"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 15:20:27 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:58:24 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:11:31 +0100, "George Dishman"
....
Andersen et al always claimed there was no built-in way to modify GPS
clock rates.

Correct, the clock rates are simply a spectral line
so you can't alter them. That's the precise reason
why atomic clocks are so effective, they are virtually
unaffected by local environmental conditions. What you
do is put a frequency changing circuit after the clock.

George, the 'spectral line' is used to synch a secondary crystal clock.
It is an easy matter to vary that synchronization.

Yes, that's exactly what they did, just change the
divider ratios.

Tell that to Andersen et al.

It is widely known. Perhaps if you didn't resort to
editing people's posts to fake what they said, you
wouldn't then fall into the mistake of believing
your own lies.

It so happens that atomic clocks change rates very slightly when placed
in
free fall.

No, you have been corrected on that many times too.
The Caesium atoms are measured in free fall in the
clock anyway, it is the gravitational _potential_
that causes the change, not the acceleration.

It's the state of free fall. All clocks in free fall show the same shift.

No they don't. The atoms are in free in a fountain
clock (beam versions too) but one at the top of a
hill will tick at a different rate when compared
with an identical clock at the bottom of the hill.
It is gravitational potential that causes the change.

It is also a fact that the fractional change in signal speed as it falls
from 26000 km to Earth is exactly the same as the GR blueshift
prediction.
Work
it out yourself if you don't believe me.

You have made another mistake there, although there
is a blueshift in reality, meaning that the received
frequency is higher, ballistic theory only predicts
a change in _speed_ as you say. That doesn't affect
the received _frequency_, it has the effect of
changing the wavelength.

That's right.....see my fallingwave.exe demo. ....but GPS signals from
different clocks are compared via their phasing. A shift in wavelength
will
cause an error.

The frequency is unchanged so there is no effect
on phase either, only opposite changes on speed
and wavelength, neither of which is measured.

Of course that's different from the preceding point,
the clock rate effect is cumulative while the blueshift
only affects the downlinks.

That's correct. However the photons that make up the clock signals will
themselves be doppler shifted by (c+v)/c, due to their speed increase.

No, don't get confused. There is the usual Doppler
shift where v is the radial speed of the satellite
but there is no frequency shift from the change of
propagation speed.

Relativists noticed that the blue shift matched the GR prediction and
naturally jumped on the opportunity to claim this as 'evidence'.

All tests of all theories are counted as evidence, that
is th way of science. In the same way you can take the
MMX as evidence supporting ballistic theory but it is
the other long liist of evidence (Sagnac, Shapiro, Ives
and Stilwell, Fizeau, pulsars and contact binaries) that
falsify it. Any one of those is sufficient and together
it make it clear that ballistic theory is a total
non-starter.

George, the same argument you are using to try to explain Sagnac forms the
basis of my variable stars program. You say the rays move at c wrt the
source
even though it is obvious they move at c+/-v wrt the source

Since when did ballistic theory say that light moves
at "c+/-v wrt the source" Henry?

And what does that have to do with the conversation? We
were talking about gravitational blueshift of GPS. Try
to focus Henry, you're drifting away again.

when viewed in the
lab frame.

"wrt the source" is synonymous with "in the source frame"

This is all I need to produce these curves.

In fact it is a BaTh
effect.

Since ballistic theory predicts no effect on frequency,
only on the speed and the wavelength as a consequence,
it proves ballistic theory wrong yet again.

The only test done in the 1970's was very inaccurate.

Funny how, when you thought it affected the frequency,
you consider it evidence for ballisti theory but when
you discover it contradicts ballistic theory, suddenly
it becomes "very inaccurate". Your bias is showing Henry.

It was probably based on
wavelength shift anyway.

Wrong, the receivers are PLL based so measure secular
frequency.

Nobody making or using GPS bothers with the 'GR correction'.

The corrections are built into the satellites to keep
the cost of the handsets down

Only desperate
relativists make an issue of it. Contrary to what Paul Andersen has always
claimed, the clocks are corrected after launch, using the method you
described
above.

No they aren't, the correction is included by offsetting
the frequency translation ratios during manufacture to the
amount given by GR, which includes both the gravitational
potential correction and the velocity correction which you
would be more familiar with as "time dilation" from SR.

I will quote you on this one too, George.

Feel free, the story might be apocryphal but you'll
find it all over the net.

There is a lot of bull**** on the net.

True, but I believe the GPS story is well founded.

Naturally you would...It's about the only argument you have left...

It's not any sort of evidence Henry, just an apocryphal
story about the vagaries of managment. The engineers
built in the GR corrections because everyone knows GR
works, but the managers were sceptical so the first
satellites had a switch that could remove the correction.
The production satellites don't have the ability to
switch it off.

They wouldn't work if SR was right and both beams moved at c wrt the
source.

Clueless as always Henry.

SR clearly requires that the two beams move at c+/-v wrt the source.

Nope, SR requires that they move at c with respect to
the source.

It might REQUIRE it George..but the diagram shows the rays moving at c+/-v
wrt
the source.

Nope, there is no diagram showing the situation in
the frame of the source. You are hallucinating.

So Sagnac disproves SR.

It requires an absolute reference frame for light.
SR is just a disguised aether theory.

You understanding has never progressed beyond LET.

At least LET is logically consistent and would make some sense...if an
aether
existed.
My program: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/gr-aether.exe
shows how stupid the second postulate actually is.

It only shows LET.

The standard explanation is that the beams both move
at c in the inertial frame exactly as SR says.

No George, you're dreaming again...
It's perfectly obvious that in the inertial frame the beams are moving
at
c+/-v
wrt the source.

No Henry, you are just having your usual trouble with
the English language. You made a claim about the
"standard expanation" (sic) and that explanation is
based in an inertial frame in which the light moves
at c. The "standard expanation" is not stated in terms
"wrt the source".

I dont care how it's STATED.

It was your choice to discusss it Henry, if you don't
care, don't ask, and don't be surprised if I answer
what you ask.

It is drawn with the rays moving at c+/-v wrt the
source. Accept it George. It is obvious.


