NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS

I prefer tetra-asteron, and tetraasteronization;
it is just Greek for the dual to tetrahedronometry.

On May 1, 3:58*pm, PD wrote:
On May 1, 8:15*am, NoEinstein wrote:

On Apr 28, 5:40*pm, PD wrote:

PD, the Dunce, is undeserving of a reply. *— NE —

I don't mind you making idiotic statements and baldfaced lies and
having nothing to reply with when you're caught in them.


Then ignore him.

On May 1, 6:39*pm, Jerry wrote:
On May 1, 6:35*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:

On Sun, 1 May 2011 01:16:41 -0700 (PDT), Jerry
wrote:
On Apr 30, 10:44*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
You obviously know even less about triangulation than PA.
The correct technical term is "trilateralization" and the term is
used even though four satellites are necessary rather than three.

I like Quadrangulation?

As a neologism, "quadrangulation" makes no sense. Let us compare
with the established term "triangulation." Triangulation means
position determination by means of measuring the ANGLES to
various reference markers. For instance, if you are in a boat and
are equipped with a binocular telescope with well-separated
objectives, you can, by measurement of parallax ANGLES, determine
the range to two separate onshore markers (such as a lighthouse
and a flagpole) and from these two ranges one can determine one's
position. Each range determination requires the solution of a
TRIANGLE problem. Alternatively, if one has only a single
monocular telescope, one would need to measure the relative
ANGLES to three different onshore markers to determine one's
position. Each pair of onshore markers plus your monocular
telescope sets up a partially resolved TRIANGLE that limits your
position to a particular circular arc.

The same word "triangulation" is employed whether one uses TWO
onshore markers and a binocular telescope, or THREE onshore
markers and a monocular telescope, because the process involves
finding a unique solution to a multiple triangle problem through
the measurement of ANGLES.

To use "triangulation" to determine one's position by GPS
satellite measurements would literally mean that one is
attempting to measure the ANGULAR POSITION of each GPS satellite
in the sky, i.e. its altitude and azimuth respective to an
arbitrary line, for example the midline of your boat. At the
frequencies at which GPS operates, one can achieve reasonable
angular position accuracy only through the use of a fairly large
parabolic dish antenna, several wavelengths across. I would
suggest at least a 60 meter dish...

Your neologism "quadrangulation" is even worse, since it implies
attempting to determine one's position by solving QUADRANGLES.

In reality, position determination is by "trilateralization"
which clearly indicates that one is doing position determination
by performing distance (or rather, RELATIVE distance)
measurements. Relative distance measurements by analysis of
timing signals from two GPS satellites allows determining that
one is located on a hyperboloidal surface. Three GPS satellites
allow determination of one's position to the intersection of
two hyperboloids (the third hyperboloid being redundant). Three
are sufficient if one's altitude is known, for instance if one
is on the ocean at sea level. Four are required for a complete
and (almost) unambiguous position determination to one of two
possible points, the second point being (usually) far off in
outer space, although one hears anecdotes about GPS units at the
South Pole falsely reporting a position at the North Pole... I
do not know the veracity of this anecdote.

..and clearly, like PA, you seem to believe that every receiver has cesium
clock.

You continue to demonstrate your idiocy and senility.


So if you can't understand sophisticated technical stuff, you're an
"idiot"?
And also, if he's senile, he can't help that. Isn't that mostly
inevitable
for everyone?

On May 2, 2:13*am, mike3 wrote:
On May 1, 6:39*pm, Jerry wrote:



On May 1, 6:35*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:

On Sun, 1 May 2011 01:16:41 -0700 (PDT), Jerry
wrote:
On Apr 30, 10:44*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
You obviously know even less about triangulation than PA.
The correct technical term is "trilateralization" and the term is
used even though four satellites are necessary rather than three.

I like Quadrangulation?

As a neologism, "quadrangulation" makes no sense. Let us compare
with the established term "triangulation." Triangulation means
position determination by means of measuring the ANGLES to
various reference markers. For instance, if you are in a boat and
are equipped with a binocular telescope with well-separated
objectives, you can, by measurement of parallax ANGLES, determine
the range to two separate onshore markers (such as a lighthouse
and a flagpole) and from these two ranges one can determine one's
position. Each range determination requires the solution of a
TRIANGLE problem. Alternatively, if one has only a single
monocular telescope, one would need to measure the relative
ANGLES to three different onshore markers to determine one's
position. Each pair of onshore markers plus your monocular
telescope sets up a partially resolved TRIANGLE that limits your
position to a particular circular arc.

The same word "triangulation" is employed whether one uses TWO
onshore markers and a binocular telescope, or THREE onshore
markers and a monocular telescope, because the process involves
finding a unique solution to a multiple triangle problem through
the measurement of ANGLES.

