the GPS myth almost mythbusted

On 8/23/11 8/23/11 - 2:19 PM, Martin Brown wrote:
[about the GPS]
It could all have been done by iterative empirically fitted engineering
corrections without any understanding of why

Not a chance. Nobody would have given them several billion dollars on the mere
hope that it could be made to work.


Tom Roberts

On Aug 23, 5:06*pm, Koobee Wublee wrote:

It is actually very easy to imagine so once you have finally
understood SR and then GR. *You could then see the silliness in these
conjectures full of self-contradictions. *shrug

Meanwhile, -YOU- have to deal with the fact that you lack mastery
even of high-school level physics.

You have claimed 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.
http://tinyurl.com/3tsg7jt

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

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 8/23/11 2:19 PM, Martin Brown wrote:
It could all have been done by iterative empirically fitted engineering
corrections without any understanding of why beyond "that it works" but
scientists would then be looking for the root cause.

Actually not! Read the Interface Control Documents
http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/

http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200E.pdf

On Aug 23, 6:06 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 8/23/11 2:19 PM, Martin Brown wrote:

It could all have been done by iterative empirically fitted engineering
corrections without any understanding of why beyond "that it works" but
scientists would then be looking for the root cause.

Actually not! Read the Interface Control Documents
http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/

http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200E.pdf

These are obsolete application note for GPS receiver design. Why do
you constantly bring them up? You don’t know and understand why GR is
needed in GPS design (not that it does). You are even clueless as
what essentially needs to be synchronized. The funny thing is that
you do not even understand how GPS works. shrug

As a mindless messenger, your messages are obsolescent. You cannot
contribute to any discussions with your mindless trolling. Sam
Wormley is a moron. shrug

On 8/24/11 12:30 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Aug 23, 6:06 pm, Sam wrote:
On 8/23/11 2:19 PM, Martin Brown wrote:

It could all have been done by iterative empirically fitted engineering
corrections without any understanding of why beyond "that it works" but
scientists would then be looking for the root cause.

Actually not! Read the Interface Control Documents
http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/

http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200E.pdf

These are obsolete application note for GPS receiver design. Why do
you constantly bring them up? You don’t know and understand why GR is
needed in GPS design (not that it does). You are even clueless as
what essentially needs to be synchronized. The funny thing is that
you do not even understand how GPS works.shrug

As a mindless messenger, your messages are obsolescent. You cannot
contribute to any discussions with your mindless trolling. Sam
Wormley is a moron.shrug

Hey Koobee, IS-GPS-200E has been superseded by what? :-)

On Aug 23, 3:16 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 8/23/11 8/23/11 - 2:19 PM, Martin Brown wrote:

[about the GPS]
It could all have been done by iterative empirically fitted engineering
corrections without any understanding of why

Not a chance. Nobody would have given them several billion dollars on the mere
hope that it could be made to work.

These remarks are absolutely ignorant. If you actually have believed
in SR, you will not build the GPS. Theoretically (more like
hypothetically), because of this relative simultaneity thing, SR
predicts a random and incoherent time delay or advance based on the
quantity sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2). With those significant SR “noises”, it
would be foolish to build any communication satellites as well as the
GPS. The lucky thing is that SR is wrong, and there is no such
incoherent timing due to relative simultaneity. Relative simultaneity
is just plain old wrong --- garbage. shrug

Stop worshipping SR if you have a brain. An interferometer falsifies
SR and relative simultaneity. The null results of the MMX must
indicate absolute simultaneity. shrug

On Aug 23, 10:34 pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 8/24/11 12:30 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:

These are obsolete application note for GPS receiver design. Why do
you constantly bring them up? You don t know and understand why GR is
needed in GPS design (not that it does). You are even clueless as
what essentially needs to be synchronized. The funny thing is that
you do not even understand how GPS works.shrug

As a mindless messenger, your messages are obsolescent. You cannot
contribute to any discussions with your mindless trolling. Sam
Wormley is a moron.shrug

Hey Koobee, IS-GPS-200E has been superseded by what? :-)

Hey, idiot. These documents are not specifications but merely
application guides. They are no longer needed PERIOD when engineers
design in data acquisitions of at least 4 GPS satellites. You are
still stuck in 3 satellite mode. How stupid? How pathetic? shrug

Sam Wormley wrote in
:

On 8/24/11 12:30 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Aug 23, 6:06 pm, Sam wrote:
On 8/23/11 2:19 PM, Martin Brown wrote:

It could all have been done by iterative empirically fitted
engineering corrections without any understanding of why beyond
"that it works" but scientists would then be looking for the root
cause.

Actually not! Read the Interface Control Documents
http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/

http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200E.pdf

These are obsolete application note for GPS receiver design. Why do
you constantly bring them up? You don’t know and understand why GR
is needed in GPS design (not that it does). You are even clueless as
what essentially needs to be synchronized. The funny thing is that
you do not even understand how GPS works.shrug

As a mindless messenger, your messages are obsolescent. You cannot
contribute to any discussions with your mindless trolling. Sam
Wormley is a moron.shrug

Hey Koobee, IS-GPS-200E has been superseded by what? :-)




His argument is that the control system design document is some value of
made up / unimportant / coincidental.

But in reality nobody knoww what the **** he is talking about.

On 23/08/2011 23:16, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 8/23/11 8/23/11 - 2:19 PM, Martin Brown wrote:
[about the GPS]
It could all have been done by iterative empirically fitted engineering
corrections without any understanding of why

Not a chance. Nobody would have given them several billion dollars on
the mere hope that it could be made to work.

They wouldn't know that it didn't work like classical Galilean dynamics
until after they had put it into orbit. Then there would be a witch hunt
to blame someone for the faulty design followed by some ad hock
engineering fixups empirically fitted to the residuals. Pretty much like
what happened to the Hubble Space Telescope myopia after launch.

The very first GPS satellite had a switch to disable relativity
corrections as demanded by the knuckle dragging electronic engineers who
as far as I can tell *still* for the most part do not understand
relativity at all. This appears to me to be a problem with electronics
engineering teaching rather than with the theory of relativity.

It is amazing that a century after Einstein's breakthrough we still have
so many people around that cannot understand why it is so elegant and
just how precisely it has been validated.

I reckon the Einstein haters should be deprived of GPS services.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On 23/08/2011 20:27, Ike Richter wrote:
On Aug 23, 9:19 pm, Martin
wrote:
On 23/08/2011 19:53, Poutnik wrote:

In articleab1ff57d-444b-40d0-83b2-70c57e1f5af1
@x14g2000prn.googlegroups.com, says...

the fact is that the satellites does not need
relativity corrections, good bye

While being corrected, they do not need correction,
it is obvious.

True enough I suppose. You could do all of the GR& SR corrections in
the GPS receivers but there are a lot more of them and additional
information would have to be broadcast down from each of the satellites.

The Russian GLONASS satellites were deliberately put into much more
circular orbits to minimise some of the GR terms. This is dissected in
various reports by NPL some are now online at Tycho USNO.

http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/1995/Vol%2027_13.pdf

It could all have been done by iterative empirically fitted engineering
corrections without any understanding of why beyond "that it works" but
scientists would then be looking for the root cause.

Regards,
Martin Brown

exactly, thanks

But the point is we *have* a self consistent theory in GR & SR that
explains all relevant observations to something like 12 or more
significant figures and is only limited by measurement error and thermal
noise in receivers.

Regards,
Martin Brown