NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS

On 4/29/11 3:11 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:
On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 22:31:00 -0500, Sam wrote:

On 4/28/11 7:39 PM, Henry Wilson DSc. wrote:


That's quite Ok, Haemie.
Incidentally, did you notice all those climate change induced tornadoes?


Now now, Henry, you should learn the difference between weather
and climate.

I might have know. Wormy is also a skeptic....

Everybody should be a skeptic, and become familiar with the data
and references supporting and contradicting theories. Ralph, you need
not worry--there has never been an observation that contradicts a
prediction of relativity. It remains a viable fruitful tool of
physics and engineering.

Some lay-level background
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity

Tests of general relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_o...ral_relativity

so, who are the self-avowed Skeptics,
who have discovered something of importance?

all you had to say, was that
the Twins meet & compare their clocks,
relative sagacity etc.; I mean,
that is so simple, when you are in the same "frame
of reference" or room that is moving
in whatever galilean-cum-einsteinian way (because,
it's always some of both, since everything is accelerating
in some way, as well as merely "speeding.")

unfotunately, folks are glued-down to a few ideas
that are totally superfluous & yet utterly mainstream.

Brian Quincy Hutchings" QncyMI at netscape.net
who was originally Lyndon LaRouche's roach, that
morphed into "Spudnick", son of "Mr. Potato head"
which was disasterous for him, & so he's hiding now
in "rasterspace" as "tensegriboy" Space998 at
hotmail.com who further demented into Arse tone
"Aaron" aaron.s.keefe at gmail.com ... who then as

||Brian said|| "... do I have to kiss the dingleberries?
||Brian said|| also, you don't need stringtheory to
||Brian said|| have GPS, and you don't need to know
||Brian said|| spherical trig to use it. you're all out o'whack,
||Brian said|| Okay! ... Okay, you'v neve heard of an
||Brian said|| Alfven wave ... nor have any of the other
||Brian said|| of your fellows, the Association of Big-ass
||Brian said|| Dingleberries. If that makes me a bigger
||Brian said|| Dingleberry smooshed together, that's okay".

hanson wrote:
Brian, you poor *******, what fears are you trying to
hide with your constant handle changes?... ahahaha...

At least make up some faintly entertaining story,
about the buzz words that you are constantly posting
but about which you quite obviously have not the
faintest idea what you are talking about.... ahahaha...

Brian, you are worse then any Einstein Dingleberry.
At least the EDs have some conviction, lots of
fanaticism & some sort of a religious backbone
all of which is entertaining.
OTOH, Brian, you have none of that and you are not.

Okay, you don't want to talk about it;
you just want to edit my ****.

Jerry's essay was good, maybe not perfect, and
you just throw your hands up & say "it's a software issue,"
which of course is generally, so.

to be synchronized is not the clock but what the clock accumulates (a
number, a counter). *It becomes a software issue.

thus quoth:
[exercise with commercial Mars UTC watch,
used to synchronize your office clocks ... viz, also,
teh relatavistic intrasolar commuter .-]

ah, shucks;
you made me change my handle, again -- again!

On 30/04/11 3:55 PM, 1treePetrifiedForestLane wrote:
ah, shucks;
you made me change my handle, again -- again!

I'm not sure you really have much interesting to say but could you learn
to quote properly so that it is possible to work out who you are
replying to? Your posts make no sense at all otherwise.

On Apr 29, 9:58*pm, tensegriboy wrote:
Jerry's essay was good, maybe not perfect, and
you just throw your hands up & say "it's a software issue,"
which of course is generally, so.

to be synchronized is not the clock but what the clock accumulates (a
number, a counter). *It becomes a software issue.

thus quoth:
[exercise with commercial Mars UTC watch,
used to synchronize your office clocks ... viz, also,
teh relatavistic intrasolar commuter .-]

It should be noted that if you are carrying around adequate
computing power, this task of synchronizing the office clocks
with your Mars watch is not impossible. At present, Galileo is
not yet an operational system, but the designers of the Galileo
system have decided to offload the relativistic corrections that
I cited in an earlier post http://tinyurl.com/3zfrv57 to the
RECEIVER. Galileo satellites will be orbiting completely out of
sync with Earth time, but will be transmitting to Earth the
necessary correction factors which will allow a receiver to
compute the correct time from the satellites' incorrect time.

