NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS

On Apr 27, 7:59 am, Jerry wrote:

Why are we debating on the basis of secondary sources? Here are
quotes from the officially released Interface Control Documents
for the GPS, Galileo, and GLONASS systems:

GPS Interface Control Document (ICD 200c)
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/...D200Cw1234.pdf
3.3.3.1 "The SV carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they
would appear to an observer located in the SV -- are offset to
compensate for relativistic effects. The clock rates are offset
by delta f/f = -4.4647E-10..."

European GNSS (Galileo) Open Service
Signal In Space Interface Control Document
http://tinyurl.com/yblsztb
5.1.4 "This satellite time correction is modelled through the
following second order polynomial...where...delta t_r is a
relativistic correction term...-4.442807309 x 10^-10..."

Global Navigation Satellite System
GLONASS
http://rniikp.ru/en/pages/about/publ...LONASS_eng.pdf
3.3.1.1 "To compensate relativistic effects, the nominal value of
frequency, as observed at satellite, is biased from 5.0 MHz by
relative value f/f = -4.36 10^-10..."

These are not specifications but design guidelines or application
notes. Whether you follow these guidelines or not, you will not go
wrong with the GPS design since the satellite time and the ground time
can be out of sync if GR effect is true. That is you can set the
satellite clocks to be so much faster or slower than the ground
clocks. It does not matter. shrug

On Apr 27, 10:17 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

Claiming GR playing a role in the GPS development is not truthful.
shrug

So you believe the designers and implementors of the GPS system didn't
include Relativistic effects in their calculations, and they are all lying?

Yours truly really does not know if the recommended correction
suggested by these stupid self-styled physicists is indeed implemented
or not. However, it does not matter how the clocks are offset. As
long as all the satellites have the same clock offset, the system will
work. Get over with it. shrug

On Apr 27, 9:50 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
"NoEinstein" wrote:

Einstein's GR theory was the result of his decade
long odyssey to write an empirical equation defining the orbit of the
planet Mercury about the Sun.

No. That was not Einstein's motivation for GR.

Webb is wrong again. What prompted Hilbert to indulge that so-called
Lagrangian to the ever elusive Einstein-Hilbert action was Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar’s passion on deriving
Mercury’s orbital anomaly. shrug

That formula has the forces agreeing
with Newton, but including a force variant corresponding to the
Lorentz transformation.

You do not know what you are talking about. The field equations have
nothing to do with SR. shrug

The latter correctly "predicts" the
precession of the orbit over time.

There are many ways to mathematically crunch through the equations.
The one pioneered by Gerber was the choice to do so. shrug

I am pleased they did not call you in to help design the GPS system. Using
Einstein's equations it demonstrably works; using yours it would not.

What specific Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar’s
equations are you referring to? shrug

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
...
On Apr 27, 10:17 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

Claiming GR playing a role in the GPS development is not truthful.
shrug

So you believe the designers and implementors of the GPS system didn't
include Relativistic effects in their calculations, and they are all
lying?

Yours truly really does not know if the recommended correction
suggested by these stupid self-styled physicists is indeed implemented
or not.

Well, that is pretty important.

It is the difference between a massive conspiracy of physicists (if they all
lied) and Relativity is used in GPS (as they all claim, and you dispute).

So which is it?

However, it does not matter how the clocks are offset. As
long as all the satellites have the same clock offset, the system will
work. Get over with it. shrug

Obviously it does. Many pages have been provided to you which show the error
if relativity is not included in the calculations. If the GPS system did not
include the terms deriving from Relativity, it would be far less accurate.

So what, exactly, is your position? Are Relativistic effects used in GPS
calculations or not? If they are not, why and how is there this huge
conspiracy to lie about how GPS works?

On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:34:37 +1000, "Peter Webb"
wrote:


"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message
...
On Apr 27, 10:17 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

Claiming GR playing a role in the GPS development is not truthful.
shrug

So you believe the designers and implementors of the GPS system didn't
include Relativistic effects in their calculations, and they are all
lying?

