GPS World: USNO's Fountain: Time at 100 Trillionths of a Second

Strich, saying what is not true will not make it so.

GPB (initial analysis) confirmation of Relativity's frame dragging.
And final data reduction and analysis is expected to confirm frame
dragging to even higher precision. Perhaps you should get a different
hobby.

 

The word "relativity" is not in that document.

There is no dot preceeding the edu and it
smells like something associated with rogue
posts from the VA or Boeing. I wouldn't click it.

Sue...

 

That material contains useless information. Thus, it cannot be an

The bottom line is the answer to the following question.

If satellite chipping rate of 10.23MHz is not corrected for SR or GR
on 450 parts in a trillion, would a GPS receiver using the same
chipping rate work?

If you answer ‘yes’, then SR or GR is never needed in the GPS.
Professor Andersen had already said ‘yes’.

If you answer ‘no’, you are not an engineer. Gisse will certainly
answer ‘no’ even if he is totally clueless. What do you expect from a
college drop-out anyway.

So, Sam. Your reputation is on the line. What do you say?

Here is another question.

If the chipping rate is not corrected for that 450 parts in a
trillion, would this error (say it exists) accumulate over time?

The college drop-out has already said ‘yes’. What do you say, Sam?

 

Down load it from
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/IS-GPS-200D.pdf

it's all the same document.

 

I'm not in any way worried about my reputation. That is not important.
If you want to know how GPS work and what principles are involved, read
the literature.

All you are doing is wasting your own time... avoiding reading
the details of GPS. You are very much like Potter, blustering away
at nothing!

Read the literature and you will see that without the relativistic
corrections, it wouldn't be very long before you couldn't even find
yourself to the nearest kilometer.

Use your VA benefits and get some science education.

 

However "relativistic" appears 9 times!!! most of them associated with
the word "effect".

Miguel Rios

 

Thank you Miguel.
That will make it easier to read.
I extend my apologies and will delete my
misleading post from the Google index.

Sue...

 

Koobee, you really should read the GPS literature. PVT calculations
are done using data from the navigation message, not the almanac part
of it, but the ephemeris data and the TLM and HOW bits.
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/ICD-GPS-200C_Fig20-1/

Read these: http://edu-observatory.org/gps/tutorials.html

I hope you are paying attention Potter!

 

I don't know why you didn't read the ICD-GPS-200D in the first place,
Dennis Sue... and you would have noticed the sections on relativity.

 

Here's a calculation Koobee:

Global Positioning System Overview
http://www.Colorado.EDU/geography/gcraft/notes/gps/gps_f.html
http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/notes/gps/gif/navigate.gif

 

I am not Dennis McCarthy and you are a delusional psychopath.

I don't read delusional postings.
That is why.

I might ask you why you bother to publish
a web site then discourage visitors with insults.

But I don't have to ask. That is what psychopaths do.

Go take your meds.


Sue...

 

[No answer but whining crap snipped]

If Sam has no capability of answering these two very simple
engineering questions, how can Sam claim to be an expert in GPS? All
Sam can do is to reference to something that he thinks are bibles
without understanding what they mean.

Oh, well! These seem to be the typical traits of Einstein
Dingleberries who would do anything continuing to worship Einstein the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar. SR and GR are both utter
nonsense. <shrug>

 

I don't claim to run this website:
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/IS-GPS-200D.pdf

About you claiming not to be Dennis D McCarthy...

There is a Dennis D. McCarthy, who used to work for US Naval
Observatory in Washington DC. a few years ago.... and there
is a Dennis D. McCarthy living in Lumberton NC, who's property
records are public information.

And then you started posting as Suzysewnshow about the 17th of
August of 2004. And the IP address that your computer is
connected to... that ISP is headquartered just 20 miles up
the road.

You appear to have enough technical background... similar to
what I would expect Dennis D McCarthy to have in his position
at the Naval Observatory.

But heck, that's probably just a coincidence... My mistake!

Sue, I think you should learn about (and embrace) General Relativity
in its application to the Global Positioning System, and I hope
you would foster a respectful relationship with many of the
more knowledgeable posters in this physics newsgroup. Why you
are supporting trolls and cranks is beyond me.

-Sam Wormley

 

http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html

In summary, Ashby provides quite a detailed description of the
difference in clock speed observed in the clocks in the GPS satellites
vs the speed that is observed when the same clock runs on the ground.
Have these observations been discredited? If so, I would be
interested to read a rational explanation of why they should not be
believed, or a description of some other way they should be
interpreted.

I'd like something with a bit more meat than just hand waving.
Something that actually addresses the technical side of the problem,
rather than becoming a religious debate between the pro-relativity and
the anti-relativity churches.

Help me out here. I'm sure there are some bright guys in the anti-
relativity camp who can either explain these apparent clock
observations, or provide a rational alternative explanation for them.

