A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Astronomy Misc
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old April 28th 11, 12:31 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Jerry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 502
Default 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  
Old April 28th 11, 12:41 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
PD
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,572
Default 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  
Old April 28th 11, 01:46 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
tensegriboy
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default 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  
Old April 28th 11, 02:40 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
hanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,934
Default 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  
Old April 28th 11, 02:41 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
hanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,934
Default 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  
Old April 28th 11, 04:07 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Jerry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 502
Default 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  
Old April 28th 11, 04:21 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
NoEinstein
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,799
Default 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  
Old April 28th 11, 05:04 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default 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  
Old April 28th 11, 05:36 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Eric Gisse
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,465
Default 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  
Old April 28th 11, 05:59 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.