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

Dr. Henri Wilson skrev:
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:49:44 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"
wrote:

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.

So no corrections as such is made of the rate of clocks after launch.

Why should they be..... their actual rate is of no importance.
Any oscillator anywhere, whether it run an 1000000000000 or
23984985984986948694899hz can be easily software synched with a UTC clock.

OK, I accept the retraction of your claim:
"Of course the bloody rate is changed after launch."

Your figures are merely departures from the expected readings.

Departures from the _correct_ readings, yes.

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

Come again?
To "reduce the above drift"? :-)

So are you saying that what you call "The approximate freefall correction",
namely THIS correction:
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."

Is to reduce the drift of the clocks shown below?

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

You _are_ confused, are you not? :-)
Or rather - you are saying stupidities because you don't know what else to say.


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.

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.

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...

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



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" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 21:39:15 +1100, "Artful" wrote:

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 13:57:08 -0800 (PST), Randy Poe

wrote:

On Feb 29, 4:47 pm, HW@....(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 21:45:51 +1100, "Artful"
wrote:
"Paul B. Andersen" wrote in
message


See how easy it is!!!!!!

Yes, we're all aware that experimental satellite NTS-2
had onboard the capability to change frequencies.

The point is, no such rate adjustment has been
included in GPS satellites since experiments with
NTS-2 verified the GPS correction, and there is no
"rate correction" done to GPS satellites because
they do not have the capability.

Instead, the adjusted frequency is hardwired at manufacture
time, before launch, and never changed.

That's of no importance.

The clock can run at any rate as long as it's a known one.
A simple conversion is carried out at the receiver.

How will the receiver know how much to correct by if you don't know what
the
rate is?

plonk

Yes .. run away little coward. You just can't handle the physics involved
and so you "plonk" when you are defeated.

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".
You are learning. :-)

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

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

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. :-)

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.

--
Paul

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

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.

"Dr. Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
....
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

You are in denial again

..... and nobody gives a stuff anyway...

You mean the crackpots like you don't give a stuff, because their position
is so easily refuted by experimental evidence. So how do they deal with
that .. by not giving a stuff about it.