Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a frequency (9192631774.1)
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a frequency (9192631774.1)
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
That's what The Shit's brainwashing
is doing with the brains of its victims.
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
frequency (9192631774.1)
So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
On 9/15/2023 8:00 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
frequency (9192631774.1)
So, for a relativistic idiot setting itExactly
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a frequency (9192631774.1)
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
So, for a relativistic idiot setting itGPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
That's what The Shit's brainwashing
is doing with the brains of its victims.
El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 12:14:25 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 16:44:08 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
On 9/15/2023 8:00 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a >> frequency (9192631774.1)
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
Wrong!!! A Cesium atomic clock can't be made to tick at 9192631774.1Exactly. Setting to 9192631774.1 isSo, for a relativistic idiot setting itExactly
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
setting to 9 192 631 770.
Exactly, that's whatr The Shit's brainwashing
is doing to the brains of its victims.
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 16:44:08 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
On 9/15/2023 8:00 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
frequency (9192631774.1)
Exactly. Setting to 9192631774.1 isSo, for a relativistic idiot setting itExactly
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
setting to 9 192 631 770.
Exactly, that's whatr The Shit's brainwashing
is doing to the brains of its victims.
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 16:44:08 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
On 9/15/2023 8:00 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocks
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
Yes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
frequency (9192631774.1)
So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
Exactly[, to compensate for GR.
Just like if, for some reason, you wanted the horn of an approaching train to be heard in the station at a musical tone of "B♭", the train's horn must sound at, perhaps "A", to compensate for the Doppler Effect.]
Exactly. Setting to 9192631774.1
is setting to 9 192 631 770.
On 9/15/2023 11:14 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 16:44:08 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
On 9/15/2023 8:00 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocks
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
Exactly[, to compensate for GR.Yes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a >>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
Just like if, for some reason, you wanted the horn of an approaching train to be heard in the station at a musical tone of "B♭", the train's horn must sound at, perhaps "A", to compensate for the Doppler Effect.]
Naughty boy, janitor, snipping important quoted material.
Exactly. Setting to 9192631774.1
In other words
On 9/15/2023 11:14 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 16:44:08 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
On 9/15/2023 8:00 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocks
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
Exactly[, to compensate for GR.Yes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a >>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
Just like if, for some reason, you wanted the horn of an approaching train to be heard in the station at a musical tone of "B♭", the train's horn must sound at, perhaps "A", to compensate for the Doppler Effect.]
Naughty boy, janitor, snipping important quoted material. No toilets for
you to lick tonight!
Exactly. Setting to 9192631774.1
In other words, like the train horn honking at "A"
is setting to 9 192 631 770.In other words, like the horn being heard at the station at "B♭".
The only difference is the cause of the change in frequencies, Doppler effect for the train horn and GR for the GPS system.
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 2:23:56 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
On 9/15/2023 11:14 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 16:44:08 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
On 9/15/2023 8:00 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocks
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
Exactly[, to compensate for GR.Yes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a >>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
Just like if, for some reason, you wanted the horn of an approaching train to be heard in the station at a musical tone of "B♭", the train's horn must sound at, perhaps "A", to compensate for the Doppler Effect.]
Naughty boy, janitor, snipping important quoted material. No toilets for you to lick tonight!
Exactly. Setting to 9192631774.1
In other words, like the train horn honking at "A"
is setting to 9 192 631 770.In other words, like the horn being heard at the station at "B♭".
The only difference is the cause of the change in frequencies, Doppler effect for the train horn and GR for the GPS system.Volney, seriously, stop talking nonsense and start to study how GPS works, but do it thoroughly using many references.
You are so mentally frozen with Schwarzschild's solution being used in THE REAL WORLD, that you have lost (COMPLETELY)
how ANY GNSS constellation really works.
To cite few mistakes:
1) By Sept 2023, there are 31 GPS SV in activity, and ONLY ONE use cesium clocks for civilian applications. The other 30 use rubidium.
2) The master clock at each SV works at 10.230000000 Mhz to compute GPS Week Time and ANY OTHER frequency used in the SV.
3) The master clock at each SV delivers the onboard GPS Time every 12.5 minutes, with the complete almanac (ephemeris, data clock
correction parameters, etc.). Each GPS receiver store the whole almanac for every SV every 12.5 minutes, to compute solution on Earth.
1 Superframe = 25 Frames x 5 Subframes --> 10 x 30 x 5 x 25 bits = 37500 bits for a complete almanac (transmitted at 50 bps)
4) Every SV mantains the GPS Time within 1 nanosecond error in the constellation (civilian apps), as it's uploaded from Earth Control
Stations no less than THREE TIMES A DAY.
5) Any relativistic correction, if it's desired, HAS TO BE COMPUTED ON THE GPS RECEIVER, not in every SV (GPS satellite).
6) In commercial GPS receivers, the MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR to be corrected is the RECEIVER GPS Time, which is the source of
most errors. The errors in the transmitted GPS Time, every 12.5 minutes, are so small that they can be ignored. This allows to
calculate the true distance satellite-user (pseudoranging ρ).
If there were no errors or degradation, ρ = c (GPS Timeʳᵉᶜ - GPS Timeˢᵛ), but errors in GPS Timeʳᵉᶜ and ECEF xyz user coordinates (not
known initially) requires that the GPS receiver make an iterative procedure to obtain the corrected GPS Timeʳᵉᶜ and ECEF coordinates.
The receiver resolves error around +/- 10% of initial ECEF coordinates in less than 10 loops (almost instantaneous computation), and
then translate ECEF to latitude-longitude-altitude on a map.
Relativity HAS ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY for this procedure and IS IGNORED in most articles, lectures or books that deal with
GNSS positioning.
So, have A LITTLE BIT OF SHAME, start studying the GNSS positioning problem from MODERN SOURCES (not before 2005), and
stop talking about Schwarzschild and GR as if it HAS A ROLE in GNSS. Grow up!
And, above all, stop talking idiocies about cesium or rubidium fundamental frequencies, as they are IRRELEVANT IN GPS. What
matters is that GPS Time is sustained by atomic clocks, and synchronized from Earth every 8 hour or less per day.
And the above is ONLY for single frequency ranging in civilian applications, like in your smartphone (CER < 7 meters). In other
fields, CER < 10 cm with much more complex receivers and 2 or three SV frequencies.
Nonsense. Read the oficial GPS document (IS-GPS-200M). Particularly read section 3.3.1.1
Volney, seriously, stop talking nonsense and start to study how GPS works, but do it thoroughly using many references.
You are so mentally frozen with Schwarzschild's solution being used in THE REAL WORLD, that you have lost (COMPLETELY)
how ANY GNSS constellation really works.
To cite few mistakes:
1) By Sept 2023, there are 31 GPS SV in activity, and ONLY ONE use cesium clocks for civilian applications. The other 30 use rubidium.
2) The master clock at each SV works at 10.230000000 Mhz to compute GPS Week Time and ANY OTHER frequency used in the SV.
3) The master clock at each SV
delivers the onboard GPS Time every 12.5 minutes, with the complete almanac (
4) Every SV mantains the GPS Time within 1 nanosecond error in the constellation (civilian apps), as it's uploaded from Earth Control
Stations no less than THREE TIMES A DAY.
5) Any relativistic correction, if it's desired, HAS TO BE COMPUTED ON THE GPS RECEIVER, not in every SV (GPS satellite).
6) In commercial GPS receivers, the MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR to be corrected is the RECEIVER GPS Time, which is the source of
most errors. The errors in the transmitted GPS Time, every 12.5 minutes, are so small that they can be ignored. This allows to
calculate the true distance satellite-user (pseudoranging ρ).
So, have A LITTLE BIT OF SHAME,
start studying the GNSS positioning problem from MODERN SOURCES (not before 2005),
stop talking about Schwarzschild and GR as if it HAS A ROLE in GNSS. Grow up!
And, above all, stop talking idiocies about cesium or rubidium fundamental frequencies, as they are IRRELEVANT IN GPS.
matters is that GPS Time is sustained by atomic clocks, and synchronized from Earth every 8 hour or less per day.
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 7:23:47 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
<snip>
Nonsense. Read the oficial GPS document (IS-GPS-200M). Particularly read section 3.3.1.1As usual, Miguelito, you're full of shit and ignorance. Read (STUDY) these sections. Don't fool yourself like in your thesis, 40 years ago.
On 9/15/2023 2:26 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
Volney, seriously, stop talking nonsense and start to study how GPS works, but do it thoroughly using many references.In particular, the oficial GPS document (IS-GPS-200M), as Paparios
points out.
You are so mentally frozen with Schwarzschild's solution being used in THE REAL WORLD, that you have lost (COMPLETELY)Schwarzschild's solution applies to the real world, it's not let's pretend.
how ANY GNSS constellation really works.
To cite few mistakes:
Yours, of course.
1) By Sept 2023, there are 31 GPS SV in activity, and ONLY ONE use cesium clocks for civilian applications. The other 30 use rubidium.We'll just discuss that one satellite then. Anyway, everyone who cares
is familiar with the Cs frequency, if they really care how the Rb clocks work, they can use the Rb frequency rather that 9192631770/9192631774.1.
2) The master clock at each SV works at 10.230000000 Mhz to compute GPS Week Time and ANY OTHER frequency used in the SV.Nope. The master clock for the downlink to earth is at 10.2299999543
MHz, in order to be received on the geoid at 10.23 MHz.
3) The master clock at each SVwhich operates at 10.2299999543 MHz
delivers the onboard GPS Time every 12.5 minutes, with the complete almanac (Of course 3 times/day is insufficiently often to correct for GR and
4) Every SV mantains the GPS Time within 1 nanosecond error in the constellation (civilian apps), as it's uploaded from Earth Control
Stations no less than THREE TIMES A DAY.
still maintain 1 nanosecond error. Remember, GR causes a 38,000 nS/day difference all by itself!
5) Any relativistic correction, if it's desired, HAS TO BE COMPUTED ON THE GPS RECEIVER, not in every SV (GPS satellite).Wrong, The transmission frequency is pre-adjusted for GR by transmitting
at 10.2299999543 MHz in order to be received at 10.23 MHz. (btw by
claiming the relativistic correction has to be done by the receiver is
an implicit admission that GR is a thing and has to be corrected for)
6) In commercial GPS receivers, the MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR to be corrected is the RECEIVER GPS Time, which is the source ofAnd once again, even once every 12.5 minutes isn't often enough to compensate for GR and maintain an error under 1 nS.
most errors. The errors in the transmitted GPS Time, every 12.5 minutes, are so small that they can be ignored. This allows to
calculate the true distance satellite-user (pseudoranging ρ).
So, have A LITTLE BIT OF SHAME,Yes you need to show a little shame and study the GPS specifications.
start studying the GNSS positioning problem from MODERN SOURCES (not before 2005),Why, has GR changed substantially since the GPS initiated around 1977?
stop talking about Schwarzschild and GR as if it HAS A ROLE in GNSS. Grow up!It is you who needs to grow up and admit that your obsession with GR/Einstein has messed up your mind and learn some actual physics for
once. In reality the GPS system is fascinating, how complex it is, especially the added complexity of GR, how it can calculate your
position and time in real time using tiny chips, doing everything, good
or bad, from allowing Grandma to find her grandchildren's new house or a Russian missile to strike a Ukrainian maternity ward.
And, above all, stop talking idiocies about cesium or rubidium fundamental frequencies, as they are IRRELEVANT IN GPS.We can shift that to discussing how the satellites transmit with a
master clock frequency of 10.2299999543 MHz in order to be received at
10.23 MHz, instead of discussing the Cs frequency if desired.
matters is that GPS Time is sustained by atomic clocks, and synchronized from Earth every 8 hour or less per day.And how the satellites track the cumulative adjustments and send them separately along with the unmodified times they also send (the receiver adjusts for that by adding in the adjustment). Also you can calculate
how long it takes the adjustment field to overflow, if constantly
adjusted by 38,000 nS/day.
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 16:12:46 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
That's what The Shit's brainwashing
is doing with the brains of its victims.
GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at [10.2299999954326 MHz (see document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on the ground at 10.23 MHz.]
Clocks, poor halfbrain, generally are to
indicate time.
GPS clocks are indicating
GPS time. See your precious documentation.
El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 20:11:21 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió: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
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 7:23:47 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
<snip>
Nonsense. Read the oficial GPS document (IS-GPS-200M). Particularly read section 3.3.1.1As usual, Miguelito, you're full of shit and ignorance. Read (STUDY) these sections. Don't fool yourself like in your thesis, 40 years ago.
From section 3.3.1.1 (which you ave not read)
"The Carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SV. The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz. The SV carrier frequency
Note that this relativistic correction is totally independent of the used atomic clock (cesium or rubidium). Both atomic clock working frequencies, by the use of download counters, get the 10.2299999954326 MHz ticking frequency.
El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 20:11:21 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió: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
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 7:23:47 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
<snip>
Nonsense. Read the oficial GPS document (IS-GPS-200M). Particularly read section 3.3.1.1As usual, Miguelito, you're full of shit and ignorance. Read (STUDY) these sections. Don't fool yourself like in your thesis, 40 years ago.
From section 3.3.1.1 (which you ave not read)
"The Carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SV. The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz. The SV carrier frequency
Note that this relativistic correction is totally independent of the used atomic clock (cesium or rubidium). Both atomic clock working frequencies, by the use of download counters, get the 10.2299999954326 MHz ticking frequency.
GPS clocks are indicatingYou do realize, don't you, that GPS time is the time derived from using
GPS time. See your precious documentation.
the entire GPS system, your GPS receiver and all the satellites visible
to it. It is NOT the time on board the satellites
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:07:20 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote: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
El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 20:11:21 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 7:23:47 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:From section 3.3.1.1 (which you ave not read)
<snip>
Nonsense. Read the oficial GPS document (IS-GPS-200M). Particularly read section 3.3.1.1As usual, Miguelito, you're full of shit and ignorance. Read (STUDY) these sections. Don't fool yourself like in your thesis, 40 years ago.
"The Carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SV. The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz. The SV carrier frequency
Note that this relativistic correction is totally independent of the used atomic clock (cesium or rubidium). Both atomic clock working frequencies, by the use of download counters, get the 10.2299999954326 MHz ticking frequency.
I told you that section 3.3.1.1 is LEGACY (from Oct1993 UNCLASSIFIED ICD-GPS-200 Rev. C, Initial Release), but you prefer your
historic fairy tale.
This section still is maintained in further releases, like IS-GPS-200M (13 Apr 2021), but what should count for your understanding is:
20.3.3.3.3.1 User Algorithm for SV Clock Correction. The polynomial defined in the following allows [snip irrelevancies]
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 8:18:30 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
On 9/15/2023 2:26 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
Volney, seriously, stop talking nonsense and start to study how GPS works, but do it thoroughly using many references.In particular, the oficial GPS document (IS-GPS-200M), as Paparios
points out.
Schwarzschild's solution applies to the real world, it's not let's pretend. >>>
You are so mentally frozen with Schwarzschild's solution being used in THE REAL WORLD, that you have lost (COMPLETELY)
how ANY GNSS constellation really works.
To cite few mistakes:
Yours, of course.
We'll just discuss that one satellite then. Anyway, everyone who cares
1) By Sept 2023, there are 31 GPS SV in activity, and ONLY ONE use cesium clocks for civilian applications. The other 30 use rubidium.
is familiar with the Cs frequency, if they really care how the Rb clocks
work, they can use the Rb frequency rather that 9192631770/9192631774.1.
Nope. The master clock for the downlink to earth is at 10.2299999543
2) The master clock at each SV works at 10.230000000 Mhz to compute GPS Week Time and ANY OTHER frequency used in the SV.
MHz, in order to be received on the geoid at 10.23 MHz.
which operates at 10.2299999543 MHz
3) The master clock at each SV
delivers the onboard GPS Time every 12.5 minutes, with the complete almanac (Of course 3 times/day is insufficiently often to correct for GR and
4) Every SV mantains the GPS Time within 1 nanosecond error in the constellation (civilian apps), as it's uploaded from Earth Control
Stations no less than THREE TIMES A DAY.
still maintain 1 nanosecond error. Remember, GR causes a 38,000 nS/day
difference all by itself!
Wrong, The transmission frequency is pre-adjusted for GR by transmitting
5) Any relativistic correction, if it's desired, HAS TO BE COMPUTED ON THE GPS RECEIVER, not in every SV (GPS satellite).
at 10.2299999543 MHz in order to be received at 10.23 MHz. (btw by
claiming the relativistic correction has to be done by the receiver is
an implicit admission that GR is a thing and has to be corrected for)
And once again, even once every 12.5 minutes isn't often enough to
6) In commercial GPS receivers, the MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR to be corrected is the RECEIVER GPS Time, which is the source of
most errors. The errors in the transmitted GPS Time, every 12.5 minutes, are so small that they can be ignored. This allows to
calculate the true distance satellite-user (pseudoranging ρ).
compensate for GR and maintain an error under 1 nS.
Yes you need to show a little shame and study the GPS specifications.
So, have A LITTLE BIT OF SHAME,
start studying the GNSS positioning problem from MODERN SOURCES (not before 2005),Why, has GR changed substantially since the GPS initiated around 1977?
stop talking about Schwarzschild and GR as if it HAS A ROLE in GNSS. Grow up!It is you who needs to grow up and admit that your obsession with
GR/Einstein has messed up your mind and learn some actual physics for
once. In reality the GPS system is fascinating, how complex it is,
especially the added complexity of GR, how it can calculate your
position and time in real time using tiny chips, doing everything, good
or bad, from allowing Grandma to find her grandchildren's new house or a
Russian missile to strike a Ukrainian maternity ward.
We can shift that to discussing how the satellites transmit with a
And, above all, stop talking idiocies about cesium or rubidium fundamental frequencies, as they are IRRELEVANT IN GPS.
master clock frequency of 10.2299999543 MHz in order to be received at
10.23 MHz, instead of discussing the Cs frequency if desired.
matters is that GPS Time is sustained by atomic clocks, and synchronized from Earth every 8 hour or less per day.And how the satellites track the cumulative adjustments and send them
separately along with the unmodified times they also send (the receiver
adjusts for that by adding in the adjustment). Also you can calculate
how long it takes the adjustment field to overflow, if constantly
adjusted by 38,000 nS/day.
Study how a recognized expert in GNSS explain how to calculate the most important parameter for ranging: the pseudorange.
On Saturday, 16 September 2023 at 04:08:10 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
GPS clocks are indicatingYou do realize, don't you, that GPS time is the time derived from using
GPS time. See your precious documentation.
the entire GPS system, your GPS receiver and all the satellites visible
to it. It is NOT the time on board the satellites
An assertion, stupid Mike, is not any argument.
And,
particularly, an assertion of an idiot able to assert that
setting to 9192631774.1 is setting to 9192631770.
But, well, have a chance. So - what is the time on
the board of a satellite when the time in "entire GPS system"
is, for instance, 2023-09-16 12:00:00.00000000000000000?
Numbers, pls.
No answer, stupid Mike? Of course.
