"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
| Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
| On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 13:43:37 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
| wrote:
|
| Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
| On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 06:26:46 GMT, Tom Roberts

| wrote:
|
| Bryan Olson wrote:
| The GPS is terrific, and if one wants to know how it works, it is
| of no importance what you or I say; we did not build it. We should
| instead listen to scientists and engineers that actually achieved
| this amazing technical feat.
|
| Henri Wilson wrote:
| is....as long as all clocks are the same when in orbit (and
| preferably the same as the GC).
| The 'GR correction' is included simply to appease the
| relativists....The clocks
| are software corrected when they're up there.
| Can you cite that to people who built the system, or is it just
| something going on in your head?
| That's purely in his head. The actual GPS includes clocks on the
ground,
| and the relativistic correction is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to its
| operation. The "software correction" he mentions is woefully
inadequate
| to handle such an enormous correction, had the satellite clocks not
been
| modified. There's no need to "appease the relativists", but there IS
a
| need to design and engineer a system that meets its requirements, and
| the clock correction is an important aspect of that. Among those
| requirements is the need to remain within 1 microsecond of UTC (minus
| leap seconds), which would be impossible without it.
|
| Like most of what Henri writes, this is completely disconnected from
the
| actual world we inhabit.
| What are you trying to prove?
| That this statement by Henri Wilson is nonsense, maybe?
| "It doesn't really matter what the pre-launch clock rate
| is....as long as all clocks are the same when in orbit
| (and preferably the same as the GC).
| The 'GR correction' is included simply to appease
| the relativists....The clocks are software corrected
| when they're up there."
|
| ..and it is indeed interesting to see Henri Wilson
| explain why his statements above are stupid:
|
| The GPS system has three principal requirements.
|
| 1) very stable clocks (atomic ones are ideal)
| 2) ALL the orbiting clocks are in absolute synch with each other.
| 3) 4D positioning can be calculated using the differences in arrival
times of
| time signals from the orbiting clocks.....(knowing the orbits,
precisely. 3D
| also works if the Earth's oblateness is taken into account).
|
| It is vital that the orbiting clocks are also in synch with the Earth
clocks in
| order that the receivers can perform the necessary quadrangulation.
| Quite right, Henri.
| It is indeed vital that the orbiting clocks at any time are in sync
| with the GPS coordinated time within few tens of ns (pretty close to
| "absolute synch", as you put it).
|
| Can't see any Einsteiniana there, can you?
|
| But I can see that you do know that:
| "It is vital that the orbiting clocks at any time are in sync
| with the GPS coordinated time within few tens of ns"
|
| Synching the orbiting clocks is obviously not an easy task because of
| constantly changing doppler effects. However, methods are now in place
to
| monitor all the clocks and continually software correct for any drift
in their
| readings. Their reading errors are included in their signals.
| Quite.
| And the clock offset ("the reading error", as you put it) is uploded
| to each satellite typically once a day.
| So you know that since the GPS clocks have to stay in "absolute synch"
| (within few tens of ns) with GPS-time, the rate of the clocks must be
correct
| within few tens of ns per day, that is better than a few parts in
10^13.
|
| Can't see any Einsteiniana there, can you?
|
| But I can see that you do know that:
| "the rate of the clocks must be correct within a few parts in 10^13."
|
| It has been observed that atomic clocks speed up when in orbit,
presumably due
| to their being in free fall and cutting the Earth's fields. An
approximate
| correction is built-in before launch to make subsequent software
correcting
| easier and more accurate.
| And you know that the "approximate correction" must be correct
| within few parts in 10^13 to make the GPS work.
| You also know that the correction factually is -4.4647E-10,
| and that this correction has proven to be correct within
| few parts in 10^13, because the GPS works.
| You also know that since this "approximate correction" was built
| into the very first satellite, it wasn't _observed_ to be -4.4647E-10,
| it was _calculated_ to be -4.4647E-10.
|
| It wasn't built into the first satellite.
| ...and now you accept that the exact amount has never been observed.
|
| Don't even try to deny this historical fact.
|
| You also know that GR was used in this calculation.
|
| It doesn't matter what it is as long as it's reasonably close to the
free-fall
| error.
| The precise synching is carried out after launch.
|
| It doesn't matter what you call it,
| you still know that:
| GR was used in the calculation of the adjustment,
| and you know that:
| this adjustment must be correct within few parts in 10^15,
| and you know that:
| this adjustment is essential, without it the GPS wouldn't work.

