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

is the GPS myth unmythbustable?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 18th 11, 08:34 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Koobee Wublee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 815
Default is the GPS myth unmythbustable?

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


  #2  
Old August 18th 11, 09:21 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Poutnik[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default is the GPS myth unmythbustable?

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

But receiver accepts this errorneous time as its own by sychronization.
Then satellite distance calculated as
L = c . [(receiver clock + rel. error) - (timestamp + rel.error)] =
= c . [receiver clock - timestamp]
is correct, whatever relativistic error is.

But as far as there are differences between real and expected orbits,
there are differences between real and expected relativistic drifts,
various for various datellites.
This leads to residual distance error
based on not completely eliminated time drift.

And there is another error caused by Rel. time drift,
that is not eliminated by time differences.
It is error of satellite position determination,
bad input time gives bad satelite position,
calculated from ephemeris.


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,


This is incorrect. GPS receiver clocks have insufficient accuracy
and stability. they have to be frequently sychronized.

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


I suppose you are self-styled physicist.

--
Poutnik
  #3  
Old August 18th 11, 10:06 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
jim
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 60
Default is the GPS myth unmythbustable?

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


  #4  
Old August 18th 11, 10:38 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Androcles[_56_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default is the GPS myth unmythbustable?


"Poutnik" wrote in message
...
| 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
| is causing cumulative distance error 120 m /15 minutes,
| as shown in other thread.
|
| But receiver accepts this errorneous time as its own by sychronization.
| Then satellite distance calculated as
| L = c . [(receiver clock + rel. error)

I didn't know my cell phone had an atomic clock...




  #6  
Old August 18th 11, 11:19 AM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
hanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,934
Default is the GPS myth unmythbustable?


"Androcles" wrote:
in message ...
"Poutnik" wrote in message
...
| 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
| is causing cumulative distance error 120 m /15 minutes,
| as shown in other thread.
|
| But receiver accepts this errorneous time as its own by sychronization.
| Then satellite distance calculated as
| L = c . [(receiver clock + rel. error)

Androcles wrote:

Snipped Androcles' (useless/stupid/wrong/insulting) crap
which he only posts to boast & toot and brag about his,
http://tinyurl.com/Andro-John-Parkers-Girl-friend
whom he pokes & prods, ever since he introduced her on
April 12th, after he proudly posted his mantra to brag about
his http://tinyurl.com/Andros-sad-and-sorry-life wherein
| == JP said: I like to be crass and offend in retribution for
| == JP said: a career of arse-kissing politeness in pursuit
| == JP said: of the almighty buck, & where better than usenet?]



(The domestication of John Parker will continue... ahahaha)



  #7  
Old August 18th 11, 01:09 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Androcles[_56_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11
Default is the GPS myth unmythbustable?


"Poutnik" wrote in message
...
| In article ,
| |
| |
| | 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
| | is causing cumulative distance error 120 m /15 minutes,
| | as shown in other thread.
| |
| | But receiver accepts this errorneous time as its own by
sychronization.
| | Then satellite distance calculated as
| | L = c . [(receiver clock + rel. error)
|
| I didn't know my cell phone had an atomic clock...
|
| Sure it does not, just a quartz clock.
| By receiver clock I meant receiver clock time, sorry for confusion.

I didn't know my cell phone had cell phone time.
I'm sure my cell phone has British Summer Time (BST), which is
exactly 1 hour ahead of Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), which in turn
is 15 seconds ahead of Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) that GPS
satellites use because leap-seconds have been added since the first
GPS satellite was launched and nobody has visited them to correct
them. They are coordinated, which relativistic imbeciles are not.
No two relativistic imbeciles can agree on the same bull****.

Now I'll tell you something. My cell phone doesn't use cell phone
time, cell phone clock time, receiver time or receiver clock time
to give its location. If you knew anything at all about solving
four simultaneous equations in four variables you wouldn't need
to bull**** my cell phone, it does know.
Are you trying to confuse my cell phone? It is only a little bit
confused, it says it's on the other side of the road because the
satellite signal reflects from buildings, not out near the orbit of
Saturn one light-hour and 20 light-minutes away.
Say sorry to my cell phone, it knows what it is doing and is
smarter than you. If you try to confuse my cell phone again it
might think you are a ****ing idiot.








  #8  
Old August 18th 11, 01:29 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
hanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,934
Default is the GPS myth unmythbustable?


"Androcles" wrote in message
...

"Poutnik" wrote in message
...
| In article ,
| |
| |
| | 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
| | is causing cumulative distance error 120 m /15 minutes,
| | as shown in other thread.
| |
| | But receiver accepts this errorneous time as its own by
sychronization.
| | Then satellite distance calculated as
| | L = c . [(receiver clock + rel. error)
|


Andcorcles wrote:
| I didn't know my cell phone had an atomic clock...
|

Pouter wrote:
| Sure it does not, just a quartz clock.
| By receiver clock I meant receiver clock time, sorry for confusion.


Andcorcles wrote:
I didn't know my cell phone had cell phone time.
If you try to confuse my cell phone again it
might think you, Poutnick, are a ****ing idiot.

hanson wrote:
ahahahaha... Andro is factually right, but Andro's useless,
stupid & insulting crap was Snipped since it reflects only
Analdorcles' need to boast and toot and brag about his,
http://tinyurl.com/Andro-John-Parkers-Girl-friend
whom he pokes & prods, ever since he introduced her on
April 12th, after he proudly posted his mantra to brag about
his http://tinyurl.com/Andros-sad-and-sorry-life wherein
| == JP said: I like to be crass and offend in retribution for
| == JP said: a career of arse-kissing politeness in pursuit
| == JP said: of the almighty buck, & where better than usenet?]

ahahahahaha...

  #9  
Old August 18th 11, 01:38 PM posted to sci.physics.relativity,sci.physics,sci.math,sci.astro
Poutnik[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 34
Default is the GPS myth unmythbustable?

In article ,



I didn't know my cell phone had cell phone time.


In sense of claimed time value yes, it does have.


I'm sure my cell phone has British Summer Time (BST), which is
exactly 1 hour ahead of Greenwich Mean Time (GMT), which in turn
is 15 seconds ahead of Coordinated Universal Time (UTC) that GPS
satellites use because leap-seconds have been added since the first
GPS satellite was launched and nobody has visited them to correct
them. They are coordinated, which relativistic imbeciles are not.
No two relativistic imbeciles can agree on the same bull****.


Your vocabulary says bull****s about yourself, not about others.
Do not **** you language, it is your heritage.

You have advantage of native language, I dont.
Lets talk in my native language
and I can play word game with you too.

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.

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.

And, cell phone time value can be even different
to cell phone GPS receiver modul time value.

So, I can let yourself to name the time that your GPS phone/device
claim to be the time.
Unless the is 0.0000 ns difference to GDT, it is not GDT time.

Now I'll tell you something. My cell phone doesn't use cell phone
time, cell phone clock time, receiver time or receiver clock time
to give its location.


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.

If you knew anything at all about solving
four simultaneous equations in four variables you wouldn't need
to bull**** my cell phone, it does know.


Sure I do, I have solved in past equation sets
with much more variables.


--
Poutnik

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




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
Dynamicist myth oriel36 Amateur Astronomy 3 September 6th 06 08:03 PM
Another dynamicist myth oriel36 Amateur Astronomy 0 September 6th 06 02:44 PM
Another MYTH destroyed DistortionDestructionTeam Misc 51 November 4th 04 07:36 PM
Space is just a myth ! Brian Raab Astronomy Misc 3 October 3rd 04 07:47 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:47 AM.


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.