No, it is highly relevant, if you don't learn what
these simple phrases mean, you are never going to
be able to hold a coherent conversation with
anyone.

Not only was it irrelevant, it was complete bull**** as well.

It goes over your head precisely because you haven't
even learnt the meaning of standard terminology, and
given that it has been explained to you every few
posts for the last decade, it is highly unlikely you
ever will. Note that the same _terms_ are equally
valid for ballistic theory and you will need to learn
them if you are ever to start trying to turn your
nonsense into a scientific paper.

George I know perfectly well what a 'frame' is.

Then stop saying things that are completely different
from that meaning, I have better things to do with my
time than correct your "deliberate" errors.

You use of the 'inertial frame
moving with the source at the instant of emission' is just a pathetic
ploy,
intended to stall for time and confuse. It failed miserably.

Since that is the CORRECT meaning of frame, your
claim to know what the word means is obviously
another lie.

Why don't you just say 'THE SOURCE'?

Because "the source" isn't not a frame, and a
frame attached to the source would not be inertial.

The frame you are takling about is not important.
It is the light and the source that we have to consider.

The speed of _anything_ is expressed as the rate of
change of spatial coordinates with respect to the
time coordinate, or v = ds/dt. Until you define your
frame, the word speed is meaningless.

George, I HAVE always associated speeds with reference frames....which is
more
than I can say for your relativist colleagues. In sagnac, the rays move at
c+/-v wrt the source, as viewed in the LAB FRAME.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT THINGS BEFORE THEY SINK IN GEORGE?

Until you change them to get them right. "wrt the source"
is synonymous with "in the source frame", not "in the lab
frame".

Clearly, in the SR explanation, the light is assumed to move at c+/-v
wrt
the source at hte instant of emission.

Why don't you just admit it George and save further embarrassment.

Because I can do schoolboy algebra so I'm not going
to make a mistake that any 14 year-old should be able
to correct.

Schoolboy algebra is all one needs to see that the standard sagnac diagram
has
the rays moving at c+/-v wrt the source.

Obviously you are incapable of schoolboy algebra then
because if you do that math the answer is c, not c+/-v.

They don't, they move in a cycloid path or a spiral
path depending on whether you mean a rotating or
non-rotating source frame. The speed isn't even
constant in either. See below.

Don't try to wriggle out . We are talking about the instant of emission
George.

Well then say so instead of continually switching
around. Be specific and you won't make so many
mistakes. According to SR, at the instant of emission,
the light moves at c in the inertial frame co-moving
with the source.

I don't care WHAT SR SAYS.

Look back a few line Henry, you started this by saying

Clearly, in the SR explanation, the light ...

so that's what we are talking about. Never mind the
science, unless you learn to keep to the topic and
improve your grasp of the English language, this
thread will just be a long catalogue of your failures
to comprehend.

The diagram shows the rays moving at c+/-v wrt the
source ..

There is NO diagram drawn "wrt the source" on the page
Henry, sit down for a few minutes and try to understand
what you are being shown.

.. and therefore not only reveals SR as the farce it is but also proves
its
second postulate wrong.

I merely stating what's in the standard SR explanation
of sagnac,

No, you are merely demonstrating how someone with no
knowledge of SR would get it wrong.

Your use of 'frames and transforms' doesn't fool me George.

Most basic physics fools you Henry.

That's why I wrote a book on it....

Ah, so that other people will make the same mistakes
and then you'll be able to talk to them? I doesn't
work like that Henry.

George, you are starting to sound like a beaten man...You sacred cow,
Sagnac,
has proved SR wrong.

No Henry, you just don't know what the word 'frame'
means in physics.

This isn't quite the Sagnac setup, the light is
emitted tangentially from the edge of the wheel
but it's one I drew months ago and I can't be
bothered illustrating the obvious. It shows some
of the frames we are discussing, so in which of
the two "source" frames do you think the speed is
"clearly" a nice, simple, constant "c+v" ?

We are discussing the STANDARD SR analysis,

Yes we are, but you seem to have no appreciation
of it at all or I wouldn't have to keep correcting
your errors. Here are mo

not your interpretation.

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Sean/SagFrame3.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect

..even wikipedia shows the red and blue dots moving at c+-v wrt the
source.
fig 3.

Two errors - first that figure does not show the Sagnac
experiment, it shows a ring laser (fig 1 is Sagnac).
Second, that graphic is not drawn "wrt the source", it
is in the lab frame and shows the sources (the grey
dots) in motion. A digram drawn "wrt the source" would
show the entire ring moving at constant velocity across
the screen and one of the grey dots would momentarily
come to rest as the combination of its motion round the
ring and the overall ring motion cancelled out. At that
instant the photons would be emitted and they would move
at c.

The diagram shows the rays moving at c+/-v wrt the source

Are you totally stupid Henry? Read what I just said,
there is NO diagram on the page drawn "wrt the source",
you are hallucinating.

and therefore not
only reveals SR as the farce it is but also proves its second postulate
wrong.

Easy, the modulation moves at c and is carried by
the light which must be moving at the same speed,
thus proving Einstein's postulate.

...both move at c+v wrt the source...

The resultant output signal proves the modulation
moves at c relative to the inertial "lab" frame.

...well start looking for that absolurte aether again George.

Speak for yourself Henry, Pythagoras is all that is
needed by those of us who understand geometry.

You and Einstein understand geometry so well you think a vertical light
beam
appears diagonal in a moving frame.

No Henry, that is yet another of your errors that
I pointed out a year or more ago. I assume you
still haven't fixed it.

That's how stupid all of you relativists are. ..even aetherists fall into
the
same trap.

What you believe is of no consequence here George.
...but it's quite obvious I know a lot more about it than YOU do.

It's quite obvious to everyone that you cannot do
the schollboy algebra needed to translate between
two inertial frames using the Lorentz Transforms
since you got the answer wrong repeatedly above,
we long ago established that you don't understand
calculus well enough to write down the simple
analytical solution to your ballistic theory
equations and have to use modelling to get your
answers. Those and a lot more were minimal entrance
requirements for any serious University in the 1970s
which is when you claimed to get your degree.

Lorentz transforms are bull****.

