the clock as is the 38 us/day).
Variabilities such as orbit errors, position of sun and
moon, individual clock drifts, etc. The typical correction
for such variabilities is a few ns; they are uploaded
~daily.
> All a receiver has to do is the following. [...]
I repeat: you have not taken into account ALL of the GPS requirements.
Yes, in a fictional system that is somewhat similar to the GPS your
approach might be made to work (highly unlikely due to engineering
considerations). BUT IT IS UNRELATED TO THE ACTUAL GPS SYSTEM.
For instance, you would find that uploading corrections
to the satellites is an engineering nightmare....
>> [Some idiots around here claim otherwise -- they simply
>> do not understand the ACTUAL ENGINEERING of the GPS, and
>> fancy themselves as system engineers when they have not
>> even bothered to look at the GPS system requirements.]
>
> show me the specification that indicates a 38uSec per day correction
> indeed necessary for GPS operation.
I repeat: you are not taking all of the GPS requirements into account.
In particular, GPS time is REQUIRED to remain within 1 microsecond of
UTC without leap seconds (in practice they do much better). This of
course implies that the designers must slow down the satellite clock by
~38 us/day, or otherwise handle their different natural tick rate from
clocks on the geoid; they chose to do that. THIS IS A SIMPLE HISTORICAL
FACT; all your whining cannot change it. <shrug>
And Androcles thinks some sort of "feedback loop" could be used instead
of the fixed GR correction. He ignores the requirement that updates to
satellites occur no more than once per day, and also the requirement
that the system operate for several months with only modest degradation
in accuracy without the ground segment being operational (which would
destroy his "feedback loop"). He also does not understand the
limitations of such a loop's dynamic range (if it could handle the 38
us/day, it could not ACCURATELY handle the tiny variabilities).
You guys seem to think the GPS consists of just satellites and receivers
-- THIS IS BLATANTLY FALSE. The ground segment is an integral part of
the GPS. The GPS is a MILITARY SYSTEM, not some figment of your
imaginations. You guys haven't a clue what it takes to design and
implement such a system. <shrug>
> I have started a thread just dedicated for this topic of discussion.
And it is just as wrong as your claims here. Repeating your falsehoods
and errors does not make them correct. <shrug>
Tom Roberts
qbit
>
> You guys seem to think the GPS consists of just satellites and receivers
> -- THIS IS BLATANTLY FALSE. The ground segment is an integral part of
> the GPS. The GPS is a MILITARY SYSTEM, not some figment of your
> imaginations. You guys haven't a clue what it takes to design and
> implement such a system. <shrug>
Why can't it run fully automatic? After all it's just celestial mechanics maths.
If humans are involved in the core functionality of such a clocking system
then it means a source for errors, manipulations, and blackmailing.
I would say your argumentation is a cheap excuse, for hiding the truth,
which can only mean that there is a big problem, and with such manual
corrections the problem gets "covered"...
Time dilation is ok, but "correcting" such clocks manually is unlogical,
after all there should be no need at all to "correct" them.
--> Meaning the system is not well designed, it is buggy.
jonas.t...@hotmail.com
> "qbit" <q...@quantumworlds.com> wrote in message
Would it be possible to place a satellit that is stationary with
respect to the sun, that earth pass each year.
Further would it be possible to place a another satelit that orbit
earth in such a way that it do not follow the earths rotation. Would
not the gravitational drag on such a satelite be neglible.
If so the satelite clock accompaning earth would dilate 1 sec per year
compared to the sun stationary clock.
J
Androcles
: "Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
: >
: > You guys seem to think the GPS consists of just satellites and receivers
: > -- THIS IS BLATANTLY FALSE. The ground segment is an integral part of
: > the GPS. The GPS is a MILITARY SYSTEM, not some figment of your
: > imaginations. You guys haven't a clue what it takes to design and
: > implement such a system. <shrug>
:
: I don't understand why manual, ie. human made, "corrections" are needed.
: Why can't it run fully automatic?
It does and anyway the receiver has no atomic clock so ground time is
irrelevant.
All that matters is the constellation remains in synch, satellite to
satellite, and there
are five ground stations around the planet uploading ephemerides to the
constellation constantly to make sure it stays that way.
Roberts is an ignorant and stooopid idiot.
Sam Wormley
>
> I don't understand why manual, ie. human made, "corrections" are needed.
> Why can't it run fully automatic? After all it's just celestial mechanics maths.
> If humans are involved in the core functionality of such a clocking system
> then it means a source for errors, manipulations, and blackmailing.
> I would say your argumentation is a cheap excuse, for hiding the truth,
> which can only mean that there is a big problem, and with such manual
> corrections the problem gets "covered"...
> Time dilation is ok, but "correcting" such clocks manually is unlogical,
> after all there should be no need at all to "correct" them.
> --> Meaning the system is not well designed, it is buggy.
>
Due to effects modeled by general relativity, identical satellite clock
tick at a different rate that ground clocks... an offset, predicted by
general relativity is designed into the GPS so that it will work accurately.
The proof is in the performance of GPS.
Jerry
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "qbit" <q...@quantumworlds.com> wrote in messagenews:f92l0j$v3r$1...@aioe.org...
> > As said, by using just one satellite; that's the challenge! :-)
> > Doable or not? Practical or not? Accuracy good or not?
>
> heh... if they could have done it with one, they would have,
> trust me ;-)
> Cheers,
The old TRANSIT system needed only one visible satellite. Doppler
frequency changes and time "hacks" broadcast from the single
visible satellite would be monitored over several minutes. Any
location within line-of-sight of the satellite received a unique
Doppler curve, and ascertaining one's position involved best-fit
analysis of the observed curve versus successively improved trial
curves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_%28satellite%29
Jerry
Sam Wormley
And it wasn't available very often... The need for 24/7 and global
coverage is much greater now.
John C. Polasek
<tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Koobee Wublee wrote:
>> According to your hypothesis which is false, you have to synchronize
>> the satellite clocks with the ground station clocks.
>
>That is not my "hypothesis", that is THE ACTUAL WAY THE GPS HAS BEEN
>ENGINEERED. Don't complain to me, complain to its designers. You will
>fail, however, because YOU did not take into account all of the
>requirements of the GPS (see below). <shrug>
>
>
>> how are you
>> going to achieve that with the Lorentz transformation
>
>Lorentz transformations are not used and are irrelevant. One must use
>GR, not SR.
>
snip
The Lorentz transformations ARE used for the velocity correction (as I
pointed out in another message below) and can be used as well for the
gravity correction, surprisingly, but for the orbital part only, as
only in orbit is the virial theorem at work.
A clock is slowed vs infinity by 1- LT of its orbital velocity.
It so happens the gravity part can be solved by replacing the orbital
velocity with the escape velocity, which is orbital V x sqrt(2).
Thus, where the LT for orbital velocity V is 3868 m/s
f(V) = 1- LTorbV(V) = 1 - sqrt(1-V^2/c^2) x K = 7.2usec
1- LTgravity = 1 - sqrt(1 - 2V^2/c^2) x K = 14.4usec
so the combination can be written
1 - LTcomb = 1 - sqrt(1 - 3V^2/c^2) x K = 21.6usec/day
a so-called triple form that might occasionally be seen.
The big contribution is due to earth's gravity and again using f(V) we
can again use the earth's escape velocity 11,170m/s in f(V) and we get
1 - LTcomb = 1 - sqrt(1 - 11170^2/c^2) x K = 60.07us/day
Equatorial velocity gives only 0.103us/day, so the net "overspeed" in
the satellite is
60.07 + 0.103 - 14.4 - 7.2 = 38.57 us/day
Relativity prefers 1 - LT1/LT2 but the results are substantially the
same. It's in my book Dual Space Theory.
*K = 3600*24*10^6 usec/day
>
>Tom Roberts
John Polasek
Tom Roberts
> "Tom Roberts" <tjrobe...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
>> You guys seem to think the GPS consists of just satellites and receivers
>> -- THIS IS BLATANTLY FALSE. The ground segment is an integral part of
>> the GPS. The GPS is a MILITARY SYSTEM, not some figment of your
>> imaginations. You guys haven't a clue what it takes to design and
>> implement such a system. <shrug>
>
> I don't understand why manual, ie. human made, "corrections" are needed.
> Why can't it run fully automatic?
Because the computing resources in the old, 1970s-era satellites are
insufficient. The major corrections are incorporated in the satellites,
so it can meet its requirement of operating with only modest accuracy
degradation without the ground segment. But the tiny variabilities are
handled on the ground and uploaded. I believe the current system exceeds
the original requirements for accuracy by a significant amount.
> After all it's just celestial mechanics maths.
But QUITE COMPLICATED maths for the little stuff (the big stuff is
handled automatically).
> If humans are involved in the core functionality of such a clocking system
> then it means a source for errors, manipulations, and blackmailing.
Get real! The GPS is operated by the US military. And they rely on it
far more than anybody else -- while they are not the paragons of virtue
one might wish for, they are not going to spoil their own nest.
All the military personnel I have met (hundreds) are
indeed honorable and patriotic. The ones who make the
news are a tiny minority.
> --> Meaning the system is not well designed, it is buggy.
Nonsense. No such system could ever hope to operate for long without
human assistance. Things break, go out of alignment, run out of
maneuvering fuel, etc.
Tom Roberts
Koobee Wublee
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > This is laughable because you are truly talking about yourself. So,
> > show me the specification that indicates a 38uSec per day correction
> > indeed necessary for GPS operation. <shrug>
>
> > I have started a thread just dedicated for this topic of discussion.
> > Why are you not manly to discuss this topic in that thread where Not
> > Man (PhD in Chemistry), Professor Andersen (from Norway), and others
> > have dug out NASA specifications on GPS but none indicates this 38uSec
> > per day of requirement.
>
> -4,4647E-10 * 24*60*60 seconds = -38.575 microseconds, imbecile.
This is better than doing actual fishing. Use -4.4647E-10 as bait,
and look at what we can haul out among the mass of septic pool
consisted of Einstein Dingleberries.
So, your account, the P-code chipping rate has to decrease by
4.4647E-10 every day. In 20 years, we need to use a P-code chipping
rate of 10.229966658067MHz. Most elementary school kids would not
even make this mistake by taking this bait but among the Einstein
Dingleberries, I guess anything is possible. <shrug>
Eric Gisse
It must be comforting for you to believe you are smarter than every
physicist.
Sam Wormley
I think those elementary school kids are a bit sharper than you
Koobee. Whith the offset predicted by GTR, the ground receiver will
measure a chipping rate of 10.230000 MHz.
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > According to your hypothesis which is false, you have to synchronize
> > the satellite clocks with the ground station clocks.
>
> That is not my "hypothesis", that is THE ACTUAL WAY THE GPS HAS BEEN
> ENGINEERED. Don't complain to me, complain to its designers. You will
> fail, however, because YOU did not take into account all of the
> requirements of the GPS (see below). <shrug>
What you are saying as facts are actually lies. See below, and please
point out where this relativistic correction is needed for GPS
acquisition.
http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/theory.htm
> > how are you
> > going to achieve that with the Lorentz transformation
>
> Lorentz transformations are not used and are irrelevant. One must use
> GR, not SR.
Fine, if you want to, that is another subject of discussion with
salient points described as follows.
** GR allows an absolute reference point.
** SR forbids an absolute reference point.
** GR cannot fall back to SR in flat space. <shrug>
> > indicates relative simultaneity that mean no absolute simultaneity.
>
> The ECI coordinates of the GPS have a consistent simultaneity throughout
> their region of validity, just like any inertial coordinates. There is
> indeed no "absolute simultaneity": in a different inertial frame the
> simultaneity would be different -- that's irrelevant because the GPS
> uses only the single ECI coordinate system (except possibly during
> computations of some small corrections like position of sun and moon).
You have missed the fundamental point. GPS cannot function under the
concept of relative simultaneity. <shrug>
> > No absolute simultaneity means you can never synchronize clocks of two
> > moving bodies despite BS coming out of Poincare and Einstein.
>
> But the GPS uses CORRECTED CLOCKS, and the corrections are PRECISELY
> what is required to make them all synchronized IN THE ECI COORDINATES
> (and only in those coordinates -- nothing "absolute" here).
Since GPS functions without relative simultaneity, the concept of
relative simultaneity must be wrong. <shrug>
> I'm
> considering idealized clocks here; the real clocks drift due to numerous
> tiny variabilities and are corrected for them, too (but the tiny
> corrections for variabilities are uploaded, not an intrinsic
> modification of the clock as is the 38 us/day).
Again, the engineers in the above link have shown 38uSec/day of
correction is not needed. So, why are you still saying it does? Is
there a political agenda behind your claim?
> > All a receiver has to do is the following. [...]
>
> I repeat: you have not taken into account ALL of the GPS requirements.
> Yes, in a fictional system that is somewhat similar to the GPS your
> approach might be made to work (highly unlikely due to engineering
> considerations). BUT IT IS UNRELATED TO THE ACTUAL GPS SYSTEM.
I repeat. The engineers in the above link show trivially that 38uSec
of correction is not needed. If I were these engineers, I would have
done the same, but the actual fact is that there is no nonsense of GR
needed in GPS design. Thus, don't complain to me if the nonsense of
GR is not utilized. You will fail, however, because YOU have not
taken into account that engineers are trained through their
industrious careers to design systems to meet the specifications with
the least amount of cost and effort. <shrug>
> For instance, you would find that uploading corrections
> to the satellites is an engineering nightmare....
Yes, luckily this uplink imposed by you is not needed except maybe the
Greenwich time which is much lower in resolution. <shrug>
> > show me the specification that indicates a 38uSec per day correction
> > indeed necessary for GPS operation.
>
> I repeat: you are not taking all of the GPS requirements into account.
I repeat: show me the spec that requires this 38uSec of correction
per day. <shrug>
> In particular, GPS time is REQUIRED to remain within 1 microsecond of
> UTC without leap seconds (in practice they do much better). This of
> course implies that the designers must slow down the satellite clock by
> ~38 us/day, or otherwise handle their different natural tick rate from
> clocks on the geoid; they chose to do that. THIS IS A SIMPLE HISTORICAL
> FACT; all your whining cannot change it. <shrug>
Again, the above link just proves you wrong. There is absolutely no
such requirement in the GPS spec. You can whine all you want, but the
fact is that the engineers do not see a need to impose such a costly
operation in synchronizing GPS clocks with the ground clocks to with 1
uSec. <shrug>
> And Androcles thinks some sort of "feedback loop" could be used instead
> of the fixed GR correction.