On 9/16/2023 1:20 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Saturday, 16 September 2023 at 04:08:10 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
GPS clocks are indicatingYou do realize, don't you, that GPS time is the time derived from using
GPS time. See your precious documentation.
the entire GPS system, your GPS receiver and all the satellites visible
to it. It is NOT the time on board the satellites
An assertion, stupid Mike, is not any argument.This is from the GPS specification paper
particularly, an assertion of an idiot able to assert thatAgain, the numbers (except for the carrier frequencies 10.2299999954326
setting to 9192631774.1 is setting to 9192631770.
MHz and 10.23 MHz instead of an onboard Cs clock) are right out of the
GPS specification, so again, not an assertion.
But, well, have a chance. So - what is the time onNot enough information specified.
the board of a satellite when the time in "entire GPS system"
is, for instance, 2023-09-16 12:00:00.00000000000000000?
No answer, stupid Mike? Of course.
Additionally, GPS time is only valid on and relatively near the geoid,
where the statement "GPS time is 2023-09-16 12:00:00.00000000000000000"
can be considered valid and meaningful.
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:07:20 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote: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
El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 20:11:21 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 7:23:47 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
<snip>
Nonsense. Read the oficial GPS document (IS-GPS-200M). Particularly read section 3.3.1.1As usual, Miguelito, you're full of shit and ignorance. Read (STUDY) these sections. Don't fool yourself like in your thesis, 40 years ago.
From section 3.3.1.1 (which you ave not read)
"The Carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SV. The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz. The SV carrier frequency
Note that this relativistic correction is totally independent of the used atomic clock (cesium or rubidium). Both atomic clock working frequencies, by the use of download counters, get the 10.2299999954326 MHz ticking frequency.I told you that section 3.3.1.1 is LEGACY (from Oct1993 UNCLASSIFIED ICD-GPS-200 Rev. C, Initial Release), but you prefer your
historic fairy tale.
This section still is maintained in further releases, like IS-GPS-200M (13 Apr 2021), but what should count for your understanding is:
El sábado, 16 de septiembre de 2023 a las 1:25:40 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió: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
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:07:20 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 20:11:21 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 7:23:47 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
<snip>
Nonsense. Read the oficial GPS document (IS-GPS-200M). Particularly read section 3.3.1.1As usual, Miguelito, you're full of shit and ignorance. Read (STUDY) these sections. Don't fool yourself like in your thesis, 40 years ago.
From section 3.3.1.1 (which you ave not read)
"The Carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SV. The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz. The SV carrier
Note that this relativistic correction is totally independent of the used atomic clock (cesium or rubidium). Both atomic clock working frequencies, by the use of download counters, get the 10.2299999954326 MHz ticking frequency.I told you that section 3.3.1.1 is LEGACY (from Oct1993 UNCLASSIFIED ICD-GPS-200 Rev. C, Initial Release), but you prefer your
historic fairy tale.
This section still is maintained in further releases, like IS-GPS-200M (13 Apr 2021), but what should count for your understanding is:
Of course section 3.3.1.1 has not changed, since the start of the GPS system. The reason is that section is fundamental for the operation of the GPS system. GR gravitational time dilation
On 9/17/2023 12:04 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
To Volney and Paparios, try to digest what follows without choking yourselves: No offset is done in rubidium based GPS master XO.
Relativity in the Global Positioning System
Neil Ashby, Dept. of Physics, University of Colorado https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2003-1
QUOTE (cesium clocks):
5 Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
.......................
In order for the satellite clock to appear to an observer on the geoid to beat at the chosen frequency of 10.23 MHz, the satellite
clocks are adjusted lower in frequency so that the proper frequency is:
[1−4.4647×10−10]×10.23MHz=10.22999999543MHz. ((36))Exactly. This is why the GR solution is the correct one, and the
Newtonian solution (transmit at 10.23 MHz to be received at 10.23 MHz)
What the hell is a "relativist lobby"? A touch of paranoid
To Volney and Paparios, try to digest what follows without choking yourselves: No offset is done in rubidium based GPS master XO.
Relativity in the Global Positioning System
Neil Ashby, Dept. of Physics, University of Colorado https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2003-1
QUOTE (cesium clocks):
5 Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
.......................
In order for the satellite clock to appear to an observer on the geoid to beat at the chosen frequency of 10.23 MHz, the satellite
clocks are adjusted lower in frequency so that the proper frequency is:
[1−4.4647×10−10]×10.23MHz=10.22999999543MHz. ((36))
This adjustment is accomplished ON THE GROUND before the clock is placed in orbit.
**********************************************Although GPS managers were made aware of this error in the early 1980s, eight years passed before system specifications were changed to reflect the correct calculation [2]. As understanding of the numerous sources of error in the GPS slowly improved, it
QUOTE (rubidium clocks):
When GPS satellites were first deployed, the specified factory frequency offset was slightly in error because the important contribution from earth’s centripetal potential (see Eq. (18) had been inadvertently omitted at one stage of the evaluation.
the correct relativistic calculation.
It has become common practice NOT TO APPLY SUCH OFFSETS
to Rubidium clocks as these are subject to unpredictable frequency jumps during launch. Instead, AFTER such clocks are placed in orbit their frequencies are measured and THE ACTUAL FREQUENCY CORRECTIONS NEEDED ARE INCORPORATED IN THE CLOCK CORRECTIONPOLYNOMIAL THAT ACCOMPANIES THE NAVIGATION MESSAGE.
**********************************************
Do you understand what this means?
As of today, 30 of the 31 GPS SV actives uses rubidium clocks for L1 civilian band.
Only the
SVN 72 (GPS Block IIF) uses cesium for this band and, allegedly, IS THE ONLY ONE DETUNED!
The other 30 active GPS SV introduces the frequency correction IN THE POLYNOMIAL, which is sent to users and LET THEM MAKE
THE CORRECTION (IF THEY WANT TO)
PLEASE, STOP TALKING ABOUT THE FUCKING LEGACY MYTH Point 3.3.1.1 (from Oct 1993 UNCLASSIFIED ICD-GPS-200 Rev. C).
This is OLD STUFF,
and people got tired of this lie, deception,
made just to please the relativist lobby.
YET MORE:
Confusion and consternation
Historically, there has been much confusion about properly accounting for relativistic effects. And it is almost
impossible to discover how different manufacturers go about it! In one case, a manufacturer was found to be
double-counting. During 1989-90 I wrote letters to about a dozen receiver manufacturers inquiring about
relativistic corrections in their software.
Two of them responded with reasonable information, but nothing was heard from the others until some years later,
when a rumor began circulating, alleging that some manufacturers thought I was trying to steal their secrets!
NOTE: WHAT SECRETS?
Another story, some years after that, had it that my letter caused consternation and much tweaking of receiver
software. GPS managers have been extremely sensitive to assertions that relativistic effects were not being properly
taken into account.
....
WILL YOU STILL KEEP TALKING ABOUT THE DETUNING OF GPS XO MASTER CLOCK BY 0.004567399621 Hz, which
accumulates 0.000038575105304 seconds in one day, producing a final positioning error of 11.564.53 m
Don't be so IGNORANT anymore. In any case, the 11.5 Km is the RANGING ERROR (URE),
not in user location
Relativity has no role in GNSS, no matter how hard relativists push it.
On 9/17/2023 12:04 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
As of today, 30 of the 31 GPS SV actives uses rubidium clocks for L1 civilian band.Do these 30 rubidium clocks transmit at 10.22999999543 MHz in order to
be received at 10.23 MHz? Does the Cs based satellite do so?
To Volney and Paparios, try to digest what follows without choking yourselves: No offset is done in rubidium based GPS master XO.
Relativity in the Global Positioning SystemAlthough GPS managers were made aware of this error in the early 1980s, eight years passed before system specifications were changed to reflect the correct calculation [2]. As understanding of the numerous sources of error in the GPS slowly improved, it
Neil Ashby, Dept. of Physics, University of Colorado https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2003-1
QUOTE (cesium clocks):
5 Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
.......................
In order for the satellite clock to appear to an observer on the geoid to beat at the chosen frequency of 10.23 MHz, the satellite
clocks are adjusted lower in frequency so that the proper frequency is:
[1−4.4647×10−10]×10.23MHz=10.22999999543MHz. ((36))
This adjustment is accomplished ON THE GROUND before the clock is placed in orbit.
**********************************************
QUOTE (rubidium clocks):
When GPS satellites were first deployed, the specified factory frequency offset was slightly in error because the important contribution from earth’s centripetal potential (see Eq. (18) had been inadvertently omitted at one stage of the evaluation.
the correct relativistic calculation.CORRECTIONS NEEDED ARE INCORPORATED IN THE CLOCK CORRECTION POLYNOMIAL THAT ACCOMPANIES THE NAVIGATION MESSAGE.
It has become common practice NOT TO APPLY SUCH OFFSETS to Rubidium clocks as these are subject to unpredictable frequency jumps during launch. Instead, AFTER such clocks are placed in orbit their frequencies are measured and THE ACTUAL FREQUENCY
**********************************************
Do you understand what this means? As of today, 30 of the 31 GPS SV actives uses rubidium clocks for L1 civilian band. Only the
SVN 72 (GPS Block IIF) uses cesium for this band and, allegedly, IS THE ONLY ONE DETUNED!
The other 30 active GPS SV introduces the frequency correction IN THE POLYNOMIAL, which is sent to users and LET THEM MAKE
THE CORRECTION (IF THEY WANT TO)
THIS POLYNOMIAL: Δtˢᵛ = aᶠ⁰ + aᶠ¹ (t - tᵒᶜ) + aᶠ² (t - tᵒᶜ)² - Δtᵍᵈ + (Δtᵣ = F e √A sin Eᵏ), which is incorporated in the calculation of the
GPS Time in the receiver, but with all the parameterts (except sin Eᵏ) computed onboard at each GPS SV.
And Δtᵣ is a fixed value, not depending on GPS Time t, except for user calculation of the true eccentricity Eᵏ.
PLEASE, STOP TALKING ABOUT THE FUCKING LEGACY MYTH Point 3.3.1.1 (from Oct 1993 UNCLASSIFIED ICD-GPS-200 Rev. C).
This is OLD STUFF, and people got tired of this lie, deception, made just to please the relativist lobby.
YET MORE:
Confusion and consternation
Historically, there has been much confusion about properly accounting for relativistic effects. And it is almost
impossible to discover how different manufacturers go about it! In one case, a manufacturer was found to be
double-counting. During 1989-90 I wrote letters to about a dozen receiver manufacturers inquiring about
relativistic corrections in their software.
Two of them responded with reasonable information, but nothing was heard from the others until some years later,
when a rumor began circulating, alleging that some manufacturers thought I was trying to steal their secrets!
NOTE: WHAT SECRETS?
Another story, some years after that, had it that my letter caused consternation and much tweaking of receiver
software. GPS managers have been extremely sensitive to assertions that relativistic effects were not being properly
taken into account.
....
WILL YOU STILL KEEP TALKING ABOUT THE DETUNING OF GPS XO MASTER CLOCK BY 0.004567399621 Hz, which
accumulates 0.000038575105304 seconds in one day, producing a final positioning error of 11.564.53 m?
Don't be so IGNORANT anymore. In any case, the 11.5 Km is the RANGING ERROR (URE), not in user location and GPS
Time offset (in m). If existed, such error would be split between 8 different variables (a pair of xyz plus two GPS Time).
Go back to the study room, and stop supporting legacy MYTH, which is refuted nowadays by 15 countries.
Relativity has no role in GNSS, no matter how hard relativists push it.
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 2:50:28 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
On 9/17/2023 12:04 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:<snip>
<snip>As of today, 30 of the 31 GPS SV actives uses rubidium clocks for L1 civilian band.Do these 30 rubidium clocks transmit at 10.22999999543 MHz in order to
be received at 10.23 MHz? Does the Cs based satellite do so?
So you keep being an imbecile. I forgot to remark what you did for me, thanks!
if ALL GPS SV Master XO are running at 10.22999999543 MHz while in orbit, it means that all the onboard systems
are using this frequency and its derivates (higher and lower múltiples).
El domingo, 17 de septiembre de 2023 a las 10:51:47 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 2:50:28 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
On 9/17/2023 12:04 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:<snip>
<snip>As of today, 30 of the 31 GPS SV actives uses rubidium clocks for L1 civilian band.Do these 30 rubidium clocks transmit at 10.22999999543 MHz in order to be received at 10.23 MHz? Does the Cs based satellite do so?
So you keep being an imbecile. I forgot to remark what you did for me, thanks!
if ALL GPS SV Master XO are running at 10.22999999543 MHz while in orbit, it means that all the onboard systems
are using this frequency and its derivates (higher and lower múltiples).
More nonsense of yours. The GPS system uses the bands explained in section 3.3.1.1:see Table 3-Vb). For GPS III, GPS IIIF, and subsequent satellites, the requirements specified in this IS shall pertain to the signal contained within two 30.69 MHz bands; one centered about the L1 nominal frequency and the other centered about the L2
"For Block IIA, IIR, IIR-M, and IIF satellites, the requirements specified in this IS shall pertain to the signal contained within two 20.46 MHz bands; one centered about the L1 nominal frequency and the other centered about the L2 nominal frequency (
3-Vc).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 deltaf/f = -4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping rate of 10.23 MHz offset by a
The Carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SV. The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an observer on the ground --is 10.23 MHz. The SV carrier frequency and
The nominal Carrier frequencies (f0) shall be 1575.42 MHz, and 1227.6 MHz for L1 and L2, respectively".
Try to remember how to read a text!!!!!
El domingo, 17 de septiembre de 2023 a las 1:04:24 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
To Volney and Paparios, try to digest what follows without choking yourselves: No offset is done in rubidium based GPS master XO.
Although GPS managers were made aware of this error in the early 1980s, eight years passed before system specifications were changed to reflect the correct calculation [2]. As understanding of the numerous sources of error in the GPS slowly improved, itRelativity in the Global Positioning System
Neil Ashby, Dept. of Physics, University of Colorado https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2003-1
QUOTE (cesium clocks):
5 Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks
.......................
In order for the satellite clock to appear to an observer on the geoid to beat at the chosen frequency of 10.23 MHz, the satellite
clocks are adjusted lower in frequency so that the proper frequency is:
[1−4.4647×10−10]×10.23MHz=10.22999999543MHz. ((36))
This adjustment is accomplished ON THE GROUND before the clock is placed in orbit.
**********************************************
QUOTE (rubidium clocks):
When GPS satellites were first deployed, the specified factory frequency offset was slightly in error because the important contribution from earth’s centripetal potential (see Eq. (18) had been inadvertently omitted at one stage of the evaluation.
CORRECTIONS NEEDED ARE INCORPORATED IN THE CLOCK CORRECTION POLYNOMIAL THAT ACCOMPANIES THE NAVIGATION MESSAGE.the correct relativistic calculation.
It has become common practice NOT TO APPLY SUCH OFFSETS to Rubidium clocks as these are subject to unpredictable frequency jumps during launch. Instead, AFTER such clocks are placed in orbit their frequencies are measured and THE ACTUAL FREQUENCY
**********************************************
Do you understand what this means? As of today, 30 of the 31 GPS SV actives uses rubidium clocks for L1 civilian band. Only the
SVN 72 (GPS Block IIF) uses cesium for this band and, allegedly, IS THE ONLY ONE DETUNED!
The other 30 active GPS SV introduces the frequency correction IN THE POLYNOMIAL, which is sent to users and LET THEM MAKE
THE CORRECTION (IF THEY WANT TO)
THIS POLYNOMIAL: Δtˢᵛ = aᶠ⁰ + aᶠ¹ (t - tᵒᶜ) + aᶠ² (t - tᵒᶜ)² - Δtᵍᵈ + (Δtᵣ = F e √A sin Eᵏ), which is incorporated in the calculation of the
GPS Time in the receiver, but with all the parameterts (except sin Eᵏ) computed onboard at each GPS SV.
And Δtᵣ is a fixed value, not depending on GPS Time t, except for user calculation of the true eccentricity Eᵏ.
PLEASE, STOP TALKING ABOUT THE FUCKING LEGACY MYTH Point 3.3.1.1 (from Oct 1993 UNCLASSIFIED ICD-GPS-200 Rev. C).
This is OLD STUFF, and people got tired of this lie, deception, made just to please the relativist lobby.
YET MORE:
Confusion and consternation
Historically, there has been much confusion about properly accounting for relativistic effects. And it is almost
impossible to discover how different manufacturers go about it! In one case, a manufacturer was found to be
double-counting. During 1989-90 I wrote letters to about a dozen receiver manufacturers inquiring about
relativistic corrections in their software.
Two of them responded with reasonable information, but nothing was heard from the others until some years later,
when a rumor began circulating, alleging that some manufacturers thought I was trying to steal their secrets!
NOTE: WHAT SECRETS?
Another story, some years after that, had it that my letter caused consternation and much tweaking of receiver
software. GPS managers have been extremely sensitive to assertions that relativistic effects were not being properly
taken into account.
....
WILL YOU STILL KEEP TALKING ABOUT THE DETUNING OF GPS XO MASTER CLOCK BY 0.004567399621 Hz, which
accumulates 0.000038575105304 seconds in one day, producing a final positioning error of 11.564.53 m?
Don't be so IGNORANT anymore. In any case, the 11.5 Km is the RANGING ERROR (URE), not in user location and GPS
Time offset (in m). If existed, such error would be split between 8 different variables (a pair of xyz plus two GPS Time).
Go back to the study room, and stop supporting legacy MYTH, which is refuted nowadays by 15 countries.
Relativity has no role in GNSS, no matter how hard relativists push it.What a bunch of nonsense you write!!!!
First you use Professor Ashby paper, which carefully explains (using General Relativity equations) why a GPS satellite in orbit has to generate signals at 10.22999999543 MHz, in order to receive those signals on the ground at 10.23 MHz.
Secondly you, a famous electronic engineer, have no idea how an atomic clock Works. You can learn that in several sites (https://www.livescience.com/32660-how-does-an-atomic-clock-work.html).
Cesium atomic clocks resonate at precisely 9,192,631,770 Hz
El domingo, 17 de septiembre de 2023 a las 12:39:25 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
On Sunday, 17 September 2023 at 17:24:56 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
El domingo, 17 de septiembre de 2023 a las 10:51:47 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 2:50:28 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
On 9/17/2023 12:04 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:<snip>
<snip>As of today, 30 of the 31 GPS SV actives uses rubidium clocks for L1 civilian band.Do these 30 rubidium clocks transmit at 10.22999999543 MHz in order to
be received at 10.23 MHz? Does the Cs based satellite do so?
So you keep being an imbecile. I forgot to remark what you did for me, thanks!
if ALL GPS SV Master XO are running at 10.22999999543 MHz while in orbit, it means that all the onboard systems
are using this frequency and its derivates (higher and lower múltiples).
frequency (see Table 3-Vb). For GPS III, GPS IIIF, and subsequent satellites, the requirements specified in this IS shall pertain to the signal contained within two 30.69 MHz bands; one centered about the L1 nominal frequency and the other centered aboutMore nonsense of yours. The GPS system uses the bands explained in section 3.3.1.1:
"For Block IIA, IIR, IIR-M, and IIF satellites, the requirements specified in this IS shall pertain to the signal contained within two 20.46 MHz bands; one centered about the L1 nominal frequency and the other centered about the L2 nominal
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 deltaf/f = -4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping rate of 10.23 MHz offset by3-Vc).
The Carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SV. The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an observer on the ground --is 10.23 MHz. The SV carrier frequency
The nominal Carrier frequencies (f0) shall be 1575.42 MHz, and 1227.6 MHz for L1 and L2, respectively".
Try to remember how to read a text!!!!!Sorry, poor trash, not every text is worthy of Reading.
And this one is obviously mistaken, as the mentioned
frequency measured by the local satellite clock
is 10.23, with the precision of an aceptable error.
Sure. According to you the guys who run the GPS system do not know what frequencies they have to use.
Are you sure you are the greatest logician in this world???No.
...
the measurement result is diffewrent.
On Sunday, 17 September 2023 at 17:24:56 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
El domingo, 17 de septiembre de 2023 a las 10:51:47 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 2:50:28 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
On 9/17/2023 12:04 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:<snip>
<snip>As of today, 30 of the 31 GPS SV actives uses rubidium clocks for L1 civilian band.Do these 30 rubidium clocks transmit at 10.22999999543 MHz in order to be received at 10.23 MHz? Does the Cs based satellite do so?
So you keep being an imbecile. I forgot to remark what you did for me, thanks!
if ALL GPS SV Master XO are running at 10.22999999543 MHz while in orbit, it means that all the onboard systems
are using this frequency and its derivates (higher and lower múltiples).
see Table 3-Vb). For GPS III, GPS IIIF, and subsequent satellites, the requirements specified in this IS shall pertain to the signal contained within two 30.69 MHz bands; one centered about the L1 nominal frequency and the other centered about the L2More nonsense of yours. The GPS system uses the bands explained in section 3.3.1.1:
"For Block IIA, IIR, IIR-M, and IIF satellites, the requirements specified in this IS shall pertain to the signal contained within two 20.46 MHz bands; one centered about the L1 nominal frequency and the other centered about the L2 nominal 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 deltaf/f = -4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping rate of 10.23 MHz offset by3-Vc).
The Carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SV. The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an observer on the ground --is 10.23 MHz. The SV carrier frequency
The nominal Carrier frequencies (f0) shall be 1575.42 MHz, and 1227.6 MHz for L1 and L2, respectively".
Try to remember how to read a text!!!!!Sorry, poor trash, not every text is worthy of Reading.
And this one is obviously mistaken, as the mentioned
frequency measured by the local satellite clock
is 10.23, with the precision of an aceptable error.
Demented ranting idiot Maciej Wozniak wrote:
...What is that word? A mix of "different" and "a few"?
the measurement result is diffewrent.
El domingo, 17 de septiembre de 2023 a las 12:39:25 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
On Sunday, 17 September 2023 at 17:24:56 UTC+2, Paparios wrote:
El domingo, 17 de septiembre de 2023 a las 10:51:47 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 2:50:28 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
On 9/17/2023 12:04 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:<snip>
<snip>As of today, 30 of the 31 GPS SV actives uses rubidium clocks for L1 civilian band.Do these 30 rubidium clocks transmit at 10.22999999543 MHz in order to
be received at 10.23 MHz? Does the Cs based satellite do so?
So you keep being an imbecile. I forgot to remark what you did for me, thanks!
if ALL GPS SV Master XO are running at 10.22999999543 MHz while in orbit, it means that all the onboard systems
are using this frequency and its derivates (higher and lower múltiples).
frequency (see Table 3-Vb). For GPS III, GPS IIIF, and subsequent satellites, the requirements specified in this IS shall pertain to the signal contained within two 30.69 MHz bands; one centered about the L1 nominal frequency and the other centered aboutMore nonsense of yours. The GPS system uses the bands explained in section 3.3.1.1:
"For Block IIA, IIR, IIR-M, and IIF satellites, the requirements specified in this IS shall pertain to the signal contained within two 20.46 MHz bands; one centered about the L1 nominal frequency and the other centered about the L2 nominal
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 deltaf/f = -4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping rate of 10.23 MHz offset by3-Vc).
The Carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SV. The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an observer on the ground --is 10.23 MHz. The SV carrier frequency
The nominal Carrier frequencies (f0) shall be 1575.42 MHz, and 1227.6 MHz for L1 and L2, respectively".
Try to remember how to read a text!!!!!Sorry, poor trash, not every text is worthy of Reading.
And this one is obviously mistaken, as the mentioned
frequency measured by the local satellite clock
is 10.23, with the precision of an aceptable error.
Sure. According to you the guys who run the GPS system do not know what frequencies they have to use. Are you sure you are the greatest logician in this world???
On Sunday, September 17, 2023 at 2:50:28 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
On 9/17/2023 12:04 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
<snip>
As of today, 30 of the 31 GPS SV actives uses rubidium clocks for L1 civilian band.Do these 30 rubidium clocks transmit at 10.22999999543 MHz in order to
be received at 10.23 MHz? Does the Cs based satellite do so?
<snip>
So you keep being an imbecile. I forgot to remark what you did for me, thanks!
if ALL GPS SV Master XO are running at 10.22999999543 MHz while in orbit, it means that all the onboard systems
are using this frequency and its derivates (higher and lower multiples).
All these parameters, then, ARE WRONG! See why you are an imbecile ignorant?
http://www.wdcb.ru/mining/Gps/Texas/ephclock.html
But they were calculated using 1 FALSE second = 0.999999999553529 REAL seconds.
Still don't understand the relativity hoax, don't you?
You tried to solve the problem in one point (carrier frequency reaching Earth's surface as multiple of 10.23000000000 Mhz),
but it causes that every GPS satellite operate with 10.2299999954326 Mhz.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?
Keep sustaining that relativity play a role in GPS, so you bury yourself more and more in the well of ignorance and relativistic faith,
as it correspond to any religion.
There are no "FALSE" or "REAL" seconds. There is only the SI second,
defined as 9192631770 local Cs transition times.
Still don't understand the relativity hoax, don't you?I haven't seen any evidence of any "hoax". My GPS app gives good
directions and isn't incorrect by 11 km each day, cumulative. It works.
You tried to solve the problem in one point (carrier frequency reaching Earth's surface as multiple of 10.23000000000 Mhz),
but it causes that every GPS satellite operate with 10.2299999954326 Mhz.
DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?It does appear that you are beginning to understand. The master signal
on the satellites is 10.22999999543 MHz
On Sunday, 17 September 2023 at 18:57:17 UTC+2, Python wrote:
Demented ranting idiot Maciej Wozniak wrote:
...What is that word? A mix of "different" and "a few"?
the measurement result is diffewrent.
No, it's a mistyped "different".
poor halfbrain
I told you that section 3.3.1.1 is LEGACY (from Oct1993 UNCLASSIFIED ICD-GPS-200 Rev. C, Initial Release), but you prefer your
historic fairy tale.
This section still is maintained in further releases, like IS-GPS-200M (13 Apr 2021)
but what should count for your understanding is: >
20.3.3.3.3.1 User Algorithm for SV Clock Correction. The polynomial defined in the following allows the user to
determine the effective SV PRN code phase offset referenced to the phase center of the antennas (Δtsv) with respect
to GPS system time (t) at the time of data transmission. The coefficients transmitted in subframe 1 describe the
offset apparent to the two-frequency user for the interval of time in which the parameters are transmitted. This
estimated correction accounts for the deterministic SV clock error characteristics of bias, drift and aging, as well as
for the SV implementation characteristics of group delay bias and mean differential group delay.
Since these coefficients do not include corrections for relativistic effects, THE USER'S EQUIPMENT must determine the
requisite relativistic correction. Accordingly, the of offset given below includes a term to perform this function.
Δ_tR = F e √A sin E_k
F = -4.442807633E-10 s/√m
√A = square root of semimajor axis of the satellite orbit : 4492.458 √m , for current 31 active SV.
e = space vehicle orbit eccentricity : 0.008573316 , for current 31 active SV
E_k = eccentric anomaly of the GPS satellite orbit.
sin E_k = √(1 - e^2) sin θ /(1 + e cos θ) ; θ: True Anomaly (ANGLE BETWEEN EARTH AND THE SV)
THIS IS ONE REASON BY WHICH RELATIVISTIC CORRECTIONS MUST BE MADE IN THE GPS RECEIVER!
Assuming θ = 45° or 135°, the Δ_tR offset is -12,02637 nsec.
When compared with the rest of parameters in Δt_SV, they are MUCH GREATER and increase with TIME!
Δt_R DOES NOT INCREASE WITH TIME!
So, stop being so stupid indoctrinated relativist and LEARN!
The offset Δt_SV can be HUNDREDS OF MICROSECONDS, and have to be discounted in the GPS receiver.
Learn by yourself or go back to the university. But stop believing MYTHOLOGY!
Relativity HAS NO IMPACT IN GPS OR ANY OTHER GNSS.
So the frequency standard in a GPS satellite is still
10.2299999954326 MHz when the satellite is in service.
But note that "as it appears to an observer on the ground"
must not be taken literally, there is no way you can directly
measure the frequency of L1 and L2 on the ground because the Doppler
shift due to the motion of the satellites will always be order of
magnitudes higher than the gravitational frequency shift.
The _only_ reason why the reference frequency is adjusted down
is to make the SV-clock run synchronously with the GPS coordinated time.
but what should count for your understanding is: >
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 10:09:45 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
<snip>
So the frequency standard in a GPS satellite is still
10.2299999954326 MHz when the satellite is in service.
But note that "as it appears to an observer on the ground"
must not be taken literally, there is no way you can directly
measure the frequency of L1 and L2 on the ground because the Doppler
shift due to the motion of the satellites will always be order of magnitudes higher than the gravitational frequency shift.
The _only_ reason why the reference frequency is adjusted down<snip>
is to make the SV-clock run synchronously with the GPS coordinated time.
but what should count for your understanding is: >
You, conveniently, miss the point that the GPS SV master XO is running at 10.2299999954326 MHz, which means that
a second is computed as being a FALSE SECOND lasting 0.999999999553529 seconds.
Meanwhile, the GPS receiver master XO, frequency synchronized with FLL (for short term drifts) uses a TRUE SECOND
lasting 1.00000000000000 seconds.
On each SV GPS, a local difference (that spread to all computers and other subsystems) compute a GPS orbital day as
during 86399.9999614 seconds for 86400 units of second/day.
And this difference CONTAMINATES everything that relativists were claiming to be solved, within each satellite.
And, curiously, it injects a cumulative deficit of -0,000038575105304 sec (the famous 38.5 us/day) that the offset was supposed
to correct. And this cumulative "error" affects the calculations of every parameter in the navigation system, irradiated every 12.5 min.
So, you "solved" the timing problem AT THE RECEIVER, but translated the problem to the satellite itself.
How do you explain this paradox, relativist?
Which magic explanation will you pull out to explain this huge contradiction? GPS clock is reset from 1 to 3 times from Earth Control
Station, to maintain the entire GPS constellation in sync, within 45 nanoseconds.
But, what is done to cancel the cumulative shift in orbiting master clocks?
Den 16.09.2023 06:25, skrev Richard Hertz:
I told you that section 3.3.1.1 is LEGACY (from Oct1993 UNCLASSIFIED ICD-GPS-200 Rev. C, Initial Release), but you prefer your
historic fairy tale.
This section still is maintained in further releases, like IS-GPS-200M (13 Apr 2021)The last update is IS-GPS-200N (01 AUG 2022) https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
3.3.1.1 Frequency plan:
"The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall
be coherently derived from a common frequency source within
the SV. The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears
to an observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz. The SV carrier
frequency and clock rates -- as they would appear to an observer
located in the SV
El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a frequency (9192631774.1)
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
So, for a relativistic idiot setting itGPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on the ground at 10.23 MHz.
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
That's what The Shit's brainwashing
is doing with the brains of its victims.
Then, Paul: tell me WHAT EXACTLY is provided by relativity to cure the bad things in GPS,
On Monday, September 18, 2023 at 10:09:45 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
<snip>
So the frequency standard in a GPS satellite is still
10.2299999954326 MHz when the satellite is in service.
But note that "as it appears to an observer on the ground"
must not be taken literally, there is no way you can directly
measure the frequency of L1 and L2 on the ground because the Doppler
shift due to the motion of the satellites will always be order of
magnitudes higher than the gravitational frequency shift.
The last update is IS-GPS-200N (01 AUG 2022)
https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
3.3.1.1 Frequency plan:
"The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall
be coherently derived from a common frequency source within
the SV. The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears
to an observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz. The SV 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 Δf/f = -4.4647E-10, equivalent
to a change in the P-code chipping rate of 10.23 MHz offset
by a Δf = -4.5674E-3 Hz. This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz."
So the frequency standard in a GPS satellite is still
10.2299999954326 MHz when the satellite is in service.
The _only_ reason why the reference frequency is adjusted down
is to make the SV-clock run synchronously with the GPS coordinated time.
You, conveniently, miss the point that the GPS SV master XO is running at 10.2299999954326 MHz, which means that
a second is computed as being a FALSE SECOND lasting 0.999999999553529 seconds.
Meanwhile, the GPS receiver master XO, frequency synchronized with FLL (for short term drifts) uses a TRUE SECOND
lasting 1.00000000000000 seconds.
On each SV GPS, a local difference (that spread to all computers and other subsystems) compute a GPS orbital day as
during 86399.9999614 seconds for 86400 units of second/day.
And this difference CONTAMINATES everything that relativists were claiming to be solved, within each satellite.
And, curiously, it injects a cumulative deficit of -0,000038575105304 sec (the famous 38.5 us/day) that the offset was supposed
to correct. And this cumulative "error" affects the calculations of every parameter in the navigation system, irradiated every 12.5 min.
So, you "solved" the timing problem AT THE RECEIVER, but translated the problem to the satellite itself.
How do you explain this paradox, relativist?
Den 19.09.2023 06:08, skrev Richard Hertz:>
Then, Paul: tell me WHAT EXACTLY is provided by relativity to cure the bad things in GPS,Easy.
Relativity tells us that the clock in the satellite must
be adjusted by the factor -4.4647E-10 to stay in sync
with GPS coordinated time.
But since no clock is infinitely precise, and the SV-clocks
are never corrected while the SVs are in service, the time
reported by the satellite must be corrected in the receiver
by the correction polynomial sent from the SV.
The first order parameter a_f0 is the "clock offset",
the error of the SV_clock.
Since a_f0 is stored in a register with a limited number
of bits, The "clock offset" must be less than ~ ± 1 ms,
or the register containing it will overflow.
If the rate of the SV-clock was not GR-corrected, it would be
more than +1 ms off sync after ~25 days, the "clock offset"
would overflow, and the GPS wouldn't work
NOTE THIS:
# Since the GPS works, this prove that the rate of the SV-clock
# _must_ be corrected by the factor -4.4647E-10.
# This is the significant "GR-correction" of the clock rate done
# before the satellite is set in service.
But you obviously know this, Richard. Or don't you?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Now, it appears that at one time, the designers of Galileo envisioned performing all clock corrections via software in the correction
polynomial, and the onboard atomic clocks would run without any GR correction. Galileo's a_f0 parameter has many more bits than the
equivalent parameter in GPS (I'm not bothering to look this up,
Richard, you can do this yourself) so that theoretically a Galileo
satellite could go for years without being reset. The GR correction
would be merely one correction among many other corrections that
needed to be accounted for in the correction polynomial.
Several years ago, I asked the question on this forum whether Galileo
clocks were actually being run uncorrected, because even with the
increased length of a_f0, Galileo's would still need to be reset
every several years. It did not make sense to me that any system
should be designed to *require* resets, even if spaced by several
years. Several days later, by analyzing the available log files,
Paul answered my question. Even the Galileo clocks, although
theoretically not needing to require a hardware GR correction to
function properly, were in fact adjusted to stay in sync with
Earthbound clocks.
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 7:56:24 AM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 19.09.2023 06:08, skrev Richard Hertz:>
Then, Paul: tell me WHAT EXACTLY is provided by relativity to cure the bad things in GPS,Easy.
Relativity tells us that the clock in the satellite must
be adjusted by the factor -4.4647E-10 to stay in sync
with GPS coordinated time.
But since no clock is infinitely precise, and the SV-clocks
are never corrected while the SVs are in service, the time
reported by the satellite must be corrected in the receiver
by the correction polynomial sent from the SV.
The first order parameter a_f0 is the "clock offset",
the error of the SV_clock.
Since a_f0 is stored in a register with a limited number
of bits, The "clock offset" must be less than ~ ± 1 ms,
or the register containing it will overflow.
If the rate of the SV-clock was not GR-corrected, it would beNow, it appears that at one time, the designers of Galileo envisioned performing all clock corrections via software in the correction
more than +1 ms off sync after ~25 days, the "clock offset"
would overflow, and the GPS wouldn't work
polynomial, and the onboard atomic clocks would run without any
GR correction.
On 9/19/23 8:47 AM, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
Now, it appears that at one time, the designers of Galileo envisioned performing all clock corrections via software in the correction
polynomial, and the onboard atomic clocks would run without any GR correction. Galileo's a_f0 parameter has many more bits than the
equivalent parameter in GPS (I'm not bothering to look this up,
Richard, you can do this yourself) so that theoretically a Galileo satellite could go for years without being reset. The GR correction
would be merely one correction among many other corrections that
needed to be accounted for in the correction polynomial.
Several years ago, I asked the question on this forum whether Galileo clocks were actually being run uncorrected, because even with theIf the Galileo satellite clocks were not corrected for GR
increased length of a_f0, Galileo's would still need to be reset
every several years. It did not make sense to me that any system
should be designed to *require* resets, even if spaced by several
years. Several days later, by analyzing the available log files,
Paul answered my question. Even the Galileo clocks, although
theoretically not needing to require a hardware GR correction to
function properly, were in fact adjusted to stay in sync with
Earthbound clocks.
On Tuesday, September 19, 2023 at 7:56:24 AM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 19.09.2023 06:08, skrev Richard Hertz:>
Then, Paul: tell me WHAT EXACTLY is provided by relativity to cure the bad things in GPS,Easy.
Relativity tells us that the clock in the satellite must
be adjusted by the factor -4.4647E-10 to stay in sync
with GPS coordinated time.
But since no clock is infinitely precise, and the SV-clocks
are never corrected while the SVs are in service, the time
reported by the satellite must be corrected in the receiver
by the correction polynomial sent from the SV.
The first order parameter a_f0 is the "clock offset",
the error of the SV_clock.
Since a_f0 is stored in a register with a limited number
of bits, The "clock offset" must be less than ~ ± 1 ms,
or the register containing it will overflow.
