On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:11:47 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:
Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 11:50:19 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
The clock error of the SV with PRN 12
was on Julian day 54490.07813 354993.0 ns.
On Julian day 54519.98368 the error was 357044.3 ns.
So during 29.9 days the clock has drifted 2051.3 ns
more ahead of GPS-time. So the average rate error is
68.6 ns per day or 0.79*10^-12 too fast.
If the 'GR correction' was the right one none of this would happen!
Thanks again for confirming this
Wilsonian thinking:
"If the prediction is in accorance with the measurement within
the precision of the measurement, then the prediction is proven
wrong."
hahahahhaha!
Indeed!
andersen: "after the GR correction is incorporated, the clocks are never need
adjustment....except for the regular adjustement twice per day."
Ho Hum!
In what way is this 'merely recordings of typical clock drift'
as opposed to 'recordings of actual clock drifts'?
BTW, can you explain why the clocks drift in different
directions and by different amounts?
Not without more information.
I assume the above figures include a doppler shift component....otherwise the
drift is just random.
Doppler shift? How stupid. :-)
Clocks are not infinitely precise, some run a little too
fast, some run a little too slow. The distribution is random.
And there are relativistic effects which are not corrected for,
such as the oblateness of the Earth, effects from the Sun and
the Moon, the orbit may not be perfectly circular etc..
There are NO relativity effects.
These effects are quite small (possibly with exception of
the last one - if the eccenticity is big), but nevertheless
will they contribute to a deviation in the rate.
they might affect the physical attributes of the clock and cause its rate to
randomly vary slightly.
Don't forget that:
"Of course the bloody rate is changed after launch."
So why are the rates wrong?
Wouldn't answer that one, would you? :-)
The obvious answer is that the rates are wrong because
the precision of the clocks is finite, and the rate of
each clock is _not_ corrected after launch.
So the clocks that are running too fast or too slow
will keep doing so year after year, that's why
the accumulated clock error can be considerable, up to 0.7ms.
If the rate of each clock were 'fine tuned' after launch,
the accumulated error would never be so big.
The rate of each clock is software corrected after launch to synch closely with
the GC.
Only a real idiot or a relativist would not perform such an adjustment.
Note however that the rate error for the vast majority
of the clocks is less than 1% of the GR-correction.
Hahahahaha!
You read that in an article written by a relativist..
The average rate error is -2.29E-12, which is 0.5%
of the GR correction.
This proves that the GR correction is correct within
the precision of the clocks.
Bull. The rate after launch varies from clock to clock and has never been
accurately checked for obvious reasons.
Incidentally, I came across this statement in an article about GPS, "Studies
have also shown that solar radiation pressure models may need revision and
there is some new evidence that the earth’s magnetic field may contribute to a
small orbit period variation in the satellite clock frequencies".
I don't know what that is supposed to mean but it backs up my claim that
cutting the Earth's fields affects atomic clocks in orbit.
Is there any particular reason why you didn't give a reference
to where you found the quotation above?
http://www.aticourses.com/global_positioning_system.htm
Of course I understand why you didn't.
If you really read that article, you know much of what I told you above.
So why do you keep pretending that you don't?
Jerry knows the arrticle. It states plainly that clocks are probably affected
by the Earth's magnetic field.
Henri Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Einstein's Relativity is easy to understand if one has the IQ of a parrot and a gullibility index 0.95.