|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
On Apr 27, 10:35*am, "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. Your formula is nonsense. Let h = 0. Jerry |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
On Apr 27, 6:31*pm, Jerry wrote:
On Apr 27, 10:35*am, "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. Your formula is nonsense. Let h = 0. You wouldn't want a simple sanity check stand in the way of the intuitively obvious, would you? Jerry |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
also, you don't need stringtheory to have GPS, and
you don't need to know spherical trig to use it. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
Brian Quincy Hutchings"
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" from from where ||Brian said|| "... do I have to kiss the dingleberries?" and wonders..... also, you don't need stringtheory to have GPS, and you don't need to know spherical trig to use it. hanson wrote: Brian, the intent in your 2 liner may be honorable, but the Dingleberries will string you up for what you just said no matter how feverishly you wanna kiss them... hahahahaha... ahahahanson |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
.... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHA...
Idiot Dingleberry "Jerry" WaterCephalus @comcast.net 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 The read all this here again and specifcall wher it says |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
On Apr 27, 8:41*pm, "hanson" wrote:
... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHA... Idiot Dingleberry "Jerry" WaterCephalus * @comcast.net 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. 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. Jerry |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
On Apr 27, 3:44*am, "Peter Webb"
wrote: So, just to get this straight, you accept and acknowledge thathttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPSsays "GPS uses principles of general relativity to correct the satellites' *atomic clocks."? So, you are now (instead) claiming that the web page - offered as proof that GPS doesn't use Relativity - does state that GPS uses Relativity after all, but that is wrong? Is that your position? Dear Peter Webb: 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. That formula has the forces agreeing with Newton, but including a force variant corresponding to the Lorentz transformation. The latter correctly "predicts" the precession of the orbit over time. The same sort of effects apply to GPS satellites. Those aren't caused by space-time variance, but by the varying ether flow and density. Both of those vary according to the inverse square law. Two variables doing the latter will cause a force variance almost identical to that of the Lorentz transformation, or beta. For any object moving laterally through the "raining" ether (that is gravity) such will be more slowed in passing through ether that is more concentrated close to the Earth (or the Sun, as in the case of Mercury) than in passing through ether that is less concentrated. In addition, the ether SPIRALS down. The flow isn't perpendicular except very near to the Earth (or Sun). If a GPS satellite has a circular orbit, it won't be necessary to "correct" anything, by formula, but only to measure the slowing caused by the ether at the altitude in question. Understanding where the ether is, the concentration, and the direction of flow are the variables needed to correct GPS satellites, NOT anything relating to... relativity— which of course I have invalidated! — NoEinstein — |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
In sci.math Peter Webb wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message ... On Apr 27, 12:44 am, "Peter Webb" wrote: So, just to get this straight, you accept and acknowledge that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS says "GPS uses principles of general relativity to correct the satellites' atomic clocks."? No. shrug OK, go to the web page, scan down to the fourth paragraph, second sentence. Do you see it now? .... Intro physics notes are probably a better source of keywords for further Googling -- at least for those that broadly accept the mainstream: http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/PHY312.03Spring/GPS/GPS.html .... There are several reasons that relativity is very important in GPS: GPS satellites have a large velocity, there is large gravitational potential differences between that of the satellites and that of the users, and there is significant Earth rotation effects. These effects themselves might not be that important but because GPS satellites are equipped with atomic clocks relativistic effect should be taken into account. "There are three primary consequences of relativity effects: 1. There is a fixed frequency offset in the satellite's clock rate when observed from Earth. Most of the effect is purposely removed by slightly offsetting the satellite clocks in frequency prior to launch, the so-called "factory offset" of the clock. 