If the rate of the SV-clock was not GR-corrected, it would be
more than +1 ms off sync after ~25 days, the "clock offset"
would overflow, and the GPS wouldn't work
Now, it appears that at one time, the designers of Galileo envisioned performing all clock corrections via software in the correction
polynomial, and the onboard atomic clocks would run without any
GR correction. Galileo's a_f0 parameter has many more bits than
the equivalent parameter in GPS (I'm not bothering to look this up,
Richard, you can do this yourself) so that theoretically a Galileo
satellite could go for years without being reset. The GR correction
would be merely one correction among many other corrections
that needed to be accounted for in the correction polynomial.
Several years ago, I asked the question on this forum whether Galileo
clocks were actually being run uncorrected, because even with the
increased length of a_f0, Galileo's would still need to be reset every several years. It did not make sense to me that any system should
be designed to *require* resets, even if spaced by several years.
Several days later, by analyzing the available log files, Paul answered
my question. Even the Galileo clocks, although theoretically not
needing to require a hardware GR correction to function properly,
were in fact adjusted to stay in sync with Earthbound clocks.
Open this link:
https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/5/1695/pdf
see fig.8 page 11.
The clock offset (a_f0) will be the dominating factor
in the clock correction.
The GSAT0222/E13 clock correction has been almost constant
≈ -500 μS since April 2019 to January 2021,
The clock has been ≈500 μS ahead of System time all the time.
The GSAT0220/E33 clock correction has been almost constant
≈ +380 μS since February 2019 to January 2021,
The clock has been ≈380 μS behind System time all the time.
The GSAT0221/E15 clock correction has decreased from
≈ +900 μS in February 2019 to ≈ 820 μS in January 2021.
That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ 0.1 μS/day
The GSAT0219/E36 clock correction has decreased from
≈ +750 μS in February 2019 to ≈ 420 μS in January 2021.
That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ 0.5 μS/day
So the clock frequencies must have been corrected by
the factor -4.7219E-10.
September 2021 Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Open this link:
https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/5/1695/pdf
see fig.8 page 11.
The clock offset (a_f0) will be the dominating factor in the clock correction.
So the clock frequencies MUST HAVE BEEN CORRECTED by the factor -4.7219E-10.
--
Paul
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on the ground at 10.23 MHz.
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
frequency (9192631774.1)
So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
That's what The Shit's brainwashing
is doing with the brains of its victims.
Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom
wasnt even considered in 1915.
Relativists mistake is to pretend that vibrations, resonance, oscillation, damping, and effects from external forces like gravity on resonating systems is the same as an abstract philosophical construct like “time” that relativists
refer to ad nauseam and falsely pretend is related to resonance.
On 9/19/2023 8:10 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on the ground at 10.23 MHz.
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a >>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
That's what The Shit's brainwashing
is doing with the brains of its victims.
Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referringWhy are you making up garbage and pretending that it's true? Einstein
to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected
by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom
wasnt even considered in 1915.
never differentiated between ticking mechanical clocks and "resonant systems" (whatever you mean by that, which excludes clocks)
Sure, Einstein didn't know of atomic clocks but that is irrelevant. You
are desperately grasping at excuses to validate your insane beliefs.
Relativists mistake is to pretend that vibrations, resonance, oscillation, damping, and effects from external forces like gravity on resonating systemsAnd why do you believe such garbage?
is the same as an abstract philosophical construct like “time” that relativists
refer to ad nauseam and falsely pretend is related to resonance.
On 9/19/2023 8:10 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on the ground at 10.23 MHz.
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a >>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
That's what The Shit's brainwashing
is doing with the brains of its victims.
Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referringWhy are you making up garbage and pretending that it's true? Einstein
to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected
by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom
wasnt even considered in 1915.
never differentiated between ticking mechanical clocks and "resonant systems" (whatever you mean by that, which excludes clocks)
Sure, Einstein didn't know of atomic clocks but that is irrelevant. You
are desperately grasping at excuses to validate your insane beliefs.
Relativists mistake is to pretend that vibrations, resonance, oscillation, damping, and effects from external forces like gravity on resonating systemsAnd why do you believe such garbage?
is the same as an abstract philosophical construct like “time” that relativists
refer to ad nauseam and falsely pretend is related to resonance.
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 1:01:04 AM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
On 9/19/2023 8:10 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:Why are you making up garbage and pretending that it's true? Einstein
El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on the ground at 10.23 MHz.
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a >>>>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
That's what The Shit's brainwashing
is doing with the brains of its victims.
Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring
to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected
by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom
wasnt even considered in 1915.
never differentiated between ticking mechanical clocks and "resonant
systems" (whatever you mean by that, which excludes clocks)
Sure, Einstein didn't know of atomic clocks but that is irrelevant. You
are desperately grasping at excuses to validate your insane beliefs.
Relativists mistake is to pretend that vibrations, resonance, oscillation, >>> damping, and effects from external forces like gravity on resonating systemsAnd why do you believe such garbage?
is the same as an abstract philosophical construct like “time” that relativists
refer to ad nauseam and falsely pretend is related to resonance.
Einstein (1905-1911): Gravity affects time. Time is what my clock shows. So, then, gravity affect clocks.
Any kind of clock.
On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 05:01:04 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/19/2023 8:10 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:Why are you making up garbage and pretending that it's true? Einstein
El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on the ground at 10.23 MHz.
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a >>>>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
That's what The Shit's brainwashing
is doing with the brains of its victims.
Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring
to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected
by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom
wasnt even considered in 1915.
never differentiated between ticking mechanical clocks and "resonant
systems" (whatever you mean by that, which excludes clocks)
Sure, Einstein didn't know of atomic clocks but that is irrelevant. You
are desperately grasping at excuses to validate your insane beliefs.
Relativists mistake is to pretend that vibrations, resonance, oscillation, >>> damping, and effects from external forces like gravity on resonating systemsAnd why do you believe such garbage?
is the same as an abstract philosophical construct like “time” that relativists
refer to ad nauseam and falsely pretend is related to resonance.
Obviously facts,
empirical observations
Fact is that resonating systems will change their resonant frequency if
the mass or weight is changed in the equation. Note that increased mass
or weight (acceleration) will result in decreased frequency of resonant systems.
Regardless of their altitude. This was known well before albert pooped out his
GR nonsense.
So you can’t very well pretend that additional external force on resonant systems
resulting in lower resonant frequencies, a well known fact before Albert was even born,
is due to your garbage relativistic dogma.
On 9/20/2023 9:55 AM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 05:01:04 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/19/2023 8:10 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:Why are you making up garbage and pretending that it's true? Einstein
El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on the ground at 10.23 MHz.
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a >>>>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
That's what The Shit's brainwashing
is doing with the brains of its victims.
Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring
to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected
by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom
wasnt even considered in 1915.
never differentiated between ticking mechanical clocks and "resonant
systems" (whatever you mean by that, which excludes clocks)
Sure, Einstein didn't know of atomic clocks but that is irrelevant. You >> are desperately grasping at excuses to validate your insane beliefs.
Relativists mistake is to pretend that vibrations, resonance, oscillation,And why do you believe such garbage?
damping, and effects from external forces like gravity on resonating systems
is the same as an abstract philosophical construct like “time” that relativists
refer to ad nauseam and falsely pretend is related to resonance.
Obviously facts,"Obviously" has no place in physics discussions. Show that the "facts"
are actually facts.
empirical observations
Empirical observations sensitive enough now agree with GR.
That's not the cause of GR time dilation. Gravitational force will
September 2021 Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Open this link:
https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/5/1695/pdf
see fig.8 page 11.
So the clock frequencies MUST HAVE BEEN CORRECTED by the factor -4.7219E-10.
--
Paul
What happens with you? Do you find pleasure to show how delusional was 2 years ago, and that nothing can change your mind?
These people have the "Hipparcos Syndrome". They mounted on published data and generated their own conclusions about
how good or bad the management of Galileo satellites were, but they don't apologize about relativity.
You, instead, took MANIPULATED DATA (least squares) and found that Einstein's right! You are a DEMENTED PIECE OF WORK.
Why don't explain the variations on the right side figure? Is it because you don't have A FUCKING EXPLANATION about it,
and prefer to SEEK your favorite obsession with Einstein's GR on statistical averages which, by the way, don't provide enough
information TO YOU to support your "MUST HAVE BEEN CORRECTED" assertion?
Go back to college, but first see a neurologist. Your mental decline is alarming.
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a frequency (9192631774.1)
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
So, for a relativistic idiot setting itGPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
That's what The Shit's brainwashing
is doing with the brains of its victims.
document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on
the ground at 10.23 MHz.
Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom
wasnt even considered in 1915.
On 9/20/2023 9:55 AM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 05:01:04 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/19/2023 8:10 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:Why are you making up garbage and pretending that it's true? Einstein
El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on the ground at 10.23 MHz.
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a >>>>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
That's what The Shit's brainwashing
is doing with the brains of its victims.
Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring
to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected
by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom
wasnt even considered in 1915.
never differentiated between ticking mechanical clocks and "resonant
systems" (whatever you mean by that, which excludes clocks)
Sure, Einstein didn't know of atomic clocks but that is irrelevant. You >> are desperately grasping at excuses to validate your insane beliefs.
Relativists mistake is to pretend that vibrations, resonance, oscillation,And why do you believe such garbage?
damping, and effects from external forces like gravity on resonating systems
is the same as an abstract philosophical construct like “time” that relativists
refer to ad nauseam and falsely pretend is related to resonance.
Obviously facts,"Obviously" has no place in physics discussions. Show that the "facts"
are actually facts.
empirical observations
Empirical observations sensitive enough now agree with GR.
Fact is that resonating systems will change their resonant frequency if the mass or weight is changed in the equation. Note that increased massTrue locally, of course. These days, however, sensitive enough devices
or weight (acceleration) will result in decreased frequency of resonant systems.
Regardless of their altitude. This was known well before albert pooped out his
GR nonsense.
can detect the altitude change of a few meters or less. This wasn't
possible in Einstein's day, yet he correctly predicted it.
So you can’t very well pretend that additional external force on resonant systemsThat's not the cause of GR time dilation. Gravitational force will
resulting in lower resonant frequencies, a well known fact before Albert was even born,
is due to your garbage relativistic dogma.
affect certain gravity-dependent systems like a pendulum clock. But GR effects are due to differences in the gravitational potential, not the force. I bet you don't even know what the difference between
gravitational force and potential is!
Den 20.09.2023 05:24, skrev Richard Hertz:
The "clock correction" is the correction in the correction polynomial.September 2021 Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Open this link:
https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/5/1695/pdf
see fig.8 page 11.
The dominating parameter is a_f0, the 'bias' or error of the SV-clock
at the time it was measured by the monitoring stations.
The left plot in fig.8 shows a linear least-squares fit to the data.
The right plot shows the deviation from the data from the straight
line in the left plot. We can see that all data points for all
the satellites are less than ±2 μS from the average.
This means that a line through all the data points would be very
much like a straight line. (small σ²)
From fig 8. we can see:
The GSAT0221/E15 clock correction has decreased from
≈ +900 μS in February 2019 to ≈ 820 μS in January 2021.
That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ -0.24 μS/day.
The GSAT0219/E36 clock correction has decreased from
≈ +750 μS in February 2019 to ≈ 430 μS in January 2021.
That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ -0.96 μS/day.
The GSAT0222/E13 clock correction has increased from
≈ 380 μS since February 2019 to ≈ 410 μS in January 2021,
That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ -0.09 μS/day.
The GSAT0220/E33 changed frequency standard April 2019, and
has since then been almost constant ≈ -500 μS to January 2021,
That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ 0.00 μS/day.
Without the GR correction Δf/f = -4.7219E-10
the rate error would be ≈ +40.8 μS/day.
But all the clocks had a rate error less than 1 μS/day
Conclusion:
Richard's wise comments:So the clock frequencies MUST HAVE BEEN CORRECTED by the factor -4.7219E-10.
--
Paul
What happens with you? Do you find pleasure to show how delusional was 2 years ago, and that nothing can change your mind?
These people have the "Hipparcos Syndrome". They mounted on published data and generated their own conclusions about
how good or bad the management of Galileo satellites were, but they don't apologize about relativity.
You, instead, took MANIPULATED DATA (least squares) and found that Einstein's right! You are a DEMENTED PIECE OF WORK.
Why don't explain the variations on the right side figure? Is it because you don't have A FUCKING EXPLANATION about it,
and prefer to SEEK your favorite obsession with Einstein's GR on statistical averages which, by the way, don't provide enough
information TO YOU to support your "MUST HAVE BEEN CORRECTED" assertion?
Go back to college, but first see a neurologist. Your mental decline is alarming.One can but be impressed by Richard's lethal arguments!
Well done Richard! :-D
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Den 20.09.2023 05:24, skrev Richard Hertz:
The "clock correction" is the correction in the correction polynomial.September 2021 Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Open this link:
https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/5/1695/pdf
see fig.8 page 11.
The dominating parameter is a_f0, the 'bias' or error of the SV-clock
at the time it was measured by the monitoring stations.
The left plot in fig.8 shows a linear least-squares fit to the data.
The right plot shows the deviation from the data from the straight
line in the left plot. We can see that all data points for all
the satellites are less than ±2 μS from the average.
This means that a line through all the data points would be very
much like a straight line. (small σ²)
From fig 8. we can see:
The GSAT0221/E15 clock correction has decreased from
≈ +900 μS in February 2019 to ≈ 820 μS in January 2021.
That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ -0.24 μS/day.
The GSAT0219/E36 clock correction has decreased from
≈ +750 μS in February 2019 to ≈ 430 μS in January 2021.
That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ -0.96 μS/day.
The GSAT0222/E13 clock correction has increased from
≈ 380 μS since February 2019 to ≈ 410 μS in January 2021,
That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ -0.09 μS/day.
The GSAT0220/E33 changed frequency standard April 2019, and
has since then been almost constant ≈ -500 μS to January 2021,
That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ 0.00 μS/day.
Without the GR correction Δf/f = -4.7219E-10
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 3:25:56 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 20.09.2023 05:24, skrev Richard Hertz:
The "clock correction" is the correction in the correction polynomial.September 2021 Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Open this link:
https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/5/1695/pdf
see fig.8 page 11.
The dominating parameter is a_f0, the 'bias' or error of the SV-clock
at the time it was measured by the monitoring stations.
The left plot in fig.8 shows a linear least-squares fit to the data.
The right plot shows the deviation from the data from the straight
line in the left plot. We can see that all data points for all
the satellites are less than ±2 μS from the average.
This means that a line through all the data points would be very
much like a straight line. (small σ²)
From fig 8. we can see:
The GSAT0221/E15 clock correction has decreased from
≈ +900 μS in February 2019 to ≈ 820 μS in January 2021.
That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ -0.24 μS/day.
The GSAT0219/E36 clock correction has decreased from
≈ +750 μS in February 2019 to ≈ 430 μS in January 2021.
That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ -0.96 μS/day.
The GSAT0222/E13 clock correction has increased from
≈ 380 μS since February 2019 to ≈ 410 μS in January 2021,
That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ -0.09 μS/day.
The GSAT0220/E33 changed frequency standard April 2019, and
has since then been almost constant ≈ -500 μS to January 2021,
That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ 0.00 μS/day.
Without the GR correction Δf/f = -4.7219E-10
the rate error would be ≈ +40.8 μS/day.
But all the clocks had a rate error less than 1 μS/day
Conclusion:
Richard's wise comments:So the clock frequencies MUST HAVE BEEN CORRECTED by the factor -4.7219E-10.
--
Paul
What happens with you? Do you find pleasure to show how delusional was 2 years ago, and that nothing can change your mind?
These people have the "Hipparcos Syndrome". They mounted on published data and generated their own conclusions about
how good or bad the management of Galileo satellites were, but they don't apologize about relativity.
You, instead, took MANIPULATED DATA (least squares) and found that Einstein's right! You are a DEMENTED PIECE OF WORK.
Why don't explain the variations on the right side figure? Is it because you don't have A FUCKING EXPLANATION about it,
and prefer to SEEK your favorite obsession with Einstein's GR on statistical averages which, by the way, don't provide enough
information TO YOU to support your "MUST HAVE BEEN CORRECTED" assertion?
Go back to college, but first see a neurologist. Your mental decline is alarming.One can but be impressed by Richard's lethal arguments!
Well done Richard! :-D
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/I warned you about your alarming rate of mental decline.
Now, I warn you that it's affecting your ability for text comprehension.
You failed miserably trying to understand the paper, in particular by introducing your fucking relativity at any cost.
The paper of these outsider leaches, even when are not relativity apologists, is part of the contest with other outsiders
on the topic of EXTRAPOLATING DATA from Galileo nav files, even when they admit:
"We used all available broadcast navigation data from the IGS consolidated navigation files".
.......
"We found no documentation publicly available on how the navigation files are generated". (So, they INVENTED some data).
.......
"First, the quality of the broadcast clock corrections is highly dependent on the update interval of the navigation data.
Under normal circumstances, the update interval varies between 10 and 80 min, and occasionally it goes up to
180 min. The update rates are much higher (i.e., updated more often) than the two hour in the case of GPS".
.......
"First, the Galileo L10 satellites have been operating within the nominal orbital parameters.
The orbital inclination shows a clear positive trend with a mean rate of 0.249°/year.
The orbital repeat period indicates short, medium and long oscillation patterns at various
intervals (13.5-, 27-, 177- and 354-day). These periodic oscillations reflect the frequencies
associated with the satellite, Earth, Sun and Moon system".
.....
"Finally, we would like to point out that our results are based on third party IGS
products. These products were obtained in general about two weeks after the end of the
previous month. We noticed that some of the broadcast consolidated files had been updated
over time. No data quality and/or other integrity checks have been carried out on the
Galileo navigation parameters retrieved from the consolidated navigation files. The same
applies for the reference precise orbits and clocks. Therefore, our results do not necessary
reflect issues related to the Galileo system and its performance."
.......
DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?
They FABRICATED the different batches of datasets, in order to post-verify what kind of corrections were made.
Galileo satellites didn't have the DRIFT displayed on Figure 8. They CALCULATED the cumulative drift, by adding the
corrections performed by Earth Control Center along these years, BECAUSE (as it's stated at the beginning) the keplerian
orbit is drifting constantly from 55° inclination, which causes that A MAJOR PARAMETER (semi-major axis) continuously
changes, as well the orbital period. It doesn't matter that the values are within specs (56.7 ± 0.15° and 50680.7 ± 0.22 s.
STUDY Figure 4. Orbit inclination evolution of the Galileo L10 satellites from the beginning of the navigation data
transmission to December 2020: original values (left) and detrended values (right). [Unit: degrees].
*********
Your relativistic correction appears only in YOUR DERANGED MIND WITH SEVERE OCD. You need to see Einstein everywhere.
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 3:25:56 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:[]
Your relativistic correction appears only in YOUR DERANGED MIND WITH SEVERE OCD.
On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 18:27:59 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/20/2023 9:55 AM, Lou wrote:Obviously you have a problem if you think empirical observations
On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 05:01:04 UTC+1, Volney wrote:"Obviously" has no place in physics discussions. Show that the "facts"
On 9/19/2023 8:10 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:Why are you making up garbage and pretending that it's true? Einstein
El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on the ground at 10.23 MHz.