Just like Ohms Law, they work every time. Just because
you never learned enough maths to use them doesn't mean
they are wrong.

....
that's right...but I have never really considered 'dragging'.

Well now you know.

In space, it is only 'partial dragging' at most.

I keep suggesting you consider quarter-wave plates.
How soon after encountering the plate does the speed
change?

I haven't really looked at the inplications of 1/4 wave plates for BaTh.
..but
I will one day. No doubt there is a simple explanation.

The speed changes almost instantaneously - if a quarter
wave plate is accurate to 1% it implies the speed changes
in a 400th of a wavelength. For dense material, that tells
you your "speed equalisation" distance.

...Why are you changing the subject George? Trying to divert attention
again?

Same subject Henry, pure ballistic theory would say that
the light continues at the same speed in moving between
regions of the ISM where the material is moving in
different directions but the short equalisation distance
means the 'dragging' will be nearly complete.

Gravity is already accounted for in the Shapiro
effect, bending and blue shift. All that remains
is the particle interactions.

The Shapiro effect is just a slowing of the light due to solar wind and
radiation. This is greater than the acceleration effect due to gravity.

No, it is millions of times smaller and frequency
dependent. Do the calculations.

There is another much larger effect involving photon interaction, not
known at
this stage.

Photon interactions are known from lab experiments,
no such effect exists.

You previously said it was much less than the ISM
density and perhaps even less than the IGM, but
regardless of that, there is no threshold in your
equations, they apply at all densities.

No George, you don't get the picture.

I go only on what you say Henry, and that is what you
told me, but the debate is pointless, there is _no_
threshold in your equations.

I don't have to use equations. The computer does the calculations and
allows me
to study 'trends'.

The computer can only calulate the equations you type
into it and there is no threshold in your equations.

For a single orbiting stars the light ends up moving at c wrt the
sphere
(and
essentially wrt the star, with maybe some phase lag and absolute
wavelength
shift)...which moves at c+vcos(xt) wrt Earth.

You can assume that it moves through empty space for the majority of its
lifetime.

No you can't because pulsar dispersion produces a
frequency-dependent delay that is proportional to
the column electron density. That means it travels
at c/n relative to the ISM for the majority of the
path, basically after it leaves the star's
heliopause (asteropause?).

Yes maybe...but that is a much smaller effect than the 'sphere' around the
source star.

Sure, the speed equalises within the stellar wind.

It is however large enough to contribute to the galactic redshift.

No, refractive index causes a time delay on pulses
but has no effect on frequency.

Note: MY BaTh produced curves rely on the same principle that requires
the
two
sagnac rays to move at c+/-v wrt the source, in the standard SR
explanation.

Then it is wrong on both counts.

Come on George, be a man and admit it.

You are wrong Henry, you don't know what the word
'frame' means, you imagine there are drawings which
show the grey dots as static when in reality they
are moving and you haven't a clue about SR. With a
few small but useful exceptions, almost everything
you have said in the above post has been wrong.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 15:33:10 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007 19:23:25 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 22 Jul 2007 13:10:36 -0700, Jeff Root
wrote:
Henry replied to George:

In an inertial (non-rotating) frame momentarily
co-moving with the source at the moment of emission,
the light also moves with a coordinate speed of c.

Hahahah! That's funny!

George, no frame co-moving wth the source is 'non-rotating'.

A wheel rolling on a flat surface is rotating. At any
given instant, every point on the circumference of the
wheel is moving in a different direction from all the
other points. The point of contact between the wheel
and the surface is where the circumference of the wheel
is co-moving with the inertial (non-rotating) frame of
the surface.

No physics involved. Just ordinary Euclidean geometry.

.....not relevant to Sagnac.

Perfectly relevant, it is _exactly_ what the
phrase means.

The 'frame co-moving wth the source is no different from THE SOURCE
itself'

The source is accelerating, the frame isn't.

You said the frame comoving at the INSTANT of emission.

No, I said "an inertial (non-rotating) frame momentarily
co-moving with the source at the moment of emission".
Check the quote which is still at the top of this post.

Why don't you just use THE SOURCE instead of trying to look intelligent.
It is
the same thing.

a) because "the source" isn't a frame, it is a physical
entity, not a mathematical ccordinate system

b) because the "the source" is accelerating while "an
inertial .. frame" is NOT accelerating so speeds are
DIFFERENT using the two definitions.

c) why don't you try to look intelligent instead of going
out of your way to make yourself look stupid.

The key words there which you have yet again deleted
in attempting to falsify the record are "inertial" and
"momentarily". Your attempt to edit it to make it look
as though I was talking about a frame _permanently_
fixed to the source, which would NOT be inertial is just
another example of how you lie to cover up your inability
to understand this subject.

That is the same as the SOURCE at the instant of emission.

Sorry Henry, you have been exposed again. The source
is accelerating at the instant of emission, the frame
is not. However, it is a fine distinction since the
light is emitted at the origin of both frames and
speed discrepancies are proportional to the radial
distance, in both frames the instantaneous speed at
the moment of emission is c.

So since GPS clocks are not inertial, your claims about the 'GR
correction' are
also complete bull****.

a) GR is not restricted to inertial frames

b) neither is SR

c) The GR correction is calculated in an "Earth-centred"
inertial frame

d) The hardware is built to include a correction that is
predicted by GR and not by ballistic theory, and it
works with it but wouldn't work without it.

Gord! the hypocrisy of relativists..............!

The cluelessness of Wilson.

FRAMES OR NO FRAMES, THE SR EXPLANATION OF SAGNAC CLEARLY RELIES ON THE
TWO
BEAMS MOVING AT C+/-V WRT THE SOURCE.

Shouting statements that are false only makes you
look more of a crank than stating them quietly and
having them pointed out politely as being wrong.
The light moves at c in the frame I defined which is
what "wrt the source" means, and also _momentarily_
moves at c in the alternative frame that you tried
to substitute for what I actually said.

George, in the diagram, there is no indication that this is so

Henry, there IS NO DIAGRAM DRAWN WRT THE SOURCE (you've
even got me shouting now Henry, what does it take to get
this basic and obvious fact into your thick skull?)

