is the GPS myth unmythbustable?

On 18/08/2011 3:34 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote:
GPS represents an episode of great triumph for engineers.

Originally, self-styled physicists, whose every second of waking
moment is to look for the last drop of the fermented diarrhea of
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar to gulp down, had
proposed to decode the GPS signals with only 3 satellites. Since the
unknowns in a GPS solution are four --- 3 spatial and 1 temporal, that
left only 3 equations to solve for 4 unknowns.shrug

Thus, in this situation of acquiring just 3 satellites, the
chronological time among the receiver and the 3 satellites must be
synchronized. This is where relativistic effect, if indeed exists,
would come in. In this situation, the synchronization among the
satellites and the ground/receiver chronological time counters becomes
critical. However, relativistic correction remains a very minor
anomaly. The atmospheric disturbances and others are bigger concerns
when synchronizing the satellites and the receiver chronological time
counters. It is better to delegate this as a software solution to
periodically advance or slow the chronological time count of the
receiver.shrug

Very soon, engineers, being a lot smarter due to the fact that they
must provide actual hardware instead of bull**** vaporware, realized
with 4 unknowns, 4 satellites must be acquired to yield 4 independent
equations to solve for these 4 unknowns. This is indeed a very basic
mathematical concept.shrug

As long as the chronological time counters of the satellites are
synchronized, there is no need to synchronize the ground chronological
time with these satellites, and thus the relativistic correction,
whether it exists or not, does not come into play anymore since all
GPS satellites orbit at the same altitude with the same GR anomaly.
shrug

Well, the self-styled physicists with **** for their brains cannot
comprehend this simple mathematical method. They are still promoting
their myth and garbage. Self-styled physicists are not scientists but
just idiots.shrug

Yes, "shrug" indeed, everything you just said is bull****, so you
needed the shrugs to show how much guessing you were doing.

You need a minimum of 3 GPS satellites to triangulate on a 2-dimensional
plane (east-west, north-south). You need 4 GPS satellites to triangulate
on a 3-dimensional volume, i.e. adding an altitude dimension. The 4th
GPS satellite has nothing to do with triangulating on time. Most GPS
receivers can receive more than 4 satellites, usually upto 9 satellites,
but the remaining are backup satellites in case the signal from one is
lost.

Yousuf Khan

In article ,
says...


You need a minimum of 3 GPS satellites to triangulate on a 2-dimensional
plane (east-west, north-south). You need 4 GPS satellites to triangulate
on a 3-dimensional volume, i.e. adding an altitude dimension. The 4th
GPS satellite has nothing to do with triangulating on time. Most GPS

4th /3rd satellite is needed for 3D/2D position
to correct GPS device time error toward reference satellite time.
4 equations for 4 degrees of freedom.

receivers can receive more than 4 satellites, usually upto 9 satellites,
but the remaining are backup satellites in case the signal from one is
lost.

These days most devices are able to catch up to 12 satellites,
that is maximum number of simultaneosly observed satellites.
( Like my Nokia E52 ). Extra satellites can be used to decrease
position error, as far as all data have some uncertainity.

--
Poutnik

On Aug 18, 1:21 am, Poutnik wrote:
Koobee Wublee wrote:

Thus, in this situation of acquiring just 3 satellites, the
chronological time among the receiver and the 3 satellites must be
synchronized. This is where relativistic effect, if indeed exists,
would come in. In this situation, the synchronization among the
satellites and the ground/receiver chronological time counters becomes
critical. However, relativistic correction remains a very minor
anomaly. The atmospheric disturbances and others are bigger concerns
when synchronizing the satellites and the receiver chronological time
counters. It is better to delegate this as a software solution to
periodically advance or slow the chronological time count of the
receiver. shrug

Receiver distance to satellite is calculated from difference
of received timestamps and receiver time synced to satellite clock.