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a >>>>>>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
That's what The Shit's brainwashing
is doing with the brains of its victims.
Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring
to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected
by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom
wasnt even considered in 1915.
never differentiated between ticking mechanical clocks and "resonant
systems" (whatever you mean by that, which excludes clocks)
Sure, Einstein didn't know of atomic clocks but that is irrelevant. You >>>> are desperately grasping at excuses to validate your insane beliefs.
Relativists mistake is to pretend that vibrations, resonance, oscillation,And why do you believe such garbage?
damping, and effects from external forces like gravity on resonating systems
is the same as an abstract philosophical construct like “time” that relativists
refer to ad nauseam and falsely pretend is related to resonance.
Obviously facts,
are actually facts.
are to be ignored in favour of imaginary assumptions.
empirical observations
Empirical observations sensitive enough now agree with GR.
Fact is that resonating systems will change their resonant frequency ifTrue locally, of course. These days, however, sensitive enough devices
the mass or weight is changed in the equation. Note that increased mass
or weight (acceleration) will result in decreased frequency of resonant systems.
Regardless of their altitude. This was known well before albert pooped out his
GR nonsense.
can detect the altitude change of a few meters or less. This wasn't
possible in Einstein's day, yet he correctly predicted it.
Natural frequencies of resonant systems will change even when no
change in altitude is applied. Simply by changing mass or weight
of the system. And atoms are as perfect resonant systems as one can get
with their unchanging near perfect “beats”.
The mistake relativists make is to assume classical
effects like the different frequency beats of resonant systems
at different g is proof that time is changing.
That’s nonsense. You’ve co opted classical changes in frequency due to changes in weights of resonant systems and pretended it’s changes in time rates due to relativistic effects.
So you can’t very well pretend that additional external force on resonant systemsThat's not the cause of GR time dilation. Gravitational force will
resulting in lower resonant frequencies, a well known fact before Albert was even born,
is due to your garbage relativistic dogma.
affect certain gravity-dependent systems like a pendulum clock. But GR
effects are due to differences in the gravitational potential, not the
force. I bet you don't even know what the difference between
gravitational force and potential is!
Just word salad for people who don’t understand physics.
But, I bet you don’t know that resonant systems like atoms will,
when subjected to a change in conditions like mass or weight or acceleration (and thus changes in G) will change their natural resonant frequencies.
And that change is directly proportional. So that increased mass, weight, acceleration or G (all being intimately linked) will lead to a decrease in natural
frequency of ANY classical resonant system.
As observed in GPS.
No nonsensical relativity needed to explain this purely classical phenomenon called resonance.
On 9/20/2023 2:39 PM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 18:27:59 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/20/2023 9:55 AM, Lou wrote:Obviously you have a problem if you think empirical observations
On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 05:01:04 UTC+1, Volney wrote:"Obviously" has no place in physics discussions. Show that the "facts"
On 9/19/2023 8:10 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:Why are you making up garbage and pretending that it's true? Einstein >>>> never differentiated between ticking mechanical clocks and "resonant >>>> systems" (whatever you mean by that, which excludes clocks)
El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on the ground at 10.23 MHz.
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
frequency (9192631774.1)
So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
That's what The Shit's brainwashing
is doing with the brains of its victims.
Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring
to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected
by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom
wasnt even considered in 1915.
Sure, Einstein didn't know of atomic clocks but that is irrelevant. You >>>> are desperately grasping at excuses to validate your insane beliefs. >>>>> Relativists mistake is to pretend that vibrations, resonance, oscillation,
damping, and effects from external forces like gravity on resonating systemsAnd why do you believe such garbage?
is the same as an abstract philosophical construct like “time” that relativists
refer to ad nauseam and falsely pretend is related to resonance.
Obviously facts,
are actually facts.
are to be ignored in favour of imaginary assumptions.
empirical observations
Empirical observations sensitive enough now agree with GR.
Fact is that resonating systems will change their resonant frequency if >>> the mass or weight is changed in the equation. Note that increased mass >>> or weight (acceleration) will result in decreased frequency of resonant systems.True locally, of course. These days, however, sensitive enough devices
Regardless of their altitude. This was known well before albert pooped out his
GR nonsense.
can detect the altitude change of a few meters or less. This wasn't
possible in Einstein's day, yet he correctly predicted it.
Natural frequencies of resonant systems will change even when no
change in altitude is applied. Simply by changing mass or weight
of the system. And atoms are as perfect resonant systems as one can get with their unchanging near perfect “beats”.
The mistake relativists make is to assume classical
effects like the different frequency beats of resonant systems
at different g is proof that time is changing.
That’s nonsense. You’ve co opted classical changes in frequency due to changes in weights of resonant systems and pretended it’s changes in time
rates due to relativistic effects.
So you can’t very well pretend that additional external force on resonant systemsThat's not the cause of GR time dilation. Gravitational force will
resulting in lower resonant frequencies, a well known fact before Albert was even born,
is due to your garbage relativistic dogma.
affect certain gravity-dependent systems like a pendulum clock. But GR
effects are due to differences in the gravitational potential, not the
force. I bet you don't even know what the difference between
gravitational force and potential is!
Just word salad for people who don’t understand physics.That's what I expected. You don't understand the difference so you blow
it off as 'word salad'. Hint: word salad is authored by anti-relativity cranks (and other cranks) when they try to explain what they can't explain.
But, I bet you don’t know that resonant systems like atoms will,Nope. Only those dependent on the gravitational force, such as a
when subjected to a change in conditions like mass or weight or acceleration
(and thus changes in G) will change their natural resonant frequencies. And that change is directly proportional. So that increased mass, weight, acceleration or G (all being intimately linked) will lead to a decrease in natural
frequency of ANY classical resonant system.
pendulum clock.
As observed in GPS.
Remember, when local to the Cs clock, the Cs clock it ticks 1 second per 9192631770 Cs transitions. No matter what the gravity is.
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 04:36:01 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
Remember, when local to the Cs clock, the Cs clock it ticks 1 second per 9192631770 Cs transitions. No matter what the gravity is.Anyone can check GPS satellite , it's 9192631774 there
stupid Mike, and you're a denying the reality crackpot.
Just like all the Shit believers.
P.S. After explaining why it is 9192631774 it is still
not 9192631770. Sorry, stupid Mike.
On 9/15/2023 8:00 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
frequency (9192631774.1)
So, for a relativistic idiot setting itExactly, to compensate for GR.
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
Just like if, for some reason, you wanted the horn of an approaching
train to be heard in the station at a musical tone of "B♭", the train's horn must sound at, perhaps "A", to compensate for the Doppler Effect.
El jueves, 21 de septiembre de 2023 a las 3:04:56 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 04:36:01 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
Remember, when local to the Cs clock, the Cs clock it ticks 1 second per 9192631770 Cs transitions. No matter what the gravity is.Anyone can check GPS satellite , it's 9192631774 there
stupid Mike, and you're a denying the reality crackpot.
Just like all the Shit believers.
P.S. After explaining why it is 9192631774 it is still
not 9192631770. Sorry, stupid Mike.
Wrong Janitor. No Cs clock ever ticks at 9192631774 Hz.
"Caesium atomic clocks are one of the most accurate time and frequency standards, and serve as the primary standard for the definition of the
second in the International System of Units (SI) (the modern form of the metric system). By definition, radiation produced by the transition
between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium (in the absence of external influences such as the Earth's magnetic field) has a frequency, ??Cs, of exactly 9192631770 Hz".
Paparios <mr...@ing.puc.cl> wrote:
El jueves, 21 de septiembre de 2023 a las 3:04:56 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 04:36:01 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
Remember, when local to the Cs clock, the Cs clock it ticks 1 second perAnyone can check GPS satellite , it's 9192631774 there
9192631770 Cs transitions. No matter what the gravity is.
stupid Mike, and you're a denying the reality crackpot.
Just like all the Shit believers.
P.S. After explaining why it is 9192631774 it is still
not 9192631770. Sorry, stupid Mike.
Wrong Janitor. No Cs clock ever ticks at 9192631774 Hz.
"Caesium atomic clocks are one of the most accurate time and frequency standards, and serve as the primary standard for the definition of the second in the International System of Units (SI) (the modern form of the metric system). By definition, radiation produced by the transition between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium (in the absence of external influences such as the Earth's magnetic field) has a frequency, ??Cs, of exactly 9192631770 Hz".
Indeed. The second is said to be the basic unit of the SI,
for reasons of keeping up with tradition.
What is really defined is a frequency,
so in practical reality the basic unit is the Hertz, aka s^-1.
A better way of saying the same would be:
the unit of time will be chosen in such a way
that the proper frequency of that particular Cesium hyperfine line
will be 9192631770 s^-1.
This liberates the definition from any particular interval of time,
Jan
The only retarded (besides Wozniak) is yourself!!!
The 10.2299999954326 MHz frequency is obtained by using downloading counters, from the Cs atomic clock ticking
(which is exactly 9,192.631770 Hz both on the ground and in the satellite orbit).
Find another hobby, since you are too dumb for this!!!
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 6:43:38 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Paparios <mr...@ing.puc.cl> wrote:
El jueves, 21 de septiembre de 2023 a las 3:04:56 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 04:36:01 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
Remember, when local to the Cs clock, the Cs clock it ticks 1 second perAnyone can check GPS satellite , it's 9192631774 there
9192631770 Cs transitions. No matter what the gravity is.
stupid Mike, and you're a denying the reality crackpot.
Just like all the Shit believers.
P.S. After explaining why it is 9192631774 it is still
not 9192631770. Sorry, stupid Mike.
Wrong Janitor. No Cs clock ever ticks at 9192631774 Hz.
"Caesium atomic clocks are one of the most accurate time and frequency standards, and serve as the primary standard for the definition of the second in the International System of Units (SI) (the modern form of the metric system). By definition, radiation produced by the transition between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium (in the absence of external influences such as the Earth's magnetic field) has a frequency, ??Cs, of exactly 9192631770 Hz".
Indeed. The second is said to be the basic unit of the SI,
for reasons of keeping up with tradition.
What is really defined is a frequency,
so in practical reality the basic unit is the Hertz, aka s^-1.
A better way of saying the same would be:
the unit of time will be chosen in such a way
that the proper frequency of that particular Cesium hyperfine line
will be 9192631770 s^-1.
This liberates the definition from any particular interval of time,
JanIdiot ignorant you all! Can't do even the MOST ELEMENTARY BASIC MATHEMATICAL OPERATIONS!
What Maciej is ASSERTING is the following:
If, for the sake of relativity, a 10.2300000000 Mhz XO has to be detuned to 10.2299999954326 Mhz prior lunch,
to reach 10.23 Mhz at 26500 Km, while in orbit (+0,004567399621 Hz increase), THEN
A cesium clock that work at ground level (by definition) at 9192631770 Hz, HAS TO INCREASE it's frequency
by 4.104244661 Hz at 26500 Km high.
It's proportional to the increase in the XO oscillator, ASSUMING THAT GR IS NOT A FUCKING JOKE (IT IS).
Then, cesium hyperfine transitions, while in orbit, HAS TO HAVE a frequency of 9192631774 Hz.
Fucking retarded you all!
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 7:49:03 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
<snip>
The only retarded (besides Wozniak) is yourself!!!
The 10.2299999954326 MHz frequency is obtained by using downloading counters, from the Cs atomic clock ticking
(which is exactly 9,192.631770 Hz both on the ground and in the satellite orbit).
Find another hobby, since you are too dumb for this!!!I dig you, Miguelito.
You're so desperate to belong to the relativism cult that you drop your once functioning brain (maybe when you were 5 y.o.),
and inserted a ROM with the relativity doctrine instead of your damaged brain.
You contradict yourself, imbecile.
First: 9192631770 Hz is a DEFINITION by the BIMP, and forcibly adopted worldwide.
El jueves, 21 de septiembre de 2023 a las 20:05:14 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:provide an extremely precise way to count seconds.
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 7:49:03 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
<snip>
The only retarded (besides Wozniak) is yourself!!!
The 10.2299999954326 MHz frequency is obtained by using downloading counters, from the Cs atomic clock ticking
(which is exactly 9,192.631770 Hz both on the ground and in the satellite orbit).
Find another hobby, since you are too dumb for this!!!I dig you, Miguelito.
You're so desperate to belong to the relativism cult that you drop your once functioning brain (maybe when you were 5 y.o.),
and inserted a ROM with the relativity doctrine instead of your damaged brain.
You contradict yourself, imbecile.
First: 9192631770 Hz is a DEFINITION by the BIMP, and forcibly adopted worldwide.Of course you know shit about this. Carefully read the text in https://www.livescience.com/32660-how-does-an-atomic-clock-work.html#:~:text=Inside%20a%20cesium%20atomic%20clock,and%20change%20their%20energy%20state.
" When exposed to certain frequencies of radiation, such as radio waves, the subatomic particles called electrons that orbit an atom's nucleus will "jump" back and forth between energy states. Clocks based on this jumping within atoms can therefore
It is no surprise then that the international standard for the length of one second is based on atoms. Since 1967, the official definition of a second is 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation that gets an atom of the element called cesium to vibratebetween two energy states.
Inside a cesium atomic clock, cesium atoms are funneled down a tube where they pass through radio waves . If this frequency is just right 9,192,631,770 cycles per second then the cesium atoms "resonate" and change their energy state.detector.
A detector at the end of the tube keeps track of the number of cesium atoms reaching it that have changed their energy states. The more finely tuned the radio wave frequency is to 9,192,631,770 cycles per second, the more cesium atoms reach the
The detector feeds information back into the radio wave generator. It synchronizes the frequency of the radio waves with the peak number of cesium atoms striking it. Other electronics in the atomic clock count this frequency. As with a single swing ofthe pendulum, a second is ticked off when the frequency count is met".
Find another hobby. You are too dumb for discussing relativity!!!
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 8:45:51 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:provide an extremely precise way to count seconds.
El jueves, 21 de septiembre de 2023 a las 20:05:14 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 7:49:03 PM UTC-3, Paparios wrote:
<snip>
The only retarded (besides Wozniak) is yourself!!!
The 10.2299999954326 MHz frequency is obtained by using downloading counters, from the Cs atomic clock ticking
(which is exactly 9,192.631770 Hz both on the ground and in the satellite orbit).
Find another hobby, since you are too dumb for this!!!I dig you, Miguelito.
You're so desperate to belong to the relativism cult that you drop your once functioning brain (maybe when you were 5 y.o.),
and inserted a ROM with the relativity doctrine instead of your damaged brain.
You contradict yourself, imbecile.
First: 9192631770 Hz is a DEFINITION by the BIMP, and forcibly adopted worldwide.Of course you know shit about this. Carefully read the text in https://www.livescience.com/32660-how-does-an-atomic-clock-work.html#:~:text=Inside%20a%20cesium%20atomic%20clock,and%20change%20their%20energy%20state.
" When exposed to certain frequencies of radiation, such as radio waves, the subatomic particles called electrons that orbit an atom's nucleus will "jump" back and forth between energy states. Clocks based on this jumping within atoms can therefore
between two energy states.It is no surprise then that the international standard for the length of one second is based on atoms. Since 1967, the official definition of a second is 9,192,631,770 cycles of the radiation that gets an atom of the element called cesium to vibrate
detector.Inside a cesium atomic clock, cesium atoms are funneled down a tube where they pass through radio waves . If this frequency is just right 9,192,631,770 cycles per second then the cesium atoms "resonate" and change their energy state.
A detector at the end of the tube keeps track of the number of cesium atoms reaching it that have changed their energy states. The more finely tuned the radio wave frequency is to 9,192,631,770 cycles per second, the more cesium atoms reach the
of the pendulum, a second is ticked off when the frequency count is met".The detector feeds information back into the radio wave generator. It synchronizes the frequency of the radio waves with the peak number of cesium atoms striking it. Other electronics in the atomic clock count this frequency. As with a single swing
Find another hobby. You are too dumb for discussing relativity!!!What you wrote is not about relativity, BUFAR imbecile.
It's about quantum physics and electronics (of which you know shit), and happens AT GROUND LEVEL.
Top FUBAR asshole. Go and get your prize.
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 6:43:38 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
A better way of saying the same would be:
the unit of time will be chosen in such a way
that the proper frequency of that particular Cesium hyperfine line
will be 9192631770 s^-1.
This liberates the definition from any particular interval of time,
Jan
Idiot ignorant you all! Can't do even the MOST ELEMENTARY BASIC MATHEMATICAL OPERATIONS!
What Maciej is ASSERTING is the following:
If, for the sake of relativity, a 10.2300000000 Mhz XO has to be detuned to 10.2299999954326 Mhz prior lunch,
to reach 10.23 Mhz at 26500 Km, while in orbit (+0,004567399621 Hz increase),
THEN
A cesium clock that work at ground level (by definition) at 9192631770 Hz, HAS TO INCREASE it's frequency
by 4.104244661 Hz at 26500 Km high.
It's proportional to the increase in the XO oscillator, ASSUMING THAT GR IS NOT A FUCKING JOKE (IT IS).
Then, cesium hyperfine transitions, while in orbit, HAS TO HAVE a frequency of 9192631774 Hz.
Fucking retarded
you all!
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:44:08 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
On 9/15/2023 8:00 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:Exactly, to compensate for GR.
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
frequency (9192631774.1)
So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
No it is because clocks in different frames accumulate clock seconds at different rates.
El jueves, 21 de septiembre de 2023 a las 3:04:56 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 04:36:01 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
Wrong Janitor. No Cs clock ever ticks at 9192631774 Hz.Remember, when local to the Cs clock, the Cs clock it ticks 1 second per 9192631770 Cs transitions. No matter what the gravity is.Anyone can check GPS satellite , it's 9192631774 there
stupid Mike, and you're a denying the reality crackpot.
Just like all the Shit believers.
P.S. After explaining why it is 9192631774 it is still
not 9192631770. Sorry, stupid Mike.
Paparios <mr...@ing.puc.cl> wrote:
El jueves, 21 de septiembre de 2023 a las 3:04:56 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 04:36:01 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
Remember, when local to the Cs clock, the Cs clock it ticks 1 second perAnyone can check GPS satellite , it's 9192631774 there
9192631770 Cs transitions. No matter what the gravity is.
stupid Mike, and you're a denying the reality crackpot.
Just like all the Shit believers.
P.S. After explaining why it is 9192631774 it is still
not 9192631770. Sorry, stupid Mike.
Wrong Janitor. No Cs clock ever ticks at 9192631774 Hz.
"Caesium atomic clocks are one of the most accurate time and frequency standards, and serve as the primary standard for the definition of the second in the International System of Units (SI) (the modern form of the metric system). By definition, radiation produced by the transition
between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium (in the absence of external influences such as the Earth's magnetic field) has a frequency, ??Cs, of exactly 9192631770 Hz".