The diagram clearly shows the rays moving at c+/-v wrt the source

Henry, there IS NO DIAGRAM DRAWN WRT THE SOURCE.

If anyone wonders, the references are to this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect

Henry thinks one of the diagrams has the grey dots
at rest at the moment of emission of it the red and
blue dots.

George

On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 10:30:17 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 15:20:27 +0100, "George Dishman"


Yes, that's exactly what they did, just change the
divider ratios.

Tell that to Andersen et al.

It is widely known. Perhaps if you didn't resort to
editing people's posts to fake what they said, you
wouldn't then fall into the mistake of believing
your own lies.

No, Andersen has repeatedly insisted that hte clocks cannot be altered in any
way after launch.
I knew that was bull****. You have confirmed that view.



It's the state of free fall. All clocks in free fall show the same shift.

No they don't. The atoms are in free in a fountain
clock (beam versions too) but one at the top of a
hill will tick at a different rate when compared
with an identical clock at the bottom of the hill.
It is gravitational potential that causes the change.

That's just your wishful thinking.


That's right.....see my fallingwave.exe demo. ....but GPS signals from
different clocks are compared via their phasing. A shift in wavelength
will
cause an error.

The frequency is unchanged so there is no effect
on phase either, only opposite changes on speed
and wavelength, neither of which is measured.

I would like to see a comparison between doppler shift of an RF signal from the
ISS with the shift of laser light emitted from the same point. Unfortunately
the shift is probably too small to allow such an experiment.

Of course that's different from the preceding point,
the clock rate effect is cumulative while the blueshift
only affects the downlinks.

That's correct. However the photons that make up the clock signals will
themselves be doppler shifted by (c+v)/c, due to their speed increase.

No, don't get confused. There is the usual Doppler
shift where v is the radial speed of the satellite
but there is no frequency shift from the change of
propagation speed.

I'm sugesting that there would be for the photons themselves but not for the RF
signal made by the interrelationship of those photons.



Since ballistic theory predicts no effect on frequency,
only on the speed and the wavelength as a consequence,
it proves ballistic theory wrong yet again.

The only test done in the 1970's was very inaccurate.

Funny how, when you thought it affected the frequency,
you consider it evidence for ballisti theory but when
you discover it contradicts ballistic theory, suddenly
it becomes "very inaccurate". Your bias is showing Henry.

I didn't say it affected clock frequency George. Quite the contrary.
I said it affected the wavelength BETWEEN CLOCK TICKS.

It was probably based on
wavelength shift anyway.

Wrong, the receivers are PLL based so measure secular
frequency.

Wavelength comes into it.
Anyway the point is that the supposed 'GR corection' is exactly the same as
light's fractional change in velocity in falling from 26000 kms to Earth.

Is that not a strange coincidence George?

Nobody making or using GPS bothers with the 'GR correction'.

The corrections are built into the satellites to keep
the cost of the handsets down

Then they are finely adjusted when in orbit.


Only desperate
relativists make an issue of it. Contrary to what Paul Andersen has always
claimed, the clocks are corrected after launch, using the method you
described
above.

No they aren't, the correction is included by offsetting
the frequency translation ratios during manufacture to the
amount given by GR, which includes both the gravitational
potential correction and the velocity correction which you
would be more familiar with as "time dilation" from SR.

It approximates thfree fall error...making subsequent adjustments much easier
and smaller.

I will quote you on this one too, George.

Feel free, the story might be apocryphal but you'll
find it all over the net.

There is a lot of bull**** on the net.

True, but I believe the GPS story is well founded.

Naturally you would...It's about the only argument you have left...

It's not any sort of evidence Henry, just an apocryphal
story about the vagaries of managment. The engineers
built in the GR corrections because everyone knows GR
works, but the managers were sceptical so the first
satellites had a switch that could remove the correction.
The production satellites don't have the ability to
switch it off.

They originallybuilt it in because some idiot relativist told them they should.
It just happens to be of about the right order.


Nope, SR requires that they move at c with respect to
the source.

It might REQUIRE it George..but the diagram shows the rays moving at c+/-v
wrt
the source.

Nope, there is no diagram showing the situation in
the frame of the source. You are hallucinating.

Who wants to know what happens in the source frame?
Are you still denying the obvious fact that in the inertial frame, the rays are
shown to move at c+/-v wrt the source?

So Sagnac disproves SR.

It requires an absolute reference frame for light.
SR is just a disguised aether theory.

You understanding has never progressed beyond LET.

At least LET is logically consistent and would make some sense...if an
aether
existed.
My program: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/gr-aether.exe
shows how stupid the second postulate actually is.

It only shows LET.

Precisely. That's what the second postulate IS George.





George I know perfectly well what a 'frame' is.

Then stop saying things that are completely different
from that meaning, I have better things to do with my
time than correct your "deliberate" errors.

You use of the 'inertial frame
moving with the source at the instant of emission' is just a pathetic
ploy,
intended to stall for time and confuse. It failed miserably.

Since that is the CORRECT meaning of frame, your
claim to know what the word means is obviously
another lie.

George, the frame is NOT the source but for the purpose of your argument, you
should simply use 'the source' rather than try to look clever by introducing an
irrelevancy.


George, I HAVE always associated speeds with reference frames....which is
more
than I can say for your relativist colleagues. In sagnac, the rays move at
c+/-v wrt the source, as viewed in the LAB FRAME.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT THINGS BEFORE THEY SINK IN GEORGE?

Until you change them to get them right. "wrt the source"
is synonymous with "in the source frame", not "in the lab
frame".

Oh Rubbish.

Two cars are moving along a road, one at 50 km/hr and the other at 60.

What is the relative speed of the two AS MEASURED IN THE ROAD FRAME?

What is the relative speed of the two AS MEASURED IN THE frame of either car?

Schoolboy algebra is all one needs to see that the standard sagnac diagram
has
the rays moving at c+/-v wrt the source.

Obviously you are incapable of schoolboy algebra then
because if you do that math the answer is c, not c+/-v.

That's according to your ridiculous unproven postulate.