To use "triangulation" to determine one's position by GPS
satellite measurements would literally mean that one is
attempting to measure the ANGULAR POSITION of each GPS satellite
in the sky, i.e. its altitude and azimuth respective to an
arbitrary line, for example the midline of your boat. At the
frequencies at which GPS operates, one can achieve reasonable
angular position accuracy only through the use of a fairly large
parabolic dish antenna, several wavelengths across. I would
suggest at least a 60 meter dish...

Your neologism "quadrangulation" is even worse, since it implies
attempting to determine one's position by solving QUADRANGLES.

In reality, position determination is by "trilateralization"
which clearly indicates that one is doing position determination
by performing distance (or rather, RELATIVE distance)
measurements. Relative distance measurements by analysis of
timing signals from two GPS satellites allows determining that
one is located on a hyperboloidal surface. Three GPS satellites
allow determination of one's position to the intersection of
two hyperboloids (the third hyperboloid being redundant). Three
are sufficient if one's altitude is known, for instance if one
is on the ocean at sea level. Four are required for a complete
and (almost) unambiguous position determination to one of two
possible points, the second point being (usually) far off in
outer space, although one hears anecdotes about GPS units at the
South Pole falsely reporting a position at the North Pole... I
do not know the veracity of this anecdote.

..and clearly, like PA, you seem to believe that every receiver has cesium
clock.

You continue to demonstrate your idiocy and senility.

So if you can't understand sophisticated technical stuff, you're an
"idiot"?
And also, if he's senile, he can't help that. Isn't that mostly
inevitable
for everyone?

Henry deems himself the greatest physicist in the world, and has
been expounding his crackpot theories for more than a decade,
arguing with anybody who might disagree with him. The points that
I raise have been repeatedly explained to him by others both more
patient and less patient than myself, and Henry responds to these
corrections by accusing these others of far more worse traits
than mere idiocy.

The science newsgroups are infested with multiple such characters.
Unfortunately, they are often also visited by sincere newbies who
are seeking answers to technical questions. Even if a given
newbie, being a newbie, is unable to distinguish which of us two
is the crackpot, he/she can at least learn to distrust these
newsgroups as any sort of source of reliable information. In a
manner of speaking, it's the old "shoot us both, Spock" tactic
from -Whom the Gods Destroy-.

Jerry

In sci.astro message ,
Mon, 2 May 2011 01:56:38, Peter Webb .
au posted:

An increase in rainfall that delivers more than 100 millilitres of
rainfall is far more likely if the overall climate (at that location)
is getting wetter.


I knew Australia to be dry in parts, but I did not think things were
that bad.

--
(c) John Stockton, near London.
Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, and links.
Correct = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line precisely "-- " (RFC5536/7)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (RFC5536/7)

akin to that hyperbolic thing they used to use
on ships, to two beacons on shore?

On May 2, 2:46*pm, Helmut Wabnig [email protected] --- -.dotat wrote:
On Mon, 2 May 2011 12:21:07 -0700 (PDT), Jerry
wrote:
On Apr 30, 10:44 pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:

You obviously know even less about triangulation than PA.
Actually, the use of quadrangulation reduces the need to incorporate
satellite height....which can be a bit of a problem otherwise.

No answer to my challenge question???
HERE IS A REPEAT WITH ADDITIONAL HINTS

-------------- Start of Original Challenge Question -------------
China's original navigation system (NOT the current version, which
has been renamed "Compass" to distinguish it from the original)
was workable using as few as TWO satellites to establish position.

Try and guess how THAT was accomplished!!!

I'll give you a hint. The Wikipedia description leaves out an
EXTREMELY important step...
---------------- End of Original Challenge Question -------------

ADDITIONAL HINTS:

China's original home-grown satellite navigation system is called
"Beidou" after a Chinese constellation roughly equivalent to the
Big Dipper, which had deep significance in Taoism and was an
important navigational marker.

Wikipedia has an article on the Beidou Navigation System:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beidou_navigation_system

I repeat my warning: the Position Calculation scheme presented
in Wikipedia was written by somebody who didn't really understand
the technology. It is missing an EXTREMELY important step:
http://www.cnsa.gov.cn/n615708/n6201...578/62676.html

That page is full of little trees and houses .

Can you figure out how the original Beidou-1 became a working
system with only two functioning satellites?

No, not from that page.

My little joke, since that news release was obviously written by
some sort of public relations guy who got the details all wrong,
and the Wiki author just copied what he saw in the news release
without really understanding. :-)

Jerry

On Sun, 1 May 2011 17:39:07 -0700 (PDT), Jerry
wrote:

On May 1, 6:35*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:
On Sun, 1 May 2011 01:16:41 -0700 (PDT), Jerry
wrote:
On Apr 30, 10:44*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:

You obviously know even less about triangulation than PA.

