|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
On Apr 26, 8:37 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
"hanson" wrote: Nowhere in these links below, academic or industrial, or govt, is there any word about relativity: http://www8.garmin.com/aboutGPS/ http://www.maps-gps-info.com/gps-accuracy.html http://www.igage.com/mp/GPSAccuracy.htm http://www.nasm.si.edu/gps/spheres.html http://www.crunchgear.com/2011/01/04/new-gps-system-boosts-accuracy-t.... http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/02/enhancing-gps.html None of them mention Newton's laws of motion, either. Just how dumb can Peter get? Newton’s law is not in question here. shrug Why would you think that a Garmin GPS brochure would talk about General Relativity? If they applied relativity, they will mention it in their algorithm. shrug Their algorithm is very certainly covered in the “navigation equation” section of the following link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS If you possess knowledge in algebra, you should have no problem figure out what it is saying. Notice there is no relativity coming into play in the algorithm. shrug 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... Why didn't you Google "GPS relativity", if you wanted to find out who has written papers on this. When I do this, these are the first few links I get: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/...Unit5/gps.html Not Jewish. Professor of astronomy at Ohio State. It is sad a professor would blindly repeat garbage like that without investigating further and understanding the subject better. shrug Is the Darb still in Ohio State? http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp Not Jewish. Physics Professor at Maryland U. Oh, another self-styled physicist. shrug http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/writers/will.cfm Not Jewish. Physics professor at Washington Uni. Yet another one who does not understand the GPS. shrug |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
On Apr 26, 8:37 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote:
"hanson" wrote: Why did you post a Wikipedia article which quite clearly states that Relativity is used in GPS as evidence that GPS doesn't use Relativity? Is it an English language problem, or don't you read what you post, or are you just stupid? Well, the only mention of relativity is in the section on “history”. The rest of the article dealing with the exact workings of the GPS never even references relativity as its application. Your analytical skills must be totally lacking. shrug You have been told through rigorous engineering analyses that the clocks of the satellites and the ground do not have to be synchronized. The rest of the article never even has attempted to utter this issue as a requirement. So, where exactly is this relativistic correction utilized in the GPS? shrug Oh, the requirement only exists in the minds of retards like yourself. shrug Nowhere in these links below, academic or industrial, or govt, is there any word about relativity: http://www8.garmin.com/aboutGPS/ http://www.maps-gps-info.com/gps-accuracy.html http://www.igage.com/mp/GPSAccuracy.htm http://www.nasm.si.edu/gps/spheres.html http://www.crunchgear.com/2011/01/04/new-gps-system-boosts-accuracy-t.... http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/02/enhancing-gps.html None of them mention Newton's laws of motion, either. Just how dumb can Peter get? Newton’s law is not in question here. shrug Why would you think that a Garmin GPS brochure would talk about General Relativity? If they applied relativity, they will mention it in their algorithm. shrug Their algorithm is very certainly covered in the “navigation equation” section of the following link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS If you possess knowledge in algebra, you should have no problem figure out what it is saying. Notice there is no relativity coming into play in the algorithm. shrug 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... Why didn't you Google "GPS relativity", if you wanted to find out who has written papers on this. When I do this, these are the first few links I get: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/...Unit5/gps.html Not Jewish. Professor of astronomy at Ohio State. It is sad a professor would blindly repeat garbage like that without investigating further and understanding the subject better. shrug Is the Darb still in Ohio State? http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gps-relativity.asp Not Jewish. Physics Professor at Maryland U. Oh, another self-styled physicist. shrug http://www.physicscentral.com/explore/writers/will.cfm Not Jewish. Physics professor at Washington Uni. Yet another one who does not understand the GPS. shrug |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
.... AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHA...
