Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:17:30 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008 13:11:47 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:


Actual GPS clock data measured by the ground stations can be found at:
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gps_datafiles.html

Below is a tiny excerpt of the data for the last 30 days.
I have shown the first and the last entry for each SV.
The table shows what the clock error is, and how much
it has changed during 30 days.

PRN Julian day clock error
1 54490.06701 -181263.7
1 54519.98368 -187755.1
2 54490.64201 -169105.0
2 54519.79479 -176782.5
3 54490.30035 -177788.4
3 54519.38646 -191137.3
4 54490.58646 57227.6
4 54519.72813 14049.3
5 54490.07813 -661179.4
5 54519.98368 -699917.9
8 54490.42257 138330.7
8 54519.51701 142174.2
9 54490.01146 -107278.9
9 54519.98368 -111959.0
10 54490.73090 222933.3
10 54519.85035 251627.2
11 54490.45590 -27039.0
11 54519.53924 -26982.6
12 54490.07813 354993.0
12 54519.98368 357044.3
13 54490.31146 -236284.6
12 54519.98368 357044.3
13 54490.31146 -236284.6
13 54519.70590 -241797.6
14 54490.01146 302989.6
14 54519.98368 294474.3
15 54490.01146 72735.4
15 54519.93924 79184.7
16 54490.21146 -132329.8
16 54519.33090 -132703.7
17 54490.50868 -43758.3
17 54519.65035 -42076.6
18 54490.01146 209686.4
18 54519.98368 201917.5
19 54490.33368 -18148.0
19 54519.43924 -21843.8
20 54490.20035 -121917.9
20 54519.59479 -119999.1
21 54490.01146 -73032.8
21 54519.98368 -71052.4
22 54490.01146 -207495.1
22 54519.98368 -208856.2
23 54490.25590 -328993.3
23 54519.33090 -336150.2
24 54490.01146 -65090.9
24 54519.93924 -72906.5
25 54490.36701 -503963.0
25 54519.45035 -516635.8
26 54490.83090 -165569.7
26 54519.89479 -191070.1
27 54490.37813 -163211.5
27 54519.48368 -169772.7
28 54490.47813 14182.0
28 54519.59479 15544.0
29 54490.79757 71673.8
29 54519.87257 56322.2
30 54490.14479 -61209.3
30 54519.71701 -65013.3
31 54490.10035 6616.5
31 54519.25313 10205.2

The table below show what the average rate error is
for each satellite clock during the last 30 days.

PRN Rate error
x10-12
1 -2.51
2 -3.05
3 -5.31
4 -17.15
5 -14.99
8 1.53
9 -1.81
10 11.40
11 0.02
12 0.79
13 -2.17
14 -3.29
15 2.49
16 -0.15
17 0.67
18 -3.00
19 -1.47
20 0.76
21 0.76
22 -0.53
23 -2.85
24 -3.02
25 -5.04
26 -10.15
27 -2.61
28 0.54
29 -6.11
30 -1.49
31 1.42


These actual measured data show that:
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.
Checkmate, Henri.
You cannot make the actual measured data go away by
calling them:
Bull.
You are really something, Henri! :-)
Henri Wilson:
The rate after launch varies from clock to clock and has never been
accurately checked for obvious reasons.
Henri Wilson:
"The rate of each clock is software corrected after launch
to synch closely with the GC."

Fun to be a laughing stock, Henri? :-)

Paul, you keep repeating the same irrelevant numbers.

Quite.
The "irrelevant numbers" showing that:
- The average rate error is -2.29E-12, which is
0.5% of the GR correction.
- Since the differences in the rates of the clocks are
as can be expected from the precision of the clocks,
it is clear that no individual correction is made
of the rate of the clocks after launch.
- Since all the clocks are corrected by the same GR-correction
before launch, and the rates after launch are correct within
the precision of the clocks, it proven that the GR correction
is correct within the precision of the clocks.

