the GPS myth almost mythbusted

On Aug 20, 7:37 am, Jerry wrote:
On Aug 20, 8:30 am, Poutnik wrote:

Satellites do not, but the whole system do.

Correct.

Bull****. shrug

It is quite amazing how crackpots distort everything that they
read.

What are you babbling about? shrug

The complete story of why relativistic corrections are needed in
GPS is rather long. You need to understand that GPS comprises
a Space Segment, a Control Segment, and a User Segment.

Nonsense. Initially, self-styled physicists had laid out a system
that suggested relativistic correction if existed, but engineers had
outsmarted these idiots and came up with a system that does not
require relativistic correction if existed. shrug

In a more thorough analysis, any relativistic correction is basically
resetting a counter. It is merely a software solution and Mr. Wilson
had pointed out. You can fly with cheap oscillations driving your
chronological time if you can devise clever ways to synchronize all
the satellite chronological time. System similar to IEEE1588 or NTP
should easily suffice, and it is still a software solution. shrug

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE158...ynchronization

[snipped unrelated garbage to make Jerry the **** head looks like
someone who knew what it is talking about]

Among other functions, these ground stations closely monitor the
positions of the satellites, and the master control station sends
updated ephemerides information to the satellites as they pass
over the large ground-antenna stations.

Position correction is a statistical issue. Relativistic error is a
few hundred parts per trillion. Just how would that affect the
positions of each satellite when each is moving at much lower speed
than the speed of light? shrug

In order to perform their function, THESE GROUND STATIONS NEED
PRECISE TIME. How do they set their clocks? Through the GPS
itself.

Bull****! Show analysis. shrug

The ability to distribute precise time is an absolutely essential
aspect of the GPS system, since without precise time, the earth-
based control stations that monitor the satellites' positions and
establish "ground truth" for the system cannot perform their
function.

The requirement in precision timing of the chronological time applies
to only the orbiting satellites and no one else. shrug Show your
analysis otherwise. shrug

Unless the satellites' clocks are synchronized with ground clocks
via the GR correction, there is simply no feasible way for them
to distribute time around the globe.

This is an absolute myth. Well, He has had enough with these
bull****s from someone who does not even understand Snell’s law. Your
pillar of support who has been 24/7 in its vigilance in spreading lies
and bull**** (namely Paul Draper, PD, an ex-professor of physics) had
choked on that high-school level physics. You have absolutely no
credibility. shrug

[rest of cyber diarrhea snipped]

So, **** off. shrug

In article 71154e1f-8741-4295-a871-f7dd7616a521
@a8g2000pro.googlegroups.com, says...

Nonsense. Initially, self-styled physicists had laid out a system
that suggested relativistic correction if existed, but engineers had
outsmarted these idiots and came up with a system that does not
require relativistic correction if existed. shrug

Do not screw the history, it is quite the opposite.
The correction was not done initially,
but later these smart engineers realized there is need to introduce it.
It does not matter in what part on system it is done.

In a more thorough analysis, any relativistic correction is basically
resetting a counter. It is merely a software solution and Mr. Wilson
had pointed out. You can fly with cheap oscillations driving your
chronological time if you can devise clever ways to synchronize all
the satellite chronological time. System similar to IEEE1588 or NTP
should easily suffice, and it is still a software solution. shrug

We do not need any analysis to tell you
time correction is just simple HW or SW based operation.

One thing is how
other thing is why
and yet other thing is how much.

BTW NTP is far way innacurate to serve GPS needs.


Position correction is a statistical issue. Relativistic error is a
few hundred parts per trillion. Just how would that affect the
positions of each satellite when each is moving at much lower speed
than the speed of light? shrug

If you have troubles in counting
how far the satellite moves during 38 * n microseconds,
where n is number of days since last relativistic correction,
we can help you.


--
Poutnik

People, who do not know the manners,
are ignored without notice.

On Aug 21, 1:21 am, Poutnik wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

Nonsense. Initially, self-styled physicists had laid out a system
that suggested relativistic correction if existed, but engineers had
outsmarted these idiots and came up with a system that does not
require relativistic correction if existed. shrug

Do not screw the history, it is quite the opposite.
The correction was not done initially,
but later these smart engineers realized there is need to introduce it.
It does not matter in what part on system it is done.