The correct technical term is "trilateralization" and the term is
used even though four satellites are necessary rather than three.

I like Quadrangulation?

As a neologism, "quadrangulation" makes no sense. Let us compare
with the established term "triangulation." Triangulation means
position determination by means of measuring the ANGLES to
various reference markers.

Hahahahhahhahahha!
That's only one form...not applicable to GPS at all.

For GPS, the distances to three or four satellite clocks are determined.
Knowing their coordinates at any time, the system constructs a pyramid using
their current locations as a base.
That is why their orbits have to be known very accurately. Since they move
at around 3770 m/s, the system's ground clocks have to synched to better
than about one microsecond to get set the orbits accurately.
The biggest unknown is the travel time of the signals to the receiver since
it is the receiver's position that is to be determined. That time varies
considerably around 80 miliseconds. Again, the receiving clock has to be
synched to GPS time to within about 1 us for an accurate pyramid to be
constructed from the ratio of distances to the four satellites.

Of course the system assumes constant light speed when as I have pointed
out, the signals accelerate as they fall by a small but significant amount.

For instance, if you are in a boat and
are equipped with a binocular telescope with well-separated
objectives, you can, by measurement of parallax ANGLES, determine
the range to two separate onshore markers (such as a lighthouse
and a flagpole) and from these two ranges one can determine one's
position. Each range determination requires the solution of a
TRIANGLE problem. Alternatively, if one has only a single
monocular telescope, one would need to measure the relative
ANGLES to three different onshore markers to determine one's
position. Each pair of onshore markers plus your monocular
telescope sets up a partially resolved TRIANGLE that limits your
position to a particular circular arc.

That method is used to determine the orbits of the clocks. It is not used in
the positioning perocess.

The same word "triangulation" is employed whether one uses TWO
onshore markers and a binocular telescope, or THREE onshore
markers and a monocular telescope, because the process involves
finding a unique solution to a multiple triangle problem through
the measurement of ANGLES.

One simple form of triagulation was that used to determine the positions of
guns. Knowing the speed of sound and the travel times of the sound of the
bang to two separated points, the gun's position was dertermined by drawing
two overlapping arcs. The use of three was even more accurate. Naturally,
the three receiving clocks had to be in reasonable synch.

To use "triangulation" to determine one's position by GPS
satellite measurements would literally mean that one is
attempting to measure the ANGULAR POSITION of each GPS satellite
in the sky, i.e. its altitude and azimuth respective to an
arbitrary line, for example the midline of your boat. At the
frequencies at which GPS operates, one can achieve reasonable
angular position accuracy only through the use of a fairly large
parabolic dish antenna, several wavelengths across. I would
suggest at least a 60 meter dish...

Your neologism "quadrangulation" is even worse, since it implies
attempting to determine one's position by solving QUADRANGLES.

In reality, position determination is by "trilateralization"
which clearly indicates that one is doing position determination
by performing distance (or rather, RELATIVE distance)
measurements. Relative distance measurements by analysis of
timing signals from two GPS satellites allows determining that
one is located on a hyperboloidal surface. Three GPS satellites
allow determination of one's position to the intersection of
two hyperboloids (the third hyperboloid being redundant). Three
are sufficient if one's altitude is known, for instance if one
is on the ocean at sea level. Four are required for a complete
and (almost) unambiguous position determination to one of two
possible points, the second point being (usually) far off in
outer space, although one hears anecdotes about GPS units at the
South Pole falsely reporting a position at the North Pole... I
do not know the veracity of this anecdote.

..and clearly, like PA, you seem to believe that every receiver has cesium
clock.

You continue to demonstrate your idiocy and senility.

You are full of bull****, as usual

Jerry

On May 2, 5:44*pm, ..@..(Henry Wilson DSc.) wrote:

For GPS, the distances to three or four satellite clocks are determined.
Knowing their coordinates at any time, the system constructs a pyramid using
their current locations as a base.
That is why their orbits have to be known very accurately. Since they move
at around 3770 m/s, the system's ground clocks have to synched to better
than about one microsecond to get set the orbits accurately.
The biggest unknown is the travel time of the signals to the receiver since
it is the receiver's position that is to be determined. That time varies
considerably around 80 miliseconds. Again, the receiving clock has to be
synched to GPS time to within about 1 us for an accurate pyramid to be
constructed from the ratio of distances to the four satellites.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I'll just let your description stand as is. Over a DECADE of
explanation, and you are STILL capable of writing what you just
wrote!!!!!

Jerry

On May 2, 3:31*pm, 1treePetrifiedForestLane
wrote:
akin to that hyperbolic thing they used to use
on ships, to two beacons on shore?

Your question is in response to the wrong post, but the answer
should be yes.

Jerry