Hilarious! GPS is accurate to +/- 50 metres.
Certainly you can't land a plane with it 150 feet above or below
the runway!
Therefore GPS doesn't work. :-)
Hey ****head! GPS receivers run on satellite time, they have
no atomic clocks.

Androcles wrote:
"Randy Poe" wrote in message
...
| On Feb 20, 7:43 am, "Androcles" wrote:
| The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation
| corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the
| ground state of the cesium 133 atom. - NIST.
| That's 10 significant figures, Tusseladd has more than NIST.

Is there any particular reason why you snipped this: ?
"Randy Poe" wrote:
| Nevertheless, here's what NIST says about their
| time accuracy:
|
| http://tf.nist.gov/general/precision.htm
|
| "The best cesium oscillators (such as NIST-F1) can
| produce frequency with an uncertainty of about
| 1 x 10-15, which translates to a time error of
| about 0.1 nanoseconds per day."
|
| That would be 15 significant figures.

Could it be because it shows the stupity in your beleif
that the precision of the _definition_:
"The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation
corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the
ground state of the cesium 133 atom."
is only one part in 10^10?

A second is the duration of _exactly_ 9 192 631 770 cycles,
that is 9192631770.00000000000000000000000... cycles.

You don't know anything, Poe, you are a world class ****wit.
According to the cretin Andersen, a million years is 1000000.0006797
years.

Quite.
And according to Androcles, a million years is 994222.168323667 years
(That's 15 significant digits! Androcles has more than NIST!)

Androcles wrote previously.
If you use GR to calculate the time on Earth vs the time on the Moon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravita..._time_dilation

tf = 1,000,000 years
gravitational constant G = 6.673E-11 m3 kg-1 s-2
Mass of Earth = 5.9736E+24 kg
r = 385000 km (distance to Moon)
c = 299792.458 km/sec

t0 = 994222.168323667

An observer on Earth measures the Moon making ~6 more
orbits around the Sun in a thousand years, as prophesied
by Einstein. You'd think someone would notice by now.

Of course Androcles' calculation is wrong.
His time difference is a billion times too big,
and the sign is wrong. With 15 significant digits!
You can't beat Androcles when it comes to making wrong
calculations with a high precision! :-)

The correct numbers a
While an observer on the Earth measure 1,000,000 years,
an observer on the Moon (if we ignore the mass of the Moon)
would measure 1000000.0006797 years.
That is approximately 6 hours more than the observer on the Earth.

(The rate of a clock in the same orbit as the Moon compared
to a clock on the ground is: delta_f/f = 6.797E-10)

--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:58:55 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

This table show how the clock error for the satellite with PRN 2
has evolved during 30 days. Note that the clock runs
a bit too fast, so the error increases day by day.
The error has increased 564 ns during 28 days, which is
an average of 20.1 ns/day, or +2.3E-13 too fast.
This is as expected (or better), since it is less than
the precision of the frequency standard.

So the clock which was GR corrected by -4.4647E-10
when it was manufactured, is running +2.3E-13 too fast.
That is, the error in clock rate is 0.05% of the GR correction.

This proves conclusively that the GR-correction is correct
within the precision of the clock.

All you have done is prove that the 'GR correction' is NOT the right one.
The clocks drift way off compared with the Earth clocks.

Thanks for the new contribution to my collection of
Wilsonian thinking:
"If the prediction is in accorance with the measurement within
the precision of the measurement, then the prediction is proven
wrong."