What is this "feedback loop" you think Androcles uses? I certainly do
not have that impression. <shrug>
> He ignores the requirement that updates to
> satellites occur no more than once per day, and also the requirement
> that the system operate for several months with only modest degradation
> in accuracy without the ground segment being operational (which would
> destroy his "feedback loop").
The link I provided shows there is no need to synchronize the ground
clock and the satellite clocks anyway. This is also reflected in his
website below.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
So, I still don't get what you are confused about.
> He also does not understand the
> limitations of such a loop's dynamic range (if it could handle the 38
> us/day, it could not ACCURATELY handle the tiny variabilities).
You are talking nonsense. Has it ever occurred to you that you are
the one who is so fouled up and not Androcles in this subject?
> You guys seem to think the GPS consists of just satellites and receivers
Yes, the above link and Androcles' website support the statement
above. <shrug>
> -- THIS IS BLATANTLY FALSE. The ground segment is an integral part of
> the GPS. The GPS is a MILITARY SYSTEM, not some figment of your
> imaginations. You guys haven't a clue what it takes to design and
> implement such a system. <shrug>
If you don't like engineers to accomplish the well-done job without
your religion icons, SR and GR or GR solely whatever nonsense, you are
welcomed to bid for another contract and build a religious shrine for
GR in orbit. <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
Well, I cannot claim if I am smarter than every physicists. I have to
earn it like the old-fashion way.
Since you asked, let's see. I am the first in 100 years to see
through the nonsense of
** Relative simultaneity
** Unresolved twin's paradox under Lorentz transform
** Using the metric as the geometry itself
** Synthetic quality of the covariant derivative
** Derivation of the field equations
** Infinite solutions to the field equations
And more... So, you and others have to tell me if I am smarter than
every physicist. <shrug>
If I am or not, I really don't care. I just care about my own
unbiased learning and understanding of the natural world around me in
which it is a trait absolutely missing in you and most physicists.
<shrug>
Sam Wormley
>
> What you are saying as facts are actually lies. See below, and please
> point out where this relativistic correction is needed for GPS
> acquisition.
>
The relativistic corrections are needed for PVT *accuracy*, Koobee.
The military wanted to be able to deliver warheads to 2m CEP.
See: Some Measurements of Accuracy
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_accuracy.html
Jeckyl
> On Aug 5, 8:29 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>> > According to your hypothesis which is false, you have to synchronize
>> > the satellite clocks with the ground station clocks.
>>
>> That is not my "hypothesis", that is THE ACTUAL WAY THE GPS HAS BEEN
>> ENGINEERED. Don't complain to me, complain to its designers. You will
>> fail, however, because YOU did not take into account all of the
>> requirements of the GPS (see below). <shrug>
>
> What you are saying as facts are actually lies. See below, and please
> point out where this relativistic correction is needed for GPS
> acquisition.
>
> http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/theory.htm
That's info on the receiver .. there is very little about the satellite
there.
However, if you go back to the authors index page you find links to
http://gpsinformation.net/
GPSInformation.net web site for everything gps (all my stuff is there too!)
On that site there is info on how GPS works (along with LOTS of other stuff
on recievers etc)
In particular , one link there is to
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html
General relativity in the global positioning system
Which explains it all for you. I suggest you give it a read.
Eric Gisse
> On Aug 5, 8:29 am, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > According to your hypothesis which is false, you have to synchronize
> > > the satellite clocks with the ground station clocks.
>
> > That is not my "hypothesis", that is THE ACTUAL WAY THE GPS HAS BEEN
> > ENGINEERED. Don't complain to me, complain to its designers. You will
> > fail, however, because YOU did not take into account all of the
> > requirements of the GPS (see below). <shrug>
>
> What you are saying as facts are actually lies. See below, and please
> point out where this relativistic correction is needed for GPS
> acquisition.
>
> http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/theory.htm
Strategic application of stupidity.
You deliberately not cite the actual GPS spec - instead you cite a
simplified version. Since the simplified version does not have the
relativistic corrections, you then 'conclude' that the corrections
either do not exist or are not needed.
[snip]
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > So, your account, the P-code chipping rate has to decrease by
> > 4.4647E-10 every day. In 20 years, we need to use a P-code chipping
> > rate of 10.229966658067MHz. Most elementary school kids would not
> > even make this mistake by taking this bait but among the Einstein
> > Dingleberries, I guess anything is possible. <shrug>
>
> I think those elementary school kids are a bit sharper than you
> Koobee. Whith the offset predicted by GTR, the ground receiver will
> measure a chipping rate of 10.230000 MHz.
You are once again so wrong, Mr. Wormlike. The GPS spec whatever is
stated obviously means the following.
** Satellite P-code chipping rate of 10.23000000000MHz
** Receiver P-code chipping rate of 10.22999999543MHz
Oh, well. This proves the policy of no-child left behind is really a
very bad one indeed. <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
> On Aug 5, 8:17 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What you are saying as facts are actually lies. See below, and please
> > point out where this relativistic correction is needed for GPS
> > acquisition.
>
> >http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/theory.htm
>
> You deliberately not cite the actual GPS spec - instead you cite a
> simplified version. Since the simplified version does not have the
> relativistic corrections, you then 'conclude' that the corrections
> either do not exist or are not needed.
I cite how GPS decoding is actually done, and that makes a lot of
sense. The GPS spec from what I have seen is influenced heavily by
the Einstein Dingleberries to add something that is totally irrelevant
into the system. They could easily specify the interface chipping
rate of 10.22999999543MHz without mentioning 10.23MHz like all
experienced system engineers would do to avoid confusion for the
mentally challenged like Mr. Wormlike, Not Man, yourself (Fat Gisse),
moortel, Jeckyl, Mr. Poe, and professors Roberts and Andersen.
<shrug>
Sam Wormley
[x] pail of nails
[ ] box of rocks
[ ] bag of hammers
[ ] shit on a biscuit
It was hard to decide which you are dumber than Koobee... here's what
happens when you try to pond a nail or learn about GPS.
http://edu-observatory.org/eo/images/hammercons.gif
Eric Gisse
> On Aug 5, 9:29 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 5, 8:17 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > What you are saying as facts are actually lies. See below, and please
> > > point out where this relativistic correction is needed for GPS
> > > acquisition.
>
> > >http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/theory.htm
>
> > You deliberately not cite the actual GPS spec - instead you cite a
> > simplified version. Since the simplified version does not have the
> > relativistic corrections, you then 'conclude' that the corrections
> > either do not exist or are not needed.
>
IT IS NOT A SPEC. DO NOT TREAT IT AS SUCH.
Eric Gisse
He has just admitted that he _does not know_ where the GR corrections
are applied.
He has been arguing about GPS for 2 years now, and he can't even say
if the corrections are in the receiver or the satellite.
Hilarious, no?
Sam Wormley
If you really want to see how a GPS receiver works
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
-Sam Wormley
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
Jerry
It was, of course, good enough for its primary purpose, which
was to allow missle-carrying submarines to periodically reset
their inertial guidance systems. Knowing when a satellite
would be above the horizon, a missle submarine would expose
its UHF antenna for the two minutes necessary to record the
Doppler curve and a time-and-satellite-ephemerides update,
then would immediately resubmerge.
For a regional positioning system requiring only a relatively
few satellites, qbit might also investigate China's Beidou
system. I don't have much in the way of technical specs...
do you know much about this system, Sam?
Thanks,
Jerry
John C. Polasek
>t it straight. The 38 usec/day is a proper correction. Tinkering
Let's gecomes after that to accommodate whatever vagaries, such as for
an ellipsoid earth for example. No amount of adjusting will work for
very long with the wrong clock rate.
I showed how to calculate it below using the Lorentz transform for
orbital velocity and gravity both. It's 7us for orbital rate, 14us for
gravity at orbit and 60us for earth's gravity and .1 for equatorial
velocity about 39us/day.
That's not to say that GR or SR concepts are correct. They are not.
There is no space-time continuum. And there is no time dilation. But
the GRSR arithmetic is correct. Dual Space theory gets the same
answers with a different model (GR has no model!).
If you would think it through, the atomic clock rate cannot be changed
to get your "chip rate". I believe they work it through preset
counters to deliver one beep periodically, say 1/second, and the
counters can be set "fat" to neutralize the higher clock rate to match
the uncorrected clocks used in the commercial gear on land.
John Polasek
Dirk Van de moortel
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1186371840.2...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Apart from Androcles, I don't think I have ever seen a retired
engineer with the mentality of a six years old - or less.
Yours truly amazed,
Dirk Vdm
va...@icmf.inf.cu
> va...@icmf.inf.cu wrote:
> > On 4 ago, 11:05, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> qbit wrote:
> >>> I read that there are 3 parts to consider: GR, SR, and Sagnac.
> >>> The sum of them gives about 38 microseconds per day.
> >>> The above 7.2 microseconds is just the SR part.
> >> Some non-technical accounts attempt to discuss it that way. In actuality
> >> that is wrong, because GR explains the entire effect.
>
> > GR can explains the entire effect, I don't put it in doubt, but GR is
> > REALLY used for that purpose in the GPS? What are you denoting "wrong"
> > here?
>
> What is wrong is calling these terms by names like "SR" and "GR", when
> in truth the entire formula is an approximation to the GR result. SR is
> PART OF GR, not some "separate" theory.
>
We are in total agreement about the relationship between SR and GR. As
GR was created about 1915 and first Relativity in 1905 (I denoted it
as 1905 Relativity or 1905R), then following basic historic rules
1905R is transformed into SR from 1905 to 1915. A fundamental step in
that transformation took place in 1907 with H. Minkowski work uniting
space and time and abandoning Euclidean geometry, followed soon by
Einstein's introduction of 4-tensors to describe Relativity.
> >> What they are really trying to say is that in the lowest-order
> >> approximation to the GR formula for the LOCAL tick rate of a satellite
> >> clock ,one can identify two terms: one of which is related to the speed
> >> of the satellite, and one of which is related to its gravitational
> >> potential. These have been confusingly called "SR" and "GR"
> >> respectively. That is a LOCAL formula, and in general one must also
> >> account for its rotation around the earth (called "Sagnac").
>
> > A LOCAL GR formula? A LOCAL tick rate?
>
> That's the best words I could find to describe it.
>
If you are referring to GR as the unique theory used here, you know
that "local" in GR has a very precise coined meaning, denoting when
you can use SR in a small zone where space-time can be approximated
flat using a pseudo-euclidean geometry. If you are using the word
"local" with that coined meaning (and I haven't reasons to think you
aren't), then we have here a disagreement (or I alone a
misunderstanding!).
> > That I remember, the more basic
> > co-ordinate system used in GPS is the Inertial System corresponding to
> > the centre of mass of the involved bodies
>
> Yes, the GPS uses the ECI frame with clocks corrected for their altitude
> and motion relative to the ECI. So The GPS coordinates are equivalent to
> an inertial frame in the SR sense, covering the entire earth and the
> satellites. The earth rotates relative to the ECI, of course.
>
Why do you refer to GPS coordinates as "equivalent to an inertial
frame in the SR sense"? This is false if you are considering SR as
part of GR and used only in a small LOCAL zone where space-time can be
approximated flat. As you describe well, ECI is used "covering the
entire earth and the satellites". Then, the GPS coordinates correspond
(not "are equivalent") to an inertial frame NOT in the SR sense, but
in the 1905R one with gravity (and all other Nature forces) present.
> > The clock time rate diminution owed to velocity is always calculated
> > with the 1905 Relativity factor sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)
>
> Hmmm. The actual formulas of GR are used. That is only an approximation
> (though it may be good enough, I don't know). In particular, the "speed
> term" and the "gravitational potential term" are only separable in an
> APPROXIMATION.
>
Hmmm. If ECI is used as you say ("covering the entire earth and the
satellites", an Inertial Frame in the 1905R sense not restricted to a
small LOCAL zone as in SR), how can you make this compatible with your
assertion that GR formulas are the unique used? Being SR part of GR,
that formulas must reflect the use of SR in the LOCAL way assigned to
it into GR. You have then a contradiction (or more probably, I am
missing something here!). Being ECI an Inertial System in the 1905R
sense, what I consider more logic is the use of the 1905R formula for
the velocity effect and the GR one for the gravitational potential
effect. This is why I put in doubt above that GPS engineers REALLY use
only the GR formulas
> > What "LOCALITY" are you talking about?
>
> The satellite clock tick rate measured in the satellite, compared to the
> non-local ECI time coordinate.
>
I can't understand what comparison are you talking about. In the
satellite the unique clock tick rate measured is the non-local ECI
time coordinate! I commented about this in my last post, but you
didn't take it into account. I will put here again that comment
(between " ").
"The principal problem resolved for the very successful function of
GPS was precisely to obtain clocks that NEVER show LOCAL time, but
ALWAYS GLOBAL one, corresponding to a 1905 Relativity UNIQUE INERTIAL
SYSTEM with the presence of gravity (and all the other Nature
forces)!"
> > ALL LOCAL entities are totally
> > useless in GPS.
>
> Yes. I was trying to explain where the correction in the satellite
> clocks comes from. That is just a single clock, and LOCALLY its rate
> comes from the two terms mentioned by the original poster (called
> erroneously "SR" and "GR" terms); the Sagnac effect comes in only for
> non-local effects.
>
We share then that ALL LOCAL entities are totally useless in GPS.
Having SR a LOCAL role as part of GR, then remains not clear for me
how to make compatible the presence and use of the 1905R Inertial
Frame ECI in GPS with your assertion about the exclusive use of GR
formulas in GPS. Really more logic for me is the use of the 1905R
formula for the velocity effect and the use of the GR formula only for
the gravitational potential one.
By the way, I derived from 1905R also the gravitational potential
effect. Then, it seems logical to think that 1905R alone is sufficient
to support all GPS function. Don't you think that this is a
sufficiently important fact to make some comment about it? Remember
that in 1905R space is still separated from time, only Euclidean
geometry is used, 4-tensors are absent...and doesn't appear any
singularity.
> Tom Roberts
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
hanson
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:obyti.52541$Fc.13375@attbi_s21...
>
Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote to Sam:
What you are saying as facts are actually lies. See below, and
please point out where this relativistic correction is needed for
GPS acquisition.
