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

In the meantime, I am still chuckling over Strich.9’s comments:

Anderthal - pretend professor from norway.
Sam - community college teacher.
Eric - physics BS flunkie
PD - children's book writer
Tom Roberts - backwater IIT professor
Koobee Wublee - aetherialist mystic.

The myth promoted by Maxwell Dingleberries is forever
shattered by the simple but righteous junior-high mathematics.

Ahahaha...

Thanks for the laughs, folks.

 

Sam,

Ah well, add me to the above list. Serious question though.

Is it not true that any frequency can be used as a clock to measure the
signal flying time? Relativistic effects or not. The GPS receiver extracts
the clock from the signal anyway.

The fact that we have compensated the frequency shift is merely a
convenience to give us a 10MHz frequency standard and a "standard" second
for stationary clocks?

So it is a true statement that GPS does not depend on Relativity just on an
accurate clock provided that we know what that frequency is.

Thanks,
Scotty.

 

Potter, when one compares predictions of relativity compared
to classical models, relativity wins every time. Methinks it's
time for Potter to embrace relativity, instead of blustering
against it, frothing at the mouth, and whatever.

Some current applications:
o global navigation satellite systems (GNSS)
o particle accelerators, research and medical
o relativity nicey explains many observed phenomina
in astronomy and astrometry

Applications of Special Relativity
http://physics.nmt.edu/~raymond/classes/ph13xbook/node48.html

Oh, and Potter, don't forget Relativity, Mass Energy
Equivalence and Nuclear Reactions.

"The result from the theory of relativity that Mass and Energy are
different manifestations of the same physical entity and that it
is possible to convert mass into energy finds an application in
the processes of nuclear fission and nuclear fusion.

"In the process of nuclear fission, a large unstable nucleus such
as that of Uranium-235 decays into two smaller nuclei.
Interestingly, the sum of masses of these two nuclei is smaller
than the mass of the original larger nucleus. This "mass defect"
is responsible for the release of a large amount of energy in this
process of nuclear fission. The difference in mass, when multiplied
with the square of the speed of light in vacuum (that is, c2),
gives the amount of energy released in the process by the famous
equation e = mc^2.

Hey Potter, for a bit of education about the application of relativity
to the Global Positioning System (GPS), see:
http://edu-observatory/gps/gps_books.html#relativity

"Relativity in the Global Positioning System" by Neil Ashby
"Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks" by Neil Ashby
"General Relativity in the Global Positioning System" by Neil Ashby
"Can GPS Test Gravity's Speed of Propagation?" by Neil Ashby
"General Relativity in the Global Positioning System" by Neil Ashby

"Relativity of GPS Measurement" by Thomas B Bahder
"Real-World Relativity: The GPS Navigation System" by Richard W. Pogge
"Student Project on the Global Positioning System" by E.F. Taylor
"Einstein's Relativity and Everyday Life" by Clifford M. Will
"General Relativity in the Global Positioning System" by Clifford M. Will


Potter, you would learn an lot if you sat down for a few days with the
reference below... but I suspect that you don't have the academic or
intellectual capability to work through the material and gain insight
for the considerations that must be taken into effect. The last time
you tried or pretended to try... your fixed on an offset value and tried
to convince yourself that it didn't have anything to do with relativity.
Your attitude appears to be, "I can't understand this shit, so therefore
it is wrong, or not needed".

The literature is there for all to learn from... Many sources. It's OK
to admit it is beyond your grasp, Potter. It's OK!

See: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/frctfrq.png

 

Any frequency will do... What is important is to account for the
difference (due to time dilation) of satellite clocks and ground
based clocks, as they must be synchronized in global navigation
satellite systems. General relativity beautifully predicts those
differences and is incorporated in to the GPS Specs. The later URL
below is a graphic showing the sign and degree of time dilation as
a function of altitude.

See: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/frctfrq.png

Temptation gets the better of me now:

If we beamed you up, Scotty, to one of the GPS satellites, the
relativistic corrections would be applied to the ground based clocks
from your perspective. But the more traditional perspective is for
the ground (or near ground) down on the planet.

 

Ignorance can be cured, Koobee. Stooooopidty on the other hand is
forever. Which will it be for you? For a bit of education about the
application of relativity to the Global Positioning System (GPS),
see:

http://edu-observatory/gps/gps_books.html#relativity

"Relativity in the Global Positioning System" by Neil Ashby
"Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks" by Neil Ashby
"General Relativity in the Global Positioning System" by Neil Ashby
"Can GPS Test Gravity's Speed of Propagation?" by Neil Ashby
"General Relativity in the Global Positioning System" by Neil Ashby

"Relativity of GPS Measurement" by Thomas B Bahder
"Real-World Relativity: The GPS Navigation System" by Richard W. Pogge
"Student Project on the Global Positioning System" by E.F. Taylor
"Einstein's Relativity and Everyday Life" by Clifford M. Will
"General Relativity in the Global Positioning System" by Clifford M. Will

See: Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/frctfrq.png

 

So why are you desperately trying to defend relativity? We all know
it has failed two major tests, the LIGO and GPB. What's in it for
you...