Yes, this time synced to satellite clock is one of the 4 unknowns you
are trying to solve. shrug

The relativistic time error 38 us/day
is causing cumulative distance error 120 m /15 minutes,
as shown in other thread.

shaking head

After you have solved this unknown “time synced to satellite clock”,
you are done. You don’t need any other corrections to the 1st order.
shrug

[rest of myth and ignorance snipped] shrug

Einstein Dingleberries are getting dumber and dumber because they have
been fed with the following garbage for generations. shrug

** FAITH IS THEORY
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** FUDGING IS DERIVATION
** BULL**** IS TRUTH
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS

shrug

In article 0c46d3e5-14df-48a8-8b4f-12356721a531
@c8g2000prn.googlegroups.com, says...


The relativistic time error 38 us/day
is causing cumulative distance error 120 m /15 minutes,
as shown in other thread.

shaking head

After you have solved this unknown ?time synced to satellite clock?,
you are done. You don?t need any other corrections to the 1st order.
shrug

[rest of myth and ignorance snipped] shrug

Not at all, but you have ignorantly snipped the essential part.

Distances are fixed and saved.

But not making relativistic correction,
incorrectess of satellite position, caused by incorrect time,
is not eliminated by corrected time differences.

This error would make up to several meters per month.

--
Poutnik

Please, do not feed the trolls.
One is easily tempted to do so.

On Aug 18, 10:21 am, Poutnik wrote:
In article 19743bed-f6b9-497e-89ac-
,
says...



Thus, in this situation of acquiring just 3 satellites, the
chronological time among the receiver and the 3 satellites must be
synchronized. This is where relativistic effect, if indeed exists,
would come in. In this situation, the synchronization among the
satellites and the ground/receiver chronological time counters becomes
critical. However, relativistic correction remains a very minor
anomaly. The atmospheric disturbances and others are bigger concerns
when synchronizing the satellites and the receiver chronological time
counters. It is better to delegate this as a software solution to
periodically advance or slow the chronological time count of the
receiver. shrug

Receiver distance to satellite is calculated from difference
of received timestamps and receiver time synced to satellite clock.

The relativistic time error 38 us/day

this is common for all satellites

is causing cumulative distance error 120 m /15 minutes,
as shown in other thread.

how come???, you jump from satellites to the receiver,
just like that

[rest of misconceptions mercifully snipped]

Poutnik

120 m fix error at ground level, in which direction,
let us see your tensors

In article b993e900-229c-44a0-bd22-2da0d70f4012
@m4g2000pri.googlegroups.com, says...


The relativistic time error 38 us/day

this is common for all satellites

theoretically yes, practically there are fluctuations
due orbit irregularities.

is causing cumulative distance error 120 m /15 minutes,
as shown in other thread.

how come???, you jump from satellites to the receiver,
just like that

This error affects both satellite and synced receiver clock,
and is subtracted, as we are both saying.
But it does mean this error does not exist.

It is error of time.

It is eliminated for calculation distances by synced time difference,
but not in calculation of satellite positions.

--
Poutnik

On Aug 18, 7:55 pm, Poutnik wrote:
In article b993e900-229c-44a0-bd22-2da0d70f4012
@m4g2000pri.googlegroups.com, says...



The relativistic time error 38 us/day

this is common for all satellites

theoretically yes, practically there are fluctuations
due orbit irregularities.



is causing cumulative distance error 120 m /15 minutes,
as shown in other thread.

how come???, you jump from satellites to the receiver,
just like that

This error affects both satellite and synced receiver clock,
and is subtracted, as we are both saying.
But it does mean this error does not exist.

It is error of time.

It is eliminated for calculation distances by synced time difference,
but not in calculation of satellite positions.

--
Poutnik

not sure i understand that, i will try, thanks

On Aug 18, 9:06*pm, jim wrote:
On Aug 18, 3:34*am, Koobee Wublee wrote:

GPS represents an episode of great triumph for engineers.

Originally, self-styled physicists, whose every second of waking
moment is to look for the last drop of the fermented diarrhea of
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar to gulp down, had
proposed to decode the GPS signals with only 3 satellites. *Since the
unknowns in a GPS solution are four --- 3 spatial and 1 temporal, that
left only 3 equations to solve for 4 unknowns. *shrug

* *Since it's going to take the goons that work in Physics another 100
years
* *to discover that mathematicians, rather than physicists or
engineers invented GPS
* *it makes little difference.
* *Since actual engineers have never used if for anything other than
* *modern missle technology.



