Koobee said:On Feb 3, 4:46 pm, Kevin Horton wrote:
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.
Tom said: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.
Strich.9 said:[snip]
Putting aside the fact you have been posting from a VA hospital 5 days
a week every week since September from 9 to 5....
Why is it that people like you have to hide under a pseudonym? Is
making relentless personal attacks made harder when your real name is
associated with them?
How about I start forwarding your messages to the VA abuse department?
I'm sure they'd be interested in knowing government resources are
being wasted in such a way on such a long term basis.
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.
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.
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>
Sue... said:Clocks have a little screw adjustment on them so
you can make them tick faster or slower.
Sam said:Dennis Sue -- One can use this diagram to choose which way to
turn the screw and by how much. Thanks to GTR.
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/frctfrq.png
Sue... said:<< Dennis Sue >>
Is is YOU spoofing or really posting from
VA and Boeing IP address and misquoting
distinguished scientists?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/efc7c08ca94417d1#
If so you better get back on your meds.
That crap can get you some visitors you'd
rather not have or get you somewhere they
MAKE you take your meds.
You can contact Dennis through his old
employer but take your meds first.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&q="den...aq=f&oq="dennis+mccarthy"+usno&fp=d0QRpKDFuLE
Sue...
Strich.9 said: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...
You made no case. Niether project has data that contradicts predictions
of relativity. He [Strich] is a fool that lovers prove; And leavesto
sing, to lives in pain.
[Whining crap snipped]
[Whining crap snipped]
[Whining crap snipped]
Show me actual GPS specifications. Do you know what specifications
look like, college drop-out?
[Whining crap snipped]
You need to address what I wrote first before then I will response to
your whining crap if I indeed choose to. Or else, we have no
discussions. <shrug>
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.
In general, the high the frequency used to measure time has better
resolution. It is still very important to keep the accuracy of
frequency at desired level though.
The information you want is the 50-bits/sec almanac (navigation)
information that gives you each satellite’s time, altitude, longitude,
and latitude. Acquiring 4 satellites, you can easily write a set of 4
equations with 4 unknowns where the unknowns are your time (measured
in satellite time), your altitude, your longitude, and your latitude.
This is junior-high algebra.
In the satellite, this almanac signal is converted to two broadbands
(XOR operation) by two chipping frequencies: 10.23MHz and 1.023MHz.
The 10MHz broadband is mixed with an RF carrier frequency of
1.227670GHz. In addition, both broadbands are mixed with another RF
carrier frequency of 1.57542GHz. Your receiver usually tunes in to
one of the RF carriers, converts the broadband back into the 50-bits/
sec almanac information.
http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/theory.htm
No, GPS does not depend on relativity. PERIOD. The clocks in your
receiver does not have to be anything coherent with any clocks on the
satellites except the chipping rates and RF carrier frequencies.
Thus, the GPS is demystified, and the ghosts of SR and GR are finally
exorcised from GPS.
On Feb 3, 4:29 am, Scotty wrote:In general, the high the frequency used to measure time has better
resolution. It is still very important to keep the accuracy of
frequency at desired level though.The information you want is the 50-bits/sec almanac (navigation)
information that gives you each satellite’s time, altitude, longitude,
and latitude. Acquiring 4 satellites, you can easily write a set of 4
equations with 4 unknowns where the unknowns are your time (measured
in satellite time), your altitude, your longitude, and your latitude.
The satellite time is wrong by roughly 50,000 ns/day. Which is why
there is a relativistic correction in the satellite clocks. Which is
why the dumb receivers don't have to do it. Which is why this
information is not on a page detailing the function of a RECEIVER.
This is junior-high algebra.
It is. Now use the junior-high algebra to show the class what a week's
worth of position error would look like with a timing offset of
~50,000 ns/day. Hint: c = ~ 1 ft/ns.
In the satellite, this almanac signal is converted to two broadbands
(XOR operation) by two chipping frequencies: 10.23MHz and 1.023MHz.
The 10MHz broadband is mixed with an RF carrier frequency of
1.227670GHz. In addition, both broadbands are mixed with another RF
carrier frequency of 1.57542GHz. Your receiver usually tunes in to
one of the RF carriers, converts the broadband back into the 50-bits/
sec almanac information.
I find it odd that you have latched onto this page as _THE_
authoritative source on the engineering of the GPS despite the fact
that the page is only relevant to the receiver end of things. The
signal & control aspects of the system are not discussed in any way.
This was explained to you back in 2007.
[snip]
No, GPS does not depend on relativity. PERIOD. The clocks in your
receiver does not have to be anything coherent with any clocks on the
satellites except the chipping rates and RF carrier frequencies.Thus, the GPS is demystified, and the ghosts of SR and GR are finally
exorcised from GPS.
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
"GPS SPS Signal Specification, 2nd Edition (June 2, 1995)"
Right there on page 18:
"The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an observer
on the ground -- is 1.023 MHz. To compensate for relativistic effects,
the output frequency of the satellite's frequency standard -- as it
would appear to an observer located at the satellite -- is 10.23 MHz
offset by a Df/f = -4.4647 x 10-18 or a Df = -4.567 x 10-3 Hz."
You'll note I'm citing actual system design, not a hobbyist page on
receiver function.
Scotty said:Glad that you haven't lost your sense of humour, yet. But you got that
wrong, I'm the one who does the beaming, terms are negotiable. Thanks for
the links.
I accept that all relativitic effects and G have been corrected on the SV.
But perhaps I should re-phrase the question:
My GPSr is autonomous, it has a crappy clock, nowhere near the accuracy
required to give me 5M accuracy.
It gets all the information needed from the SVs and even calculates doppler
etc.
Now, given all things equal, perfect SV clocks, constant velocity at the
SV, circular orbits etc. is it necessary to compensate the SV clocks for
relativity to make GPS work? We only need to find the flying time of the
signal which velocity is constant, ignoring ionosphere effects.
As I have said above, all corrections have been applied but if all clocks
are the same, does it matter what the SV frequency is?
Koobee said:No, GPS does not depend on relativity. PERIOD. The clocks in your
receiver does not have to be anything coherent with any clocks on the
satellites except the chipping rates and RF carrier frequencies.