Gee! Even your buddies, Jerry, Eric, PD, and Tom would disagree with
you. You are now delusional. shrug

In a more thorough analysis, any relativistic correction is basically
resetting a counter. It is merely a software solution and Mr. Wilson
had pointed out. You can fly with cheap oscillations driving your
chronological time if you can devise clever ways to synchronize all
the satellite chronological time. System similar to IEEE1588 or NTP
should easily suffice, and it is still a software solution. shrug

We do not need any analysis to tell you
time correction is just simple HW or SW based operation.

Fine, then. He is not interested in bull**** claimed so to justify
worshipping of SR and GR. End of discussions. shrug

[rest of preaching snipped]

On 8/21/11 2:58 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Nonsense. Initially, self-styled physicists had laid out a system
that suggested relativistic correction if existed, but engineers had
outsmarted these idiots and came up with a system that does not
require relativistic correction if existed.shrug


GNSS didn't work without the relativistic corrections.

General relativity was (an is) used to predict necessary satellite
clock offsets and many other relativistic correction required to
synchronize satellite, ground and user clocks.

The proper treatment of relativistic effect on satellite clock is
discussed in this work by Neil Ashby, "Relativity in the Global
Positioning System"


http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...age=node5.html

Poutnik wrote in news:MPG.28bade5a300f272b989803
@news.eternal-september.org:

In article 71154e1f-8741-4295-a871-f7dd7616a521
@a8g2000pro.googlegroups.com, says...

Nonsense. Initially, self-styled physicists had laid out a system
that suggested relativistic correction if existed, but engineers had
outsmarted these idiots and came up with a system that does not
require relativistic correction if existed. shrug

Do not screw the history, it is quite the opposite.
The correction was not done initially,

Yes/no.


http://www.leapsecond.com/history/

Read the last 3 links regarding NTS-2.

but later these smart engineers realized there is need to introduce
it.
It does not matter in what part on system it is done.

Yeah, it does. Unless you think its' practical to put an atomic clock in
every handheld device. That isn't even practical in 2011 much less in
the 1980's when the system was being designed and implemented.


In a more thorough analysis, any relativistic correction is basically
resetting a counter. It is merely a software solution and Mr. Wilson
had pointed out. You can fly with cheap oscillations driving your
chronological time if you can devise clever ways to synchronize all
the satellite chronological time. System similar to IEEE1588 or NTP
should easily suffice, and it is still a software solution. shrug

We do not need any analysis to tell you
time correction is just simple HW or SW based operation.

He's stupid. I don't mean ignorant, I don't mean 'aww he is trying so
hard', I mean he's as stupid as a rock and equally stubborn with the
disposition of a mule.

You'd be better off just telling him to **** off, and killfile.


One thing is how
other thing is why
and yet other thing is how much.

BTW NTP is far way innacurate to serve GPS needs.

He's a ****ing idiot to even suggest that. Network latency is literally
impossible to account for except on dedicated lines after much study.
This has been thought of plenty of times, and doesn't ****ing work. NOT
EVEN IN PRINCIPLE.

Maintaining synchronization on a LAN is only possible down to the
microsecond level without serious, serious work.

Dip**** supreme up there clearly doesn't realize that there are two main
contributors to the stratum-1 time keepers of NTP: dedicated atomic
clocks, and GPS.



Position correction is a statistical issue. Relativistic error is a
few hundred parts per trillion. Just how would that affect the
positions of each satellite when each is moving at much lower speed
than the speed of light? shrug

If you have troubles in counting
how far the satellite moves during 38 * n microseconds,
where n is number of days since last relativistic correction,
we can help you.



No, we can't as he is the stupidest man on Earth.

On Aug 21, 2:58*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Aug 20, 7:37 am, Jerry wrote:

Unless the satellites' clocks are synchronized with ground clocks
via the GR correction, there is simply no feasible way for them
to distribute time around the globe.

This is an absolute myth. *Well, He has had enough with these
bull****s from someone who does not even understand Snell’s law.

You've avoided answering me on the proper thread. If that's how
you insist on behaving, I will copy over my thought experiment
from the Sobral 1919 thread.

Your claim is that a pure gradient refractive index lens, with
no distinct surface, will not focus light, but instead will
merely displace an incident beam without changing its direction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a thought experiment for you.

Walk out on a moonless night into the clear dark country skies of
Oklahoma. The land is flat for miles around.