Yours truly really does not know if the recommended correction
suggested by these stupid self-styled physicists is indeed implemented
or not.

Well, that is pretty important.

It is the difference between a massive conspiracy of physicists (if they all
lied) and Relativity is used in GPS (as they all claim, and you dispute).

So which is it?

However, it does not matter how the clocks are offset. As
long as all the satellites have the same clock offset, the system will
work. Get over with it. shrug

Obviously it does. Many pages have been provided to you which show the error
if relativity is not included in the calculations. If the GPS system did not
include the terms deriving from Relativity, it would be far less accurate.

So what, exactly, is your position? Are Relativistic effects used in GPS
calculations or not? If they are not, why and how is there this huge
conspiracy to lie about how GPS works?

Your last 2 paragraphs:
The ever revolving repeating discussion
"If the GPS system did not "....

It does not have to.
Apply empirical corrections and that's it.
You don't have to calculate anything.

The satellite clock manufacturers allow for remote controlled
clock rate adjustments. Interestingly there is a broader range
to slowdown the clocks than to accelerate them above mean.
Read their spec sheets.

Also it is hogwash to say, as some do, the clocks are beeing adjusted
at ground to a lower rate before starting the satellite carrier
rockets.
We live in the remote-control aera.
Send a few data bytes up there.

w.

.... ahahahahaha.... AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHA.....

"Oye weh"... "Trust me"...
he said & he feverishly googles but had now idea
what he was looking for, or why, and so he wrote:
"There are several reasons that relativity is very
important in GPS:...
all hand waving only, snipped, to save kym embarrassment

hanson wrote:
.... It is hilarious how one Einstein Dingleberry after
the other starts to clanker & tremble now, as they
feel threatened in their worship so close to Albert's
sphincter... and come to defend their REL-igion,...
like Islamist extremists do defend their Koran, ...

... since these Einstein Dingleberries cannot see that
it is abundantly clear that only some few papers,
written by kikes, make a big deal about the vanishing to
non-existent role that SR/GR is supposed to play in GPS...
.... like in Ashby's crap, which takes 39 questionable steps
to get to the 38 usec,
..... when & while any high school student or engineer, can
glean, for this particular situation, in 1 fell swoop, in ONE
SINGLE STEP, in good, old Newtonian ways, & show that

||||| ---- m_e/h * 2G/c^2 *86400 = 38 microsec/day ----
||||| ---- m_e/h * 2G/c *86400 = 11.2... drift /day ----
|||||
where m_e = mass of earth and h = the satellite's height
above the earth surface. Corrections are done by standard
industrial ways by classical methods devoid of any SR/GR.
http://tinyurl.com/622an2 or http://tinyurl.com/57asbg or
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm

|||||||| ---- GPS NEVER NEEDED neither SR nor GR ---- |||||||||
||||| not for its design, manufacturing, testing nor operations. |||||
||||| ------------ GPS was in operation LONG before ----------- |||||
||||| Einstein Dingleberries came along to nuzzle into the |||||
||||| show, hoping to get some credit away from Newton. |||||
||||| Albert's SR/GR is the Kosher Tax levied onto academia |||||

and apparently the incessant indoctrination of the goyim by
http://tinyurl.com/Zio-Politics-with-Relativity and / or
http://tinyurl.com/Alberts-Zio-Politics-w-SR-GR
has taken its toll on those E-Dingleberries, as seen in here
in their http://tinyurl.com/Zionist-educated-Relativists

Thanks for the laughs, you poor sod, ahahaha... ahahanson

.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHA...