2. The slight eccentricity of each satellite orbit causes an additional periodic clock error effect that varies with the satellite's position in its orbit plane. 3. There is also effect (Sagnac delay) caused by the Earth's rotation during the time of transit of the satellite signal from satellite to the ground" (Parkinson, Bradford. pg. 623-634). Moving users on the Earth surface or near it or fixed users at some altitude about the Earth surface have to make additional corrections caused the their velocity and the height above the ground. The net effect of relativity for a zero eccentricity GPS satellite is a combination of effects caused by satellites velocity (Special Relativity effect) and Earth gravitational field (General Relativity effect). This produces small fixed frequency offset in addition to classical Doppler shift. --- ["Warmist Abuse Shows They're Losing":] Irony? Skepticism was never considered abuse in science, until AGW was invented and bestowed with a "sheltered workshop" status. -- Gillard Lies , 15 Feb 2011 22:57 -0800 (PST) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
On Apr 27, 8:21*pm, NoEinstein wrote:
On Apr 27, 3:44*am, "Peter Webb" wrote: So, just to get this straight, you accept and acknowledge thathttp://en..wikipedia.org/wiki/GPSsays"GPS uses principles of general relativity to correct the satellites' *atomic clocks."? So, you are now (instead) claiming that the web page - offered as proof that GPS doesn't use Relativity - does state that GPS uses Relativity after all, but that is wrong? Is that your position? Dear Peter Webb: *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. *That formula has the forces agreeing with Newton, but including a force variant corresponding to the Lorentz transformation. * This is completely incorrect. Please stop making **** up. [snip rest] |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
On Apr 27, 9:04 pm, wrote:
There are several reasons that relativity is very important in GPS: This was the claim when the self-styled physicists were called to consult on this project early on. However, engineers prove to be much smarter than self-styled physicists. Actually, the self-styled physicists are just too stupid. Taking away their matheMagics, they have nothing to show for the mysticism they have created. shrug GPS satellites have a large velocity, there is large gravitational potential differences between that of the satellites and that of the users, and there is significant Earth rotation effects. shrug First of all, it is the chronological time that is of interest not the clock. The clock drives a counter that determines the chronological time. The chronological time is actually the counter. shrug These effects themselves might not be that important but because GPS satellites are equipped with atomic clocks relativistic effect should be taken into account. To compute one’s position relative to the constellation of satellites, the self-styled physicists originally proposed acquisitions of three satellites with their known time and positions. shrug The system then has four unknown variables. They are the three spatial coordinates and the chronological time relative to the satellites. With only three satellites, you get to solve the four unknowns with only three equations. Well, in that case, it becomes crucial to also synchronize the receiver’s chronological time with the satellites. This is where the myth of GR and SR nonsense got infested into the system. shrug Very soon, some engineer came about and proposed instead to acquire the time and position of four satellites. In this case, the system remains having these four unknown variables, but there become four independent equations. The GPS receiver then only has to solve these four unknowns with these four equations. The receiver now can have an independent running chronological time from the satellites. This saves a tremendous amount of engineering challenges of trying to synchronize the ground and the satellite chronological time. shrug If you understand GR, all satellites should have the same GR effect. Thus, the GR effect whether it is present or not does not come into play in the GPS system. shrug Claiming GR playing a role in the GPS development is not truthful. shrug |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Improved Relativity Theory (IRT) and Doppler Theory of Gravity (DTG) | kenseto[_1_] | Astronomy Misc | 159 | March 17th 11 08:50 PM |
Improved Relativity Theory and Doppler Theory of Gravity | kenseto[_1_] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | February 12th 08 01:48 AM |
Improved Relativity Theory and Doppler Theory of Gravity | kenseto[_1_] | Astronomy Misc | 38 | October 23rd 07 11:07 PM |
#17 Replacing General Relativity by Dirac's Sea of Positrons; Does Cosmos have two Spaces?; new book: Growing-Solar-System theory via Dirac New-Radioactivity replaces Nebular-Dust-Cloud theory | a_plutonium[_1_] | Astronomy Misc | 4 | September 18th 07 12:31 PM |
A Question For Those Who Truly Understand The Theory of Relativity (Was: Einstein's GR as a Gauge Theory and Shipov's Torsion Field) | Larry Hammick | Astronomy Misc | 1 | February 26th 05 03:22 AM |