Thus, in this situation of acquiring just 3 satellites, the
chronological time among the receiver and the 3 satellites must be
synchronized. *This is where relativistic effect, if indeed exists,
would come in. *In this situation, the synchronization among the
satellites and the ground/receiver chronological time counters becomes
critical. *However, relativistic correction remains a very minor
anomaly. *The atmospheric disturbances and others are bigger concerns
when synchronizing the satellites and the receiver chronological time
counters. *It is better to delegate this as a software solution to
periodically advance or slow the chronological time count of the
receiver. *shrug

Very soon, engineers, being a lot smarter due to the fact that they
must provide actual hardware instead of bull**** vaporware, realized
with 4 unknowns, 4 satellites must be acquired to yield 4 independent
equations to solve for these 4 unknowns. *This is indeed a very basic
mathematical concept. *shrug

As long as the chronological time counters of the satellites are
synchronized, there is no need to synchronize the ground chronological
time with these satellites, and thus the relativistic correction,
whether it exists or not, does not come into play anymore since all
GPS satellites orbit at the same altitude with the same GR anomaly.
shrug

Well, the self-styled physicists with **** for their brains cannot
comprehend this simple mathematical method. *They are still promoting
their myth and garbage. *Self-styled physicists are not scientists but
just idiots. *shrug

That's ********! GPS for ship navigation, aircraft,robotics...all
engineering applications. Mobile phone GPS.


Hardy

Poutnik wrote:
GMT servers to citizen purposes, so it adapt to Earth rotation.
UTC serves to scientific purposes, where time continuity is essential.
UTC Time does not make jumps on purpose.

Actually, UTC is periodically adjusted to remain in sync with earth's rotation.
They add "leap seconds" every once in a while...

GPS time does NOT jump, and does not have leap seconds.


Cell phone time is time what the phone claims as the time.
Numerically it differs from GDT, UTC, GPS satellite clock time
or whatever other used reference.

It also includes the location's timezone offset. It is determined by the
cellphone's service provider, which is not necessarily in sync with UTC, though
they generally keep it within a few seconds.


Well, maybe it does not have GPS module.
If it has, it uses time from satellite clocks,
but within sychronization interval it uses its own value,
due its clock device low precision and stability.

Every GPS receiver has a local clock, usually based on a crystal oscillator. It
is used only during acquiring the satellite signals and bridging their different
time signals. So its stability and accuracy are only needed for a few minutes,
and its error does not contribute significantly to the positioning error. It's
synchronization simply does not matter (solve those 4 equations in 4 unknowns to
get the GPS time, independent of local clock time).

But cellphones do not display GPS time (unless you specifically look for it in
the GPS app). They display cellphone time from their service provider so they
can avoid the CPU cycles and power drain of operating their GPS receiver, and so
similar firmware works in phones without a GPS receiver.


Tom Roberts

On Aug 18, 5:09 pm, Tom Roberts wrote:

Every GPS receiver has a local clock, usually based on a crystal oscillator.

The usage of the word clock is very ambiguous. Clearly, in this case,
you mean ‘clock = time’ which He calls it ‘the chronological time’ not
to be confused with oscillators. For years, self-styled physicists
could not see the difference. Is it perhaps that it is clear to you
all of a sudden after reading His posts? shrug

Anyhow, the importance is in the time keeping not ‘oscillator’
synchronization. Synchronizing time is just a matter of resetting a
counter which is totally a software solution. shrug

It
is used only during acquiring the satellite signals and bridging their different
time signals. So its stability and accuracy are only needed for a few minutes,
and its error does not contribute significantly to the positioning error.

The local time plays no role in deriving GPS signals if the
acquisitions are done with at least four independent satellites.
shrug

It's
synchronization simply does not matter (solve those 4 equations in 4 unknowns to
get the GPS time, independent of local clock time).

Exactly! Thank you for finally understanding this point. His posts
are not wasted after all. Good luck trying to convince other self-
styled physicists. They are still stuck in understanding the
necessity of solving 4 equations and 4 unknowns to acquire the local
position. shrug

Oh, your buddy, PD, does not understand Snell’s law. Why don’t you
education him a little bit on what Snell’s law is all about? shrug