To those of us who are accustomed to the GPS and GLONASS way of
doing things, this at first seems absurd, but the designers of
the Galileo system present an interesting rationale for
offloading the relativistic corrections to the receiver. The
fixed relativistic corrections applied to GPS and GLONASS
satellite clocks assume that the satellites have been placed in
nominal orbits, but the actual orbits may differ from nominal by
significant amounts: They may be orbiting a few hundred meters
too low or two high, or the orbits may be slightly elliptical
rather than circular. Even if a satellite had been initially
injected into an ideal orbit, the orbit will degrade over time
due to the solar wind, and uneven mass distributions over the
Earth also cause drift. All of these minor deviations from
perfection need to be taken into account if one desires a system
of highest accuracy.

To the designers of the Galileo system, given the computing
power that is CURRENTLY available in mobile receivers, it is
hardly any more difficult to compensate for the major
discrepancies caused by sending into orbit clocks that are
totally uncorrected for relativistic effects, as it is to correct
for the minor discrepancies caused by the fact that satellite
orbits always deviate slightly from nominal.

This, of course, had not not been an option when GPS and GLONASS
were designed.

Now watch the Koobee Wooblies of the world misinterpret what I
have just written...

Jerry

On Apr 30, 5:52*am, Jerry wrote:
On Apr 29, 9:58*pm, tensegriboy wrote:

Jerry's essay was good, maybe not perfect, and
you just throw your hands up & say "it's a software issue,"
which of course is generally, so.

to be synchronized is not the clock but what the clock accumulates (a
number, a counter). *It becomes a software issue.

thus quoth:
[exercise with commercial Mars UTC watch,
used to synchronize your office clocks ... viz, also,
teh relatavistic intrasolar commuter .-]

It should be noted that if you are carrying around adequate
computing power, this task of synchronizing the office clocks
with your Mars watch is not impossible. At present, Galileo is
not yet an operational system, but the designers of the Galileo
system have decided to offload the relativistic corrections that
I cited in an earlier posthttp://tinyurl.com/3zfrv57to the
RECEIVER. Galileo satellites will be orbiting completely out of
sync with Earth time, but will be transmitting to Earth the
necessary correction factors which will allow a receiver to
compute the correct time from the satellites' incorrect time.

To those of us who are accustomed to the GPS and GLONASS way of
doing things, this at first seems absurd, but the designers of
the Galileo system present an interesting rationale for
offloading the relativistic corrections to the receiver. The
fixed relativistic corrections applied to GPS and GLONASS
satellite clocks assume that the satellites have been placed in
nominal orbits, but the actual orbits may differ from nominal by
significant amounts: They may be orbiting a few hundred meters
too low or two high, or the orbits may be slightly elliptical
rather than circular. Even if a satellite had been initially
injected into an ideal orbit, the orbit will degrade over time
due to the solar wind, and uneven mass distributions over the
Earth also cause drift. All of these minor deviations from
perfection need to be taken into account if one desires a system
of highest accuracy.

To the designers of the Galileo system, given the computing
power that is CURRENTLY available in mobile receivers, it is
hardly any more difficult to compensate for the major
discrepancies caused by sending into orbit clocks that are
totally uncorrected for relativistic effects, as it is to correct
for the minor discrepancies caused by the fact that satellite
orbits always deviate slightly from nominal.

This, of course, had not not been an option when GPS and GLONASS
were designed.

Now watch the Koobee Wooblies of the world misinterpret what I
have just written...

Jerry

Einstein was good at fixing cars.