But if you keep calling the actual measured data
"irrelevant", maybe the data will go away?
Because you can make a wrong assertion right by
repeating it often enough, can't you?

The main software adjustment is made immediately after launch.
YOUR figures show daily clock drift over and above the main correction.

Give it up, Henri.
Even you can see that the "irrelevant numbers" show that
no such "software adjustment" of the rate is done "immediately after launch".

...and you still haven't explained how the GO sees the OC running FAST by 12
us/year whilst the OO sees the GC running SLOW by 19 us/year. (according to
Einstein, that is)

According to Einstein the GO sees the OC (in GPS orbit) running FAST
by 14 ms/year whilst the OO sees the GC running SLOW by 14 ms/year.

Didn't you know that that's why 14 ms/year is called the GR-correction?

-----------

BTW, aren't these statements hillarious?
Henri Wilson:
"The rate after launch varies from clock to clock and
has never been accurately checked for obvious reasons."
Henri Wilson:
"The rate of each clock is software corrected after launch
to synch closely with the GC."

Is it a common Wonderland practice to correct an error
you haven't checked what is to get it right?

--
Paul

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

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:28:20 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:17:30 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:




Paul, you keep repeating the same irrelevant numbers.

Quite.
The "irrelevant numbers" showing that:
- The average rate error is -2.29E-12, which is
0.5% of the GR correction.
- Since the differences in the rates of the clocks are
as can be expected from the precision of the clocks,
it is clear that no individual correction is made
of the rate of the clocks after launch.
- Since all the clocks are corrected by the same GR-correction
before launch, and the rates after launch are correct within
the precision of the clocks, it proven that the GR correction
is correct within the precision of the clocks.

But if you keep calling the actual measured data
"irrelevant", maybe the data will go away?
Because you can make a wrong assertion right by
repeating it often enough, can't you?

The main software adjustment is made immediately after launch.
YOUR figures show daily clock drift over and above the main correction.

Give it up, Henri.
Even you can see that the "irrelevant numbers" show that
no such "software adjustment" of the rate is done "immediately after launch".

You ignore the initial coarse correction after the clock is launched.


...and you still haven't explained how the GO sees the OC running FAST by 12
us/year whilst the OO sees the GC running SLOW by 19 us/year. (according to
Einstein, that is)

According to Einstein the GO sees the OC (in GPS orbit) running FAST
by 14 ms/year whilst the OO sees the GC running SLOW by 14 ms/year.

Didn't you know that that's why 14 ms/year is called the GR-correction?

Paul, what 'GR correction' would be pre-applied to a clock that was already in
orbit and was to be sent down to Earth? .....The aim being to make it run at
the same rate as the other orbiting clocks.

-----------

BTW, aren't these statements hillarious?
Henri Wilson:
"The rate after launch varies from clock to clock and
has never been accurately checked for obvious reasons."
Henri Wilson:
"The rate of each clock is software corrected after launch
to synch closely with the GC."

Is it a common Wonderland practice to correct an error
you haven't checked what is to get it right?

Paul, the clock runs at N ticks per GPS orbit before launch and N+n ticks per
SAME GPS orbit after launch, according to the SAME observer in the SAME frame.

....so what has changed?

.....answer the question please....



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:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:28:20 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:17:30 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:



Paul, you keep repeating the same irrelevant numbers.
Quite.
The "irrelevant numbers" showing that:
- The average rate error is -2.29E-12, which is
0.5% of the GR correction.
- Since the differences in the rates of the clocks are
as can be expected from the precision of the clocks,
it is clear that no individual correction is made
of the rate of the clocks after launch.
- Since all the clocks are corrected by the same GR-correction
before launch, and the rates after launch are correct within
the precision of the clocks, it proven that the GR correction
is correct within the precision of the clocks.

But if you keep calling the actual measured data
"irrelevant", maybe the data will go away?
Because you can make a wrong assertion right by
repeating it often enough, can't you?