>
http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/theory.htm
>
You deliberately not cite the actual GPS spec - instead you cite a
simplified version. Since the simplified version does not have the
relativistic corrections, you then 'conclude' that the corrections
either do not exist or are not needed.
>>
I cite how GPS decoding is actually done, and that makes a lot of
sense. The GPS spec from what I have seen is influenced heavily by
the Einstein Dingleberries to add something that is totally irrelevant
into the system. They could easily specify the interface chipping
rate of 10.22999999543MHz without mentioning 10.23MHz like all
experienced system engineers would do to avoid confusion for the
Fecal Jeckyl, Mr. Poe, Wabnigger,and profs Roberts and Andersen.
<shrug>
>>
"Sam Wormley" wrote:
If you really want to see how a GPS receiver works
>
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
>
The Dingleberry rapture happens at the bottom page 14 in that
25 page document which mentions "relativistic" **ONE single time**
ahahaha... ahaha... "which it applies to the ****pseudo**** ranges.
These **include** corrections for the satellite clock offset, relativistic
effects, ionospheric signal propagation delays. " [amongst others]
>
It is astonishing how Pentcho Valev's members of "Einstein's
criminal cults" aka Einstein Dingleberries are so desperate
to hang onto to the left-overs of Relativity & whine for instance
"but it's the best theory we have".... ahahaha...
>
No-one in the real world of doers care about theories, except
for Einstein Dingleberries like student whose juvenile minds get
poisoned by fanatical teachers/profs who hope that their *AFTER-
the-fact Description/story*, which they call theory, will bring them
some Johnny-come-lately honors and glory from a technology
that has operated for almost a quarter century WITHOUT REL... ....
>
In the real world theories do NOT matter. Theories are tales only.
In the words of Al: "Theory tells you what you already know"...
which is why E-Relativity is practiced today only in places where
Einstein Dingleberries congregate & sing their psalms to make
things more complicated than they REALLY are,
>
== mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL shit"
== *.edu and grantology ..................."does need REL - No shit"
== Promo, Sales & Movies..............."loves REL by the shitload"
== Jews protect it as cultural heritage whether "REL is shit or not".
>
but GPS does NOT NEED any SR/GR, NOT for its design, NOT
production, NOT for its operations, except to promote & SELL it.
>
See Androcle's ws for how GPS works in the rational, real world:
>
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
>
Einstein Dingleberries OTOH are famous for finding relativistic
reason and solution to/for everything, even when they take a shit or
to the unlikely event when they finally fall off Albert's sphincter.
This is possible to achieve with relativity (to spin a tale) because
as pointed out by Androcles: "Einstein divides 0/0"....
which Albert HIMSELF has tacitly admitted to (see =3=)
>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/96c1fde68777bc9f
>
Now let's do something therapeutic for Einstein Dingleberries &
illustrate by some **estimates**-on-back-of-the-envelope type
how Einstein Dingleberries introduce many **useless & needless**
complications into the GPS game,... when every high schooler
can immediately see that with ***Newtonian mechanics*** one
gets:
>
(m_e/h) * 2G/c^2 ........ 4.4E-10 s/s (the frequncy shift)
(m_e/h) * 2G/c^2 *86400 ..... 38 microsec/day
>
where m_e = mass of earth & h being the orbital Space vehicle
height, 20'000, kms above the earth surface.
>
Now enter and apply Einstein Dingleberrryism to complicate
matters with SR & GR... which provide NO more info then the
Newton estimate above gave... Enter the learned and very kind
Prof. Eric Prebys from Fermilab,
>
[Prebys]
<pre...@fnal.gov> wwi news:3C164B7D...@fnal.gov...
Prebys === Details of GPS calculation ===
::: The altitude of the GPS sats are about 20,000 km, so their
::: radius is 27,000 km. The observed period is 12 hours.
::: From this you can work out that the velocity is
::: v = 2*PI*R/T = 3.93 x 10^3 m/s
::: This means that \beta = v/c = 1.31 x 10^(-5). The velocity at the
::: surface of the earth is negligible compared to this, so the
::: === **SR** clock correction would come from
::: \gamma = 1/sqrt{1-\beta^2} ~ 1 + .5*\beta^2 ~ = 1 + (8.5 x 10^(-11))
::: so the orbiting clock would tick "slowly" by 1/gamma, or a fractional
::: change of 8.5 x 10^(-11)
::: and the clock would lose (86400)*(8.5 x 10^(-11)) = 7 x 10^(-6) s/day
::: === Now, move on to **GR**. Use
::: v = sqrt(GM/R) to get GM = 4.2 x 10^14
::: The GR gravity-only time dilation "gamma" is (look it up)
::: \gamma = 1/sqrt{1 - 2GM/(Rc^2)} ~ 1 + GM/(Rc^2)
:::
::: So the difference between a clock ticking on Earth (R=Re=6.7E6)
::: and one ticking in orbit (R=Ro=27E6) would be
:::
::: 1+GM/(Re*c^2)
::: ------------- ~ 1 + (GM/c^2)(1/Re - 1/Ro)
::: 1+GM/(Ro*c^2)
:::
::: since the earth clock is deeper in the gravitational well, it would tick
::: slowly and relative to it, the GPS clock would tick fast by a factor
::: (GM/c^2)(1/Re - 1/Ro) = 5.23 x 10^(-10)
::: so the clock would gain
::: 86400*(5.23 x 10^(-10)) = 45 x 10^(-6) s/day
::: so the net gain would be 45 - 7 = 38 microseconds, which is
::: (strangely enough) EXACTLY the value they use, see
::: http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/PHY312.98Spring/projects/GPS/GPS.html
>
[hanson]
ahahaha... Better then Ashby who needed some 40 eqautions
to get what Prebys' 20 lines did but which can be gotten with
ONE (1) single line via Newton ... and .... do also notice
Preby's mysterious caveat "(strangely enough)"... ahahaha..
>
The above Prebys-hanson exchange happened half a decade
ago but Einstein Dingleberries still whine & wabnigger today
about relativistic correction of frequencies as if it were a big deal....
AHAHAHAHA... To them it obviously must be... which is why
they are known in the real world as Einstein's Dingleberries
where:
>
== mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL shit"
== *.edu and grantology ..................."does need REL -- No shit"
== Promo, Sales & Movies..............."loves REL by the shitload"
== Jews protect it as cultural heritage whether "REL is shit or not".
>
... which is why relativity is only exercised if, when and where
Einstein Dingleberries do love to congregate.... ahahaha...
>
Fuck the Einstein crock!... Newton has a long reach you poor
bastards, no matter how long you devoted Dingleberries do feel
your physico-religious need to hang onto Einstein's sphincter:
>
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.philosophy/msg/3a49c856abf11d7d?hl=en&
>
ahahaha... and I am by no means the first to notice that:
see ==3== in here, where Einstein himself abandons his crock:
>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/96c1fde68777bc9f?hl=en&
>
... but despite all that Einstein Dingleberries keep on wabinggering
"you are Anti-relativists".... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA...
>
So, what are you going to do about that, you Einstein Dingleberries?
Keep on whining: "what's the relativistically adjusted frequency?"
ahahahaha... yeah, yeah, keep doing that. It's good for you!
>
Now take the Einstein Dingleberry test. See whether you are one of them.
>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/11de8b918ae17a01?hl=en&
>
ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, mooches!
ahahahaha.... ahahahahanson
hanson
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:obyti.52541$Fc.13375@attbi_s21...
>
Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote to Sam:
please point out where this relativistic correction is needed for
GPS acquisition.
>
http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/theory.htm
>
You deliberately not cite the actual GPS spec - instead you cite a
simplified version. Since the simplified version does not have the
relativistic corrections, you then 'conclude' that the corrections
either do not exist or are not needed.
>>
I cite how GPS decoding is actually done, and that makes a lot of
sense. The GPS spec from what I have seen is influenced heavily by
the Einstein Dingleberries to add something that is totally irrelevant
into the system. They could easily specify the interface chipping
rate of 10.22999999543MHz without mentioning 10.23MHz like all
experienced system engineers would do to avoid confusion for the
Fecal Jeckyl, Mr. Poe, Wabnigger,and profs Roberts and Andersen.
<shrug>
>>
"Sam Wormley" wrote:
>
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
>
qbit
> ahahaha... GPS for REL = Great Pimping Situation for REL...
> "Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote
> >
The formula looks cool. Where is it from? Any documentation?
Have you also checked it for other orbits and compared them with RT results?
Using h=20200E3 it indeed gives 37.94 microsec, ie. 38 microsec.
If one puts h=R+20200E3 it gives 28.84 us.
A similar value (29.6 us) I got in sci.physics in the thread
"RT Time Dilation Calculation Method For An Equatorial Orbit",
but this was using RT and using 2 orbit periods per day.
It seems that RT gives 38 us only if the satellite orbits only once per day,
but the GPS satellites are actually orbiting twice a day...
I try to find the answer to this funny "discrepancy" in RT...
Do you have a saved copy of this web page as it seems to be gone :-(
Tom Roberts
> If you are referring to GR as the unique theory used here, you know
> that "local" in GR has a very precise coined meaning, denoting when
> you can use SR in a small zone where space-time can be approximated
> flat using a pseudo-euclidean geometry.
Yes, except I would say "Minkowski geometry".
Note that the size of a local region depends on one's measurement
accuracy and on the curvature of the manifold in the region of interest.
Near earth, the manifold has such small curvature that for the corrected
GPS clocks the region includes the entire earth and the GPS satellite
orbits, with an accuracy sufficient to meet the requirements.
>> Yes, the GPS uses the ECI frame with clocks corrected for their altitude
>> and motion relative to the ECI. So The GPS coordinates are equivalent to
>> an inertial frame in the SR sense, covering the entire earth and the
>> satellites. The earth rotates relative to the ECI, of course.
>>
> Why do you refer to GPS coordinates as "equivalent to an inertial
> frame in the SR sense"?
Because they ARE.
> This is false if you are considering SR as
> part of GR and used only in a small LOCAL zone where space-time can be
> approximated flat.
As far as the GPS geo-positioning service is concerned, the local area
covered by the ECI includes the entire earth and the GPS satellites.
This applies ONLY to the propagation of radio signals from satellites to
receivers.
The ground segment that computes corrections must deal with more
complicated geometry, but GPS receivers and satellites can behave as if
there were no gravitation present and SR applies. This works because
they corrected all clocks for their motion and altitude; think of it
this way:
Imagine the earth was massless and moving inertially, and every point in
the vicinity of earth was endowed with an ECI clock (i.e. at rest wrt
the ECI frame). Clearly this is an inertial frame as defined in SR.
Leave it and its clocks unchanged in what follows. As long as we only
consider points "near" earth, the revolution of the earth around the sun
can be neglected (GPS orbits are indeed near enough for this). Since
earth's gravity is so small, we can use this Minkowski background and
add in the earth's gravity. Standard clocks at rest in the ECI will now
be in synch with the ECI clocks only on the geoid. But we can correct
for this altitude dependence and make each of these clocks tick right
with their collocated ECI clock. Moving clocks will not remain in synch
with ECI clocks, but for the special case of constant speed wrt the ECI
this can also be corrected. So for satellites in CIRCULAR ORBITS one can
correct for both their altitude and speed relative to the ECI -- that is
precisely what the GPS designers did. So every satellite clock always
displays the same time as the collocated ECI clock, for every satellite
and for all time. This, of course, neglects all the small stuff.
Remember that the ECI frame is inertial in the SR sense.
So GPS receivers can use SR in the ECI frame, and they do (no other
frame has this property, and this applies only to signal propagation).
Perhaps this is what confuses some people into thinking that GR is not
necessary -- a careful GR analysis was required to get to the point of
knowing precisely HOW to adjust the clocks so GR can be ignored IN THE
GEO-POSITIONING SERVICE. GR is still necessary to compute the many
corrections.
> As you describe well, ECI is used "covering the
> entire earth and the satellites". Then, the GPS coordinates correspond
> (not "are equivalent") to an inertial frame NOT in the SR sense, but
> in the 1905R one with gravity (and all other Nature forces) present.
Your "SR" and "1905R" are attempting to make a distinction without a
difference. Yes, we have learned a lot about SR since 1905, and
often/usually use different words than in 1905, but the basic theory
itself has not changed.
In any case, my description above is accurate, and defines what I meant
by "in the SR sense".
> Hmmm. If ECI is used as you say ("covering the entire earth and the
> satellites", an Inertial Frame in the 1905R sense not restricted to a
> small LOCAL zone as in SR), how can you make this compatible with your
> assertion that GR formulas are the unique used?
GR was used to compute the clock corrections that permit the receivers
to behave AS IF the ECI were an inertial frame in the sense of SR. So
all they need to do is compute distances using a constant c.
Note that the corrections uploaded to the satellites keep
this in mind. So they are relative to the corrected clock,
not a standard clock in the satellite.
> "The principal problem resolved for the very successful function of
> GPS was precisely to obtain clocks that NEVER show LOCAL time, but
> ALWAYS GLOBAL one, corresponding to a 1905 Relativity UNIQUE INERTIAL
> SYSTEM with the presence of gravity (and all the other Nature
> forces)!"
Hmmm. This is self-inconsistent and I must break it into two parts:
> "The principal problem resolved for the very successful function of
> GPS was precisely to obtain clocks that NEVER show LOCAL time, but
> ALWAYS GLOBAL one,
Yes. That's what I said above, with "global" corresponding to my ECI.
> corresponding to a 1905 Relativity UNIQUE INERTIAL
> SYSTEM with the presence of gravity (and all the other Nature
> forces)!"
This is wrong. The resulting ECI coordinates have no gravitation. That
is, the gravitational effects of the earth on all clocks have been
corrected away. (gravitational effects of sun and moon are handled in
daily uploaded corrections, and we don't need to consider anything
except the propagation of radio signals.)
Remember that SR cannot handle gravity, and this was the key conceptual
idea that permits the receivers to compute their location via SR, not
the vastly more cumbersome GR computations.
> By the way, I derived from 1905R also the gravitational potential
> effect.
Cannot possibly be done. You had to add something, such as the
equivalence principle and the clock hypothesis.
Tom Roberts
hanson
news:f9854p$2e5$1...@aioe.org...
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote
>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/dc13892af456cc63?hl=en&
>
ahahaha... GPS for REL = Great Pimping Situation for REL...
production, NOT for its operations, except to promote & SELL it.
>> >
See Androcle's ws for how GPS works in the rational, real world:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
>> >
Einstein Dingleberries OTOH are famous for finding relativistic
or for the unlikely event should they finally fall off Albert's sphincter.