--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
| Androcles wrote:
| "Randy Poe" wrote in message
|
...
| | On Feb 20, 7:43 am, "Androcles" wrote:
| | The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation
| | corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of
the
| | ground state of the cesium 133 atom. - NIST.
| | That's 10 significant figures, Tusseladd has more than NIST.
|
| Is there any particular reason why you snipped this: ?
| "Randy Poe" wrote:
| | Nevertheless, here's what NIST says about their
| | time accuracy:
| |
| | http://tf.nist.gov/general/precision.htm
| |
| | "The best cesium oscillators (such as NIST-F1) can
| | produce frequency with an uncertainty of about
| | 1 x 10-15, which translates to a time error of
| | about 0.1 nanoseconds per day."
| |
| | That would be 15 significant figures.
|
| Could it be because it shows the stupity in your beleif
| that the precision of the _definition_:
| "The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation
| corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the
| ground state of the cesium 133 atom."
| is only one part in 10^10?
|
| A second is the duration of _exactly_ 9 192 631 770 cycles,
| that is 9192631770.00000000000000000000000... cycles.

Fractional cycles, huh?


|
| You don't know anything, Poe, you are a world class ****wit.
| According to the cretin Andersen, a million years is 1000000.0006797
| years.
|
| Quite.
| And according to Androcles, a million years is 994222.168323667 years
| (That's 15 significant digits! Androcles has more than NIST!)
|
| Androcles wrote previously.
| If you use GR to calculate the time on Earth vs the time on the Moon
| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravita..._time_dilation
|
| tf = 1,000,000 years
| gravitational constant G = 6.673E-11 m3 kg-1 s-2
| Mass of Earth = 5.9736E+24 kg
| r = 385000 km (distance to Moon)
| c = 299792.458 km/sec
|
| t0 = 994222.168323667
|
| An observer on Earth measures the Moon making ~6 more
| orbits around the Sun in a thousand years, as prophesied
| by Einstein. You'd think someone would notice by now.
|
| Of course Androcles' calculation is wrong.
| His time difference is a billion times too big,
| and the sign is wrong. With 15 significant digits!
| You can't beat Androcles when it comes to making wrong
| calculations with a high precision! :-)
|
| The correct numbers a
| While an observer on the Earth measure 1,000,000 years,
| an observer on the Moon (if we ignore the mass of the Moon)
| would measure 1000000.0006797 years.
| That is approximately 6 hours more than the observer on the Earth.

Hilarious, the Moon rises 6 hours before it rises. :-)

|
| (The rate of a clock in the same orbit as the Moon compared
| to a clock on the ground is: delta_f/f = 6.797E-10)
|
Yeah, we know, a year is not a year.

I know a carpenter that cut a length of wood to a precision
of 1/64th of an inch, he was worried about the saw blade
thickness, but he cut it one foot short. It really happened,
too!
Hey Tusseladd, when the big hand is on the 12 and the
little hand is on the 6, the correct time
is 5:00:0.000000000000003856746 o'clock.
Hilarious. :-)
You can't beat Tusseladd when it comes to telling the time with
high precision and no accuracy. :-)

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:38:38 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:58:55 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

This table show how the clock error for the satellite with PRN 2
has evolved during 30 days. Note that the clock runs
a bit too fast, so the error increases day by day.
The error has increased 564 ns during 28 days, which is
an average of 20.1 ns/day, or +2.3E-13 too fast.
This is as expected (or better), since it is less than
the precision of the frequency standard.

So the clock which was GR corrected by -4.4647E-10
when it was manufactured, is running +2.3E-13 too fast.
That is, the error in clock rate is 0.05% of the GR correction.

This proves conclusively that the GR-correction is correct
within the precision of the clock.

All you have done is prove that the 'GR correction' is NOT the right one.
The clocks drift way off compared with the Earth clocks.

Thanks for the new contribution to my collection of
Wilsonian thinking:
"If the prediction is in accorance with the measurement within
the precision of the measurement, then the prediction is proven
wrong."


Paul, let's try a little harder.

Let's say that after launch, an OC is found to emit 100000000000001 ticks for
every 100000000000000 ticks of the GC.