Supposedly, cesium atomic clocks have an accuracy on the ground of
"from 2 to 3 parts in 10 to the 14th".:
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/cesium.html

The difference in clock speed seen in the GPS satellite clocks is
reported to be on the order of 440 parts in 10 to the 12th, which is
several orders of magnitude worse than the accuracy seen on the
ground. So it isn't clear to me how these differences can be
explained away as simple clock to clock variation. What am I
missing? What physical effects are causing this?

 

http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html

In summary, Ashby provides quite a detailed description of the
difference in clock speed observed in the clocks in the GPS satellites
vs the speed that is observed when the same clock runs on the ground.
===============================
Really? Perhaps Ashby should bring one back to the ground
and check again. You did say "same clock", right?

Have these observations been discredited?
==============================
Not the point. The question should be "Have these observations been
independently verified?"
As I've already told you, no two satellites keep exactly the same time
anyway. But look at the bottom of the page.
The name there is Jorge Pullin , not Ashby. You are looking at a page
written by a student which contains NO data, merely assertion.
Why would you trust the word of a mere schoolmarm or student?
He's no engineer, that's for sure.


If so, I would be
interested to read a rational explanation of why they should not be
believed, or a description of some other way they should be
interpreted.
=================================
See this pencil:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/optpic/brokpen.jpg

It is bent and broken. Anyone can see it is. I would be interested to read
a rational explanation of why this magic should not be believed.





I'd like something with a bit more meat than just hand waving.
====================================
Then produce it. You are showing me Jorge Pullin's hand-waving
that he obtained second hand (presumably from Ashby) and asking
if it has been discredited. Did Jorge Pullin or Ashby actually
do any experiment on a satellite clock?




Something that actually addresses the technical side of the problem,
rather than becoming a religious debate between the pro-relativity and
the anti-relativity churches.

====================================
What problem? GPS works within its stated tolerance, the guts
of the system is in the receiver, satellites are regularly updated
with time and ephemeris data from ground stations to keep them
in synch and known position, the only "problem" IS a religious
debate.



Help me out here. I'm sure there are some bright guys in the anti-
relativity camp who can either explain these apparent clock
observations, or provide a rational alternative explanation for them.
======================================
I have helped you. The Holey Church of Relativity has its high
priests and accolytes, the word of Pope Einstein is sacrosanct,
and just like the Catholic Church believes Christ was born of
a Virgin I simply don't intend to explain it. The rational explanation
is Mary was fucked, but if you don't believe that there is not much
I can do to convince you otherwise. There have been con-artists
and the gullible throughout history, Einstein was just one more of
them.

Supposedly, cesium atomic clocks have an accuracy on the ground of
"from 2 to 3 parts in 10 to the 14th".:
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/cesium.html

The difference in clock speed seen in the GPS satellite clocks is
reported to be on the order of 440 parts in 10 to the 12th, which is
several orders of magnitude worse than the accuracy seen on the
ground. So it isn't clear to me how these differences can be
explained away as simple clock to clock variation. What am I
missing? What physical effects are causing this?
===============================
I gave you the clue. You've chosen to snip and ignore it.
Now you want my help? You must fucking joking! Your mother
can wipe your arse for you but still have to shit for yourself.
I'll give it to you one more time:

What kind of lunacy prompted Einstein to say
the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same?

Here it is:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/figures/img22.gif

The dorks will deny he ever did.
According to Cretin

Easy: he did NOT say that.
According to cretin van lintel, Einstein did not write the equation he
wrote.
________________________________________________________
According to Imbecile Jimmy Black:

" In neither system (meaning frame of reference in modern-day terminology)
is the speed of light c-v or c+v. In both systems the speed of light is c."

According to Imbecile Jimmy Black, Einstein did not write the equation he
wrote.
________________________________________________________
According to Cretin Dork Bruere

I don't give a damn what Einstein wrote.
________________________________________________________
According to Lying Little Shit Matthew Johnson

And even the question is wrong! For he never said any such thing.
This should be painfully obvious from what he _did_ say,
namely, that the vacuum speed of light is a constant of nature,
invariant under all admissable [sic] transformations between
inertial reference frames.

Apparently LLS Matthew Johnson has rewritten Einstein's paper.

A team of scientists working under the direction of researchers from the
University of Sussex have recently discovered that Einstein did not say
"inertial".

According to LLS Matthew Johnson, Einstein did not write the equation he
wrote.
________________________________________________________
According to Chief Wanker Uncle Stooopid Schwartz:

"c+v appears nowhere in the paper, nor could it. [sic]
According to Chief Wanker Uncle Stooopid, Einstein did not write the
equation he wrote.
________________________________________________________

 

This is the website you are hawking.
Is is not yours?
<<
Sam Wormley's Global Positioning System (GPS) Resources
Consumer Equipment, Reviews and Information by Joe Mehaffey and Jack
Yeazel Google Search of Joe Mehaffey and Jack Yeazel's GPS Information
Web Site ...
edu-observatory.org/gps/ -

It sounds like you went to the Dork Van der Moron
private eye school.