"Peter Webb" wrote: "Koobee Wublee" wrote: "Peter Webb" wrote: "hanson" wrote: hanson wrote: Nowhere in these links below, academic or industrial, or govt, is there any word about relativity: http://www8.garmin.com/aboutGPS/ http://www.maps-gps-info.com/gps-accuracy.html http://www.igage.com/mp/GPSAccuracy.htm http://www.nasm.si.edu/gps/spheres.html http://www.crunchgear.com/2011/01/04/new-gps-system-boosts-accuracy-t... http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/02/enhancing-gps.html ED & flaccid Peter Webb wrote: None of them mention Newton's laws of motion, either. So? hanson wrote: "So",... so, you are an Einstein Dingleberry, Peter. "Koobee Wublee" wrote: Just how dumb can Peter get? Newton’s law is not in question here. shrug hanson wrote: Webb is not dumb. He is worse. He is an Einstein Dingleberry. When EDs like Webb hear or see the word "relativity" they fall into a religious trance. The only difference between Webb and some rag head is their icon. Webb worships Einstein's Asshole while the Islamist extremist yearns for 72 whores promised to him in the Koran if he defends it. Dingleberry Webb wrote: Why would you think that a Garmin GPS brochure would talk about General Relativity? "Koobee Wublee" wrote: If they applied relativity, they will mention it in their algorithm. shrug Their algorithm is very certainly covered in the “navigation equation” section of the following link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS [1] ED Webb wrote: Yes. And it mentions how Relativity is used. Just search for "Relativity" on the page. Can't you read very well in English? hanson cited & wrote: The 2 places in link [1] which mention relativity say: "In 1956 Friedwardt Winterberg[2] proposed a test of general relativity using accurate atomic clocks placed in orbit in artificial satellites. To achieve accuracy requirements, GPS uses principles of general relativity to correct the satellites' atomic clocks." Webb, you Exquisite Dingbat ED, I already covered that in my post to Dunno-Dono, which you read, but you came back like a drug addict for another fix... ahahaha.. Listen ED-Webb, Einstein Dingleberries, like yourself, will never be able to realize in their fanaticism that the above cited paragraph only shows that the author was a biased Einstein Dingleberry too... who by hook and crook tried to fudge in something about relativity... which gave Webb an immediate relativity erection... AHAHAHA... Even worse, ED-Webb does not realize that the author twists ED-Webb like a pendejo and confuses ED-Webb with his circular reasoning by using SR/GR to test SR/GR. AHAHAHAHA.. ahahaha... But that is good enough for the ED-pendejo choir who cherishes its own http://tinyurl.com/Proof-of-Relativity with Webb, loud on centerstage, up front and deliriously happy.... ahahahahaha... Thanks for the laughs Webb ahahahaha... ahahahahanson shaved the rest of Webb's pendejos |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
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."? 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? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
pendejo-"Peter Webb" wrote: Is that your position? hanson wrote: ED-pendejo Webb, listen. Here is a "repeat" of my position: .... AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHAHA... AHAHAHA... "Peter Webb" wrote: "Koobee Wublee" wrote: "Peter Webb" wrote: "hanson" wrote: hanson wrote: Nowhere in these links below, academic or industrial, or govt, is there any word about relativity: http://www8.garmin.com/aboutGPS/ http://www.maps-gps-info.com/gps-accuracy.html http://www.igage.com/mp/GPSAccuracy.htm http://www.nasm.si.edu/gps/spheres.html http://www.crunchgear.com/2011/01/04/new-gps-system-boosts-accuracy-t... http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/02/enhancing-gps.html ED & flaccid Peter Webb wrote: None of them mention Newton's laws of motion, either. So? hanson wrote: "So",... so, you are an Einstein Dingleberry, Peter. "Koobee Wublee" wrote: Just how dumb can Peter get? Newton’s law is not in question here. shrug hanson wrote: Webb is not dumb. He is worse. He is an Einstein Dingleberry. When EDs like Webb hear or see the word "relativity" they fall into a religious trance. The only difference between Webb and some rag head is their icon. Webb worships Einstein's Asshole while the Islamist extremist yearns for 72 whores promised to him in the Koran if he defends it. Dingleberry Webb wrote: Why would you think that a Garmin GPS brochure would talk about General Relativity? "Koobee Wublee" wrote: If they applied relativity, they will mention it in their algorithm. shrug Their algorithm is very certainly covered in the “navigation equation” section of the following link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS [1] ED Webb wrote: Yes. And it