How would a Norwegian go about software synching the OC with the GC?

I eagerly await your answer.

Remember to include GR....


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.

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
Paul, let's try a little harder.

Let's say that after launch, an OC is found to emit 100000000000001 ticks for
every 100000000000000 ticks of the GC.

How would a Norwegian go about software synching the OC with the GC?

I eagerly await your answer.

Still don't know after all these years, Henri? :-)

1. The SV-clock is never adjusted while a satellite is in service,
the "clock data" are transmitted with no correction.
2. The "clock offset" tells what the error in the "clock data" is,
and is transmitted together with the "clock data".
3. The correction is done in the receiver, it will find the correct
time reported by the satellite by subtracting these two times.
4. The "clock offset" is updated (uploaded from the ground) typically
once per day.

If there is anything else you still don't know, just ask.


Remember to include GR....

Done prior to launch.
That's why the rate of the orbiting clock is correct to one part in 10^14.
Had you forgotten that the GPS wouldn't work without the GR correction?


--
Paul

http://home.c2i.net/pb_andersen/

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:37:43 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
Paul, let's try a little harder.

Let's say that after launch, an OC is found to emit 100000000000001 ticks for
every 100000000000000 ticks of the GC.

How would a Norwegian go about software synching the OC with the GC?

I eagerly await your answer.

Still don't know after all these years, Henri? :-)

1. The SV-clock is never adjusted while a satellite is in service,
the "clock data" are transmitted with no correction.
2. The "clock offset" tells what the error in the "clock data" is,
and is transmitted together with the "clock data".
3. The correction is done in the receiver, it will find the correct
time reported by the satellite by subtracting these two times.
4. The "clock offset" is updated (uploaded from the ground) typically
once per day.



If there is anything else you still don't know, just ask.


Remember to include GR....

Done prior to launch.
That's why the rate of the orbiting clock is correct to one part in 10^14.
Had you forgotten that the GPS wouldn't work without the GR correction?



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.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:37:43 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
Paul, let's try a little harder.

Let's say that after launch, an OC is found to emit 100000000000001 ticks for
every 100000000000000 ticks of the GC.

How would a Norwegian go about software synching the OC with the GC?

I eagerly await your answer.

Still don't know after all these years, Henri? :-)

1. The SV-clock is never adjusted while a satellite is in service,
the "clock data" are transmitted with no correction.
2. The "clock offset" tells what the error in the "clock data" is,
and is transmitted together with the "clock data".
3. The correction is done in the receiver, it will find the correct
time reported by the satellite by subtracting these two times.
4. The "clock offset" is updated (uploaded from the ground) typically
once per day.

No, wrong answer.
The correct one is that one tick is dropped for every 10000000000000 that
arrive....which makes the maximum error 1/10000000000000.
If the OC emitted 10000000000025 ticks for every 10000000000000 of the GC and
25 were dropped for avery 10000000000000 of the GC, then the maximum error
would be 25/10000000000000....so it is clear why it is advantageous to built-in
the approximate free fall error.


If there is anything else you still don't know, just ask.

Yes, If you wanted to send a vertical rod into orbit as a standard 1 metre
reference, what vertical length would you make it before launch?

Remember to include GR....

Done prior to launch.
That's why the rate of the orbiting clock is correct to one part in 10^14.
Had you forgotten that the GPS wouldn't work without the GR correction?

The GR prediction happens to be around the right order, purely by coincidence.
The fine tuning of the secondary clock is carried out after launch by altering
its relationship with the primary atomic oscillator by adding or dropping
'ticks' as explained above..


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.

On Feb 22, 4:08 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:37:43 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"



wrote:
Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
Paul, let's try a little harder.

Let's say that after launch, an OC is found to emit 100000000000001 ticks for
every 100000000000000 ticks of the GC.

How would a Norwegian go about software synching the OC with the GC?

I eagerly await your answer.