This is possible to achieve with relativity (to spin a tale) because
REL capable to produce ANY desired result... a faux pas which
Albert HIMSELF has tacitly confessed to & admitted (see =3= in)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/96c1fde68777bc9f
>>
Now let's do something therapeutic for the Einstein Dingleberries
& illustrate by some **estimates**-on-back-of-the-envelope type
complications into the GPS game,... when every high schooler
can immediately see that with ***Newtonian mechanics*** one
gets:
:::: (m_e/h) * 2G/c^2 ........ 4.4E-10 s/s (the frequncy shift)
:::: (m_e/h) * 2G/c^2 *86400 ..... 38 microsec/day
where m_e = mass of earth & h being the orbital Space vehicle
height, 20'000, kms above the earth surface.
>
> The formula looks cool. Where is it from? Any documentation?
>
... ahahahaha... You ran the numbers for it below, didn't you...
and I had the impression from you, so far, that you are smarter
than any of the Einstein Dingleberries who gave you lip. So,
don't disappoint me with that question. It is elementary Newtonian
mechanics, and in the REAL world of operations for GPS you
don't even that. See: http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
... ahahahaha...
>
[qbit]
> Have you also checked it for other orbits and compared them
> with RT results?
> Using h=20200E3 it indeed gives 37.94 microsec, ie. 38 microsec.
> If one puts h=R+20200E3 it gives 28.84 us.
> A similar value (29.6 us) I got in sci.physics in the thread
> "RT Time Dilation Calculation Method For An Equatorial Orbit",
> but this was using RT and using 2 orbit periods per day.
> It seems that RT gives 38 us only if the satellite orbits only once per
> day,
> but the GPS satellites are actually orbiting twice a day...
> I try to find the answer to this funny "discrepancy" in RT...
>
ahahahaha... Enjoy your dabbling & mental masturbations with
the Einstein Dingleberries and their "ism"... I hope for your sake
that you will not get any on you!... Einsteinitis/ism is a bad mental
disease, like religious fanaticism or environmentalism, neither of
which is **producing** anything useful. Just look into these NGs
with all those self-anointed **specialists** of/in SR/GR, from
student to professor, who call **each other** crank, crackpot,
ignorant, stupid, moron or idiot... So much for the solidity & useful
of Einstein's REL-physic... Except that it is hilarious!.... AHAHAHA...
(Einstein did great work on sedimentation & the photo-electric effect)
>
Then you run across the officially sad Einstein Dingleberries,
the loud damaged goods, who are so fanatically wabniggering
and fecal-feckyling due do the intellectual trauma and cerebral
atrophy they suffered from SR/GR indoctrination that they only
can produce their mantra calling it the "central question" like,
>> The central question remains
>> A Question for the anti-relativists: (who only exist in the
>> agile mind of the paranoid Einstein Dingleberry)
>> What is the GPS carrier frequency?
>>[ ] 1.023000000000 MHz (theor. unaffected)
>>[ ] 1.022999999543 MHz (rel. corrected)
>>
These officially sad cases do not even realize that the
difference between these 2 freqs of ~ 4.5E-10 is nothing
but the compound/total measured shift of all perturbations
which can be estimated on purely Newtonian grounds as
have I explained above in 1 stroke. Needless to repeat
like Koo Bee W. has pointed out, these Einstein Dinglers
"obviously do not understand their own question"... ahahaha..
>>
Ironically & Freudianesque they call it the "central *question*"
ahahahaha....
>
[hanson]
>> Now enter another example of how to apply Einstein
>> Dingleberrryism to needlessly complicate matters with
>> Prebys' "Details of GPS calculation" for which he needs
>> some 20 lines to get to same Newtonian 1-line result
>> above. His whole SR/GR bit is here:
>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/dc13892af456cc63?hl=en&
>
Epilog:
Nobody knows yet what gravity/gravitation is... ahahaha
But Newton and his "action at a distance" is intellectually far
more honest than the Minkowski/Einstein Space-time curving,
insinuating that gravitation is no force while/when masterbating
in front of Emily Noethers' symmetry mirrors. All this mental
crock appears to have subliminal/subconscious ethnic/religious
roots, from tales of Jesus walking on water, to Moses parting
the water, to flying angels, etc... No wonder the Nazis accused
these AshkeNazis of conducting "Juden physik"... ahahahaha...
>
I'll become an immediate and fanatical believer to all that shit,
as soon as the first one of these Einstein Dingleberries who
advocates that gravitation/gravity is no force jumps out of the
5th floor window and reports back to me after contact with the
first electron shells of the Al-Ca-silicates on the side walk
concrete surface and tells me how his force free space-time
curving trip went along his particular world line... ahahaha...
Thanks for the laughs..... ahahaha... ahahahanson
Eric Gisse
> "qbit" <q...@quantumworlds.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f9854p$2e5$1...@aioe.org...
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/dc13892af456cc63?hl=en&
>
> ahahaha... GPS for REL = Great Pimping Situation for REL...
> GPS does NOT NEED any SR/GR, NOT for its design, NOT
> production, NOT for its operations, except to promote & SELL it.
http://npoesslib.ipo.noaa.gov/IPOarchive/MAN/doc165.pdf
<yawn>
Traveler
>I'll become an immediate and fanatical believer to all that shit,
>as soon as the first one of these Einstein Dingleberries who
>advocates that gravitation/gravity is no force jumps out of the
>5th floor window and reports back to me after contact with the
>first electron shells of the Al-Ca-silicates on the side walk
>concrete surface and tells me how his force free space-time
>curving trip went along his particular world line... ahahaha...
>Thanks for the laughs..... ahahaha... ahahahanson
ahahaha... This is funny, Hanson. The idiots have no clue as to the
nature of gravity and they act like God revealed the secret to them.
ahahaha...
Nothing Can Move in Spacetime, by Definition:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm
Louis Savain
Tom Roberts
> http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/theory.htm
This discusses how a receiver determines its location. It says nothing
at all abut how the clocks in the satellites are engineered, or how the
ground/control segment works. Other references posted in this and other
threads show that. All you need to do is READ THEM.
I repeat: the GPS is a MILITARY system, and consists of more than just
satellites and receivers. And for the WHOLE SYSTEM to work one must use
GR. This is a simple matter of historical record. <shrug>
> You have missed the fundamental point. GPS cannot function under the
> concept of relative simultaneity.
If you mean that in their own inertial frames each satellite has a
different version of simultaneity, then sure that's right, but IRRELEVANT.
The GPS, as far as the geo-location service is concerned (i.e. receivers
determining their position), the only frame that is used is the ECI
frame, and there is a consistent simultaneity throughout that frame. So
yes, simultaneity is RELATIVE TO THE FRAME, but as the entire
geo-location service uses the same ECI frame, all satellite clocks and
all receivers share a consistent and common simultaneity. <shrug>
As I said before: the satellite clocks are corrected so at all times the
satellite clock displays the time of an imaginary ECI clock at its
current position. Because the clocks are corrected, the ECI coordinates
are inertial in the sense of SR. Consequently the geo-location service,
which only uses the ECI frame, can compute AS IF SR was valid in that
frame, so no discussion of that service needs to mention "gravitational
potentials" or "GR corrections" -- but they are ESSENTIAL to the
operation of the service (they just occurred in other parts of the GPS
system as a whole).
> Since GPS functions without relative simultaneity, the concept of
> relative simultaneity must be wrong.
No. It is IRRELEVANT.
> Again, the engineers in the above link have shown 38uSec/day of
> correction is not needed.
They did no such thing. You should actually read the references you
give. They did not address the issue at all, because it was irrelevant
to the subject of that page.
> The engineers in the above link show trivially that 38uSec
> of correction is not needed.
No, they did not show how the GPS time is kept within 1 use of UTC minus
leap-seconds. They did not even mention that, because that page was
about the geo-location service, and not about the operation of the
system as a whole.
> the actual fact is that there is no nonsense of GR
> needed in GPS design.
You keep saying this without ever supporting it. Historically, GR was
used in its design. And it is ESSENTIAL to the operation of the GPS
within its requirements. The most relevant requirements are that GPS
time be closely aligned to UTC and that the GPS be able to operate
without its ground/controls segment for some months with only modest
degradation in accuracy.
>> In particular, GPS time is REQUIRED to remain within 1 microsecond of
>> UTC without leap seconds (in practice they do much better). This of
>> course implies that the designers must slow down the satellite clock by
>> ~38 us/day, or otherwise handle their different natural tick rate from
>> clocks on the geoid; they chose to do that. THIS IS A SIMPLE HISTORICAL
>> FACT; all your whining cannot change it. <shrug>
>
> Again, the above link just proves you wrong.
Nonsense. GO READ YOUR OWN LINK. It does not even discuss these aspects
of the GPS. <shrug>
Indeed, that article implicitly assumes that "time" has a definite
meaning for all satellites and receivers, and that can only happen if
the satellite clocks are corrected, AS I SAID.
> There is absolutely no
> such requirement in the GPS spec.
You simply do not understand the GPS or its requirements.
Tom Roberts
Koobee Wublee
> On Aug 5, 8:40 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I cite how GPS decoding is actually done [...]
>
> > http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/theory.htm
>
> IT IS NOT A SPEC. DO NOT TREAT IT AS SUCH.
JUST HOW STUPID CAN YOU GET? IT SPELLS OUT EXACTLY WHAT ALGORITHM IS
NEEDED TO DECODE THE GPS SIGNAL.
Koobee Wublee
> "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote in:
> > This is better than doing actual fishing. Use -4.4647E-10 as bait,
> > and look at what we can haul out among the mass of septic pool
> > consisted of Einstein Dingleberries.
>
> > So, your account, the P-code chipping rate has to decrease by
> > 4.4647E-10 every day. In 20 years, we need to use a P-code chipping
> > rate of 10.229966658067MHz. Most elementary school kids would not
> > even make this mistake by taking this bait but among the Einstein
> > Dingleberries, I guess anything is possible. <shrug>
>
> Apart from Androcles, I don't think I have ever seen a retired
> engineer with the mentality of a six years old - or less.
Can you ever understand the following?
** Carrier frequency L1 and L2 or P-coding chipping rate shift is a
tuning issue.
** Accumulated error such as 38uSec is an accuracy issue in
information.
The bottom dwellers of the septic tank full of Einstein Dingleberries
like yourself always do not know that they know absolutely not.
Eric Gisse
Not an authoritative source.
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > I cite how GPS decoding is actually done, and that makes a lot of
> > sense. The GPS spec from what I have seen is influenced heavily by
> > the Einstein Dingleberries to add something that is totally irrelevant
> > into the system. They could easily specify the interface chipping
> > rate of 10.22999999543MHz without mentioning 10.23MHz like all
> > experienced system engineers would do to avoid confusion for the
> > mentally challenged like Mr. Wormlike, Not Man, yourself (Fat Gisse),
> > moortel, Jeckyl, Mr. Poe, and professors Roberts and Andersen.
> > <shrug>
>
> If you really want to see how a GPS receiver works
> http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
This spec talks about how to interface with GPS signal at a lower
level than the actual algorithm. It is similar to the data link layer
in the OSI model of a network model. The algorithm takes place at a
much higher level. <shrug>
> -Sam Wormley
> http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
Yes, read about how the academics think how GPS should work, and have
a laugh at their idiotic application using the nonsense of SR and GR.
<shrug>
Then, read about how the GPS algorithm is all about. This is much
more interesting because it actually works. <shrug>
Eric Gisse
How are either of these sites authoritative resources on GPS? Dale
gives a simplified picture and Androcles is totally wrong.
.-- .- -... -. .. --. @.-----.DOT.-- H. Wabnig
A train moves in space, and I better be in time at the railway station
to catch it. Add the time coordinate and result with space-time.
Train moves in space-time as the railway timetables clearly show.
But trains cannot move in time, despite their regular delays suggest
that illusion .
Due to restricetd availability of distinct expressions we are
using the same word for different things. Escimos have 20
words for "snow", we have only one word for "spacetime"
whatever that is.
Now, when one coins a certain term and starts defending
his private definition he is probably making too much noise
for nothing.
w.
Koobee Wublee
> On Aug 6, 6:22 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> > ahahaha... GPS for REL = Great Pimping Situation for REL...
> > GPS does NOT NEED any SR/GR, NOT for its design, NOT
> > production, NOT for its operations, except to promote & SELL it.
>
> http://npoesslib.ipo.noaa.gov/IPOarchive/MAN/doc165.pdf
>
> <yawn>
<yawn> Yawning is contagious. Where does the document point out
38uSec per day of correction?
You know you are among the bottom dweller of the septic tank full of
Einstein Dingleberries if you do not know the differences between
these two points below.
** Carrier frequencies L1, L2, and P-coding chipping rate shift
represent a tuning issue.
** Accumulated error such as 38uSec is an accuracy issue in
information which is critical to the application of GPS yes, but no
where in the GPS specification spells out this concern.
You are still much better off to understand how GPS works from the
following two links.
.-- .- -... -. .. --. @.-----.DOT.-- H. Wabnig
>>> >
>See Androcle's ws for how GPS works in the rational, real world:
>http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
>[wherein NONE of that 38 microsec is needed at all !!!... ahaha..]
ahahaha... hanson!
A real world GPS (consumer quality) has about +/- 10 meters accuracy.
What is the estimate of Androcles' GPS accuracy?
(hint: Kilometers!)
ahhahahahaaaaa... hanson!
So much about "REAL WORLD"!
w.
--
A Question for the anti-relativists:
What is the GPS carrier modulation signal frequency?
[ ] 1.023000000000 MHz (theor. unaffected)
[ ] 1.022999999543 MHz (rel. corrected)
[x ] (example for hanson)
Eric Gisse
> On Aug 6, 7:28 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 6, 6:22 pm, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
> > > ahahaha... GPS for REL = Great Pimping Situation for REL...
> > > GPS does NOT NEED any SR/GR, NOT for its design, NOT
> > > production, NOT for its operations, except to promote & SELL it.
>
> >http://npoesslib.ipo.noaa.gov/IPOarchive/MAN/doc165.pdf
>
> > <yawn>
>
> <yawn> Yawning is contagious. Where does the document point out
> 38uSec per day of correction?
Well gee, since you have such difficulties I will hold your hand and
explain the obvious.
Page 24 - same content as the other links. Straight from the interface
control document. Unlike your "sources", mine is an actual US
government publication.