Your sleuthing is worse than
your physics and now you and PD and paparios are
knee deep in identity theft against
Prof Fitz, DM from USNO, and DM of NC. and
spoofing or abusing resources at Veterans Administration and The
Boeing Corporation.

These are REAL people and REAL organisations
with REAL lawyers. How stupid can you guys get?

Not your first mistake in this matter. Let's hope
it isn't one of your worst.

Which crank? Fitzpatrick, Einstein or Feynman?

There is a bit of sleuthing involved in science too
and I won't be trusting my study time to any advise of
your demonstrated incompetence in either arena.

Anyway, Thanks for clearing up your involvement
in the DM matter. If there is a DM in NC I will
alert him by snail mail because he may have credit
issues he is scratching his head over.

Prof Fitz and DM from USNO are already notified.

I appreciate when professionals post under their
real name because it gives us amateurs access to
more of their work and opportunity to ask questions.

But It also exposes them to vandals and thieves
so the cost is not insignificant. You and
DVM and PD and paparios in your blind mindless
crusade and childish pranks increase that cost
for them and provide good reason for potential
victims to remain...

Anonymous... aka Sue...

 

Well Anonymous... aka Sue..., you don't appear to be a happy camper.
You've gotten awards, held positions of leadership... lost a battle
or two, but who hasn't!

Just because og physicist find flaws in your "physics" thinking,
that's no reason to be vindictive. Heck were all here to learn
or share some physics. Why not embrace the opportunity to learn
from your mistakes.

Why be bitter?

 

I am happier than the people you are confusing me with.
My identity is secure. Theirs is not.

You drew that conclusion because "anonymous" and
"award" both begin with the letter a?

The DVM school of logical deduction is unmistakable.
Go to the head of his class and kiss his feet.

The mistake is yours. Scroll back and
read you own post.

Post your credit card numbers to a few groups
and you will have a perfect understanding in about
two months.

Sue...

Mark Twain on electrodynamics:
"The trouble ain't that there is too many fools,
but that the lightning ain't distributed right"

 

You lost the battle, Andro.

w.

 

I am surprised to see that Sam Wormley
does not know that the orbits of the GPS satellites
are VERY stable,

and that after a GPS receiver
identifies a particular satellite from its' pseudo-random address,
and decodes the time signal from the satellite
that it knows the following:

1. What satellite it has acquired.
2. The time as reported by the satellite.
3. The orbit of the satellite
if it has stored the orbital data from a previous transmission.
( As a decent receiver would.)

Apparently, Sammy does not know
that as a GPS satellite is about 12,000 miles from
the receiver, and radio waves travel about 186,000 per second in air,

that a GPS receiver knows that the time data it received from the satellite
took about .06 seconds from the satellite to the receiver,

and that as a GPS satellite takes 12 hours ((43200 seconds)
to orbit the Earth, that the satellite has moved about 1/720,000
( 1.4x10-6) of its' Earth orbit between transmission and reception
of the signal.

I will point out for the dumb and the dense,
that the receiver knows this point,
that it is located on some sphere about a point in Earth orbit,
and it knows that point to one part in 720,000 of a precessing orbit.
( Note it also knows how fast the orbit precesses.)

I might also point out that after a receiver
obtains the same data from three more satellites,
that it knows where it is with respect to
four overlapping spheres,

and by computing recursively
it can tighten it position down to a level
limited by the random effects in the system,
and in the process, home in on the system time.

Now, I don't expect Sammy, parrots, or cultists
to comprehend this, as parrots are not too bright,
and cultists believe what they have been conditioned to,

but perhaps a few intelligent folks will read this post
and learn how a GPS receiver can determine
where it is, if it knows the orbital data of the satellites,
and can trust that the satellites are transmitting the correct time.

Note that by determining the beat frequency
of the signal and the local oscillator frequencies,
that the GPS receiver can use the Doppler Effect
to determine the satellite's' velocity relative to the receiver.

Note also that as a satellite passes overhead
( Relative to the receiver) that a zero beat is obtained,
and this provides another check on where the satellite is.

Also note that as a satellite precesses
that a quadrature zero beat is also observed.

I might point out that using more involved computations,
a GPS receiver, using stored orbital data,
can determine where it is,
EVEN if the satellites are scrambling the times,
and their pseudo code addresses
but if I told you,
I'd have to kill you.

Of course, if anyone comes up with enough money,
I'll be happy to tell them how to design a spoof-proof
GPS receiver.

The only sure way the GPS System can spoof
is to modulate the orbits of the satellites,
and that requires too much fuel to be practical.

--
Tom Potter
http://tdp1001.spaces.live.com/
http://www.tompotter.us/misc.html
http://www.geocities.com/tdp1001/index.html
http://notsocrazyideas.blogspot.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tom-potter/
http://tdp1001.wiki.zoho.com
http://groups.msn.com/PotterPhotos
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/dingleberry.htm