Idiot Dingleberry "Jerry" WaterCephalus @comcast.net
came back, made his situation worse and wrote:

"hanson" wrote:
||||| ---- m_e/h * 2G/c^2 *86400 = 38 microsec/day ----
||||| ---- m_e/h * 2G/c *86400 = 11.2... drift /day ----
|||||
where m_e = mass of earth and h = the satellite's height
above the earth surface.

pendejo Dingleberry-"Jerry" wrote:
Your formula is nonsense.
Let h = 0.

hanson wrote:
.... ahahahaha.. Only in the mind of an Einstein
Dingleberry, like "Jerry", do the GPS Satellites
roll over the meadows and the desert sands
on the Earth's ground surface at h= 0.
Now pendejo-Jerry go again upfront center and
present your http://tinyurl.com/Proof-of-Relativity

Then read the post below again & memorize the
line which says "for this particular situation" and
then snap out of it and then do not destroy the GPS
characteristics just to save relativity with your idiotic
mindset ... See what a pendejo SR/GR has made
out of you.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHA...

------ Here it is again for your benefit ----------

Dingleberry-"Jerry"
another fanatical pendejo, who wrote crap since he can't
see that it is abundantly clear that only some few papers,
written by kikes, make a big deal about the vanishing to
non-existent role that SR/GR is supposed to play in GPS...
.... like in Ashby's crap, which takes 39 questionable steps
to get to the 38 usec,
..... when & while any high school student or engineer, can
glean, for this particular situation, in 1 fell swoop, in ONE
SINGLE STEP, in good, old Newtonian ways, & show that

||||| ---- m_e/h * 2G/c^2 *86400 = 38 microsec/day ----
||||| ---- m_e/h * 2G/c *86400 = 11.2... drift /day ----
|||||
where m_e = mass of earth and h = the satellite's height
above the earth surface. Corrections are done by standard
industrial ways by classical methods devoid of any SR/GR.
http://tinyurl.com/622an2 or http://tinyurl.com/57asbg or
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm

|||||||| ---- GPS NEVER NEEDED neither SR nor GR ---- |||||||||
||||| not for its design, manufacturing, testing nor operations. |||||
||||| ------------ GPS was in operation LONG before ----------- |||||
||||| Einstein Dingleberries came along to nuzzle into the |||||
||||| show, hoping to get some credit away from Newton. |||||
||||| Albert's SR/GR is the Kosher Tax levied onto academia |||||

and apparently the incessant indoctrination of the goyim by
http://tinyurl.com/Zio-Politics-with-Relativity and / or
http://tinyurl.com/Alberts-Zio-Politics-w-SR-GR
has taken its toll on you, Jerry Dingleberry, as seen in here
in you the http://tinyurl.com/Zionist-educated-Relativists

Ding! Ding!... Snap out of it, Jerry.. Thanks for the laughs..
ahaha... ahahahaha.. ahahahanson

Not a relativistic but an absolute Idiot-Jerry wrote:

What is the relativistic correction for a ship's chronometer
running at sea level? When I insert h=0 into your formula,
I get nonsense.

hanson wrote:
AHAHAHAHA...No, no, it's not nonsense you get.
You get to be, in the full sense of the word, a
very wet Marine Einstein Dingleberry now. Maybe
you are a Jewish Latter Day Flying Dutchman...

Tell me your findings after you have destroyed
the Satellite system by have brought the GPS
Satellite down onto your ship... in order to fulfil
your wish to make h=0.... AHAHAHAHA...

Are you just joking or really the grand emissary
of Einstein Dingleberries who is dangling too
close to Albert's Sphincter, for his own comfort
and unable to know what you are doing in your
REL-igious fanaticism?

In one of the above links or in a post conversing
the very same issue, you'll find a note where a
GPS equipment SALESMAN was needed to explain
to an another idiot like yourself what's going here...
Are you a Peddler's apprentice... but not up to par?
Furthermore take note that Henry Wilson just told
you: === "Jerry, You are wrong, as usual. ===
:
Listen Pendejo-Jerry. I'm not here to educate
Einstein Dingleberries like yourself. I am here
to have fun on their account.. and maybe make
them aware, that they are damaged goods due
to their life long Zio brains washing they have
falling victim to, a fact they never noticed, . Pity,
but ever so funny... ahahahaha.. ahahahanson

On Apr 27, 10:34 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" wrote:

Yours truly really does not know if the recommended correction
suggested by these stupid self-styled physicists is indeed implemented
or not.

Well, that is pretty important.