"The clock rates are offset by /_\f//f =-4.4647E-10..."
-4.4647E-10 x 3600 sec/hr x 24 hr/day = 3.85E-5 sec/day = 38.5 usec/
day
That is where it comes from. Imagine that.
Before you question, remember that you don't even know where the
relativistic corrections are applied despite arguing about the subject
for several years.
[snip remaining irrelevancies]
Traveler
-. .. --. @ .- --- -. DOT .- -> wrote:
[crap]
Fuck you, Wabnig. ahahaha... AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> >http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/theory.htm
>
> This discusses how a receiver determines its location.
Yes, it does. I am certain that you do not understand. <shrug>
> It says nothing at all abut how the clocks in the
> satellites are engineered, or how the ground/control
> segment works.
That is right. The engineering done on the clocks in the satellites
is exceedingly simple. It calls out for satellites to synchronize
their real-time clocks to each other. They operate independently of
(no synchronization with) the ground station real-time clock.
However, you can still upload your calendar-clock to the satellite.
> Other references posted in this and other
> threads show that. All you need to do is READ THEM.
I did. They are all wrong. <shrug>
> I repeat: the GPS is a MILITARY system, and consists of more than just
> satellites and receivers. And for the WHOLE SYSTEM to work one must use
> GR. This is a simple matter of historical record. <shrug>
You have attempt to foul up the history. The record shows nothing
about using GR to synchronize the satellite clocks and the ground
station clocks. <shrug>
> > You have missed the fundamental point. GPS cannot function under the
> > concept of relative simultaneity.
>
> If you mean that in their own inertial frames each satellite has a
> different version of simultaneity, then sure that's right, but IRRELEVANT.
If you try to synchronize them, it becomes very relevant. <shrug>
Poincare was the first person to make the mistake of embracing
relative simultaneity. Einstein being a plagiarist soon followed
suit. By definition, there is no way to synchronize two clocks in
motion without absolute simultaneity. <shrug>
> The GPS, as far as the geo-location service is concerned (i.e. receivers
> determining their position), the only frame that is used is the ECI
> frame, and there is a consistent simultaneity throughout that frame. So
> yes, simultaneity is RELATIVE TO THE FRAME, but as the entire
> geo-location service uses the same ECI frame, all satellite clocks and
> all receivers share a consistent and common simultaneity. <shrug>
This is total BS. Relative simultaneity or absolute simultaneity does
not depend on your choice of coordinate. <shrug>
> As I said before: the satellite clocks are corrected so at all times the
> satellite clock displays the time of an imaginary ECI clock at its
> current position. Because the clocks are corrected, the ECI coordinates
> are inertial in the sense of SR. Consequently the geo-location service,
> which only uses the ECI frame, can compute AS IF SR was valid in that
> frame, so no discussion of that service needs to mention "gravitational
> potentials" or "GR corrections" -- but they are ESSENTIAL to the
> operation of the service (they just occurred in other parts of the GPS
> system as a whole).
What you said before was wrong, and what you are saying is still
wrong. All each satellite has to do is do the following in term of
keeping the relevant information.
** Synchronize its clock with adjacent satellites.
** Know its position through the help of ground station. This does
not require any GR correction.
> > Since GPS functions without relative simultaneity, the concept of
> > relative simultaneity must be wrong.
>
> No. It is IRRELEVANT.
Relative simultaneity and actual synchronization of two systems just
cannot coexist. Only an absolute simultaneity would allow
synchronization. <shrug>
> > Again, the engineers in the above link have shown 38uSec/day of
> > correction is not needed.
>
> They did no such thing. You should actually read the references you
> give. They did not address the issue at all, because it was irrelevant
> to the subject of that page.
Then, show me where 38uSec/day of correction is needed in the spec.
> > The engineers in the above link show trivially that 38uSec
> > of correction is not needed.
>
> No, they did not show how the GPS time is kept within 1 use of UTC minus
> leap-seconds. They did not even mention that, because that page was
> about the geo-location service, and not about the operation of the
> system as a whole.
Where is the spec that shows so? The spec only exists in your
imagination, and this is reality that we are discussing. <shrug>
> > the actual fact is that there is no nonsense of GR
> > needed in GPS design.
>
> You keep saying this without ever supporting it. Historically, GR was
> used in its design. And it is ESSENTIAL to the operation of the GPS
> within its requirements. The most relevant requirements are that GPS
> time be closely aligned to UTC and that the GPS be able to operate
> without its ground/controls segment for some months with only modest
> degradation in accuracy.
Even the designer of GPS receiver did not use any GR in their
algorithm. <shrug> How can you argue against that?
> Indeed, that article implicitly assumes that "time" has a definite
> meaning for all satellites and receivers, and that can only happen if
> the satellite clocks are corrected, AS I SAID.
Each GPS receiver has to assume all satellites know its time and
position relative to other satellites, and the lowest cost with the
simplest effort remains
** No synchronization of real-time clock between each satellite and
the ground station
** Synchronization of each satellite with other satellite
> > There is absolutely no
> > such requirement in the GPS spec.
>
> You simply do not understand the GPS or its requirements.
No, you do not understand how GPS works because you only think of GR
in every application. You are not an engineer. Please allow
application of theories to engineers. <shrug>
.-- .- -... -. .. --. @.-----.DOT.-- H. Wabnig
Thanks for your nice comment,
and keep running in circles around your fixed ideas, Lois.
w.
--
A Question for the anti-relativists:
What is the GPS carrier modulation signal frequency?
[ ] 1.023000000000 MHz (theor. unaffected)
[ ] 1.022999999543 MHz (rel. corrected)
[x ] (example for hanson)
Koobee Wublee
> On Tue, "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
>
> > See Androcle's ws for how GPS works in the rational, real world:
> > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
> > [wherein NONE of that 38 microsec is needed at all !!!... ahaha..]
>
> ahahaha... hanson!
>
> A real world GPS (consumer quality) has about +/- 10 meters accuracy.
>
> What is the estimate of Androcles' GPS accuracy?
> (hint: Kilometers!)
No, it should be within 10m.
> ahhahahahaaaaa... hanson!
> So much about "REAL WORLD"!
Yes, indeed.
> A Question for the anti-relativists:
> What is the GPS carrier modulation signal frequency?
> [ ] 1.023000000000 MHz (theor. unaffected)
> [ ] 1.022999999543 MHz (rel. corrected)
> [x ] (example for hanson)
None of the above.
There are two carrier frequencies in the GPS down link.
** L1 = 1.57542GHz
** L2 = 1.22760GHz
The IF or P-code chipping rate is 10.23MHz.
You have been in la-la land for a while. It is time for you to
embrace reality. <shrug>
Eric Gisse
[...]
> No, you do not understand how GPS works because you only think of GR
> in every application. You are not an engineer. Please allow
> application of theories to engineers. <shrug>
How can you possibly tell him /HE/ does not understand when you say
this:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/e356a826e6acd60c
"Now, where is this 38uSec per day of correction done at the GPS
receiver or GPS satellites?"
It takes stones to reply to Tom like that when you can't even figure
out where the corrections are applied.
Jeckyl
Decode yes .. its nothing really to do with what goes on in the satellites.
Traveler
[crap]
What part of "eat shit" don't you understand, Wabi? ahahaha...
.-- .- -... -. .. --. @.-----.DOT.-- H. Wabnig
I did not say "crackpottery", I said "private definition"
or "personal preferenced definition"
and that puts you into conflict with common language usage.
w.
Traveler
[crap]
I'll spell it out for you. E-A-T S-H-I-T.
hanson
news:f9854p$2e5$1...@aioe.org...
>
[hanson]
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/88d6e44654fcead1?hl=en&
> > (m_e/h) * 2G/c^2 ........ 4.4E-10 s/s (the frequncy shift)
>> (m_e/h) * 2G/c^2 *86400 ..... 38 microsec/day
>
> Using h=20200E3 it indeed gives 37.94 microsec, ie. 38 microsec
>
>> [Prebys]
>>http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/PHY312.98Spring/projects/GPS/GPS.html
[qbit]
> Do you have a saved copy of this web page as it seems to be gone :-(>
>
[hanson]
... ahahaha... that's the second time you ask me.... aahaha
If I did I'd told you the time around. I don't save REL websites.
They are a useless crock o'shit, only good for wabniggering
by Einstein Dingleberries' compulsory mental masturbations.
Take care, chum
hanson
Sam Wormley
>
> Carrier frequency L1 and L2 or P-coding chipping rate shift is a
> tuning issue.
No--those frequencies are chosen for specific reasons.
>
> Accumulated error such as 38uSec is an accuracy issue in information.
>
There is no accumulated error, in that relativistic corrections were
designed into the system so that errors would be below specifications.
For further reading
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps.html
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_accuracy.html
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
Sam Wormley
The technical detail is not in Dale's publication intentionally. For
detail see:
GPS User Equipment Introduction
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
GPS SPS Signal Specification
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
Interface Control Document ICD-GPS-200D
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/IS-GPS-200D.pdf
-Sam Wormley
Koobee Wublee
> Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Carrier frequency L1 and L2 or P-coding chipping rate shift is a
> > tuning issue.
>
> No--those frequencies are chosen for specific reasons.
And what reasons are those?
Apparently, you don't even read or understand the spec you pulled
out. <shrug>
> > Accumulated error such as 38uSec is an accuracy issue in information.
>
> There is no accumulated error, in that relativistic corrections were
> designed into the system so that errors would be below specifications.
>
> For further reading
> http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps.html
> http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_accuracy.html
> http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
It is worse. You don't even understand what professors Ashby and
Taylor are saying about relativist corrections using GR. <shrug>
Sam Wormley
> On Aug 7, 9:16 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>> Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>>> Carrier frequency L1 and L2 or P-coding chipping rate shift is a
>>> tuning issue.
>> No--those frequencies are chosen for specific reasons.
>
> And what reasons are those?
o spectrum availability
o ionospheric correction capability
o spread-spectrum bandwidth requirements
See:
o GPS: Theory and Practice by B. Hofmann-Wellenhof, et al.
o GPS: Theory and Application Vol I, II Parkinson & Spilker, Editors
hanson
news:1186453715.1...@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...>> "qbit" <q...@quantumworlds.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:f9854p$2e5$1...@aioe.org...
>> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/dc13892af456cc63?hl=en&
>>
>> ahahaha... GPS for REL = Great Pimping Situation for REL...
>> GPS does NOT NEED any SR/GR, NOT for its design, NOT
>> production, NOT for its operations, except to promote & SELL it.
>
[Eric]
> http://npoesslib.ipo.noaa.gov/IPOarchive/MAN/doc165.pdf
> <yawn>
>
[hanson]
ahahahaha... Eric, don't yawn about your own notions.
Don't even argue about them but learn to SELL'em!....
or .... you'll start out and end up in a cubicle doing
programming for the Salesman, who will drive Bentleys
from/thru YOUR efforts... while will you'll be driving a
*preowned* 2007 Prius in 2047, like rect-Al who has
to drive his 1989 VW Golf for another 11 years.
Learn from Potter... Take care, junior!... ahahahanson
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/5b1233710787d8b9?hl=en&
hanson
message news:hr4gb3ltijpvap7vu...@4ax.com...
>
[hanson]
(Einstein Dingleberry test]
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/11de8b918ae17a01?hl=en&
>
(Pimping Situation for REL...)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dc13892af456cc63?hl=en&
>
(m_e/h) * 2G/c^2 ........ 4.4E-10 s/s (the frequency shift)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/88d6e44654fcead1?hl=en&
>
>>>Nobody knows yet what gravity/gravitation is... ahahaha
>>>But Newton and his "action at a distance" is intellectually far
>>>more honest than the Minkowski/Einstein Space-time curving,
>>>.....
>>>I'll become an immediate and fanatical believer to all that shit,
>>>as soon as the first one of these Einstein Dingleberries who
>>>advocates that gravitation/gravity is no force jumps out of the
>>>5th floor window and reports back to me after contact with the
>>>first electron shells of the Al-Ca-silicates on the side walk
>>>concrete surface and tells me how his force free space-time
>>>curving trip went along his particular world line... ahahaha...
>>>Thanks for the laughs..... ahahaha... ahahahanson
>>
> On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:17:49 -0500, Traveler
> <trav...@noasskissers.net> wrote:
>>ahahaha... This is funny, Hanson. The idiots have no clue as to the
>>nature of gravity and they act like God revealed the secret to them.
>>ahahaha...
>>
>>Nothing Can Move in Spacetime, by Definition:
>>http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm
>>
>>Louis Savain
>
> A train moves in space, and I better be in time at the railway station
> to catch it. Add the time coordinate and result with space-time.
>
Adding coordinates is a classical syndrome promulgated
by Einstein Dingleberries whom use the gag to create
unreal situations about the real world and then insisting and
selling them as if it were real. That's why, to a very large part
REL turned out to be a useless crock' o'shit.
>
[Wabnig]
> Train moves in space-time as the railway timetables clearly show.
> But trains cannot move in time, despite their regular delays suggest
> that illusion .
>
... and now you have defeated/denied your own argument.
ahahahaha... Go play with your "Märklin" now... ahahaha...
The train does not move in space-time just because its
dep/arriv times and the resp. locations are written on a
piece of paper that it pasted in the wall.... ahahahaha..
Only Einstein Dingleberries have the belief that their
ideas do move mountains, well, in their megalomania,
do move the universe... ahahaha
>
[Wabnig]
> Due to restricetd availability of distinct expressions we are
> using the same word for different things. Escimos have 20
> words for "snow", we have only one word for "spacetime"
> whatever that is.
>
.... Your confession is admirable, Wabie. You are in the
process of becoming un-dingleberried and returing to the
real in view that you have already said ealier: "Who studies
what Einstein said a hundred years ago?
It is not really relevant..." -- Wabie, you are fucken-A- right
on that... ahahahaha....
>
[Wabnig]
> Now, when one coins a certain term and starts defending
> his private definition he is probably making too much noise
> for nothing.
> w.
>
Right, Einstein Dingleberries do that routinely with:
"mass-like"and "point-like" objects and scores of other
buzzwords and with their introduction of phantasms like
imaginary twins,single particles that have no thickness but
are more massive then the entire universe, and insisting
"their private definition of making too much noise for nothing"
like over the irrelevance of REL in the design to operations
of GPS.