Still don't know after all these years, Henri? :-)

1. The SV-clock is never adjusted while a satellite is in service,
the "clock data" are transmitted with no correction.
2. The "clock offset" tells what the error in the "clock data" is,
and is transmitted together with the "clock data".
3. The correction is done in the receiver, it will find the correct
time reported by the satellite by subtracting these two times.
4. The "clock offset" is updated (uploaded from the ground) typically
once per day.

No, wrong answer.
The correct one is that one tick is dropped for every 10000000000000 that
arrive....which makes the maximum error 1/10000000000000.
If the OC emitted 10000000000025 ticks for every 10000000000000 of the GC and
25 were dropped for avery 10000000000000 of the GC, then the maximum error
would be 25/10000000000000....so it is clear why it is advantageous to built-in
the approximate free fall error.



If there is anything else you still don't know, just ask.

Yes, If you wanted to send a vertical rod into orbit as a standard 1 metre
reference, what vertical length would you make it before launch?

Remember to include GR....

Done prior to launch.
That's why the rate of the orbiting clock is correct to one part in 10^14.
Had you forgotten that the GPS wouldn't work without the GR correction?

The GR prediction happens to be around the right order, purely by coincidence.

"About the right order". What was it and how far was
it off, Henri?

If I predicted the Dow Jones would be 11402.5 tomorrow
and it was 11402.5, would you say I got it "around the
right order"?

The fine tuning of the secondary clock is carried out after launch by altering
its relationship with the primary atomic oscillator by adding or dropping
'ticks' as explained above..

There is no change in rate after launch, and you know
it. Changing the offsets every 12 hours will do nothing
to affect the drift between satellite clock and ground
clock between updates. The only way to keep that drift
in spec is to get the rate correct.

Since the rate is never changed after launch, you have
to make the right adjustments on the ground to get it
right.

- Randy

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:16:54 -0800 (PST), Randy Poe
wrote:

On Feb 22, 4:08 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 22:37:43 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"



wrote:
Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
Paul, let's try a little harder.

Let's say that after launch, an OC is found to emit 100000000000001 ticks for
every 100000000000000 ticks of the GC.

How would a Norwegian go about software synching the OC with the GC?

I eagerly await your answer.

Still don't know after all these years, Henri? :-)

1. The SV-clock is never adjusted while a satellite is in service,
the "clock data" are transmitted with no correction.
2. The "clock offset" tells what the error in the "clock data" is,
and is transmitted together with the "clock data".
3. The correction is done in the receiver, it will find the correct
time reported by the satellite by subtracting these two times.
4. The "clock offset" is updated (uploaded from the ground) typically
once per day.

No, wrong answer.
The correct one is that one tick is dropped for every 10000000000000 that
arrive....which makes the maximum error 1/10000000000000.
If the OC emitted 10000000000025 ticks for every 10000000000000 of the GC and
25 were dropped for avery 10000000000000 of the GC, then the maximum error
would be 25/10000000000000....so it is clear why it is advantageous to built-in
the approximate free fall error.



If there is anything else you still don't know, just ask.

Yes, If you wanted to send a vertical rod into orbit as a standard 1 metre
reference, what vertical length would you make it before launch?

Remember to include GR....

Done prior to launch.
That's why the rate of the orbiting clock is correct to one part in 10^14.
Had you forgotten that the GPS wouldn't work without the GR correction?

The GR prediction happens to be around the right order, purely by coincidence.

"About the right order". What was it and how far was
it off, Henri?

If I predicted the Dow Jones would be 11402.5 tomorrow
and it was 11402.5, would you say I got it "around the
right order"?

The fine tuning of the secondary clock is carried out after launch by altering
its relationship with the primary atomic oscillator by adding or dropping
'ticks' as explained above..

There is no change in rate after launch, and you know
it. Changing the offsets every 12 hours will do nothing
to affect the drift between satellite clock and ground
clock between updates. The only way to keep that drift
in spec is to get the rate correct.

Since the rate is never changed after launch, you have
to make the right adjustments on the ground to get it
right.

Of course the bloody rate is changed after launch.

Each clock is software adjusted so that its rate is as close as possible to the
GC...after that, only very small corrections are required.

- Randy



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.