mentions how Relativity is used. Just search for "Relativity" on the page. Can't you read very well in English? hanson cited & wrote: The 2 places in link [1] which mention relativity say: "In 1956 Friedwardt Winterberg[2] proposed a test of general relativity using accurate atomic clocks placed in orbit in artificial satellites. To achieve accuracy requirements, GPS uses principles of general relativity to correct the satellites' atomic clocks." Webb, you Exquisite Dingbat ED, I already covered that in my post to Dunno-Dono, which you read, but you came back like a drug addict for another fix... ahahaha.. Listen ED-Webb, Einstein Dingleberries, like yourself, will never be able to realize in their fanaticism that the above cited paragraph only shows that the author was a biased Einstein Dingleberry too... who by hook and crook tried to fudge in something about relativity... which gave Webb an immediate relativity erection... AHAHAHA... Even worse, ED-Webb does not realize that the author twists ED-Webb like a pendejo and confuses ED-Webb with his circular reasoning by using SR/GR to test SR/GR. AHAHAHAHA.. ahahaha... But that is good enough for the ED-pendejo choir who cherishes its own http://tinyurl.com/Proof-of-Relativity with Webb, loud on centerstage, up front and deliriously happy.... ahahahahaha... Thanks for the laughs Webb ahahahaha... ahahahahanson shaved the rest of Webb's pendejos |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
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 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? The article claims so in a non-technical section but fails to deliver so in the technical section. In science, it is the technical section that is backed up by analyses that count. You just have to get used to it. shrug Claim is cheap. Any bozo can claim so is true. shrug Is that your position? Absolutely. Only retards cannot decide for themselves. shrug |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
"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? 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? The article claims so in a non-technical section but fails to deliver so in the technical section. In science, it is the technical section that is backed up by analyses that count. You just have to get used to it. shrug Then why did you post it? And why did you post it, claiming that it doesn't even mention Relativity, when it clearly states "To achieve accuracy requirements, GPS uses principles of general relativity to correct the satellites' atomic clocks." (Fourth paragraph, second sentence. The one you couldn't find). Claim is cheap. Any bozo can claim so is true. shrug Is that your position? Absolutely. Only retards cannot decide for themselves. shrug Do you now acknowledge and accept that this web page (offered as proof that GPS doesn't use Relativity) clearly states the exact opposite of what you claim, specifically stating (and I quote): "To achieve accuracy requirements, GPS uses principles of general relativity to correct the satellites' atomic clocks." ? Well? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
On Apr 27, 7:55*am, "Peter Webb"
wrote: Do you now acknowledge and accept that this web page (offered as proof that GPS doesn't use Relativity) clearly states the exact opposite of what you claim, specifically stating (and I quote): "To achieve accuracy requirements, GPS uses principles of general relativity to correct the satellites' atomic clocks." ? Well? 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..." Jerry |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
..... ahahahaha... AHAHAHAHAHA... ahahahaha....
"Peter Webb" did show his own http://tinyurl.com/Proof-of-Relativity & wrote: "Koobee Wublee" wrote: pendejo-"Peter Webb" wrote: Well? hanson wrote: ahahahaha... No, not all is "well" with you, pendejo-Peter. You act quite rational and analytical, and you see thru the con that Al Gore's AWG fanatics try to **** you over with... But when it comes to SR/GR, how come you behave like a brainwashed object that fell victim to the grand Zionist con of the 20th century, and you proselytize for it as if your sanity and well being was at stake?.... ..... when & while 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, Peter Webb, as seen in here in you the http://tinyurl.com/Zionist-educated-Relativists Ding! Ding!... Snap out of it, Peter.. Thanks for the laughs.. ahaha... ahahahaha.. ahahahanson |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
NO Relativity Theory needed for GPS
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 |
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 07:50 PM |
Improved Relativity Theory and Doppler Theory of Gravity | kenseto[_1_] | Astronomy Misc | 2 | February 12th 08 12:48 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 02:22 AM |