The main software adjustment is made immediately after launch.
YOUR figures show daily clock drift over and above the main correction.
Give it up, Henri.
Even you can see that the "irrelevant numbers" show that
no such "software adjustment" of the rate is done "immediately after launch".

You ignore the initial coarse correction after the clock is launched.

Is too, is too! eh?
You are a bit slow, are you not?

1. All the clocks are built equal. They are all manufactured according
to the specification which says that they shall run slow by
delta_f/f = -4.4647E-10 relative to the SI-definition of a second.
The "Interface Control Document":
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/...d200cw1234.pdf
From section 3.3.1.1:
"The SV [space vehicle] carrier frequency and clock rates --
as they would appear to an observer located in the SV --
are offset to compensate for relativistic effects. The clock
rates are offset by delta_f/f = -4.4647E-10, equivalent to
a change in the P-code chipping rate of 10.23 MHz offset by
a delta_f = -4.5674E-3 Hz. This is equal to 10.22999999543 MHz."
So when the clocks come from the manufacturer they will all run at
the same rate, but for the inherent limited presicion, which is in
the order of few parts in 10^12. That means that the rate of the clocks
can be expected to differ by a few parts in 10^12. The rate of each clock
may change a little with time, but mostly will the clocks that are running
a little too fast continue to do so, while those that are running too slow
will continue to do so.
-------------------------------------------------------------
When the clocks are not individually adjusted, their rates
can be expected to differ by few parts in 10^12.
------------------------------------------------

Is there anything in the above you don't understand?

2. Actual measurements of the clocks in orbit show that their
30 days average rate errors (compared to GPS-time) we
PRN Rate error
x10-12
1 -2.51
2 -3.05
3 -5.31
4 -17.15
5 -14.99
8 1.53
9 -1.81
10 11.40
11 0.02
12 0.79
13 -2.17
14 -3.29
15 2.49
16 -0.15
17 0.67
18 -3.00
19 -1.47
20 0.76
21 0.76
22 -0.53
23 -2.85
24 -3.02
25 -5.04
26 -10.15
27 -2.61
28 0.54
29 -6.11
30 -1.49
31 1.42

As you can see are the rate differences as can be expected
by clocks which are not individually adjusted.

Is there anything in the above you don't understand?


So which "initial coarse correction after the clock is launched"
are you talking about, Henri?
If such an individual correction is done, why are then the difference
in clock rates as can be expected by clocks which are _not_ individually
corrected?

--
Paul

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

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
So which "initial coarse correction after the clock is launched"
are you talking about, Henri?
If such an individual correction is done, why are then the difference
in clock rates as can be expected by clocks which are _not_ individually
corrected?

To defend Henri for an instant, it is possible he is thinking about the
original satellites, which were launched with the GR correction as remotely
settable. They were initially launched with the GR correction turned off,
and left to run like that for several days (I don't have the details here to
quote exactly) to see if the correction was actually needed (as some of
those involved doubted the GR correction was real). After that time, it was
found that the correction WAS needed, and so the synthesized clock
adjustment was turned on.

Of course, for later satellites, there was no need for such a switch any
more, they could be made with the correction built-in.

Anyway.. that sounds like a possible explanation for what Henri was saying.

"Artful" wrote in
:

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in
message ...
So which "initial coarse correction after the clock is launched"
are you talking about, Henri?
If such an individual correction is done, why are then the
difference in clock rates as can be expected by clocks which are
_not_ individually corrected?

To defend Henri for an instant, it is possible he is thinking
about the original satellites, which were launched with the GR
correction as remotely settable. They were initially launched
with the GR correction turned off, and left to run like that for
several days (I don't have the details here to quote exactly) to
see if the correction was actually needed (as some of those
involved doubted the GR correction was real). After that time, it
was found that the correction WAS needed, and so the synthesized
clock adjustment was turned on.

Of course, for later satellites, there was no need for such a
switch any more, they could be made with the correction built-in.

Anyway.. that sounds like a possible explanation for what Henri
was saying.