Look back a few line Henry, you started this by saying

Clearly, in the SR explanation, the light ...

so that's what we are talking about. Never mind the
science, unless you learn to keep to the topic and
improve your grasp of the English language, this
thread will just be a long catalogue of your failures
to comprehend.

The diagram shows the rays moving at c+/-v wrt the
source ..

There is NO diagram drawn "wrt the source" on the page
Henry, sit down for a few minutes and try to understand
what you are being shown.

You are becoming quite incoherent. I'm not wasting any more time on this.





George




www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 10:39:23 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 15:33:10 +0100, "George Dishman"


No, I said "an inertial (non-rotating) frame momentarily
co-moving with the source at the moment of emission".
Check the quote which is still at the top of this post.

Why don't you just use THE SOURCE instead of trying to look intelligent.
It is
the same thing.

a) because "the source" isn't a frame, it is a physical
entity, not a mathematical ccordinate system

b) because the "the source" is accelerating while "an
inertial .. frame" is NOT accelerating so speeds are
DIFFERENT using the two definitions.

Absolute crap. You are using the source at 'instant of emission'. That is just
as inertial as is 'its frame at that instant'.

c) why don't you try to look intelligent instead of going
out of your way to make yourself look stupid.

The key words there which you have yet again deleted
in attempting to falsify the record are "inertial" and
"momentarily". Your attempt to edit it to make it look
as though I was talking about a frame _permanently_
fixed to the source, which would NOT be inertial is just
another example of how you lie to cover up your inability
to understand this subject.

That is the same as the SOURCE at the instant of emission.

Sorry Henry, you have been exposed again. The source
is accelerating at the instant of emission, the frame
is not. However, it is a fine distinction since the
light is emitted at the origin of both frames and
speed discrepancies are proportional to the radial
distance, in both frames the instantaneous speed at
the moment of emission is c.

So since GPS clocks are not inertial, your claims about the 'GR
correction' are
also complete bull****.

a) GR is not restricted to inertial frames

b) neither is SR

c) The GR correction is calculated in an "Earth-centred"
inertial frame

d) The hardware is built to include a correction that is
predicted by GR and not by ballistic theory, and it
works with it but wouldn't work without it.

Gord! the hypocrisy of relativists..............!

The cluelessness of Wilson.

They don't even know what they believe!


Shouting statements that are false only makes you
look more of a crank than stating them quietly and
having them pointed out politely as being wrong.
The light moves at c in the frame I defined which is
what "wrt the source" means, and also _momentarily_
moves at c in the alternative frame that you tried
to substitute for what I actually said.

George, in the diagram, there is no indication that this is so

Henry, there IS NO DIAGRAM DRAWN WRT THE SOURCE (you've
even got me shouting now Henry, what does it take to get
this basic and obvious fact into your thick skull?)

I have enver siad there was George. There doesn't have to be one.
That does in no way alter the fact that the rays are shown to move at c+/-v, as
viewed in the lab frame.

The diagram clearly shows the rays moving at c+/-v wrt the source

Henry, there IS NO DIAGRAM DRAWN WRT THE SOURCE.

....irrelevant....stop procrastinating George.

If anyone wonders, the references are to this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect

Henry thinks one of the diagrams has the grey dots
at rest at the moment of emission of it the red and
blue dots.

This one George:
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

It clearly shows the two rays moving at c+/-v wrt the source.

George




www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm

The difference between a preacher and a used car salesman is that the latter at least has a product to sell.

On Aug 4, 6:59 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

No, Andersen has repeatedly insisted that hte clocks cannot
be altered in any way after launch.
I knew that was bull****. You have confirmed that view.

I did some Google research on this subject and found the
following conversation that you had with Myxococcus xanthus
back in September of 2004. The quote is from two posts by
Myxococcus with corrections as noted in a third post.

----- BEGIN COMBINED QUOTE (including corrections) -----

[Myxococcus xanthus]
Uh, no, Henry. It is most decidedly NOT simple. In the
feedback loop of the phase locked loop are two hardwired
frequency divider chains that step down the outputs from
(a) the voltage controlled crystal oscillator and (b) the
cesium or rubidium atomic frequency standard to a common
comparison frequency, which is monitored for phase error.
Through careful choice of the two divisors, the VCXO output
frequency can be almost exactly matched to the frequency
dictated by GR requirements.

The frequency dividers are at the heart of the PLL, and it is
obviously quite impossible to fine-tune them.

[Henri Wilson]
Why do you say that? It is simple.
It isn't hard to drop or add a 'tick' every few thousand pulses.

[Myxococcus xanthus]
That is NOT how frequency synthesizers and phase-locked loops
work.

Scenario 1:
Let us assume that the cesium atomic reference frequency (CARF)is
9.192631770 GHz and we want the voltage controlled crystal
oscillator (VCXO) to be locked to a frequency of 10.230000000000
MHz.

A -hardwired- custom frequency divider would divide the CARF
frequency by 306421059, and a second -hardwired- custom frequency
divider would divide the VCXO frequency by 341000 to achieve a
common frequency of 30.00000000000 Hz. A phase comparison circuit
monitors any phase differences between the 30 Hz signal from the
CARF and the 30 Hz signal from the VCXO and adjusts the VCXO to
keep the phase difference to zero.

Scenario 2:
We find that we need to apply a GR correction of of deltaF/F =
-4.4647e-10, so we want the VCXO frequency to be locked to
10.229999995432 MHz.

A MAJOR CIRCUIT REDESIGN IS NECESSARY.
A -hardwired- custom frequency divider would divide the CARF
frequency by 530646691, and a second -hardwired- custom frequency
divider would divide the VCXO frequency by 590529 to achive a
common frequency of 17.32345066107 Hz. A phase comparison circuit
monitors any phase differences between the 17.32345066107 Hz
signal from the CARF and the 17.32345066107 Hz signal from the
VCXO and adjusts the VCXO to keep the phase difference to zero.

Note 1:
Adding or dropping a 'tick' every "few thousand" pulses is NOT an
option, since that introduces jitter.

Note 2. This example used my made-up divisors, good only to 1e-13
since I calculated them with 32-bit integers and 64-bit doubles;
however they should serve to illustrate my point.