All this shows that the heydays of Einstein's relativity is
over, except for the romantic Dingleberries who like to
hang onto Einstein's sphincter... ahaha... ahahanson
hanson
>>> On Aug 5, 8:40 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I cite how GPS decoding is actually done [...]
>>>> http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/theory.htm
>>> IT IS NOT A SPEC. DO NOT TREAT IT AS SUCH.
>>
>> On Aug 5, 10:13 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> JUST HOW STUPID CAN YOU GET? IT SPELLS OUT EXACTLY WHAT ALGORITHM IS
>> NEEDED TO DECODE THE GPS SIGNAL.
>>
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:GY0ui.36249$Xa3.25747@attbi_s22...
>
> The technical detail is not in Dale's publication intentionally. For
> detail see:
>
> GPS User Equipment Introduction
> http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
>
> GPS SPS Signal Specification
> http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
>
> Interface Control Document ICD-GPS-200D
> http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/IS-GPS-200D.pdf
>
> -Sam Wormley
> http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps.html
> http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_accuracy.html
> http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
>
[hanson]
ahahahaha... AHAHAHHAHA...
Yo, Sam, you with your links and, Eric, you with your screaming
appear to convince YOURSELVES very effectively...
BUT your teaching skills are marginal at best if not a complete
failure... Hey, just an observation. Don't; get mad at me now.
>
BTW... what's in it for you guys for advocating the tripe of all
these Einstein Dingleberries you posted who just want to get
in on the glory of GPS, an item of technology that was designed
manufactured and is operated without the use of any SR/GR.
SR/GR are only tabloid stories about it GPS... except perhaps
for the promoters & salesmen who it use to scam the consumers
with higher prices and say to them: "See, Einstein made this".
---- So, what's in it for you guys? -----
Thanks for the laughs, guys.... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
va...@icmf.inf.cu
> va...@icmf.inf.cu wrote:
> > If you are referring to GR as the unique theory used here, you know
> > that "local" in GR has a very precise coined meaning, denoting when
> > you can use SR in a small zone where space-time can be approximated
> > flat using a pseudo-euclidean geometry.
>
> Yes, except I would say "Minkowski geometry".
>
Yes, being more precise.
> Note that the size of a local region depends on one's measurement
> accuracy and on the curvature of the manifold in the region of interest.
> Near earth, the manifold has such small curvature that for the corrected
> GPS clocks the region includes the entire earth and the GPS satellite
> orbits, with an accuracy sufficient to meet the requirements.
>
I will refer here to N. Ashby's paper "Relativity in the Global
Positioning System", 28 Jan 2003, that can be obtained at
http://www.livingreview.org/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/
More probably we are using the same information source, as Ashby is
among the more (if not the most) qualified and directly involved
persons in the topic. In Part 4 "The Realization of Coordinate Time"
is addressed in detail our topic. In line 4 we can read "but with
synchronization established in a underlying, locally inertial,
reference frame". The use of the adjective "locally" is here totally
out of place, because the ECI referred is the UNIQUE inertial frame
used in GPS (more properly is then "global inertial"). An equation
(24) showing the used GR metric put out of any possible doubt that
gravitation is present here (not only present, but the more important
protagonist!). We can read in line 11 "the unit of time is determined
by moving clocks in a spatially-dependent gravitational field". A
SINGLE time unit in a zone with a variable gravitational field? What
is this? By sure it is NOT SR, where gravity is totally excluded. Let
us put here the more relevant text part where Ashby makes his best
effort to justify all of this:
"On the other hand, according to General Relativity, the coordinate
time variable t of Eq. (24) is valid in a coordinate patch large
enough to cover the earth and the GPS satellite constellation, Eq.
(24) is an approximate solution of the field equations near the Earth,
which include the gravitational field due to earth's mass
distribution. In this local coordinate patch, the coordinate time is
single valued".
This is only a QUALITATIVE assertion, a little strange in the context
of very exact quantitative formulas. How good is that approximation of
a SINGLE time in all GPS? Where are the formulas to support it
quantitatively? Ashby can't show them, because they simply don't exist
at all. In reality, we can extend the operating zone as we want,
putting satellites as far as we want from the Earth. In principle we
can design a GPS that covers all the Solar System (or even the
Galaxy!). And even in that case, we CAN use a UNIQUE time! All we need
to do is to use the centre of mass Inertial System of the bodies
involved (the ECI one in GPS) and use 1905 Relativity where gravity
(or any other Nature force) is yet not excluded.
> >> Yes, the GPS uses the ECI frame with clocks corrected for their
altitude
> >> and motion relative to the ECI. So The GPS coordinates are equivalent to
> >> an inertial frame in the SR sense, covering the entire earth and the
> >> satellites. The earth rotates relative to the ECI, of course.
>
> > Why do you refer to GPS coordinates as "equivalent to an inertial
> > frame in the SR sense"?
>
> Because they ARE.
>
You are too short here. To make an assertion is easy, the more
important part is to support it. As you know well (and of course, also
Ashby), SR is totally non-compatible with gravity. Let us go to the
end of Part 4 and 19 lines up. We can read: "Suppose for a moment
there were no gravitational fields". Ashby knows very well that he
can't use SR with gravitation. After making his deductions using SR he
writes at the end of the Part 4:
"When the gravitational field due to the earth is considered, the
picture is only a little more complicated. There still exists a
coordinate time that can be found by computing a correction for
gravitational redshift, given by the first correction term in Eq.
(28)."
As you see, Ashby doesn't address the "little more complicated"
picture at all, he simply take the separated part of the correction
that correspond to gravitation in the already obtained approximated
formula. In the following I consider the problems created as a
consequence of taking out gravity, without resigning to consider in
detail in other moment (f necessary) the full Ashby test here.
> > This is false if you are considering SR as
> > part of GR and used only in a small LOCAL zone where space-time can be
> > approximated flat.
>
> As far as the GPS geo-positioning service is concerned, the local area
> covered by the ECI includes the entire earth and the GPS satellites.
> This applies ONLY to the propagation of radio signals from satellites to
> receivers.
>
Why do you use the word "local" here? Have you some non-local area in
GPS? It is much adequate to say "the GLOBAL area covered by the ECI".
Yes, I know that assuming vacuum light speed c for the radio signals
is a good approximation for the correct function of the GPS, and you
can ignore gravity that curves light trajectories and make it slow.
But you hide the principal point. You can't ignore gravity for the
corrections of the satellite clocks! At the end you finish needing an
Inertial System that can manages gravity. By the way, you remember the
moving ship with constant velocity of Galileo making experiments in
its interior? Oh, if we are talking about the born of the Principle of
Relativity! I remember very well the water drops falling from the
ceiling to the floor (gravity present!). Do you conceive a Galileo (or
a Newton!) without gravity? But to obtain an Inertial System with
gravity you don't need to put it into SR. It's much simpler to go to
1905 Relativity where gravity (an all other Nature forces) are
present. If you have some doubt about it, remember "The laws by which
the states of physical systems alter..." (Principle of 1905 Relativity).
Do you see any gravity (or any other Nature force) exclusion?
> The ground segment that computes corrections must deal with more
> complicated geometry, but GPS receivers and satellites can behave as if
> there were no gravitation present and SR applies. This works because
> they corrected all clocks for their motion and altitude; think of it
> this way:
>
You don't understand that for a satellite to say that gravity doesn't
exist is completely absurd? Satellite trajectories are completely
determined by gravity, and the proper need of the gravitational
potential correction lost any sense if you put out gravity. And even
the velocity correction that you can make lost too any sense, because
we can't have satellites moving in circular orbits without gravity
(contradicts Newton's laws, being then no more an Inertial System),
and also the circular orbits are no more equipotencial trajectories.
Very much simpler to go to 1905 Relativity where we can have an
Inertial System without the need to exclude any Nature force. Soon you
will understand it in all detail.
> Imagine the earth was massless and moving inertially, and every point in
> the vicinity of earth was endowed with an ECI clock (i.e. at rest wrt
> the ECI frame). Clearly this is an inertial frame as defined in SR.
This contradicts the more basic principles of 1905 Relativity. A
massless (or even with mass!) single body moving inertially? With
respect to what? "The introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will
prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will
not require an 'absolutely stationary space' provided with special
properties" (1905 Einstein Jun 30 paper, line 12 up to the end of the
Introduction). Without ether, the unique way you can put a body moving
is interacting with at least another one. Without bodies with mass you
can't have an Inertial System!
> Leave it and its clocks unchanged in what follows. As long as we only
> consider points "near" earth, the revolution of the earth around the sun
> can be neglected (GPS orbits are indeed near enough for this). Since
> earth's gravity is so small, we can use this Minkowski background and
> add in the earth's gravity.
I considered already before all these arguments with only qualitative
approximations without formulas in Ashby's text. "Near", "small", etc.
We can make in principle a GPS in ANY centre of mass Inertial System
of any size or complexity, the Earth, the Solar System or the Galaxy.
The centre of mass Inertial Systems are the unique ones compatible
with 1905 Relativity.
> Standard clocks at rest in the ECI will now
> be in synch with the ECI clocks only on the geoid.
I can't catch your idea here (perhaps because English is not my native
language). ALL clocks that remain at rest in the ECI can in principle
be synchronized. The geoid is a particular geometric place where all
clocks can be synchronized even having different velocities and
gravitational potentials.
> But we can correct
> for this altitude dependence and make each of these clocks tick right
> with their collocated ECI clock. Moving clocks will not remain in synch
> with ECI clocks, but for the special case of constant speed wrt the ECI
> this can also be corrected. So for satellites in CIRCULAR ORBITS one can
> correct for both their altitude and speed relative to the ECI -- that is
> precisely what the GPS designers did. So every satellite clock always
> displays the same time as the collocated ECI clock, for every satellite
> and for all time. This, of course, neglects all the small stuff.
> Remember that the ECI frame is inertial in the SR sense.
>
Yes, I commented already before about GPS engineers obtaining clocks
that display always GLOBAL ECI time and not LOCAL one. Remember that
the ECI frame is NOT inertial in the SR sense, but in the 1905
Relativity one.
> So GPS receivers can use SR in the ECI frame, and they do (no other
> frame has this property, and this applies only to signal propagation).
> Perhaps this is what confuses some people into thinking that GR is not
> necessary -- a careful GR analysis was required to get to the point of
> knowing precisely HOW to adjust the clocks so GR can be ignored IN THE
> GEO-POSITIONING SERVICE. GR is still necessary to compute the many
> corrections.
>
We have total agreement in that GR is used in GPS, included SR as part
of GR. Not agreement in that ECI applies only to signal propagation.
ECI is the core of GPS as the UNIQUE Inertial System used where ALL
relevant clocks can be synchronized displaying its UNIQUE time.
> > As you describe well, ECI is used "covering the
> > entire earth and the satellites". Then, the GPS coordinates correspond
> > (not "are equivalent") to an inertial frame NOT in the SR sense, but
> > in the 1905R one with gravity (and all other Nature forces) present.
>
> Your "SR" and "1905R" are attempting to make a distinction without a
> difference. Yes, we have learned a lot about SR since 1905, and
> often/usually use different words than in 1905, but the basic theory
> itself has not changed.
>
I make now the prediction that you will understand soon what the
differences are between 1905R and SR.
> In any case, my description above is accurate, and defines what I meant
> by "in the SR sense".
>
I think that we have no problem sharing the same meaning for "in the
SR sense". If ECI is or not an inertial frame "in the SR sense" is
another very different thing. My principal argument if that ECI
participates in the resolution of gravitational problems
(gravitational corrections in clocks), having then gravity included,
very different from SR that has gravity excluded.
> > Hmmm. If ECI is used as you say ("covering the entire earth and the
> > satellites", an Inertial Frame in the 1905R sense not restricted to a
> > small LOCAL zone as in SR), how can you make this compatible with your
> > assertion that GR formulas are the unique used?
>
> GR was used to compute the clock corrections that permit the receivers
> to behave AS IF the ECI were an inertial frame in the sense of SR. So
> all they need to do is compute distances using a constant c.
>
Well, you open now the door to permit me consider that ECI is an
Inertial System in the 1905R sense that participates in the resolution
of gravitational clock corrections, and behaves also AS IF it were an
Inertial System in the SR sense to resolve some signal propagation
problems. Nice!
> Note that the corrections uploaded to the satellites keep
> this in mind. So they are relative to the corrected clock,
> not a standard clock in the satellite.
>
I suppose that you refer to "the corrected clock" as the one
displaying ECI time, and to the "standard clock" as one displaying
satellite local time. If this is the case, we are in total agreement,
local measurements are totally useless in GPS.
> > "The principal problem resolved for the very successful function of
> > GPS was precisely to obtain clocks that NEVER show LOCAL time, but
> > ALWAYS GLOBAL one, corresponding to a 1905 Relativity UNIQUE INERTIAL
> > SYSTEM with the presence of gravity (and all the other Nature
> > forces)!"
>
> Hmmm. This is self-inconsistent and I must break it into two parts:
>
> > "The principal problem resolved for the very successful function of
> > GPS was precisely to obtain clocks that NEVER show LOCAL time, but
> > ALWAYS GLOBAL one,
>
> Yes. That's what I said above, with "global" corresponding to my ECI.
>
I notice a very positive evolution in our talking.
> > corresponding to a 1905 Relativity UNIQUE INERTIAL
> > SYSTEM with the presence of gravity (and all the other Nature
> > forces)!"
>
> This is wrong. The resulting ECI coordinates have no gravitation. That
> is, the gravitational effects of the earth on all clocks have been
> corrected away. (gravitational effects of sun and moon are handled in
> daily uploaded corrections, and we don't need to consider anything
> except the propagation of radio signals.)
>
Maybe when I say that ECI includes gravitation you think in the space-
time curved by the mass-energy of GR, the considered today superior
way to manage gravity. The geometry of 1905R is Euclidean. And its
space coordinates and time are the same of Classical Physics. The
problem now if that you haven't yet any experience resolving
gravitational problems with only 1905R. Even if I offered you already
the necessary links to know about it, more probably you haven't used
them yet.
The use of 1905R to resolve gravitational clock corrections is similar
to the use of GR to do the same thing. I hope you will not go into the
same errors of others here thinking that GR (or 1905R) is not used
because clocks are already synchronized.
> Remember that SR cannot handle gravity, and this was the key conceptual
> idea that permits the receivers to compute their location via SR, not
> the vastly more cumbersome GR computations.