Not really. Henri has been told this numerous times. Henri refuses
to read any information provided by Paul or anyone else.

On Feb 29, 5:45*am, "Artful" wrote:
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in ...

So which "initial coarse correction after the clock is launched"
are you talking about, Henri?
If such an individual correction is done, why are then the difference
in clock rates as can be expected by clocks which are _not_ individually
corrected?

To defend Henri for an instant, it is possible he is thinking about the
original satellites, which were launched with the GR correction as remotely
settable. *They were initially launched with the GR correction turned off,
and left to run like that for several days (I don't have the details here to
quote exactly) to see if the correction was actually needed (as some of
those involved doubted the GR correction was real). *After that time, it was
found that the correction WAS needed, and so the synthesized clock
adjustment was turned on.

From Neil Ashby's site:
http://www.leapsecond.com/history/Ashby-Relativity.htm
http://www.leapsecond.com/history/19...I-v9-NTS-2.pdf

Of course, for later satellites, there was no need for such a switch any
more, they could be made with the correction built-in.

Anyway.. that sounds like a possible explanation for what Henri was saying..

Henri is also fond of declaring that there has never been
an experimental test of relativity, and that the GR
correction for GPS is only "roughly" the same as the
actual rate difference "by coincidence". Hence the importance
to his mythology of insisting that there is a fine
rate correction done on station.

- Randy

"Randy Poe" wrote in message
...

| Henri is also fond of declaring that there has never been
| an experimental test of relativity,

If I claim eggs are laid by bright green flying elephants
and you fry an egg for breakfast, that's a test of fried eggs, not
bright green flying elephants. You have never once measured
the speed of light from a moving source no matter how
many times you measure it from a stationary source.
You idiots will continue to live in your make-believe world
of fantasy and sci-fi, you are full of ****.

On Feb 29, 6:11*am, Randy Poe wrote:
On Feb 29, 5:45*am, "Artful" wrote:





"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in ...

So which "initial coarse correction after the clock is launched"
are you talking about, Henri?
If such an individual correction is done, why are then the difference
in clock rates as can be expected by clocks which are _not_ individually
corrected?

To defend Henri for an instant, it is possible he is thinking about the
original satellites, which were launched with the GR correction as remotely
settable. *They were initially launched with the GR correction turned off,
and left to run like that for several days (I don't have the details here to
quote exactly) to see if the correction was actually needed (as some of
those involved doubted the GR correction was real). *After that time, it was
found that the correction WAS needed, and so the synthesized clock
adjustment was turned on.

From Neil Ashby's site:http://www.leapsecond.com/history/As...I-v9-NTS-2.pdf

Of course, for later satellites, there was no need for such a switch any
more, they could be made with the correction built-in.

Anyway.. that sounds like a possible explanation for what Henri was saying.

Henri is also fond of declaring that there has never been
an experimental test of relativity, and that the GR
correction for GPS is only "roughly" the same as the
actual rate difference "by coincidence". Hence the importance
to his mythology of insisting that there is a fine
rate correction done on station.


Henri is also not above hypothesizing that communist rabbits with
screwdrivers taped to their ears are in fact a more plausible
explanation for the shift in the clocks in such a way that just so
happens to agree with the GR shift, rather than allow that GR is
correct. He really doesn't care. As long as he is one voice saying,
"Nanananana! You can't MAKE me believe you!" it's a passable amusement
to expend oodles of free time.

PD

On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:45:51 +1100, "Artful" wrote:

"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in message
...
So which "initial coarse correction after the clock is launched"
are you talking about, Henri?
If such an individual correction is done, why are then the difference
in clock rates as can be expected by clocks which are _not_ individually
corrected?

To defend Henri for an instant, it is possible he is thinking about the
original satellites, which were launched with the GR correction as remotely
settable. They were initially launched with the GR correction turned off,
and left to run like that for several days (I don't have the details here to
quote exactly) to see if the correction was actually needed (as some of
those involved doubted the GR correction was real). After that time, it was
found that the correction WAS needed, and so the synthesized clock
adjustment was turned on.