No, it is not. shrug

It is the difference between a massive conspiracy of physicists (if they all
lied) and Relativity is used in GPS (as they all claim, and you dispute).

No conspiracy. Yours truly is too young to be involved with the GPS
development. However, if He were a program manager then, He will
certainly implement the nonsense suggested by the self-styled
physicists. shrug

The reasoning is that to test for such an accuracy in the clocking
system of synchronizing between the satellites and the ground, it
represents more opportunities to collect more money from the customer,
namely the government. He will do anything to jack up the cost. He
would play dumb to do so. shrug

So which is it?

If the self-styled physicists as consultants supervising over the
development of the program were to be a little bit smarter, they would
not impose such a nonessential recommendation, and that would save the
customer money. shrug

However, it does not matter how the clocks are offset. As
long as all the satellites have the same clock offset, the system will
work. Get over with it. shrug

Obviously it does. Many pages have been provided to you which show the error
if relativity is not included in the calculations. If the GPS system did not
include the terms deriving from Relativity, it would be far less accurate.

This is just not true. You will never learn, and as Tom said, it is
your ****ing problem only. shrug

So what, exactly, is your position? Are Relativistic effects used in GPS
calculations or not? If they are not, why and how is there this huge
conspiracy to lie about how GPS works?

The moral of the story is that never to use self-styled physicists as
consults for anything. shrug

GPS proves nothing valid about GR. shrug

On Apr 27, 10:50 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" wrote:

Webb is wrong again. What prompted Hilbert to indulge that so-called
Lagrangian to the ever elusive Einstein-Hilbert action was Einstein
the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar s passion on deriving
Mercury s orbital anomaly. shrug

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...ral_relativity

The precession
of Mercury was not the motivator. Unless you have a reference which backs up
your statement?

“Saint Einstein” gave a historic account of the exchanges between
Hilbert and Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar.
shrug

You do not know what you are talking about. The field equations have
nothing to do with SR. shrug

I didn't write that and don't know what you are going on about.

Well, your posting is rather messy. It is hard to tell who utter what
nonsense. shrug

There are many ways to mathematically crunch through the equations.
The one pioneered by Gerber was the choice to do so. shrug

Does it produce the same answer as GR?

The question is that “does it produce the same result as
observation”. shrug

Yes, Gerber had to modify the Newtonian gravitational potential to do
so. shrug

Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar also modified the
Newtonian gravitational potential prior to Hilbert’s desperate “hail-
Mary pass”. shrug

What specific Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar s
equations are you referring to? shrug

SR and GR. The ones used in GPS calculations.

You have not answered the question. What specific Einstein the
nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar’s equations are you referring
to? shrug

You still haven't told us what is the correct outcome of the Twin's
experiment. Why won't you do this? Are you scared that if your actual
beliefs are discussed, they will be shown to be rubbish?

Who cares about one’s belief? After all, this is a discussion based
on scientific methodology and not comparing hard-ons with faith. You
just have to get over with that. shrug

On 4/28/11 12:23 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
Yours truly really does not know if the recommended correction
suggested by these stupid self-styled physicists is indeed implemented
or not. However, it does not matter how the clocks are offset. As
long as all the satellites have the same clock offset, the system will
work. Get over with it.shrug

Oooooh, major malunderstanding there, Koobee! You haven't the
foggiest notion of how relativistic corrections are implemented
in the Global Positioning System (GPS). Some corrections and be
combined resulting in an offset on board the satellites clocks,
others in the GPS receivers, and so on. You might want to do a
bit of self-education with this resource by Neil Ashby.

Relativity in the Global Positioning System

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

Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks

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


"For atomic clocks in satellites, it is most convenient to consider the
motions as they would be observed in the local ECI frame. Then the
Sagnac effect becomes irrelevant. (The Sagnac effect on moving
ground-based receivers must still be considered.) Gravitational
frequency shifts and second-order Doppler shifts must be taken into
account together. In this section I shall discuss in detail these two
relativistic effects, using the expression for the elapsed coordinate
time, Eq. (28)".