Indeed. The second is said to be the basic unit of the SI,
El jueves, 21 de septiembre de 2023 a las 19:22:01 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 6:43:38 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Paparios <mr...@ing.puc.cl> wrote:
El jueves, 21 de septiembre de 2023 a las 3:04:56 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 04:36:01 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
Remember, when local to the Cs clock, the Cs clock it ticks 1 second perAnyone can check GPS satellite , it's 9192631774 there
9192631770 Cs transitions. No matter what the gravity is.
stupid Mike, and you're a denying the reality crackpot.
Just like all the Shit believers.
P.S. After explaining why it is 9192631774 it is still
not 9192631770. Sorry, stupid Mike.
Wrong Janitor. No Cs clock ever ticks at 9192631774 Hz.
"Caesium atomic clocks are one of the most accurate time and frequency standards, and serve as the primary standard for the definition of the second in the International System of Units (SI) (the modern form of the
metric system). By definition, radiation produced by the transition between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium (in the absence of external influences such as the Earth's magnetic field) has a frequency,
??Cs, of exactly 9192631770 Hz".
Indeed. The second is said to be the basic unit of the SI,
for reasons of keeping up with tradition.
What is really defined is a frequency,
so in practical reality the basic unit is the Hertz, aka s^-1.
A better way of saying the same would be:
the unit of time will be chosen in such a way
that the proper frequency of that particular Cesium hyperfine line
will be 9192631770 s^-1.
This liberates the definition from any particular interval of time,
JanIdiot ignorant you all! Can't do even the MOST ELEMENTARY BASIC MATHEMATICAL OPERATIONS!
What Maciej is ASSERTING is the following:
If, for the sake of relativity, a 10.2300000000 Mhz XO has to be detuned to 10.2299999954326 Mhz prior lunch,
to reach 10.23 Mhz at 26500 Km, while in orbit (+0,004567399621 Hz increase), THEN
A cesium clock that work at ground level (by definition) at 9192631770 Hz, HAS TO INCREASE it's frequency
by 4.104244661 Hz at 26500 Km high.
It's proportional to the increase in the XO oscillator, ASSUMING THAT GR IS NOT A FUCKING JOKE (IT IS).
Then, cesium hyperfine transitions, while in orbit, HAS TO HAVE a frequency of 9192631774 Hz.
Fucking retarded you all!The only retarded (besides Wozniak) is yourself!!!
The 10.2299999954326 MHz frequency is obtained by
On 9/21/2023 6:21 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 6:43:38 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
A better way of saying the same would be:
the unit of time will be chosen in such a way
that the proper frequency of that particular Cesium hyperfine line
will be 9192631770 s^-1.
This liberates the definition from any particular interval of time,
Jan
Idiot ignorant you all! Can't do even the MOST ELEMENTARY BASIC MATHEMATICAL OPERATIONS!
What Maciej is ASSERTING is the following:Maciej is wrong. He is always wrong.
If, for the sake of relativity, a 10.2300000000 Mhz XO has to be detuned to 10.2299999954326 Mhz prior lunch,That's not how things work. The clock remains at whatever frequency it
to reach 10.23 Mhz at 26500 Km, while in orbit (+0,004567399621 Hz increase),
was set at, no matter what its altitude is. Locally, of course.
Nope. In fact, the satellite clock appears to run at a HIGHER frequency
than the ground clock, as observed on the ground. If it operated at 9192631770 Hz
Then, cesium hyperfine transitions, while in orbit, HAS TO HAVE a frequency of 9192631774 Hz.Nope. It is 9192631770 Hz. Period. End of discussion.
Lou wrote:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a frequency (9192631774.1)
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
So, for a relativistic idiot setting itGPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on the ground at 10.23 MHz.
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
That's what The Shit's brainwashing
is doing with the brains of its victims.
Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referringRight, in Einstein 1905.
to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
(for mechanical watches, not pendulum clocks, aka 'balance clocks')
Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effectedWrong. Einstein predicted gravitational time dilation in 1915,
by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom
wasnt even considered in 1915.
and he predicted that this would be observable in spectra
of light from heavy stars. Yes, that means spectral lines of atoms.
[snip bollocks]
Jan
--
"Thence we conclude that a 'balance-clock' at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated
at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."
(Albert Einstein 1905)
On 9/20/2023 2:39 PM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 18:27:59 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/20/2023 9:55 AM, Lou wrote:Obviously you have a problem if you think empirical observations
On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 05:01:04 UTC+1, Volney wrote:"Obviously" has no place in physics discussions. Show that the "facts"
On 9/19/2023 8:10 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:Why are you making up garbage and pretending that it's true? Einstein >>>> never differentiated between ticking mechanical clocks and "resonant >>>> systems" (whatever you mean by that, which excludes clocks)
El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak escribió:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on the ground at 10.23 MHz.
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
frequency (9192631774.1)
So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
That's what The Shit's brainwashing
is doing with the brains of its victims.
Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring
to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected
by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom
wasnt even considered in 1915.
Sure, Einstein didn't know of atomic clocks but that is irrelevant. You >>>> are desperately grasping at excuses to validate your insane beliefs. >>>>> Relativists mistake is to pretend that vibrations, resonance, oscillation,
damping, and effects from external forces like gravity on resonating systemsAnd why do you believe such garbage?
is the same as an abstract philosophical construct like “time” that relativists
refer to ad nauseam and falsely pretend is related to resonance.
Obviously facts,
are actually facts.
are to be ignored in favour of imaginary assumptions.
empirical observations
Empirical observations sensitive enough now agree with GR.
Fact is that resonating systems will change their resonant frequency if >>> the mass or weight is changed in the equation. Note that increased mass >>> or weight (acceleration) will result in decreased frequency of resonant systems.True locally, of course. These days, however, sensitive enough devices
Regardless of their altitude. This was known well before albert pooped out his
GR nonsense.
can detect the altitude change of a few meters or less. This wasn't
possible in Einstein's day, yet he correctly predicted it.
Natural frequencies of resonant systems will change even when no
change in altitude is applied. Simply by changing mass or weight
of the system. And atoms are as perfect resonant systems as one can get with their unchanging near perfect “beats”.
The mistake relativists make is to assume classical
effects like the different frequency beats of resonant systems
at different g is proof that time is changing.
That’s nonsense. You’ve co opted classical changes in frequency due to changes in weights of resonant systems and pretended it’s changes in time
rates due to relativistic effects.
So you can’t very well pretend that additional external force on resonant systemsThat's not the cause of GR time dilation. Gravitational force will
resulting in lower resonant frequencies, a well known fact before Albert was even born,
is due to your garbage relativistic dogma.
affect certain gravity-dependent systems like a pendulum clock. But GR
effects are due to differences in the gravitational potential, not the
force. I bet you don't even know what the difference between
gravitational force and potential is!
Just word salad for people who don’t understand physics.That's what I expected. You don't understand the difference so you blow
it off as 'word salad'. Hint: word salad is authored by anti-relativity cranks (and other cranks) when they try to explain what they can't explain.
But, I bet you don’t know that resonant systems like atoms will,Nope. Only those dependent on the gravitational force, such as a
when subjected to a change in conditions like mass or weight or acceleration
(and thus changes in G) will change their natural resonant frequencies. And that change is directly proportional. So that increased mass, weight, acceleration or G (all being intimately linked) will lead to a decrease in natural
frequency of ANY classical resonant system.
pendulum clock.
As observed in GPS.
Remember, when local to the Cs clock, the Cs clock it ticks 1 second per 9192631770 Cs transitions. No matter what the gravity is.
It's only when the gravitational potential (not force) is different
between locations (say, between the geoid and the satellite in orbit)
when this is not true. As they are definitely not local.
No nonsensical relativity needed to explain this purely classical phenomenonNope. It cannot be explained by normal gravitational force. This was
called resonance.
clearly demonstrated with the prototype GPS satellite when they switched between "Newton Mode" and "Einstein Mode". Of course it worked only in Einstein Mode. Relativity vindicated yet again!
On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 19:57:19 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Lou wrote:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Woznia:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
frequency (9192631774.1)
So, for a relativistic idiot setting itGPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on the ground at 10.23 MHz.
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
That's what The Shit's brainwashing
is doing with the brains of its victims.
Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.Right, in Einstein 1905.
(for mechanical watches, not pendulum clocks, aka 'balance clocks')
Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonatingWrong. Einstein predicted gravitational time dilation in 1915,
atom
wasnt even considered in 1915.
and he predicted that this would be observable in spectra
of light from heavy stars. Yes, that means spectral lines of atoms.
[snip bollocks]
Wrong. Einstein did not predict that resonating systems, like atoms
would resonate at different frequencies if subjected to
more or less mass or weight(acceleration)
Jan
--
"Thence we conclude that a 'balance-clock' at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated
at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."
(Albert Einstein 1905)
Yes. And notice a balance clock beat frequency can be *modified* by varying it's mass. Without changing its altitude.
Einstein was lucky. As with Marconi, nobody noticed he was stealing
other phenomena described by classical theory, and pretending
these classical effects were relativistic!
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 07:01:20 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
On 9/21/2023 6:21 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 6:43:38 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>
A better way of saying the same would be:
the unit of time will be chosen in such a way
that the proper frequency of that particular Cesium hyperfine line
will be 9192631770 s^-1.
This liberates the definition from any particular interval of time,
Jan
Idiot ignorant you all! Can't do even the MOST ELEMENTARY BASIC MATHEMATICAL OPERATIONS!
What Maciej is ASSERTING is the following:
Maciej is wrong. He is always wrong.
If, for the sake of relativity, a 10.2300000000 Mhz XO has to be detuned to 10.2299999954326 Mhz prior lunch,
to reach 10.23 Mhz at 26500 Km, while in orbit (+0,004567399621 Hz increase),
That's not how things work. The clock remains at whatever frequency it
was set at, no matter what its altitude is. Locally, of course.
An assertion is not any argument, stupid Mike.
Nope. In fact, the satellite clock appears to run at a HIGHER frequency
than the ground clock, as observed on the ground. If it operated at
9192631770 Hz
It would be proper according to the standards of your
moronic religion. But it wouldn't work:(. Common sense
was warning your idiot guru.
Then, cesium hyperfine transitions, while in orbit, HAS TO HAVE a frequency of 9192631774 Hz.
Nope. It is 9192631770 Hz. Period. End of discussion.
Your assertions have no value. Anyone can check,
no, it's not.
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 03:36:01 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/20/2023 2:39 PM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 18:27:59 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/20/2023 9:55 AM, Lou wrote:
So you can’t very well pretend that additional external force on resonant systems
resulting in lower resonant frequencies, a well known fact before Albert was even born,
is due to your garbage relativistic dogma.
That's not the cause of GR time dilation. Gravitational force will
affect certain gravity-dependent systems like a pendulum clock. But GR >>>> effects are due to differences in the gravitational potential, not the >>>> force. I bet you don't even know what the difference between
gravitational force and potential is!
Just word salad for people who don’t understand physics.
That's what I expected. You don't understand the difference so you blow
it off as 'word salad'. Hint: word salad is authored by anti-relativity
cranks (and other cranks) when they try to explain what they can't explain.
The cranks are the ones who co opt classical effects
like resonance and pretend they are complex formations of
little winged albert angels dancing on pin heads.
But, I bet you don’t know that resonant systems like atoms will,
when subjected to a change in conditions like mass or weight or acceleration
(and thus changes in G) will change their natural resonant frequencies.
And that change is directly proportional. So that increased mass, weight, >>> acceleration or G (all being intimately linked) will lead to a decrease in natural
frequency of ANY classical resonant system.
Nope. Only those dependent on the gravitational force, such as a
pendulum clock.
As observed in GPS.
Remember, when local to the Cs clock, the Cs clock it ticks 1 second per
9192631770 Cs transitions. No matter what the gravity is.
It's only when the gravitational potential (not force) is different
between locations (say, between the geoid and the satellite in orbit)
when this is not true. As they are definitely not local.
I think you will find it hard to prove that the atoms in the atomic clock
are not resonating at a higher frequency than the same atoms on earths surface. As predicted classically with resonance.
How would you disprove the classical resonance model?
It predicts the same effect as the relativistic model.
All you have are observations on earth that show an increased
frequency due to altitude.
There is no way to discern between the
change in frequency being caused by classical effects or by relativistic effects.
That was Alberts only ability. He managed to successfully steal
classical effects...and pretend they were relativistic.
No nonsensical relativity needed to explain this purely classical phenomenonNope. It cannot be explained by normal gravitational force. This was
called resonance.
clearly demonstrated with the prototype GPS satellite when they switched
between "Newton Mode" and "Einstein Mode". Of course it worked only in
Einstein Mode. Relativity vindicated yet again!
On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 19:57:19 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Lou wrote:Wrong. Einstein did not predict that resonating systems, like atoms
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:Right, in Einstein 1905.
El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak: >>>>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a >>>>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
That's what The Shit's brainwashing
is doing with the brains of its victims.
document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on
the ground at 10.23 MHz.
Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring
to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
(for mechanical watches, not pendulum clocks, aka 'balance clocks')
Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effectedWrong. Einstein predicted gravitational time dilation in 1915,
by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom
wasnt even considered in 1915.
and he predicted that this would be observable in spectra
of light from heavy stars. Yes, that means spectral lines of atoms.
[snip bollocks]
would resonate at different frequencies if subjected to
more or less mass or weight(acceleration)
This change in frequency due to change in the systems weight
was already a well understood classical effect before Albert was even born.
As for any additional redshifting seen in stars spectra due to mass, once again the greater the mass of the star, the greater the gravitational strength
at its surface. And due to classical resonance effects this means the lower the natural frequency of the stars atoms.
Incidentally contrary to common misunderstanding
among relativists and quantum theorists...spectral lines can all
be modelled as specific frequency harmonic emissions by atoms.
No need for the Bohr electron shell model.
Especially considering it and it’s progeny
QT, can still not correctly model all spectral lines seen in atoms.
Jan
--
"Thence we conclude that a 'balance-clock' at the equator must go more
slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated
at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."
(Albert Einstein 1905)
Yes. And notice a balance clock beat frequency can be *modified* by varying it’s mass. Without changing its altitude.
On 9/22/2023 1:49 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 07:01:20 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
On 9/21/2023 6:21 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Thursday, September 21, 2023 at 6:43:38 PM UTC-3, J. J. Lodder wrote:
A better way of saying the same would be:
the unit of time will be chosen in such a way
that the proper frequency of that particular Cesium hyperfine line
will be 9192631770 s^-1.
This liberates the definition from any particular interval of time, >>>>
Jan
Idiot ignorant you all! Can't do even the MOST ELEMENTARY BASIC MATHEMATICAL OPERATIONS!
What Maciej is ASSERTING is the following:
Always.Maciej is wrong. He is always wrong.
If, for the sake of relativity, a 10.2300000000 Mhz XO has to be detuned to 10.2299999954326 Mhz prior lunch,
to reach 10.23 Mhz at 26500 Km, while in orbit (+0,004567399621 Hz increase),
That's not how things work. The clock remains at whatever frequency it
was set at, no matter what its altitude is. Locally, of course.
An assertion is not any argument, stupid Mike.Wrong (as usual). Read the GR paper to learn why that is not an assertion.
Nope. It is 9192631770 Hz. Period. End of discussion.
Your assertions have no value. Anyone can check,That is the DEFINITION of the second
no, it's not.
𝗨𝗦_‘𝗹𝗼𝘀𝗲𝘀’_𝗙-35_𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗹𝘁𝗵_𝗳𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝗲𝗿Aviation Administration to find the missing plane.
https://r%74.com/news/583116-f35-mishap-pilot-eject/
“If anyone has any information that may help locate the F-35, you are asked to call the Base Defense Operations Center,” the joint base officials wrote on X (formerly Twitter), adding that they are working with the Marine Corps and the Federal
On Wednesday, September 20, 2023 at 3:25:56 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Open this link:
https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/21/5/1695/pdf
see fig.8 page 11.
The "clock correction" is the correction in the correction polynomial.
The dominating parameter is a_f0, the 'bias' or error of the SV-clock
at the time it was measured by the monitoring stations.
The left plot in fig.8 shows a linear least-squares fit to the data.
The right plot shows the deviation from the data from the straight
line in the left plot. We can see that all data points for all
the satellites are less than ±2 μS from the average.
This means that a line through all the data points would be very
much like a straight line. (small σ²)
From fig 8. we can see:
The GSAT0221/E15 clock correction has decreased from
≈ +900 μS in February 2019 to ≈ 820 μS in January 2021.
That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ -0.24 μS/day.
The GSAT0219/E36 clock correction has decreased from
≈ +750 μS in February 2019 to ≈ 430 μS in January 2021.
That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ -0.96 μS/day.
The GSAT0222/E13 clock correction has increased from
≈ 380 μS since February 2019 to ≈ 410 μS in January 2021,
That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ -0.09 μS/day.
The GSAT0220/E33 changed frequency standard April 2019, and
has since then been almost constant ≈ -500 μS to January 2021,
That's an average rate error of the clock ≈ 0.00 μS/day.
Without the GR correction Δf/f = -4.7219E-10
the rate error would be ≈ +40.8 μS/day.
But all the clocks had a rate error less than 1 μS/day
Conclusion:
So the clock frequencies MUST HAVE BEEN CORRECTED by the factor -4.7219E-10.
I warned you about your alarming rate of mental decline.
Now, I warn you that it's affecting your ability for text comprehension.
You failed miserably trying to understand the paper, in particular by introducing your fucking relativity at any cost.
The paper of these outsider leaches, even when are not relativity apologists, is part of the contest with other outsiders
on the topic of EXTRAPOLATING DATA from Galileo nav files, even when they admit:
"We used all available broadcast navigation data from the IGS consolidated navigation files".
.......
"We found no documentation publicly available on how the navigation files are generated". (So, they INVENTED some data).
.......
"First, the quality of the broadcast clock corrections is highly dependent on the update interval of the navigation data.
Under normal circumstances, the update interval varies between 10 and 80 min, and occasionally it goes up to
180 min. The update rates are much higher (i.e., updated more often) than the two hour in the case of GPS".
.......
"First, the Galileo L10 satellites have been operating within the nominal orbital parameters.
The orbital inclination shows a clear positive trend with a mean rate of 0.249°/year.
The orbital repeat period indicates short, medium and long oscillation patterns at various
intervals (13.5-, 27-, 177- and 354-day). These periodic oscillations reflect the frequencies
associated with the satellite, Earth, Sun and Moon system".
.....
"Finally, we would like to point out that our results are based on third party IGS
products. These products were obtained in general about two weeks after the end of the
previous month. We noticed that some of the broadcast consolidated files had been updated
over time. No data quality and/or other integrity checks have been carried out on the
Galileo navigation parameters retrieved from the consolidated navigation files. The same
applies for the reference precise orbits and clocks. Therefore, our results do not necessary
reflect issues related to the Galileo system and its performance."
.......
DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW?
They FABRICATED the different batches of datasets, in order to post-verify what kind of corrections were made.
Galileo satellites didn't have the DRIFT displayed on Figure 8. They CALCULATED the cumulative drift, by adding the
corrections performed by Earth Control Center along these years, BECAUSE (as it's stated at the beginning) the keplerian
orbit is drifting constantly from 55° inclination, which causes that A MAJOR PARAMETER (semi-major axis) continuously
changes, as well the orbital period. It doesn't matter that the values are within specs (56.7 ± 0.15° and 50680.7 ± 0.22 s.