'Synthesized clock adjustments' !!!!!!!!

See how easy it is!!!!!!

Of course, for later satellites, there was no need for such a switch any
more, they could be made with the correction built-in.

Anyway.. that sounds like a possible explanation for what Henri was saying.

Thankyou fartful, I will now be nice to you for a couple of days.


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 Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:49:44 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 12:28:20 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

Dr. Henri Wilson wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:17:30 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:



Paul, you keep repeating the same irrelevant numbers.
Quite.
The "irrelevant numbers" showing that:
- The average rate error is -2.29E-12, which is
0.5% of the GR correction.
- Since the differences in the rates of the clocks are
as can be expected from the precision of the clocks,
it is clear that no individual correction is made
of the rate of the clocks after launch.
- Since all the clocks are corrected by the same GR-correction
before launch, and the rates after launch are correct within
the precision of the clocks, it proven that the GR correction
is correct within the precision of the clocks.

But if you keep calling the actual measured data
"irrelevant", maybe the data will go away?
Because you can make a wrong assertion right by
repeating it often enough, can't you?

The main software adjustment is made immediately after launch.
YOUR figures show daily clock drift over and above the main correction.
Give it up, Henri.
Even you can see that the "irrelevant numbers" show that
no such "software adjustment" of the rate is done "immediately after launch".

You ignore the initial coarse correction after the clock is launched.

Is too, is too! eh?
You are a bit slow, are you not?

1. All the clocks are built equal. They are all manufactured according
to the specification which says that they shall run slow by
delta_f/f = -4.4647E-10 relative to the SI-definition of a second.
The "Interface Control Document":
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/...d200cw1234.pdf
From section 3.3.1.1:
"The SV [space vehicle] carrier frequency and clock rates --
as they would appear to an observer located in the SV --
are offset to compensate for relativistic effects. The clock
rates are offset by delta_f/f = -4.4647E-10, equivalent to
a change in the P-code chipping rate of 10.23 MHz offset by
a delta_f = -4.5674E-3 Hz. This is equal to 10.22999999543 MHz."
So when the clocks come from the manufacturer they will all run at
the same rate, but for the inherent limited presicion, which is in
the order of few parts in 10^12. That means that the rate of the clocks
can be expected to differ by a few parts in 10^12. The rate of each clock
may change a little with time, but mostly will the clocks that are running
a little too fast continue to do so, while those that are running too slow
will continue to do so.
-------------------------------------------------------------
When the clocks are not individually adjusted, their rates
can be expected to differ by few parts in 10^12.
------------------------------------------------

Is there anything in the above you don't understand?

2. Actual measurements of the clocks in orbit show that their
30 days average rate errors (compared to GPS-time) we
PRN Rate error
x10-12
1 -2.51
2 -3.05
3 -5.31
4 -17.15
5 -14.99
8 1.53
9 -1.81
10 11.40
11 0.02
12 0.79
13 -2.17
14 -3.29
15 2.49
16 -0.15
17 0.67
18 -3.00
19 -1.47
20 0.76
21 0.76
22 -0.53
23 -2.85
24 -3.02
25 -5.04
26 -10.15
27 -2.61
28 0.54
29 -6.11
30 -1.49
31 1.42

As you can see are the rate differences as can be expected
by clocks which are not individually adjusted.

Is there anything in the above you don't understand?


So which "initial coarse correction after the clock is launched"
are you talking about, Henri?
If such an individual correction is done, why are then the difference
in clock rates as can be expected by clocks which are _not_ individually
corrected?

It is not a 'correction' as such.

It is merely a determination of the clock's drift wrt the GCs...so at any GC
time the OC's reading is predictable.
Your figures are merely departures from the expected readings.

The approximate freefall correction is pre-set in order to reduce the above
drift and minimise the error, as I explained before.


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.