 

Educating people about the error of Einstein is not a waste of
resources. In fact, the error of Einstein has cost the government a
lot of money. As for you, your education has been a waste of
resources. Your overstaying in school is a waste of school space for
other students, professor's time, and other incidental resources. If
you are concerned about waste, why not do something productive, like
graduating on time.

 

------- ahahahahaha.... AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... ------Koobee Wublee wrote:
In the meantime, I am still chuckling over Strich.9’s comments:
Anderthal - pretend professor from norway.
Sam - community college teacher.
Eric - physics BS flunkie
PD - children's book writer
Tom Roberts - backwater IIT professor.The myth promoted by Einstein Dingleberries is forever
shattered by the simple but righteous junior-high mathematics.
Ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, folks."Androcles" thought he could get away with it & wrote:
In the meantime, I am still chuckling over Strich.9’s comments:
Anderthal - pretend professor from norway.
Sam - community college teacher.
Eric - physics BS flunkie
PD - children's book writer
Tom Roberts - backwater IIT professor
Koobee Wublee - aetherialist mystic.The myth promoted by Maxwell Dingleberries is forever
shattered by the simple but righteous junior-high mathematics.
Ahahaha... Thanks for the laughs, folks.hanson wrote:
Andro, your prime worry and grief was Einstein's con in your
often stated "AB.. same speed issue". That issue seems to be
over-shadowed now and has taken second stage to be
replaced by the Maxwell's Aether which now frosts your arse
and burns your peepee... ahahaha...
Your ever increasing phobia & worsening hysteria you suffer from,
due to the Maxwellian Aether, seems to overwhelm any residue
of rationality that you still harbor... ahaha... haha.. AHAHAHAHAThe issue here is "Eric Gisse" <>, the
"jowr" aka the "Junior Of Whining Relativists" (credit goes to
you for that one), who is even more desperate then is Sam,
in his hope that Einstein's crap was/is needed for GPS... but#### **** GPS NEVER NEEDED neither SR nor GR ****
#### Not for its design, manufacturing, testing nor operations...But now, Andro, since you are bent on and insist to give your
street corner performance to rid the Maxwellian Aether, which so
plagues you, please tell your story about your remedy with your
Ring Laser that seems to be intrinsically plagued by its own
Ringworms in form of that defect, the "lock-in" at very slow
rotation rates"... ahahahaha....That fucking Aether just won't go away, doesn't it, Andro...
You may trod it down, but it's in vain...cuz just like the dust
it will rise again, and again and again... ahahaha.....So, Andro, what properties does your ordinary 3D space have?
If space can be bent then Einstein is right.. which you say he isn't.
And if the Aether is only seen by aetherialist mysticism... then
either you placed yourself between a rock and a hard place, in
your chase... or you have Napoleon's syndrome. Poor guy. Pity.But thanks for the laughs, mate... ahahahaha... ahahahanson

 

Methinks it’s time for you to actually learn what relativity is all

Total nonsense!

What applications? The link is merely a tutorial. Please something
more relevant next time.

Mass and energy relation went back much further. <shrug>

Don’t you love the whining arguments of Einstein Dingleberries. In
one instance, they are trumpeting mass-energy equivalence. In another
instance, when it is pointed out to them that the Cosmological
constant representing negative energy density in vacuum must also
indicate negative mass density. This concept is utterly ridiculous as
if the champions of this stupidity have not graduated from elementary
schools or something. Ahahaha…

I bet Sam does not understands all that stuff that is why he is still

Even if you do not correct any of the frequencies involved:

** Almanac signal (50bits/sec), the payload
** Chipping rates: 10.23MHz and 1.023MHz
** Carriers: 1-2GHz, RF

http://electronicdesign.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=15475

It is time for Sam to actually learn how GPS works. <shrug>

 

On Feb 3, 12:26 pm, Koobee Wublee
[...]

<< It is time for Sam to actually learn how GPS works.  <shrug> >>

 

Would that be before or after you actually reference the actual
specifications? We've been giving them to you since you started
posting under this name and you still don't understand, nor have you
ever cited anything remotely authoritative on the subject.

 

As I indicated, what General Relativity needs
are USERS, not more conmen, cultists, propagandists,
babble-masters, and parrots.

I was disappointed to see that Sammy
tried to create all kinds of strawmen, and that he
posted the same old references to papers
written by self-serving General Relativity Gurus
on the taxpayer dole,

rather than posting about how the General Relativity Gurus
are serving society and making lots of money
by using their powerful, esoteric knowledge,

like the people who possessed information on
integrated circuits, RADAR, fibreoptics, LASERS,
digital communications, digital computers, networking, DNA, etc.

General Relativity must be great
because Time Magazine, the New York Times,
and the Washington Post declared it the
greatest intellectual achievement of all time,
and made Einstein the "Man of the Century".