STUDY Figure 4. Orbit inclination evolution of the Galileo L10 satellites from the beginning of the navigation data
transmission to December 2020: original values (left) and detrended values (right). [Unit: degrees].
*********
Your relativistic correction appears only in YOUR DERANGED MIND WITH SEVERE OCD. You need to see Einstein everywhere.
BTW, I DEFY YOU to explain to us all, very clearly, how this master equation is applied when calculating ranges
ΔtSV = af0 + af1 (t - toc) + af2 (t - toc)2 + ΔtF - Δtgd >
Plus, why this equation has to applied, where is applied and HOW the parameters are calculated and broadcasted in terms
of orbital parameters.
Finally, HOW ΔtF (relativistic term) is applied to EVERY SINGLE SATELLITE, AND-IF it's dependent on user's position.
Let's see the stuff you're made of.
This may help you. Go to 5.1.3. Clock Correction Parameters
https://www.gsc-europa.eu/sites/default/files/sites/all/files/Galileo-OS-SIS-ICD.pdf
On 9/22/2023 5:54 AM, Lou wrote:[-]
On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 19:57:19 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Jan
--
"Thence we conclude that a 'balance-clock' at the equator must go more
slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated
at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."
(Albert Einstein 1905)
Einstein was actually wrong there, because he didn't know of GR yet, nor
that the earth isn't a sphere. But Einstein corrected himself with GR.
Den 20.09.2023 23:21, skrev Richard Hertz:
BTW, I DEFY YOU to explain to us all, very clearly, how this master equation is applied when calculating ranges
ΔtSV = af0 + af1 (t - toc) + af2 (t - toc)2 + ΔtF - Δtgd >
Plus, why this equation has to applied, where is applied and HOW the parameters are calculated and broadcasted in terms
of orbital parameters.
Finally, HOW ΔtF (relativistic term) is applied to EVERY SINGLE SATELLITE, AND-IF it's dependent on user's position.
Let's see the stuff you're made of.
This may help you. Go to 5.1.3. Clock Correction Parameters
https://www.gsc-europa.eu/sites/default/files/sites/all/files/Galileo-OS-SIS-ICD.pdf
Are you unable to read the Interface Control Document for Galileo
yourself, since you ask me to help you?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 3:25:49 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 20.09.2023 23:21, skrev Richard Hertz:
BTW, I DEFY YOU to explain to us all, very clearly, how this master equation is applied when calculating ranges
ΔtSV = af0 + af1 (t - toc) + af2 (t - toc)2 + ΔtF - Δtgd >
Plus, why this equation has to applied, where is applied and HOW the parameters are calculated and broadcasted in terms
of orbital parameters.
Finally, HOW ΔtF (relativistic term) is applied to EVERY SINGLE SATELLITE, AND-IF it's dependent on user's position.
https://www.gsc-europa.eu/sites/default/files/sites/all/files/Galileo-OS-SIS-ICD.pdf
Are you unable to read the Interface Control Document for Galileo
yourself, since you ask me to help you?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
So, you can't' explain the use of the relativistic correction ΔtF (also known as Δtr) by the end user terminal, for EACH GNSS satellite.
Den 16.09.2023 06:25, skrev Richard Hertz:
Note that the SV-clocks are never corrected while
the SVs are in service.
20.3.3.3.3.1:
The corrected time is: t = t_SV - Δt_SV
where:
t = GPS system time
t_SV = the time shown by the SV-clock.
Δt_SV = the clock correction.
The clock correction is calculated in the receiver with
the clock correction parameters transmitted by the SV.
Δt_SV = a_f0 + a_f1(t - t_oc) + a_f2 (t - t_oc)² + Δ_tR
where:
a_f0 = clock offset (error of t_SV at the time t_oc)
a_f1 = rate error of the SV clock at the time t_oc
a_f1 = rate of change of the rate error at the time t_oc
t_OC = the GPS-time when the parameters were measured by
the monitoring stations (before they were uploaded)
Δ_tR = a relativistic correction (see below)
Since these coefficients do not include corrections for relativistic effects, THE USER'S EQUIPMENT must determine the
requisite relativistic correction. Accordingly, the of offset given below includes a term to perform this function.
Note that the SV-clocks are never corrected while the SVs
are in service. So t_SV will typically be (several tens of)
microseconds off sync, and the clock offset a_f0 will be equivalent.
However, since the a_f0 is stored in a register with a limited number
of bits, The "clock offset" must be less than ~ ± 1 ms, or the register containing it will overflow.
If the rate of the SV-clock was not GR-corrected, it would be
more than +1 ms off sync after ~25 days, and the "clock offset"
would overflow, and the GPS wouldn't work
NOTE THIS:
# Since the GPS works, this prove that the rate of the SV-clock
# _must_ be corrected by the factor -4.4647E-10.
# This is the significant "GR-correction" of the clock rate done
# before the satellite is set in service.
If the orbit of the SV is circular (which it initially is),
the relativistic correction Δ_tR is zero.
But with time the orbit tends to be eccentric (caused by sun, moon).
Since this means that both the speed of the satellite and its altitude
will vary with the position in the orbit, the exact GR-correction will
also vary a little from the factor -4.4647E-10 with the position in the orbit.
Δ_tR = F e √A sin E_k
F = -4.442807633E-10 s/√m
OK
√A = square root of semimajor axis of the satellite orbit : 4492.458 √m , for current 31 active SV.
You have set A = altitude of SV,but A = the radius of the orbit.
A = 26.56E6 m@, √A = 5055.6899 √m
e = space vehicle orbit eccentricity : 0.008573316 , for current 31 active SV
E_k = eccentric anomaly of the GPS satellite orbit.
sin E_k = √(1 - e^2) sin θ /(1 + e cos θ) ; θ: True Anomaly (ANGLE BETWEEN EARTH AND THE SV)
Since the eccentricity is very small, E_k and θ will be almost equal.
E_k will always go from 0 to 2π during an orbit, obviously.
Δ_tR = e⋅F⋅√A⋅sin(E_k)
= e⋅(-4.442807633E-10 s/√m)⋅(5055.6899 √m)⋅sin(E_k)
= e⋅(-2.24614E-06)⋅sin(E_k) s
Valid values for the eccentricity e are 0.00 to 0.03
So with e = 0.03 and E_k = 90° or 270° so sin(E_k) = ±1, we get:
Δ_tR = ±0.03⋅(-2.24614E-06)s = ∓67.38437255232446 ns
However, 0.03 is probably an unrealistic high value for e.
So Δ_tR will probably seldom be higher than few ns.
And the average is always zero, obviously.
On 9/22/2023 5:54 AM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 19:57:19 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:That wasn't his field. Relativity was. And yet again, relativity and resonances (the ones affected by gravity) are affected DIFFERENTLY than
Lou wrote:Wrong. Einstein did not predict that resonating systems, like atoms
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:Right, in Einstein 1905.
El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a >>>>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
That's what The Shit's brainwashing
is doing with the brains of its victims.
document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on >>>> the ground at 10.23 MHz.
Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring
to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
(for mechanical watches, not pendulum clocks, aka 'balance clocks')
Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effectedWrong. Einstein predicted gravitational time dilation in 1915,
by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom
wasnt even considered in 1915.
and he predicted that this would be observable in spectra
of light from heavy stars. Yes, that means spectral lines of atoms.
[snip bollocks]
would resonate at different frequencies if subjected to
more or less mass or weight(acceleration)
GR effects, varying by force or potential respectively.
This change in frequency due to change in the systems weightAnd varying with force, not potential.
was already a well understood classical effect before Albert was even born.
As for any additional redshifting seen in stars spectra due to mass, once again the greater the mass of the star, the greater the gravitational strengthNope. Resonances vary by force. Redshift is proportional to potential.
at its surface. And due to classical resonance effects this means the lower
the natural frequency of the stars atoms.
Incidentally contrary to common misunderstandingAnd...? We see the redshift from massive stars changes by potential so
among relativists and quantum theorists...spectral lines can all
be modelled as specific frequency harmonic emissions by atoms.
it is not some force-related effect on resonances.
No need for the Bohr electron shell model.Obsolete long ago.
Especially considering it and it’s progenyPredicting spectral lines is notoriously complicated for any non-trivial atom. It's like the many-body Newtonian gravity, but worse.
QT, can still not correctly model all spectral lines seen in atoms.
Einstein was actually wrong there, because he didn't know of GR yet, nor that the earth isn't a sphere. But Einstein corrected himself with GR.Jan
--
"Thence we conclude that a 'balance-clock' at the equator must go more
slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated >> at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."
(Albert Einstein 1905)
Yes. And notice a balance clock beat frequency can be *modified* by varyingAnd why is that relevant?
it’s mass. Without changing its altitude.
Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 19:57:19 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
Lou wrote:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Woznia:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
frequency (9192631774.1)
So, for a relativistic idiot setting itGPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
That's what The Shit's brainwashing
is doing with the brains of its victims.
the ground at 10.23 MHz.
Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.Right, in Einstein 1905.
(for mechanical watches, not pendulum clocks, aka 'balance clocks')
Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atomWrong. Einstein predicted gravitational time dilation in 1915,
wasnt even considered in 1915.
and he predicted that this would be observable in spectra
of light from heavy stars. Yes, that means spectral lines of atoms. [snip bollocks]
Wrong. Einstein did not predict that resonating systems, like atomsEinstein -did- predict that atomic spectral lines
would resonate at different frequencies if subjected to
more or less mass or weight(acceleration)
originating from atoms near the surface of a massive star
would be red-shifted. (as observed later)
It was one of the three 'classic tests of GR'.
[snip nonsensical other explanations]
Jan
--
"Thence we conclude that a 'balance-clock' at the equator must go more slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."
(Albert Einstein 1905)
Yes. And notice a balance clock beat frequency can be *modified* by varyingOf course. Pocket watches can, and need to be adjusted.
it's mass. Without changing its altitude.
One can take a miniaturised atomic clock instead, nowadays.
Einstein was lucky. As with Marconi, nobody noticed he was stealingTwin paradox and transverse Dopple shift are not classical effects.
other phenomena described by classical theory, and pretending
these classical effects were relativistic!
Jan
On 9/22/2023 6:14 AM, Lou wrote:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 03:36:01 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/20/2023 2:39 PM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 18:27:59 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/20/2023 9:55 AM, Lou wrote:
So you can’t very well pretend that additional external force on resonant systems
resulting in lower resonant frequencies, a well known fact before Albert was even born,
is due to your garbage relativistic dogma.
That's not the cause of GR time dilation. Gravitational force will
affect certain gravity-dependent systems like a pendulum clock. But GR >>>> effects are due to differences in the gravitational potential, not the >>>> force. I bet you don't even know what the difference between
gravitational force and potential is!
Just word salad for people who don’t understand physics.
That's what I expected. You don't understand the difference so you blow >> it off as 'word salad'. Hint: word salad is authored by anti-relativity >> cranks (and other cranks) when they try to explain what they can't explain.
The cranks are the ones who co opt classical effectsYou are desperate; grasping for straws. In this case you grabbed a "resonance" straw. Resonances exist but have nothing to do with the
like resonance and pretend they are complex formations of
little winged albert angels dancing on pin heads.
cause of GR effects seen.
But, I bet you don’t know that resonant systems like atoms will,
when subjected to a change in conditions like mass or weight or acceleration
(and thus changes in G) will change their natural resonant frequencies. >>> And that change is directly proportional. So that increased mass, weight,
acceleration or G (all being intimately linked) will lead to a decrease in natural
frequency of ANY classical resonant system.
Nope. Only those dependent on the gravitational force, such as a
pendulum clock.
As observed in GPS.
Remember, when local to the Cs clock, the Cs clock it ticks 1 second per >> 9192631770 Cs transitions. No matter what the gravity is.
It's only when the gravitational potential (not force) is different
between locations (say, between the geoid and the satellite in orbit)
when this is not true. As they are definitely not local.
I think you will find it hard to prove that the atoms in the atomic clock are not resonating at a higher frequency than the same atoms on earths surface. As predicted classically with resonance.Nope. You compare actual measurements with the predictions of GR. You compare measured differences to see if they vary with gravitational
force or gravitational potential (something you don't even understand
what the difference is).
Also the first postulate points out the laws of physics are the same everywhere. The result of that is that a Cs clock in high orbit will
tick at 9192631770 cycles per second, according to an astronaut orbiting with it.
How would you disprove the classical resonance model?Classical resonances still exist; they won't be disproven. But they are
not the source of GR effects.
For one, a resonance affected by gravity is affected by the
gravitational force. GR effects are affected according to the
gravitational potential. You don't know the difference.
It predicts the same effect as the relativistic model.No it doesn't. Again gravitational force vs. potential, they have
different predictions.
All you have are observations on earth that show an increasedWhich exactly matches the GR predicted gravitational blueshift of a
frequency due to altitude.
signal in a gravitational field. (see Pound-Rebka)
There is no way to discern between theAnd yet again, gravitational force vs. gravitational potential make different predictions.
change in frequency being caused by classical effects or by relativistic effects.
That was Alberts only ability. He managed to successfully stealWhy do you make up garbage and pretend that it's true?
classical effects...and pretend they were relativistic.
No nonsensical relativity needed to explain this purely classical phenomenonNope. It cannot be explained by normal gravitational force. This was
called resonance.
clearly demonstrated with the prototype GPS satellite when they switched >> between "Newton Mode" and "Einstein Mode". Of course it worked only in
Einstein Mode. Relativity vindicated yet again!
Den 22.09.2023 22:32, skrev Richard Hertz:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 3:25:49 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
Den 20.09.2023 23:21, skrev Richard Hertz:
BTW, I DEFY YOU to explain to us all, very clearly, how this master equation is applied when calculating ranges
ΔtSV = af0 + af1 (t - toc) + af2 (t - toc)2 + ΔtF - Δtgd >
Plus, why this equation has to applied, where is applied and HOW the parameters are calculated and broadcasted in terms
of orbital parameters.
Finally, HOW ΔtF (relativistic term) is applied to EVERY SINGLE SATELLITE, AND-IF it's dependent on user's position.
https://www.gsc-europa.eu/sites/default/files/sites/all/files/Galileo-OS-SIS-ICD.pdf
Are you unable to read the Interface Control Document for Galileo
yourself, since you ask me to help you?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
So, you can't' explain the use of the relativistic correction ΔtF (also known as Δtr) by the end user terminal, for EACH GNSS satellite.
I explained it in my very
first response to you in this thread.
I will quote the relevant part of it here:
Den 19.09.2023 03:09, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
Den 16.09.2023 06:25, skrev Richard Hertz:
Note that the SV-clocks are never corrected while
the SVs are in service.
20.3.3.3.3.1:
The corrected time is: t = t_SV - Δt_SV
where:
t = GPS system time
t_SV = the time shown by the SV-clock.
Δt_SV = the clock correction.
The clock correction is calculated in the receiver with
the clock correction parameters transmitted by the SV.
Δt_SV = a_f0 + a_f1(t - t_oc) + a_f2 (t - t_oc)² + Δ_tR
where:
a_f0 = clock offset (error of t_SV at the time t_oc)
a_f1 = rate error of the SV clock at the time t_oc
a_f1 = rate of change of the rate error at the time t_oc
t_OC = the GPS-time when the parameters were measured by
the monitoring stations (before they were uploaded)
Δ_tR = a relativistic correction (see below)
Since these coefficients do not include corrections for relativistic effects, THE USER'S EQUIPMENT must determine the
requisite relativistic correction. Accordingly, the of offset given below includes a term to perform this function.
Note that the SV-clocks are never corrected while the SVs
are in service. So t_SV will typically be (several tens of)
microseconds off sync, and the clock offset a_f0 will be equivalent.
However, since the a_f0 is stored in a register with a limited number
of bits, The "clock offset" must be less than ~ ± 1 ms, or the register containing it will overflow.
If the rate of the SV-clock was not GR-corrected, it would be
more than +1 ms off sync after ~25 days, and the "clock offset"
would overflow, and the GPS wouldn't work
NOTE THIS:
# Since the GPS works, this prove that the rate of the SV-clock
# _must_ be corrected by the factor -4.4647E-10.
# This is the significant "GR-correction" of the clock rate done
# before the satellite is set in service.
If the orbit of the SV is circular (which it initially is),
the relativistic correction Δ_tR is zero.
But with time the orbit tends to be eccentric (caused by sun, moon).
Since this means that both the speed of the satellite and its altitude will vary with the position in the orbit, the exact GR-correction will also vary a little from the factor -4.4647E-10 with the position in the orbit.
Δ_tR = F e √A sin E_k
F = -4.442807633E-10 s/√m
OK
√A = square root of semimajor axis of the satellite orbit : 4492.458 √m , for current 31 active SV.
You have set A = altitude of SV,but A = the radius of the orbit.
A = 26.56E6 m , √A = 5055.6899 √m
e = space vehicle orbit eccentricity : 0.008573316 , for current 31 active SV
E_k = eccentric anomaly of the GPS satellite orbit.
sin E_k = √(1 - e^2) sin θ /(1 + e cos θ) ; θ: True Anomaly (ANGLE BETWEEN EARTH AND THE SV)
Since the eccentricity is very small, E_k and θ will be almost equal.
E_k will always go from 0 to 2π during an orbit, obviously.
Δ_tR = e⋅F⋅√A⋅sin(E_k)
= e⋅(-4.442807633E-10 s/√m)⋅(5055.6899 √m)⋅sin(E_k)
= e⋅(-2.24614E-06)⋅sin(E_k) s
Valid values for the eccentricity e are 0.00 to 0.03
So with e = 0.03 and E_k = 90° or 270° so sin(E_k) = ±1, we get:
Δ_tR = ±0.03⋅(-2.24614E-06)s = ∓67.38437255232446 ns
However, 0.03 is probably an unrealistic high value for e.
So Δ_tR will probably seldom be higher than few ns.
And the average is always zero, obviously.
With the eccentricity e = 0.008573316 you mention above
Δ_tR ≈ 19.3⋅sin(E_k) nS
And of course Δ_tR is different for each SV,
and of course the position of the receiver is utterly irrelevant.
------------------------
What exactly is it you don't understand?
To find the GPS time t at the instant when the signal was
sent from the SV, we have to use the equation:
t = t_SV - Δt_SV
Unless you are a complete moron, you must now have learned
how we find Δt_SV. But what about t_SV?
Do you know how the receiver measures what the SV clock t_SV
showed at the instant when the signal was sent from the SV?
I will explain if you ask nicely.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 16:58:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/22/2023 6:14 AM, Lou wrote:
On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 03:36:01 UTC+1, Volney wrote:You are desperate; grasping for straws. In this case you grabbed a
On 9/20/2023 2:39 PM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 18:27:59 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/20/2023 9:55 AM, Lou wrote:
So you can’t very well pretend that additional external force on resonant systems
resulting in lower resonant frequencies, a well known fact before Albert was even born,
is due to your garbage relativistic dogma.