Jupiter has just risen above the horizon! I train my telescope
on the planet, but the atmospheric turbulence near the ground is
too great for me to make out anything. Patience. I have to wait
an hour before Jupiter is high enough above the horizon to make
it worthwhile to use a telescope.

Indeed, geometrically, Jupiter is half a degree BELOW THE HORIZON!
Atmospheric refraction allows me to see it two minutes before it
has actually risen above the horizon in the geometric sense.

Quick! Turn around 180 degrees from Jupiter! What star do you see
on the horizon, just about ready to set? Not star. STARS! The
Pleiades! I'd recognize that cluster anywhere!

Geometrically, however, the Pleiades already set a couple of
minutes ago. In a geometric sense, the Pleiades are actually half
a degree below the horizon.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

In the above thought experiment, trace a line leading from Jupiter,
to you, and on to the Pleiades. That line is bent a total of about
a degree.

Earth's atmosphere does not merely displace light. It BENDS light
rays skimming its surface by up to a degree.

Earth's atmosphere represents a pure gradient refractive index
lens.

Jerry

On Aug 21, 3:21*am, Poutnik wrote:
In article 71154e1f-8741-4295-a871-f7dd7616a521
@a8g2000pro.googlegroups.com, says...



Nonsense. *Initially, self-styled physicists had laid out a system
that suggested relativistic correction if existed, but engineers had
outsmarted these idiots and came up with a system that does not
require relativistic correction if existed. *shrug

Do not screw the history, it is quite the opposite.
The correction was not done initially,
but later these smart engineers realized there is need to introduce it.
It does not matter in what part on system it is done.



Not quite. Scientists (of course) knew the correction would be
needed,
but some engineers doubted it, so the first satellite had the ability
to *toggle* the (major) correction on and off. It was initially
operated
for 20 days without it, the predicted shift was observed, and then it
was turned on and left on:
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html

Ashby makes a rather unfortunate statement in the paper. Because
the clocks are now synchronized with ground clocks fairly frequently,
he says the GPS system "can no longer be used to test general
relativity". This is often misinterpreted to mean that the
relativistic
corrections are not important. They are. The statement simply means
that because the system if frequently synchronized, it cannot improve
on the
tests which were initially done.

-jc



In a more thorough analysis, any relativistic correction is basically
resetting a counter. *It is merely a software solution and Mr. Wilson
had pointed out. *You can fly with cheap oscillations driving your
chronological time if you can devise clever ways to synchronize all
the satellite chronological time. *System similar to IEEE1588 or NTP
should easily suffice, and it is still a software solution. *shrug

We do not need any analysis to tell you
time correction is just simple HW or SW based operation.

One thing is how
other thing is why
and yet other thing is how much.

BTW NTP is far way innacurate to serve GPS needs.



Position correction is a statistical issue. *Relativistic error is a
few hundred parts per trillion. *Just how would that affect the
positions of each satellite when each is moving at much lower speed
than the speed of light? *shrug

If you have troubles in counting
how far the satellite moves during 38 * n microseconds,
where n is number of days since last relativistic correction,
we can help you.

--
Poutnik

People, who do not know the manners,
are ignored without notice.

On Aug 21, 9:20 am, jcon wrote:
On Aug 21, 3:21 am, Poutnik wrote:

The correction was not done initially,
but later these smart engineers realized there is need to introduce it.
It does not matter in what part on system it is done.

Not quite. Scientists (of course) knew the correction would be
needed,

The correction might be needed if acquiring GPS almanac information
from only 3 satellites. shrug

but some engineers doubted it, so the first satellite had the ability
to *toggle* the (major) correction on and off.

Because the engineers saw that by acquiring data from at least 4
independent satellites, there is no need to correct anything even if
the anomaly existed. shrug

It was initially
operated
for 20 days without it, the predicted shift was observed, and then it
was turned on and left on:

That was testing GR predictions. It had nothing to do with the GPS
other than tested under a proto-GPS satellite. shrug

What GR predicts is also predicted by other hypotheses. One example
is to allow the speed of light to vary according to the following to
the first order.

C(r) = c0 (1 – G M / c^2 / r)

At higher altitude, the speed of light is higher. Thus, any
mechanisms that scores time goes faster by almost exactly what GR
predicts. shrug

However, the killer is the SR part --- namely this 7usec stuff. This
amount should apply equally to both the satellites and the receiver.
In actual applications, the necessary correction is only done one
way. Thus, GPS definitively proves GR wrong. shrug

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

Ashby makes a rather unfortunate statement in the paper.
he says the GPS system "can no longer be used to test general
relativity".