Summary: It is -not- simple to fine tune the frequency
synthesizers used in the GPS, because PLLs do -not- work the way
Henry seems to think they do.

One more example, Henry:

Suppose the satellite had been inserted into orbit a few dozen
meters lower than planned, and that you wanted to lock the VCXO
frequency to 10.229999995433 MHz, which differs from the
originally planned frequency by only ONE DIGIT in the last
decimal place.

The corresponding frequency divisors for the CARF and the VCXO
would be 1558252627 and 1734098, for a common frequency of
5.8993205663307 Hz. A phase comparison circuit monitors any phase
differences between the 5.8993205663307 Hz signal from the CARF
and the 5.8993205663307 Hz signal from the VCXO and adjusts the
VCXO to keep the phase difference to zero.

In other words, even the tiniest adjustment in output frequency
requires a major circuit redesign. Adjustments cannot be made on
the fly, since that is not how PLLs work.

----- END COMBINED QUOTE -----

Combined from
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...74d0edb8618150
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...91f884bfd05851
with corrections as noted in
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.p...d0c04ff8b7cb26

Jerry

Henri Wilson's Mendacity
(1)Fakes Diploma (2)Uses Deceptive Language (3)Fakes Program
(4)Intentionally Misquotes (5)Snips (6)Accuses Others of Lying
1 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...ri/diploma.htm
2 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus.../deception.htm
3 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...rt_aurigae.htm
4 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...ri/history.htm
5 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...enri/snips.htm
6 http://mysite.verizon.net/cephalobus...ri/accuses.htm

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 10:30:17 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 15:20:27 +0100, "George Dishman"

Henry's removal of context restored

Andersen et al always claimed there was no built-in way to modify
GPS
clock rates.

Correct, the clock rates are simply a spectral line
so you can't alter them. That's the precise reason
why atomic clocks are so effective, they are virtually
unaffected by local environmental conditions. What you
do is put a frequency changing circuit after the clock.

George, the 'spectral line' is used to synch a secondary crystal
clock.
It is an easy matter to vary that synchronization.

end of restore

Yes, that's exactly what they did, just change the
divider ratios.

Tell that to Andersen et al.

It is widely known. Perhaps if you didn't resort to
editing people's posts to fake what they said, you
wouldn't then fall into the mistake of believing
your own lies.

No, Andersen has repeatedly insisted that hte clocks cannot be altered in
any
way after launch.

He is correct, the ratio is fixed during manufacture.
Only the initial designs had an extra switch to disable
the correction.

I knew that was bull****. You have confirmed that view.

You are a liar Henry, as you can see above, in the
part you snipped to falsify the record, I said
"What you do is put a frequency changing circuit
after the clock.". That is an integral part of the
design and cannot be altered after manufacture never
mind after launch.

It's the state of free fall. All clocks in free fall show the same
shift.

No they don't. The atoms are in free in a fountain
clock (beam versions too) but one at the top of a
hill will tick at a different rate when compared
with an identical clock at the bottom of the hill.
It is gravitational potential that causes the change.

That's just your wishful thinking.

It is simply a statement of fact, the atoms are in
free fall in the fountain and coordinate rates at
different altitudes differ.

That's right.....see my fallingwave.exe demo. ....but GPS signals from
different clocks are compared via their phasing. A shift in wavelength
will
cause an error.

The frequency is unchanged so there is no effect
on phase either, only opposite changes on speed
and wavelength, neither of which is measured.

I would like to see a comparison between doppler shift of an RF signal
from the
ISS with the shift of laser light emitted from the same point.
Unfortunately
the shift is probably too small to allow such an experiment.

You ar not suggesting a test that tells us anything new
compared to the Pound-Rebka and Ives-Stilwell.

Of course that's different from the preceding point,
the clock rate effect is cumulative while the blueshift
only affects the downlinks.

That's correct. However the photons that make up the clock signals will
themselves be doppler shifted by (c+v)/c, due to their speed increase.

No, don't get confused. There is the usual Doppler
shift where v is the radial speed of the satellite
but there is no frequency shift from the change of
propagation speed.

I'm sugesting that there would be for the photons themselves but not for
the RF
signal made by the interrelationship of those photons.

No, you are suggesting that tick fairies add or subtract
cycles on the way down.

Since ballistic theory predicts no effect on frequency,
only on the speed and the wavelength as a consequence,
it proves ballistic theory wrong yet again.

The only test done in the 1970's was very inaccurate.

Funny how, when you thought it affected the frequency,
you consider it evidence for ballisti theory but when
you discover it contradicts ballistic theory, suddenly
it becomes "very inaccurate". Your bias is showing Henry.

I didn't say it affected clock frequency George. Quite the contrary.
I said it affected the wavelength BETWEEN CLOCK TICKS.

Telling lies again Henry? Here is the exchange:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 15:20:27 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
...
It is also a fact that the fractional change in signal speed as it falls
from 26000 km to Earth is exactly the same as the GR blueshift
prediction.
Work it out yourself if you don't believe me.

You have made another mistake there, although there
is a blueshift in reality, meaning that the received
frequency is higher, ballistic theory only predicts
a change in _speed_ as you say. That doesn't affect
the received _frequency_, it has the effect of
changing the wavelength.

That's right.....see my fallingwave.exe demo. ....but GPS signals from
different clocks are compared via their phasing. A shift in wavelength
will
cause an error.

You said it affected the speed and implied it matched
the frequency change predicted by GR, I had to correct
you to point out it was the wavelength that was affected,
not the frequency.

Since receivers measure the TIME between ticks, a
change in wavelength has no effect.

It was probably based on
wavelength shift anyway.

Wrong, the receivers are PLL based so measure secular
frequency.

Wavelength comes into it.

Wrong again, they only measure time of arrival.

Anyway the point is that the supposed 'GR corection' is exactly the same
as
light's fractional change in velocity in falling from 26000 kms to Earth.

No, the GR correction is a frequency correction
while ballistic theory predicts NO frequency change.

Is that not a strange coincidence George?

No, it is another of your lies, nothing coincides.

Nobody making or using GPS bothers with the 'GR correction'.