>
SR can't handle gravity, but 1905R yes, even if you don't know yet
how. The part of SR that receivers used is shared with 1905R, don't
worried about it.
> > By the way, I derived from 1905R also the gravitational potential
> > effect.
>
> Cannot possibly be done. You had to add something, such as the
> equivalence principle and the clock hypothesis.
>
To save you work, I will put here directly the derivation of the
factor that I mentioned in a past post.
Gravitational time effects explained with Einstein's 1905 Relativity
http://groups.google.com.cu/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/21961de826abb587/2889a8d9c4d72ac4?hl=es#2889a8d9c4d72ac4
In his 1905 Sep 27 paper of title "Does the inertia of a body depend
upon its energy-content?", that can be obtained at http://www.fourmilab.cs,
Einstein derived from his Principle of Relativity and the Principle
of
Energy Conservation (Total Energy=Kinetic Energy+Potential Energy in
1905) the universal mass-energy relationship. His conclusion (in his
own words) was "The mass of a body is a measure of its energy-
content". For a body at rest (kinetic energy equal cero) all its
energy is potential (in 1905), measuring then its rest mass m_0 its
Potential Energy PE=m_0c^2.
In that expression for the PE doesn't exist any arbitrary additive
constant, implying that Einstein discovers an absolute PE with value
cero when m_0=0. Einstein manages very explicitly in his derivation
the arbitrary additive constants characteristic of potential
energies,
putting out of any reasonable doubt the presence of potential energy
in the paper. Now consider a material point with mass M. For a body
modelled by a material point of mass m under the gravitational
influence of the mass M, its Total Energy remains constant (Kinetic
Energy transforming in Potential Energy and vice versa), what implies
that the mass m that measures the Total Energy remains also constant.
For a constant m, the Newton's mechanical laws continue being valid,
existing then a gravitational potential (PE per unit of rest mass)
known to be -GM/r (mass m at distance r from mass M) with value cero
at infinite r. If we change now the potential energy cero at infinite
to its absolute value m_0m c^2 discovered by Einstein (m_0m is the
maximal value of m_0 at infinite) we obtain
PE=m_0m c^2-(GM/r)m_0=m_0c^2
and finally m_0=m_0m/(1+GM/rc^2).
I beg the reader to revise with care the previous derivation. See how
it is done in the 1905 knowledge context, obtaining that the rest
mass
m_0 of any body with total mass m (and then total energy mc^2) in the
static gravitational potential field of a material point with mass M,
varies according to the factor
1/(1+GM/rc^2).
This factor was obtained
many years later in the context of General Relativity! As the photon
energy (proportional to its frequency) emitted by an electron is
proportional to its rest mass, in this way the change in time rate of
a clock affected by the gravitational potential is derived using only
1905 Relativity! As a result, the Pound&Rebka experiment and all the
related experimental evidence associated to the very successful
function of the Global Positioning System (GPS) must be retired from
the support of General Relativity as the unique theory explaining
gravitational time effects.
All of us know very well that we have no gravity in today Special
Relativity and then, of course, also no gravitational potential
energy
in it. But who is talking here about Special Relativity? We are
talking here about 1905 Relativity!
I hope that the material presented in this post will be sufficient to
open a more general debate on 1905 Relativity and its possible
contribution to other today problems in Physics.
> Tom Roberts
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
Eric Gisse
[...]
Isn't *that* interesting!
When "hanson" starts posting, "Traveler" is never far behind. Why is
that, hanson?
Tom Roberts
> On 6 ago, 17:17, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Note that the size of a local region depends on one's measurement
>> accuracy and on the curvature of the manifold in the region of interest.
>> Near earth, the manifold has such small curvature that for the corrected
>> GPS clocks the region includes the entire earth and the GPS satellite
>> orbits, with an accuracy sufficient to meet the requirements.
>>
> I will refer here to N. Ashby's paper "Relativity in the Global
> Positioning System", 28 Jan 2003, that can be obtained at
> http://www.livingreview.org/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/
That link didn't work for me.
> More probably we are using the same information source, as Ashby is
> among the more (if not the most) qualified and directly involved
> persons in the topic. In Part 4 "The Realization of Coordinate Time"
> is addressed in detail our topic. In line 4 we can read "but with
> synchronization established in a underlying, locally inertial,
> reference frame". The use of the adjective "locally" is here totally
> out of place, because the ECI referred is the UNIQUE inertial frame
> used in GPS (more properly is then "global inertial").
It likely means "locally, in the sense of near earth, as opposed to
being valid throughout the cosmos".
> An equation
> (24) showing the used GR metric put out of any possible doubt that
> gravitation is present here (not only present, but the more important
> protagonist!). We can read in line 11 "the unit of time is determined
> by moving clocks in a spatially-dependent gravitational field". A
> SINGLE time unit in a zone with a variable gravitational field? What
> is this? By sure it is NOT SR, where gravity is totally excluded.
As I said, GR and the fact that the satellites are in circular orbits
permits one to construct a coordinate system in which the equations of
SR are valid. I kept stressing "valid only for signal propagation", so
yes, it is not SR. But the equations of SR for the propagation of
signals hold in the ECI coordinates, which is the point; and that is
sufficient for the GPS needs.
> "On the other hand, according to General Relativity, the coordinate
> time variable t of Eq. (24) is valid in a coordinate patch large
> enough to cover the earth and the GPS satellite constellation, Eq.
> (24) is an approximate solution of the field equations near the Earth,
> which include the gravitational field due to earth's mass
> distribution. In this local coordinate patch, the coordinate time is
> single valued".
Right. That's what I said earlier in different words.
> This is only a QUALITATIVE assertion, a little strange in the context
> of very exact quantitative formulas. How good is that approximation of
> a SINGLE time in all GPS?
Accurate enough so the system meets its accuracy requirements.
> Where are the formulas to support it
> quantitatively? Ashby can't show them, because they simply don't exist
> at all.
Huh? The actual operation of the GPS justifies this. I suspect his eq.
24 does what you ask.
> In reality, we can extend the operating zone as we want,
> putting satellites as far as we want from the Earth.
Not true. Satellites far enough out so they orbit the sun will not work,
and the ECI cannot be extended to include them. It might be possible out
to the radius of the moon, I'm not sure.
> In principle we
> can design a GPS that covers all the Solar System (or even the
> Galaxy!).
Again not true. ECI coordinates cannot be extended beyond the region in
which the earth's gravity dominates and all other sources of gravity can
be regarded as small perturbations. It's quite clear that the distance
to any of the earth-sun Lagrange points is too far.
One cannot do the analog of the GPS but based on the sun, except in
regions far from any planets (so their gravity is tiny compared to the
sun's).
> You don't understand that for a satellite to say that gravity doesn't
> exist is completely absurd?
I never said or implied that. What I said is that for the propagation of
signals, the ECI coordinates of the GPS behave as if SR was valid. This
is true ONLY for those coordinates, and ONLY inside the radius of the
GPS satellites, and ONLY for the propagation of signals.
> [... too much for me to deal with, but you should get the idea
from the above]
Tom Roberts
Jeckyl
news:k45hb3tq836opfup4...@4ax.com...
What a pathetic little child you are. Grow up.
Androcles
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:OX2ui.7581$dD3.74@trnddc07...
: "H. Wabnig" <.... .-- .- -... -. .. --. @ .- --- -. DOT .- -> wrote in
The cute bastards love to use approximations when it suits them and demand
exactitude when it doesn't.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003gr.qc.....8010A
Title:
Improved Test of General Relativity with Radio Doppler Data from the
Cassini Spacecraft
Authors:
Anderson, John D.; Lau, Eunice L.; Giampieri, Giacomo
Abstract
This paper was withdrawn at the recommendation of the Cassini Radio Science
Team.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003Natur.425..374B
Title:
A test of general relativity using radio links with the Cassini
spacecraft
Authors:
Bertotti, B.; Iess, L.; Tortora, P.
Abstract
According to general relativity, photons are deflected and delayed by the
curvature of space-time produced by any mass. The bending and delay are
proportional to gamma + 1, where the parameter gamma is unity in general
relativity but zero in the newtonian model of gravity. The quantity gamma -
1 measures the degree to which gravity is not a purely geometric effect and
is affected by other fields; such fields may have*(1) strongly influenced
the
early Universe, but would have now weakened so as to produce tiny-but still
detectable-effects. Several experiments have confirmed to an accuracy of
~0.1% the predictions for the deflection and delay of photons produced by
the Sun. Here we report a measurement of the frequency shift of radio
photons to and from the Cassini spacecraft as they passed near the Sun. Our
result, gamma = 1 + (2.1 +/- 2.3) × 10^-5, agrees with the predictions of
standard general relativity with a sensitivity that approaches**(2) the
level at
which, theoretically***(3), deviations are expected****(4) in some*****(5)
cosmological models.
Remember, gamma = 1 + (2.1 +/- 2.3) × 10^-5
*(1) "may have"
**(2) "approaches"
***(3) "theoretically"
****(4) "expected"
*****(5) "some"
My dick is a cylindrical rod-like object, 2 foot long +/- 0.18 x 10^2 inches
except on cold days when it's 2 foot long +/- 0.021* x 10^3 inches
with a greater girth than length.
It 'may have' a radius that 'approaches' the 'theoretically' 'expected'
length of
'some' Einstein Dingleberry's penis, the little pricks.
This is what they teach at Harvard? It must be a law school.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/
va...@icmf.inf.cu
> va...@icmf.inf.cu wrote:
> > On 6 ago, 17:17, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> Note that the size of a local region depends on one's measurement
> >> accuracy and on the curvature of the manifold in the region of interest.
> >> Near earth, the manifold has such small curvature that for the corrected
> >> GPS clocks the region includes the entire earth and the GPS satellite
> >> orbits, with an accuracy sufficient to meet the requirements.
>
> > I will refer here to N. Ashby's paper "Relativity in the Global
> > Positioning System", 28 Jan 2003, that can be obtained at
>
> That link didn't work for me.
>
right link is the following:
http://www.livingreviews.org/Articles/Volume6/2003-1ashby/
> > More probably we are using the same information source, as Ashby is
> > among the more (if not the most) qualified and directly involved
> > persons in the topic. In Part 4 "The Realization of Coordinate Time"
> > is addressed in detail our topic. In line 4 we can read "but with
> > synchronization established in a underlying, locally inertial,
> > reference frame". The use of the adjective "locally" is here totally
> > out of place, because the ECI referred is the UNIQUE inertial frame
> > used in GPS (more properly is then "global inertial").
>
> It likely means "locally, in the sense of near earth, as opposed to
> being valid throughout the cosmos".
>
with the role of SR as part of GR, being valid only locally in a
region where gravitational potential can be considered constant
("flat" space-time) and as such no gravity at all in it, that is the
basic point behind the inability of SR to address gravity when GR was
created.
> > An equation
> > (24) showing the used GR metric put out of any possible doubt that
> > gravitation is present here (not only present, but the more important
> > protagonist!). We can read in line 11 "the unit of time is determined
> > by moving clocks in a spatially-dependent gravitational field". A
> > SINGLE time unit in a zone with a variable gravitational field? What
> > is this? By sure it is NOT SR, where gravity is totally excluded.
>
> As I said, GR and the fact that the satellites are in circular orbits
> permits one to construct a coordinate system in which the equations of
> SR are valid. I kept stressing "valid only for signal propagation", so
> yes, it is not SR. But the equations of SR for the propagation of
> signals hold in the ECI coordinates, which is the point; and that is
> sufficient for the GPS needs.
>
signals. It is involved also in the gravitational potential
correction, as you can see in Parts 3 and 4 of Ashby's paper,
particularly in the last two paragraphs of Part 4 (last 19 lines). I
hope you can access now Ashby's paper. Indeed, there is not mentioned
at all the propagation of signals topic that you insist is the unique
restricted purpose of ECI.
> > "On the other hand, according to General Relativity, the coordinate
> > time variable t of Eq. (24) is valid in a coordinate patch large
> > enough to cover the earth and the GPS satellite constellation, Eq.
> > (24) is an approximate solution of the field equations near the Earth,
> > which include the gravitational field due to earth's mass
> > distribution. In this local coordinate patch, the coordinate time is
> > single valued".
>
> Right. That's what I said earlier in different words.
>
> > This is only a QUALITATIVE assertion, a little strange in the context
> > of very exact quantitative formulas. How good is that approximation of
> > a SINGLE time in all GPS?
>
> Accurate enough so the system meets its accuracy requirements.
>
> > Where are the formulas to support it
> > quantitatively? Ashby can't show them, because they simply don't exist
> > at all.
>
> Huh? The actual operation of the GPS justifies this. I suspect his eq.
> 24 does what you ask.
>
Eq. 24 is stated already under the assumption of a unique t, you will
see it (indeed, Eq. 24 is the first one using the unique t). But Ashby
didn't develop any mathematical expression to support its assertion
about assigning a unique value to t in all the operating region, that
is the essential point here. He only makes a qualitative assertion (as
the ones you do), that I consider insufficient without a quantitative
analysis. I am demanding a quantitative mathematical expression (this
is the "formula" I am guessing don't exist at all, and I have my
reasons to think in that way) to verify what error is involved in the
unique value for t assumption when we go some (maybe very great,
including the infinite limit) distance away from the Earth.
> > In reality, we can extend the operating zone as we want,
> > putting satellites as far as we want from the Earth.
>
> Not true. Satellites far enough out so they orbit the sun will not work,
> and the ECI cannot be extended to include them. It might be possible out
> to the radius of the moon, I'm not sure.
>
This is precisely what I am guessing is lacking here. How we know how
far from Earth can we go under the unique value for t assumption? I
confess you that my interest in this topic is a theoretical one (we
can assume Sun or even the Moon don't exist, or more general, that
Earth and GPS satellites are the unique existing bodies). GPS is for
me only a very valuable source of experimental evidence to support a
theory.
> > In principle we
> > can design a GPS that covers all the Solar System (or even the
> > Galaxy!).
>
> Again not true. ECI coordinates cannot be extended beyond the region in
> which the earth's gravity dominates and all other sources of gravity can
> be regarded as small perturbations. It's quite clear that the distance
> to any of the earth-sun Lagrange points is too far.
>
See above about my theoretical interest. Suppose that only the Earth
and the GPS satellites exist. In reality, that assumption is already
implicit in all Ashby's formulas, because he considers Earth as the
unique source of gravitation. How far from Earth we can go with ECI
coordinates? I think that up to infinite, at least with 1905R we can
do it. You realize now what my point is?