Given him the benefit of the doubt, he actually understood that GPS
does not prove the validity of GR since he said it in the first
paragraph that by acquiring almanac data from 4 satellites, the
critical time information as measure in satellite time can be solved
every time. shrug

Because
the clocks are now synchronized with ground clocks fairly frequently,

Synchronization is basically done by resetting a time-keeping
counter. It is done so for obvious reasons in which Professor Ashby
has mentioned later in the article. shrug

This is often misinterpreted to mean that the
relativistic corrections are not important.

Are you kidding? Einstein Dngleberries still believe in the myth that
relativistic effect is needed in GPS. Have you not read the posts
from these Einstein Dingleberries? shrug

They are.

No, they are not. Professor Ashby disagrees with you. shrug

The statement simply means
that because the system if frequently synchronized, it cannot improve
on the tests which were initially done.

The relativistic effect only accounts for 450 parts per trillion of
error. There are other parameters that account far more than that.
Since synchronization of time, regardless how oscillation frequency
varies, is done through software algorithm such as IEEE1588 as an
example, there is really no need to make sure each oscillator achieves
a 450 parts-in-a-trillion of accuracy. Do you know how expensive to
achieve and test for that are? shrug

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_Time_Protocol

On Aug 21, 9:15 am, Jerry wrote:
On Aug 21, 2:58 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

This is an absolute myth. Well, He has had enough with these
bull****s from someone who does not even understand Snell’s law.

You've avoided answering me on the proper thread. If that's how
you insist on behaving, I will copy over my thought experiment
from the Sobral 1919 thread.

Your claim is that a pure gradient refractive index lens, with
no distinct surface, will not focus light, but instead will
merely displace an incident beam without changing its direction.

Yes. You are ****ing stupid if not to be able to see just that.
shrug

The following illustration for high school physics provided by your
buddy, PD, should easily answer this. If you still don’t get it. It
is solely your problem. shrug

http://www.gcsescience.com/pwav23.htm

[rest of irrelevant cyber diarrhea disinfected]

On Aug 21, 11:43*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Aug 21, 9:15 am, Jerry wrote:

On Aug 21, 2:58 am, Koobee Wublee wrote:
This is an absolute myth. *Well, He has had enough with these
bull****s from someone who does not even understand Snell’s law.

You've avoided answering me on the proper thread. If that's how
you insist on behaving, I will copy over my thought experiment
from the Sobral 1919 thread.

Your claim is that a pure gradient refractive index lens, with
no distinct surface, will not focus light, but instead will
merely displace an incident beam without changing its direction.

Yes. *You are ****ing stupid if not to be able to see just that.
shrug

ADDRESS THAT WHICH YOU HAVE SNIPPED.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a thought experiment for you.

Walk out on a moonless night into the clear dark country skies of
Oklahoma. The land is flat for miles around.

Jupiter has just risen above the horizon! I train my telescope
on the planet, but the atmospheric turbulence near the ground is
too great for me to make out anything. Patience. I have to wait
an hour before Jupiter is high enough above the horizon to make
it worthwhile to use a telescope.

Indeed, geometrically, Jupiter is half a degree BELOW THE HORIZON!
Atmospheric refraction allows me to see it two minutes before it
has actually risen above the horizon in the geometric sense.

Quick! Turn around 180 degrees from Jupiter! What star do you see
on the horizon, just about ready to set? Not star. STARS! The
Pleiades! I'd recognize that cluster anywhere!

Geometrically, however, the Pleiades already set a couple of
minutes ago. In a geometric sense, the Pleiades are actually half
a degree below the horizon.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

In the above thought experiment, trace a line leading from Jupiter,
to you, and on to the Pleiades. That line is bent a total of about
a degree.

Earth's atmosphere does not merely displace light. It BENDS light
rays skimming its surface by up to a degree.

Earth's atmosphere represents a pure gradient refractive index
lens.

The following illustration for high school physics provided by your
buddy, PD, should easily answer this. *If you still don’t get it. *It
is solely your problem. *shrug

http://www.gcsescience.com/pwav23.htm

[rest of irrelevant cyber diarrhea disinfected]

Jerry