The corrections are built into the satellites to keep
the cost of the handsets down

Then they are finely adjusted when in orbit.

Yes, even atomic clocks have small random drifts and Earth
features also have an effect. The clock rates are affected
by changes caused by gravitational effects from mountain
ranges, ocean trenches, density variations and the like, the
Earth isn't uniform.

Only desperate
relativists make an issue of it. Contrary to what Paul Andersen has
always
claimed, the clocks are corrected after launch, using the method you
described
above.

No they aren't, the correction is included by offsetting
the frequency translation ratios during manufacture to the
amount given by GR, which includes both the gravitational
potential correction and the velocity correction which you
would be more familiar with as "time dilation" from SR.

It approximates thfree fall error...

There is no "free fall" error Henry, it is governed
by the potential, but you are right in that the theory
correctly tells us what the error will be and that is
precisely why GR is correct. Ballistic theory predicts
NO frequency change so is wrong yet again.

making subsequent adjustments much easier
and smaller.

I will quote you on this one too, George.

Feel free, the story might be apocryphal but you'll
find it all over the net.

There is a lot of bull**** on the net.

True, but I believe the GPS story is well founded.

Naturally you would...It's about the only argument you have left...

It's not any sort of evidence Henry, just an apocryphal
story about the vagaries of managment. The engineers
built in the GR corrections because everyone knows GR
works, but the managers were sceptical so the first
satellites had a switch that could remove the correction.
The production satellites don't have the ability to
switch it off.

They originallybuilt it in because some idiot relativist told them they
should.
It just happens to be of about the right order.

It just happens to be _exactly_ correct which is what
defines a valid theory. Ballistic theory gets it wrong.

Nope, SR requires that they move at c with respect to
the source.

It might REQUIRE it George..but the diagram shows the rays moving at
c+/-v
wrt
the source.

Nope, there is no diagram showing the situation in
the frame of the source. You are hallucinating.

Who wants to know what happens in the source frame?

You have talked of nothing else. Here you go again:

Are you still denying the obvious fact that in the inertial frame, the
rays are
shown to move at c+/-v wrt the source?

"wrt the source" is synonymous with "in the source frame"

So Sagnac disproves SR.

It requires an absolute reference frame for light.
SR is just a disguised aether theory.

You understanding has never progressed beyond LET.

At least LET is logically consistent and would make some sense...if an
aether
existed.
My program: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/gr-aether.exe
shows how stupid the second postulate actually is.

It only shows LET.

Precisely. That's what the second postulate IS George.

Not even close Henry, go and read the paper.

George I know perfectly well what a 'frame' is.

Then stop saying things that are completely different
from that meaning, I have better things to do with my
time than correct your "deliberate" errors.

You use of the 'inertial frame
moving with the source at the instant of emission' is just a pathetic
ploy,
intended to stall for time and confuse. It failed miserably.

Since that is the CORRECT meaning of frame, your
claim to know what the word means is obviously
another lie.

George, the frame is NOT the source ..

Good, at least you have learned something from this.

but for the purpose of your argument, you
should simply use 'the source' rather than try to look clever by
introducing an
irrelevancy.


George, I HAVE always associated speeds with reference frames....which
is
more
than I can say for your relativist colleagues. In sagnac, the rays move
at
c+/-v wrt the source, as viewed in the LAB FRAME.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO REPEAT THINGS BEFORE THEY SINK IN GEORGE?

Until you change them to get them right. "wrt the source"
is synonymous with "in the source frame", not "in the lab
frame".

Oh Rubbish.

OK, maybe you haven't learnt anything after all.

Two cars are moving along a road, one at 50 km/hr and the other at 60.

What is the relative speed of the two AS MEASURED IN THE ROAD FRAME?

What is the relative speed of the two AS MEASURED IN THE frame of either
car?

Don't try to change the question at this stage Henry,
the speeds of the cars "wrt the road" are 50km/hr and
60km/hr. The speed of the faster car "wrt the slower
car" is 9.99999999999998 km/hr.

Schoolboy algebra is all one needs to see that the standard sagnac
diagram
has the rays moving at c+/-v wrt the source.

Obviously you are incapable of schoolboy algebra then
because if you do that math the answer is c, not c+/-v.

That's according to your ridiculous unproven postulate.

It is directly proven by Sagnac's experiment.

Look back a few line Henry, you started this by saying

Clearly, in the SR explanation, the light ...

so that's what we are talking about. Never mind the
science, unless you learn to keep to the topic and
improve your grasp of the English language, this
thread will just be a long catalogue of your failures
to comprehend.

The diagram shows the rays moving at c+/-v wrt the
source ..

There is NO diagram drawn "wrt the source" on the page
Henry, sit down for a few minutes and try to understand
what you are being shown.

You are becoming quite incoherent.

You are the one making claims about a diagram that
doesn't exist Henry, there is NO graphic showing the
situation "wrt the source". You need to understand
that the source in this case is those grey dots.

I'm not wasting any more time on this.

Good, if you haven't learnt what a frame is or what "wrt"
means by now, there is no point repeating it for you yet
again.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 10:39:23 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 15:33:10 +0100, "George Dishman"


No, I said "an inertial (non-rotating) frame momentarily
co-moving with the source at the moment of emission".
Check the quote which is still at the top of this post.

Why don't you just use THE SOURCE instead of trying to look intelligent.
It is
the same thing.

a) because "the source" isn't a frame, it is a physical
entity, not a mathematical ccordinate system

b) because the "the source" is accelerating while "an
inertial .. frame" is NOT accelerating so speeds are
DIFFERENT using the two definitions.

Absolute crap. You are using the source at 'instant of emission'. That is
just
as inertial as is 'its frame at that instant'.

Wrong again, at that instant the source has non-zero
acceleration, it is NOT inertial and the two definitions
are NOT the same.

c) why don't you try to look intelligent instead of going
out of your way to make yourself look stupid.

The key words there which you have yet again deleted
in attempting to falsify the record are "inertial" and
"momentarily". Your attempt to edit it to make it look
as though I was talking about a frame _permanently_
fixed to the source, which would NOT be inertial is just
another example of how you lie to cover up your inability
to understand this subject.