> One cannot do the analog of the GPS but based on the sun, except in
> regions far from any planets (so their gravity is tiny compared to the
> sun's).
>
>From the theoretical point of view, it doesn't matter what single
gravity source are you choosing. Or we can address the more general
situation of more than one gravity source. This is what I had in mind
when mentioning Sun and Galaxy. GPS engineers conceived circular
orbits as a way to have in satellites clocks displaying always unique
global time (ECI one). But I can conceive a clock under any condition
displaying always global time if it can access its own velocity and
gravitational potential data (on line automatic correction). Choosing
the centre of mass Inertial System of all involved bodies and denoting
it as GECI (Generalized ECI), can we have here also a unique global
time corresponding to the GECI? I think we can do all of that using
only 1905R.
> > You don't understand that for a satellite to say that gravity doesn't
> > exist is completely absurd?
>
> I never said or implied that. What I said is that for the propagation of
> signals, the ECI coordinates of the GPS behave as if SR was valid. This
> is true ONLY for those coordinates, and ONLY inside the radius of the
> GPS satellites, and ONLY for the propagation of signals.
>
Sorry, maybe I am asking Ashby and not you. You can see in his paper
how he put off and on gravity when he wants. He uses also gravity
formulas with gravity off!
> > [... too much for me to deal with, but you should get the idea
> from the above]
> I am afraid that the more important things remain without consideration, particularly the use of 1905R to address gravity. I included at the end of my last post the derivation of the factor
1/(1+GM/rc^2) from 1905R. Anyway, I am very glad to you for your
continued attention to me.
hanson
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
I cite how GPS decoding is actually done [...]
http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/theory.htm
IT IS NOT A SPEC. DO NOT TREAT IT AS SUCH.
>>
JUST HOW STUPID CAN YOU GET? IT SPELLS OUT EXACTLY
WHAT ALGORITHM IS NEEDED TO DECODE THE GPS SIGNAL.
>>
"Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:GY0ui.36249$Xa3.25747@attbi_s22...
The technical detail is not in Dale's publication intentionally.
For detail see:
GPS User Equipment Introduction
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
GPS SPS Signal Specification
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
Interface Control Document ICD-GPS-200D
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/IS-GPS-200D.pdf
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_accuracy.html
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
>
[hanson]
ahahahaha... AHAHAHHAHA...
Yo, Sam, you with your links and, Eric, you with your screaming
appear to convince YOURSELVES very effectively...
BUT your teaching skills are marginal at best if not a complete
failure... Hey, just an observation. Don't get mad at me now.
>
BTW... what's in it for you guys for advocating the tripe of all
these Einstein Dingleberries you posted who just want to get
in on the glory of GPS, an item of technology that was designed
manufactured and is operated without the use of any SR/GR.
SR/GR are only tabloid stories about it GPS... except perhaps
for the promoters & salesmen who it use to scam the consumers
with higher prices and say to them: "See, Einstein made this".
---- So, what's in it for you guys? -----
Thanks for the laughs, guys.... ahahahaha... ahahahanson
>
[Eric]
Isn't *that* interesting!
When "hanson" starts posting, "Traveler"
is never far behind. Why is that, hanson?
>
[hanson]
ahahaha... How about that? What's in it for you, Eric?
AFA Traveler, I don't know. YOU must ask him this
question directly if it is of such burning interest to you...
.... ahahaha... I know, Eric, you hesitate to ask Traveler
directly because Traveler's standard answer will be:
"Gisse, you ass kisser, how does hanson's ass smell
today"... Is that why you are asking me, Eric?... ahaha...
>
What you just did here, Eric, is not even convincing
yourself. It's just subject switching and evading the
issue....ahahaha...
Like I told you on other occasions, Eric, learn to **sell**
your notions instead of lamenting. If you don't, you'll
start and end your career in a cubicle ... with the Potters
of this world being your bosses, and while they'll drive
Bentleys you'll be driving, at your ripe age of 62, a 2007
pre-owned Prius in 2047, and being forced to drive
it for an other eleven years, just like that other NG dude
is obliged to do today with his 1989 Volkswagen Golf,
because of his rect-Al attitude.. ... ahahaha..
Take care, Junior, & thanks for the laughs...
... ahahaha... ahahahahanson
hanson
>
"Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
news:ruiui.40641$7c.1...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
"H. Wabnig" <.... .-- .- -... -. .. --. @ .- --- -. DOT .- -> wrote in
message news:hr4gb3ltijpvap7vu...@4ax.com...
>
[hanson]
(Einstein Dingleberry test]
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/11de8b918ae17a01?hl=en&
>
(Pimping Situation for REL...)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dc13892af456cc63?hl=en&
>
(m_e/h) * 2G/c^2 ........ 4.4E-10 s/s (the frequency shift)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/88d6e44654fcead1?hl=en&
>
Nobody knows yet what gravity/gravitation is... ahahaha
But Newton and his "action at a distance" is intellectually far
more honest than the Minkowski/Einstein Space-time curving,
>>>.....
I'll become an immediate and fanatical believer to all that shit,
as soon as the first one of these Einstein Dingleberries who
advocates that gravitation/gravity is no force jumps out of the
5th floor window and reports back to me after contact with the
first electron shells of the Al-Ca-silicates on the side walk
concrete surface and tells me how his force free space-time
>>
[Louis]
Traveler Louis Savain <trav...@noasskissers.net> wrote:
ahahaha... This is funny, Hanson. The idiots have no clue as to the
nature of gravity and they act like God revealed the secret to them.
ahahaha...
Nothing Can Move in Spacetime, by Definition:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm
>
A train moves in space, and I better be in time at the railway station
to catch it. Add the time coordinate and result with space-time.
>
[hanson]
Adding coordinates is a classical syndrome promulgated
unreal situations about the real world and then insisting and
selling them as if it were real. That's why, to a very large part
REL turned out to be a useless crock' o'shit.
>
[Wabnig]
Train moves in space-time as the railway timetables clearly show.
But trains cannot move in time, despite their regular delays suggest
that illusion .
>
[hanson]
... and now you have defeated/denied your own argument.
ahahahaha... Go play with your "Märklin" now... ahahaha...
The train does not move in space-time just because its
dep/arriv times and the resp. locations are written on a
piece of paper that it pasted in the wall.... ahahahaha..
Only Einstein Dingleberries have the belief that their
ideas do move mountains, well, in their megalomania,
do move the universe... ahahaha
>
[Wabnig]
Due to restricetd availability of distinct expressions we are
using the same word for different things. Escimos have 20
words for "snow", we have only one word for "spacetime"
whatever that is.
>
[hanson]
.... Your confession is admirable, Wabie. You are in the
real world in view that you have already said earlier:
"Who studies what Einstein said a hundred years ago?
It is not really relevant..." --
Wabie, you are fucken-A- right on that... ahahahaha....
>
[Wabnig]
Now, when one coins a certain term and starts defending
his private definition he is probably making too much noise
for nothing.
> w.
>
[hanson]
Right, Einstein Dingleberries do that routinely with:
"mass-like"and "point-like" objects and scores of other
buzzwords and with their introduction of phantasms like
are more massive then the entire universe, and insisting
"their private definition of making too much noise for nothing"
like over the irrelevance of REL in the design to operations
of GPS.
All this shows that the heydays of Einstein's relativity is
over, except for the romantic Dingleberries who like to
hang onto Einstein's sphincter... ahaha... ahahanson
>
The cute [REL] bastards love to use approximations when it
suits them and demand exactitude when it doesn't.
>
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003gr.qc.....8010A
Title:
Improved Test of General Relativity with Radio Doppler Data
from the Cassini Spacecraft
Authors: Anderson, John D.; Lau, Eunice L.; Giampieri, Giacomo
== This paper was *WITHDRAWN* at the recommendation
== of the Cassini Radio Science Team.
>
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003Natur.425..374B
Title: A test of general relativity using radio links with the Cassini
spacecraft
Authors: Bertotti, B.; Iess, L.; Tortora, P.
Abstract:
According to general relativity, photons are deflected and delayed
by the curvature of space-time produced by any mass. The bending
and delay are proportional to gamma + 1, where the parameter
gamma is unity in general relativity but zero in the newtonian model
gravity is not a purely geometric effect and is affected by other fields;
such fields may have*(1) strongly influenced the early Universe, but
would have now weakened so as to produce tiny-but still detectable
~0.1% the predictions for the deflection and delay of photons produced
by the Sun. Here we report a measurement of the frequency shift of
radio photons to and from the Cassini spacecraft as they passed near
the Sun. Our result, gamma = 1 + (2.1 +/- 2.3) × 10^-5, agrees with the
predictions of standard general relativity with a sensitivity that
approaches**(2) the level at which, theoretically***(3), deviations are
expected****(4) in some*****(5) cosmological models.
>
Remember, gamma = 1 + (2.1 +/- 2.3) × 10^-5 [which is or does]
*(1) "may have"
**(2) "approaches"
***(3) "theoretically"
****(4) "expected"
*****(5) "some"
>
Excellent observation, Andro.
Well, this is their *un*-improved paper, and after they improved it,
it was rejected by the peer review in these gentle and polite words:
== This paper was *WITHDRAWN* at the recommendation
== of the Cassini Radio Science Team.
However, consider that if they would have added a 6th conditional:
******(6) "potentially"
then these Einstein Dingleberries would have been on par with the
Green shits whose Environmental Science is to Science what
Astrology is to Astronomy. So, to the tune of 5 out of 6, to 83%
we have seen that SR/GR is as much of a guessing game as is
Environmentalism. The 16% difference is in Al Gore vs. Al Einstein.
Thanks for the laughs, Andro, Wabnig and Savain... ahaha...
hahahaha... ahahahanson
PS:
There is one little item in their abstract that should not
be overlooked as it may point at the missing hang nail for
Einstein's portrait, which Andro has fingered elsewhere,
\earlier. It says in the abstract above:
**"According to general relativity, photons are... delayed"**
If this "delayed" means that it has been observed and
measured that it takes light longer to get from A to B than
expected by standard REL notions then "c" is NOT constant,
no matter whether you define "c" as constant or not.
These dudes above have laid their professional careers
on the line by publishing that, because it shows now that
the BUILD DOWN of SR/GR is in full swing, accelerating
the time-event when all of Einstein's Dingleberries in these
NGs will fall into the blach hole of Einstein's sphincter... ahaha..
hahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, Andro... ahahahanson
Androcles
: Androcles puts another nail into Einstein's SR/GR coffin.... ahahaha
: >
: "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
: news:ruiui.40641$7c.1...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
: "H. Wabnig" <.... .-- .- -... -. .. --. @ .- --- -. DOT .- -> wrote in
: message news:hr4gb3ltijpvap7vu...@4ax.com...
: >
: [hanson]
: (Einstein Dingleberry test]
:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/11de8b918ae17a01?hl=en&
: >
: (Pimping Situation for REL...)
:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/dc13892af456cc63?hl=en&
: >
: (m_e/h) * 2G/c^2 ........ 4.4E-10 s/s (the frequency shift)
:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/88d6e44654fcead1?hl=en&
: >
: Nobody knows yet what gravity/gravitation is... ahahaha
: But Newton and his "action at a distance" is intellectually far
: more honest than the Minkowski/Einstein Space-time curving,
: >>>.....
: I'll become an immediate and fanatical believer to all that shit,
: as soon as the first one of these Einstein Dingleberries who
: advocates that gravitation/gravity is no force jumps out of the
: 5th floor window and reports back to me after contact with the
: first electron shells of the Al-Ca-silicates on the side walk
: concrete surface and tells me how his force free space-time
: curving trip went along on his particular world line... ahahaha...
If it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck
then it's probably a curve in spacetime.
The curve in spacetime flattens my arse when I sit at my computer.
: >>
: [Louis]
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Tom Roberts
> On 7 ago, 19:26, Tom Roberts <tjroberts...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> va...@icmf.inf.cu wrote:
>>> In Part 4 "The Realization of Coordinate Time"
>>> is addressed in detail our topic. In line 4 we can read "but with
>>> synchronization established in a underlying, locally inertial,
>>> reference frame". The use of the adjective "locally" is here totally
>>> out of place, because the ECI referred is the UNIQUE inertial frame
>>> used in GPS (more properly is then "global inertial").
>> It likely means "locally, in the sense of near earth, as opposed to
>> being valid throughout the cosmos".
Looking at the reference, my guess was correct. By "locally inertial
reference frame" he means the ECI.
> The problem is that ECI is used NOT only to manage the propagation of
> signals. It is involved also in the gravitational potential
> correction,
You're not listening to what I said. The clocks are corrected USING GR.
From then on, the CORRECTED clocks always display the time of a
fictitious ECI coordinate clock at their current location, and using
those clocks the rules of SR apply FOR THE PROPAGATION OF SIGNALS.
That's all a receiver needs -- the clocks broadcast their time and
location in ECI coordinates, and signals propagate isotropically at c in
ECI coordinates.
Note this relies on the "smallness" of earth, so one can
neglect the effect of gravitation on rulers. Or perhaps
that's included in the orbit corrections, I don't know.
> Indeed, there is not mentioned
> at all the propagation of signals topic that you insist is the unique
> restricted purpose of ECI.
Sure. Ashby's paper is not participating in this discussion.
>>> In reality, we can extend the operating zone as we want,
>>> putting satellites as far as we want from the Earth.
>> Not true. Satellites far enough out so they orbit the sun will not work,
>> and the ECI cannot be extended to include them. It might be possible out
>> to the radius of the moon, I'm not sure.
>>
> This is precisely what I am guessing is lacking here. How we know how
> far from Earth can we go under the unique value for t assumption? I
> confess you that my interest in this topic is a theoretical one (we
> can assume Sun or even the Moon don't exist, or more general, that
> Earth and GPS satellites are the unique existing bodies). GPS is for
> me only a very valuable source of experimental evidence to support a
> theory.
In the real GPS, other bodies' gravitation must be small compared to
earth's. In a fictitious world in which earth is the only source of
gravitation, and it is a perfect sphere, and the atmosphere's mass can
be neglected, one can apply the Schwarzschild solution outside the
planetary surface, and it has a single t coordinate that covers the
entire manifold outside that surface. Using corrected clocks one could
erect coordinates in which the rules of SR hold for the propagation of
signals, throughout the manifold outside the surface (one also needs to
correct the rulers for the effects of gravitation).
Tom Roberts