On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 21:16:25 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 22:25:26 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


But you have finally accepted that no correction
of the rate of the clocks are made after launch.

Whether or not the synching of the secondary clock is carried out on board is
irrelevant.
Preferably it would be..... but the clock reading can easily be software
corrected at the receiver, using its own signal that includes the accumulated
drift.

Quite.
The "accumulated drift" is the "clock offset". It is not a rate.
The clock reading is indeed software corrected in the receiver,
using the "clock offset".

I have never claimed otherwise.

You are learning. :-)

You are apparently NOT.

Good to see that you have given up insisting that the rate of the clocks
are corrected after launch.

Sad to see you have not recovered from your comprehension problem.


So we can consider this claim of yours:
"Of course the bloody rate is changed after launch."
dead and retracted.

It is software corrected. That essentially amounts to monitoring its drift from
the GC and including that info in its signal. Naturally, the smaller the drift,
the higher the accuracy...hence the preset 'free fall correction'.

So we can sum it up:
1. Prior to launch, the clocks are adjusted by -4.4647E-10 as predicted by GR.

that is done simply to appease the relativists. Nobody is game enough to argue
.........for the same reason that muslims don't criticise mahommed.

(You are free to call this adjustment with a precision equivalent to
14 significant digits "the approximate free fall adjustment" if you like.
A silly name, of course, but the name doesn't change the reality.)
2. No individual correction of the rate of the SV-clocks is made after launch.
3. Actual measurements of the rate of clocks in orbit show that the errors
in the rate is as can be expected by the precision of the clocks,
which is less than 1% of the GR-correction.

1, 2 and 3 are simple facts.
I see that you don't try to refute them.
A wise decision. :-)

You don't seem to understand what 'rate correction' involves.

Consider a clock that drifts by 1 second per day wrt MY 'perfect' standard
clock.

If I want to use the former, I know its time will be correct if I subtract 1
second from its reading each day.

However if I want to use it every millisecond, I will have to subtract 1
additional millisec from its reading every time I read it.

A far easier way to do this is to define the drift not as 1 second per day but
as 1 tick per 86400.
Thus, if the clock emits 10000000000000 ticks per second, its rate will brought
into line with that of the standard if one tick is dropped for every 86400
received.

The inevitable conclusion is:
The GR-prediction of the rate of clocks in GPS-orbit is proven to
be correct within the precision of the clocks.

Never proven..... and nobody gives a stuff anyway...

Considering that you are not refuting the premises 1, 2 and 3,
it is rather stupid to refute the inevitable conclusion.

the principle requirement is that all orbiting clocks are in synch with each
other.

Indeed.


Case closed.

Not really. You still have more to learn.



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.