That is the same as the SOURCE at the instant of emission.

Sorry Henry, you have been exposed again. The source
is accelerating at the instant of emission, the frame
is not. However, it is a fine distinction since the
light is emitted at the origin of both frames and
speed discrepancies are proportional to the radial
distance, in both frames the instantaneous speed at
the moment of emission is c.

So since GPS clocks are not inertial, your claims about the 'GR
correction' are also complete bull****.

a) GR is not restricted to inertial frames

b) neither is SR

c) The GR correction is calculated in an "Earth-centred"
inertial frame

d) The hardware is built to include a correction that is
predicted by GR and not by ballistic theory, and it
works with it but wouldn't work without it.

Gord! the hypocrisy of relativists..............!

The cluelessness of Wilson.

They don't even know what they believe!

Pick up any textbook, it's all written down.

Shouting statements that are false only makes you
look more of a crank than stating them quietly and
having them pointed out politely as being wrong.
The light moves at c in the frame I defined which is
what "wrt the source" means, and also _momentarily_
moves at c in the alternative frame that you tried
to substitute for what I actually said.

George, in the diagram, there is no indication that this is so

Henry, there IS NO DIAGRAM DRAWN WRT THE SOURCE (you've
even got me shouting now Henry, what does it take to get
this basic and obvious fact into your thick skull?)

I have enver siad there was George.

Yes you did Henry, you keep saying that a diagram
show speeds "wrt the source".

There doesn't have to be one.

No there doesn't, but you said "fig 3" showed
speed "wrt the source". It doesn't, it shows
speeds in the lab frame.

That does in no way alter the fact that the rays are shown to move at
c+/-v, as
viewed in the lab frame.

The diagram clearly shows the rays moving at c+/-v wrt the source

Henry, there IS NO DIAGRAM DRAWN WRT THE SOURCE.

...irrelevant

If there is no diagram then it cannot show anything,
can it?

....stop procrastinating George.

Stop telling lies Henry.

If anyone wonders, the references are to this page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect

Henry thinks one of the diagrams has the grey dots
at rest at the moment of emission of it the red and
blue dots.

This one George:
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

No Henry, you are telling lies again, here is your
previous post:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
....
We are discussing the STANDARD SR analysis, not your interpretation.

...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect

..even wikipedia shows the red and blue dots moving at c+-v wrt the
source. fig 3.

Now you want to refer to a different page:

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm
It clearly shows the two rays moving at c+/-v wrt the source.

Nope, it shows the "start" and "end" at different
locations so it is not drawn "wrt the source", it
is drawn in the non-rotating frame and specifically
states "the sum of the speeds of the wave front and
the receiver at the "end" point is c-v". It does
that because the speed of the light is c while the
target moves at v = wR. c-v is not the speed of the
light, it is the DIFFERENCE between the two speeds,
a simple algebraic operation.

George

On Sat, 04 Aug 2007 23:27:17 -0700, Jerry
wrote:

On Aug 4, 6:59 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

No, Andersen has repeatedly insisted that hte clocks cannot
be altered in any way after launch.
I knew that was bull****. You have confirmed that view.

I did some Google research on this subject and found the
following conversation that you had with Myxococcus xanthus
back in September of 2004. The quote is from two posts by
Myxococcus with corrections as noted in a third post.

----- BEGIN COMBINED QUOTE (including corrections) -----

[Myxococcus xanthus]
Uh, no, Henry. It is most decidedly NOT simple. In the
feedback loop of the phase locked loop are two hardwired
frequency divider chains that step down the outputs from
(a) the voltage controlled crystal oscillator and (b) the
cesium or rubidium atomic frequency standard to a common
comparison frequency, which is monitored for phase error.
Through careful choice of the two divisors, the VCXO output
frequency can be almost exactly matched to the frequency
dictated by GR requirements.

The frequency dividers are at the heart of the PLL, and it is
obviously quite impossible to fine-tune them.

[Henri Wilson]
Why do you say that? It is simple.
It isn't hard to drop or add a 'tick' every few thousand pulses.

[Myxococcus xanthus]
That is NOT how frequency synthesizers and phase-locked loops
work.

Scenario 1:
Let us assume that the cesium atomic reference frequency (CARF)is
9.192631770 GHz and we want the voltage controlled crystal
oscillator (VCXO) to be locked to a frequency of 10.230000000000
MHz.

A -hardwired- custom frequency divider would divide the CARF
frequency by 306421059, and a second -hardwired- custom frequency
divider would divide the VCXO frequency by 341000 to achieve a
common frequency of 30.00000000000 Hz. A phase comparison circuit
monitors any phase differences between the 30 Hz signal from the
CARF and the 30 Hz signal from the VCXO and adjusts the VCXO to
keep the phase difference to zero.

Scenario 2:
We find that we need to apply a GR correction of of deltaF/F =
-4.4647e-10, so we want the VCXO frequency to be locked to
10.229999995432 MHz.

A MAJOR CIRCUIT REDESIGN IS NECESSARY.
A -hardwired- custom frequency divider would divide the CARF
frequency by 530646691, and a second -hardwired- custom frequency
divider would divide the VCXO frequency by 590529 to achive a
common frequency of 17.32345066107 Hz. A phase comparison circuit
monitors any phase differences between the 17.32345066107 Hz
signal from the CARF and the 17.32345066107 Hz signal from the
VCXO and adjusts the VCXO to keep the phase difference to zero.

Note 1:
Adding or dropping a 'tick' every "few thousand" pulses is NOT an
option, since that introduces jitter.

Note 2. This example used my made-up divisors, good only to 1e-13
since I calculated them with 32-bit integers and 64-bit doubles;
however they should serve to illustrate my point.

Summary: It is -not- simple to fine tune the frequency
synthesizers used in the GPS, because PLLs do -not- work the way
Henry seems to think they do.

One more example, Henry:

Suppose the satellite had been inserted into orbit a few dozen
meters lower than planned, and that you wanted to lock the VCXO
frequency to 10.229999995433 MHz, which differs from the
originally planned frequency by only ONE DIGIT in the last
decimal place.

The corresponding frequency