If they wrote, it must be true.

--
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

 

I don't have a stake in this fight. I am simply looking to learn.
The difference between the clock speed on the GPS satellites and the
speed that the same clock would run at on the ground appears to be
well established. I would be interested to learn of any published
papers that show a calculation of what the clock speed difference
should be, using effects other than relativity.

Or, could one of the "relativity doesn't exist" folks detail a
calculation of what the clock speed difference should be, using the
causes that you consider as most likely. If your approach is valid, I
would expect that it should yield the clock speed difference that has
been observed on the GPS satellites.

Have a good day.

Kevin Horton

 

You made no case. Niether project has data that contradicts predictions
of relativity. He [Strich] is a fool that lovers prove; And leaves to
sing, to lives in pain.

 

There are no definitive requirements to say the satellite clock
frequency must be with certain percentage of the ground clock
frequency. This is explained by the manufacturers of GPS receivers.

http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/theory.htm

For example, the satellite clock can all tick at 1.000GHz +/- 0.5Hz
while the ground clock can tick at 577.9874MHz +/- 10.67MHz.

When your receiver receives almanac information from four satellites
with each giving its time, altitude, longitude, and latitude, you can
form a set of four equations with four unknowns. The unknowns are
your satellite time (nothing to do with ground time), your altitude,
your longitude, and your latitude.

Professor Andersen knew this, but trying to promote the nonsense of SR
and GR, he proposed a fairy-like mysterious function to the GPS where
this mystic function requires the synchronization of the satellite and
ground clocks. Professor Roberts recently understood this. In doing
so, you also proposed a top-secret military function built into the
GPS that also requires the synchronization of the satellite and the
ground clocks. It becomes a faith issue. However, I call the bluffs
of these professors. I do not buy the mysticism they try to promote
for SR and GR. <shrug>

 

I don't have a stake in this fight. I am simply looking to learn.
=========================
Ok.

The difference between the clock speed on the GPS satellites and the
speed that the same clock would run at on the ground appears to be
well established.
==========================
Your evidence for this prejudice?

I would be interested to learn of any published
papers that show a calculation of what the clock speed difference
should be, using effects other than relativity.

Or, could one of the "relativity doesn't exist" folks detail a
calculation of what the clock speed difference should be, using the
causes that you consider as most likely. If your approach is valid, I
would expect that it should yield the clock speed difference that has
been observed on the GPS satellites.
===============================
No "clock speed difference" has been observed, other than the normal
differences one would expect from one clock to another. My wrist
watch doesn't keep exact pace with my computer, neither do I expect
it to as long as it is reasonable and +/- 3 minutes a year is adequate.
I can still time a car journey with it as accurately as I'll ever need.
Indeed, no two satellites keep exactly the same time either, and
there are FIVE atomic clocks being averaged at the US Naval
Observatory, so obviously they don't keep exact time individually
either.
The Tom-tom or Garmin sat-nav that almost everybody owns these
days doesn't have an atomic clock, therefore nobody is finding a
difference between the clock speed on the GPS satellites and the
speed that the same clock would run at on the ground. Yet these
devices work to everyone's satisfaction, the main complaint being
map errors, not positional errors, which remains +/-15 metres
horizontally. Quite simply, the device only uses satellite time.

To say that relativity is needed for GPS to function is as ridiculous
as saying the weight of an ant needs to be known to weigh an elephant,
only a crank fanatic would make such a claim.

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.
________________________________________________________

 

Would this be a bad time to point out that not only do the
specifications say otherwise, and that page isn't from a manufacturer,
and the page specifically states that a timing precision of 100ns must
be maintained?

[snip]

 

There are no definitive requirements to say the satellite clock
frequency must be with certain percentage of the ground clock
frequency. This is explained by the manufacturers of GPS receivers.

http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/theory.htm

For example, the satellite clock can all tick at 1.000GHz +/- 0.5Hz
while the ground clock can tick at 577.9874MHz +/- 10.67MHz.

When your receiver receives almanac information from four satellites
with each giving its time, altitude, longitude, and latitude, you can
form a set of four equations with four unknowns. The unknowns are
your satellite time (nothing to do with ground time), your altitude,
your longitude, and your latitude.

Professor Andersen knew this, but trying to promote the nonsense of SR
and GR, he proposed a fairy-like mysterious function to the GPS where
this mystic function requires the synchronization of the satellite and
ground clocks. Professor Roberts recently understood this. In doing
so, you also proposed a top-secret military function built into the
GPS that also requires the synchronization of the satellite and the
ground clocks. It becomes a faith issue. However, I call the bluffs
of these professors. I do not buy the mysticism they try to promote
for SR and GR. <shrug>

 

Classic kooby - you see a point you can't argue about, so you snip it
and repeat the previous assertions.

Content restored:

Would this be a bad time to point out that not only do the
specifications say otherwise, and that page isn't from a manufacturer,
and the page specifically states that a timing precision of 200ns must
be maintained?

[snip]