That's not the cause of GR time dilation. Gravitational force will >>>>>> affect certain gravity-dependent systems like a pendulum clock. But GR >>>>>> effects are due to differences in the gravitational potential, not the >>>>>> force. I bet you don't even know what the difference between
gravitational force and potential is!
Just word salad for people who don’t understand physics.
That's what I expected. You don't understand the difference so you blow >>>> it off as 'word salad'. Hint: word salad is authored by anti-relativity >>>> cranks (and other cranks) when they try to explain what they can't explain.
The cranks are the ones who co opt classical effects
like resonance and pretend they are complex formations of
little winged albert angels dancing on pin heads.
"resonance" straw. Resonances exist but have nothing to do with the
cause of GR effects seen.
Nope. You compare actual measurements with the predictions of GR. You
But, I bet you don’t know that resonant systems like atoms will,
when subjected to a change in conditions like mass or weight or acceleration
(and thus changes in G) will change their natural resonant frequencies. >>>>> And that change is directly proportional. So that increased mass, weight, >>>>> acceleration or G (all being intimately linked) will lead to a decrease in natural
frequency of ANY classical resonant system.
Nope. Only those dependent on the gravitational force, such as a
pendulum clock.
As observed in GPS.
Remember, when local to the Cs clock, the Cs clock it ticks 1 second per >>>> 9192631770 Cs transitions. No matter what the gravity is.
It's only when the gravitational potential (not force) is different
between locations (say, between the geoid and the satellite in orbit)
when this is not true. As they are definitely not local.
I think you will find it hard to prove that the atoms in the atomic clock >>> are not resonating at a higher frequency than the same atoms on earths
surface. As predicted classically with resonance.
compare measured differences to see if they vary with gravitational
force or gravitational potential (something you don't even understand
what the difference is).
If acceleration can slow the natural resonant frequency of a classical resonant system like an atom...and this is observed in GPS, and many
other experiments...then you don’t need relativity.
Also the first postulate points out the laws of physics are the same
everywhere. The result of that is that a Cs clock in high orbit will
tick at 9192631770 cycles per second, according to an astronaut orbiting
with it.
How would you disprove the classical resonance model?Classical resonances still exist; they won't be disproven. But they are
not the source of GR effects.
Of course not. GR effects are imaginary. What’s actually
happening in GPS is that the natural resonant frequency of atoms
speed up with an increase in altitude. Due to a decrease in weight?
Are you familiar with r^2 ?
.
For one, a resonance affected by gravity is affected by the
gravitational force. GR effects are affected according to the
gravitational potential. You don't know the difference.
I do know the difference between good science and snake oil.
And classical resonance is good science. Because it only uses
empirical observations. Not fantasy assumptions.
It predicts the same effect as the relativistic model.No it doesn't. Again gravitational force vs. potential, they have
different predictions.
All you have are observations on earth that show an increasedWhich exactly matches the GR predicted gravitational blueshift of a
frequency due to altitude.
signal in a gravitational field. (see Pound-Rebka)
There is no way to discern between theAnd yet again, gravitational force vs. gravitational potential make
change in frequency being caused by classical effects or by relativistic effects.
different predictions.
That was Alberts only ability. He managed to successfully steal
classical effects...and pretend they were relativistic.
Why do you make up garbage and pretend that it's true?
Isn’t that what most of Alberts peers said to him in the early 1900’s?
They must have been very smart. Because they were right all along.
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:11:22 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/22/2023 5:54 AM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 19:57:19 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:That wasn't his field. Relativity was. And yet again, relativity and
Lou wrote:Wrong. Einstein did not predict that resonating systems, like atoms
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:Right, in Einstein 1905.
El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see >>>>>> document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on >>>>>> the ground at 10.23 MHz.
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a >>>>>>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
That's what The Shit's brainwashing
is doing with the brains of its victims.
Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring
to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
(for mechanical watches, not pendulum clocks, aka 'balance clocks')
Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effectedWrong. Einstein predicted gravitational time dilation in 1915,
by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom
wasnt even considered in 1915.
and he predicted that this would be observable in spectra
of light from heavy stars. Yes, that means spectral lines of atoms.
[snip bollocks]
would resonate at different frequencies if subjected to
more or less mass or weight(acceleration)
resonances (the ones affected by gravity) are affected DIFFERENTLY than
GR effects, varying by force or potential respectively.
You still have supplied zero evidence to prove that resonance cannot model change
in atomic frequency. Desperately and arbitrarily Invoking ‘force’ and ‘potential’
is meaningless unless you can explain how classical physics cannot
explain force or potential.
This change in frequency due to change in the systems weight
was already a well understood classical effect before Albert was even born.
And varying with force, not potential.
As for any additional redshifting seen in stars spectra due to mass, once >>> again the greater the mass of the star, the greater the gravitational strength
at its surface. And due to classical resonance effects this means the lower >>> the natural frequency of the stars atoms.
Nope. Resonances vary by force. Redshift is proportional to potential.
Gravitational potential you mean?
You are desperate indeed if
you think nobody knew gravity and g potential existed until Einstein
dreamed up his nonsense. Ever heard of Newton?
Especially considering it and it’s progeny
QT, can still not correctly model all spectral lines seen in atoms.
Predicting spectral lines is notoriously complicated for any non-trivial
atom. It's like the many-body Newtonian gravity, but worse.
Maybe for a useless fantasy theory like QT. > But for H at least,
all spectral lines can be predicted classically and simply
by looking at the Ritz Rydberg formula and/or by using harmonics.
Yes. And notice a balance clock beat frequency can be *modified* by varying >>> it’s mass. Without changing its altitude.
And why is that relevant?
Because you seem unable to understand that a resonating atom,
like all resonating systems, will change its natural resonating
frequency simply by changing its weight through acceleration.
No need for relativity when classical physics does the same.
On 9/23/2023 10:50 AM, Lou wrote:
Isn’t that what most of Alberts peers said to him in the early 1900’s?
We all evolved in a rather classical world, with no experience with any relativistic effects other than light itself (which had an infinite
speed for all practical purposes). Yes ideas like relativity seem absurd
at first to those who never learned it in detail, so he was attacked by
the poorer scientists at first. Nowadays, it's 100+ year old settled
science among scientists, even if the crackpots babble on against it.
They must have been very smart. Because they were right all along.Except that it turns out that they were all wrong.
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 3:10:07 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
No, imbecile. They still are right.
The problem with your relativity is that it's A MARGINAL PSEUDOSCIENCE.
Marginal, because it works in the limits of untestable values, which are NOT NEEDED in this modern world.
Call me when humans can move faster than 21600000 Km/Hr (2% of c). While not, relativity is a fairy tale.
Den 19.09.2023 03:09, skrev Paul B. Andersen:>
The corrected time is: t = t_SV - Δt_SV
where:
t = GPS system time
t_SV = the time shown by the SV-clock.
Δt_SV = the clock correction.
The clock correction is calculated in the receiver with
the clock correction parameters transmitted by the SV.
Δt_SV = a_f0 + a_f1(t - t_oc) + a_f2 (t - t_oc)² + Δ_tR
where:
a_f0 = clock offset (error of t_SV at the time t_oc)
a_f1 = rate error of the SV clock at the time t_oc
a_f1 = rate of change of the rate error at the time t_oc
t_OC = the GPS-time when the parameters were measured by
the monitoring stations (before they were uploaded)
Δ_tR = a relativistic correction (see below)
If the orbit of the SV is circular (which it initially is),
the relativistic correction Δ_tR is zero.
But with time the orbit tends to be eccentric (caused by sun, moon).
Since this means that both the speed of the satellite and its altitude
will vary with the position in the orbit, the exact GR-correction will
also vary a little from the factor -4.4647E-10 with the position in the orbit.
Δ_tR = F⋅e⋅√A⋅sin(E_k)
F = -4.442807633E-10 S/√m
A = 26.56E6 m@, √A = 5055.6899 √m
E_k will always go from 0 to 2π during an orbit, obviously.
Δ_tR = e⋅F⋅√A⋅sin(E_k)
= e⋅(-4.442807633E-10 s/√m)⋅(5055.6899 √m)⋅sin(E_k)
= e⋅(-2.24614E-06)⋅sin(E_k) s
Valid values for the eccentricity e are 0.00 to 0.03
So with e = 0.03 and E_k = 90° or 270° so sin(E_k) = ±1, we get:
Δ_tR = ±0.03⋅(-2.24614E-06)s = ∓67.38437255232446 ns
However, 0.03 is probably an unrealistic high value for e.
So Δ_tR will probably seldom be higher than few ns.
And the average is always zero, obviously.
With the eccentricity e = 0.008573316 you mention
Δ_tR ≈ 19.3⋅sin(E_k) nS
Bla, bla, bla, bla!
I don't want your explanation from above, which is trivial so far.
I want you to justify WHY the relativistic correction DEPENDS ON the angle user-satellite, referred to user plane.
Explain this equation, Einstein.
Δt_F = -17,11159 sin E_k (nsec)
Since the orbit of the SV in this case is eccentric (e = 0.007473451)
both the speed of the satellite and its altitude will vary with
the position in the orbit, the exact GR-correction will also
Den 23.09.2023 18:05, skrev Richard Hertz:
Your confusion is obviously MUCH greater than I thought possible.
Ek is the angle in the satellite's orbit. (Eccentric anomaly)
Explain this equation, Einstein.
Δt_F = -17,11159 sin E_k (nsec)
You probably meant Δ_tR = -17.11159⋅sin(E_k) nS
Didn't you find the explanation trivial? Here it is AGAIN:
Since the orbit of the SV in this case is eccentric (e = 0.007473451) both the speed of the satellite and its altitude will vary with
the position in the orbit, the exact GR-correction will also vary a little from the factor -4.4647E-10 with the position in the orbit.
During the 12 hours of an orbit Δ_tR will have a sinusoidal variation with amplitude 17.11159 nS.
-----------------------
I understand that you have a LOOONG way to go before you will even understand what I am talking about when I said:
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 3:10:07 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 10:50 AM, Lou wrote:
<snip>
Isn’t that what most of Alberts peers said to him in the early 1900’s?
We all evolved in a rather classical world, with no experience with any
relativistic effects other than light itself (which had an infinite
speed for all practical purposes). Yes ideas like relativity seem absurd
at first to those who never learned it in detail, so he was attacked by
the poorer scientists at first. Nowadays, it's 100+ year old settled
science among scientists, even if the crackpots babble on against it.
They must have been very smart. Because they were right all along.Except that it turns out that they were all wrong.
No, imbecile. They still are right.
The problem with your relativity is that it's A MARGINAL PSEUDOSCIENCE.
Marginal, because it works in the limits of untestable values, which are NOT NEEDED in this modern world.
Call me when humans can move faster than 21600000 Km/Hr (2% of c). While not, relativity is a fairy tale.
I'm tired of snipping your trivial but wrongful comments. I only left this part to sweep the floor with you.
The correction Δt_F = -17;11159 sin E_k (ns) is despised by any serious GNSS professional.
HAS TO BE MADE AT THE GPS RECEIVER, and is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from what you invented.
The eccentricity E, related to the true anomaly θ, is the value calculated at the user LLH position (Latitude, Longitude, Height),
and only cover a restricted range OF VISIBILITY of each satellite BY THE USER GPS RECEIVER. GOT IT?
It's different from your average Schwarzschild solution, as it's computed locally.
For the user receiver, the range of valid values of the true anomaly θ barely extend beyond +/- 50° from the azimuth, because
the signal has lost a valid SNR.
But, what can I teach you, Paul? You're the smart ass regarding GNSS, atomic clocks, Einstein, etc.
And you are just a pretender with a declining mental ability, which shows here.
On 9/23/2023 2:25 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 3:10:07 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 10:50 AM, Lou wrote:
<snip>
Isn’t that what most of Alberts peers said to him in the early 1900’s?
We all evolved in a rather classical world, with no experience with any >> relativistic effects other than light itself (which had an infinite
speed for all practical purposes). Yes ideas like relativity seem absurd >> at first to those who never learned it in detail, so he was attacked by >> the poorer scientists at first. Nowadays, it's 100+ year old settled
science among scientists, even if the crackpots babble on against it.
They must have been very smart. Because they were right all along.Except that it turns out that they were all wrong.
No, imbecile. They still are right.Too bad for you that scientific observations and experimental evidence support Einstein.
Using GPS is not necessary?
But subatomic particles sure can. And the GPS satellites use GR despite
On 9/15/2023 8:00 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:Very simple:.
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
frequency (9192631774.1)
So, for a relativistic idiot setting itExactly, to compensate for GR
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
Just like if, for some reason, you wanted the horn of an approaching
train to be heard in the station at a musical tone of "B♭", the train's horn must sound at, perhaps "A", to compensate for the Doppler Effect.
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:44:08 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
On 9/15/2023 8:00 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
frequency (9192631774.1)
Very simple:.So, for a relativistic idiot setting itExactly, to compensate for GR
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
91926317774.1 on the earth clock represents the same amount of absolute time as 9192631770 on a GPS clock.
On 9/21/2023 3:51 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:44:08 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
On 9/15/2023 8:00 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:Exactly, to compensate for GR.
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a >>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
to9192631774.1 2631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
No it is because clocks in different frames accumulate clock seconds at different rates.Stupid Ken, why do you make up garbage and pretend that it is true?
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 1:08:07 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
On 9/21/2023 3:51 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:44:08 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:Stupid Ken, why do you make up garbage and pretend that it is true?
On 9/15/2023 8:00 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:Exactly, to compensate for GR.
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a >>>>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
to9192631774.1 2631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
No it is because clocks in different frames accumulate clock seconds at different rates.
Stupid Mike, all you know is Einstein's shit.
absolute time exists.
192,631,774.1 cycles on the GPS clock contains the same amount of absolute time as 9192631770 cycles on the earth clock.
Einstein, at least, showed how he derived his physics that other
scientists can verify (or refute, which hasn't happened) rather
On 9/25/2023 12:11 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 1:08:07 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
On 9/21/2023 3:51 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:44:08 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:Stupid Ken, why do you make up garbage and pretend that it is true?
On 9/15/2023 8:00 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:Exactly, to compensate for GR.
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a >>>>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
to9192631774.1 2631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
No it is because clocks in different frames accumulate clock seconds at different rates.
Stupid Mike, all you know is Einstein's shit.Einstein, at least, showed how he derived his physics that other
scientists can verify (or refute, which hasn't happened) rather than
making up garbage and pretending that it's true.
absolute time exists.
Assertions are not evidence of anything. Making up garbage like absolute time and pretending it's true is just an assertion with no evidence.
192,631,774.1 cycles on the GPS clock contains the same amount of absolute time as 9192631770 cycles on the earth clock.Assertions are not evidence, Stupid Ken.
Assertions are not e
On 9/23/2023 10:35 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:11:22 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/22/2023 5:54 AM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 19:57:19 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>> Lou wrote:That wasn't his field. Relativity was. And yet again, relativity and
Wrong. Einstein did not predict that resonating systems, like atoms
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:Right, in Einstein 1905.
El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak:
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see >>>>>> document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on >>>>>> the ground at 10.23 MHz.
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
frequency (9192631774.1)
So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
That's what The Shit's brainwashing
is doing with the brains of its victims.
Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring
to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
(for mechanical watches, not pendulum clocks, aka 'balance clocks') >>>>> Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected
by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atomWrong. Einstein predicted gravitational time dilation in 1915,
wasnt even considered in 1915.
and he predicted that this would be observable in spectra
of light from heavy stars. Yes, that means spectral lines of atoms. >>>> [snip bollocks]
would resonate at different frequencies if subjected to
more or less mass or weight(acceleration)
resonances (the ones affected by gravity) are affected DIFFERENTLY than >> GR effects, varying by force or potential respectively.
You still have supplied zero evidence to prove that resonance cannot model changeI never claimed that force and potential cannot be explained by
in atomic frequency. Desperately and arbitrarily Invoking ‘force’ and ‘potential’
is meaningless unless you can explain how classical physics cannot
explain force or potential.
classical physics.
Divide both by the mass of the resonating system and you'll get
acceleration (GM/r²) and an energy per unit mass. (GM/r). They are not
the same.
The classical resonating system is affected by the acceleration. GR
effects, simplified, are proportional to the GM/r value.
This change in frequency due to change in the systems weight
was already a well understood classical effect before Albert was even born.
And varying with force, not potential.
As for any additional redshifting seen in stars spectra due to mass, once
again the greater the mass of the star, the greater the gravitational strength
at its surface. And due to classical resonance effects this means the lower
the natural frequency of the stars atoms.
Nope. Resonances vary by force. Redshift is proportional to potential.
Gravitational potential you mean?Yes. Specifically, GM/r, which is NOT the acceleration (GM/r²). As I suspected, you didn't understand the difference. Perhaps you do now.
Perhaps not.
You are desperate indeed ifWhere did I *ever* claim nobody knew of gravitational potential before Einstein?
you think nobody knew gravity and g potential existed until Einstein dreamed up his nonsense. Ever heard of Newton?
Especially considering it and it’s progeny
QT, can still not correctly model all spectral lines seen in atoms.
Predicting spectral lines is notoriously complicated for any non-trivial >> atom. It's like the many-body Newtonian gravity, but worse.
Maybe for a useless fantasy theory like QT. > But for H at least,As I said, notoriously complicated for all but the simplest atoms. H is
the simplest atom.
all spectral lines can be predicted classically and simplyClassical analysis also works for "hydrogen-like" ions, like He+, Li++
by looking at the Ritz Rydberg formula and/or by using harmonics.
etc. (one electron). Now try that for, say, neutral iron.
Yes. And notice a balance clock beat frequency can be *modified* by varying
it’s mass. Without changing its altitude.
And why is that relevant?
Because you seem unable to understand that a resonating atom,For atoms in a star, this is much smaller than the GR potential effect.
like all resonating systems, will change its natural resonating
frequency simply by changing its weight through acceleration.
Plus the potential changes AT A DIFFERENT RATE than the acceleration does.
No need for relativity when classical physics does the same.Except classical physics cannot explain the redshifts of the spectra of massive stars correctly. Nor can classical physics explain the blueshift
of signals from the GPS satellites. GR does.
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 19:03:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 10:35 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:11:22 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/22/2023 5:54 AM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 19:57:19 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>> Lou wrote:That wasn't his field. Relativity was. And yet again, relativity and
Wrong. Einstein did not predict that resonating systems, like atoms >>> would resonate at different frequencies if subjected to
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote: >>>>>> El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak:Right, in Einstein 1905.
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see >>>>>> document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
frequency (9192631774.1)
So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
That's what The Shit's brainwashing
is doing with the brains of its victims.
the ground at 10.23 MHz.
Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring
to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
(for mechanical watches, not pendulum clocks, aka 'balance clocks') >>>>> Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected
by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom >>>>> wasnt even considered in 1915.Wrong. Einstein predicted gravitational time dilation in 1915,
and he predicted that this would be observable in spectra
of light from heavy stars. Yes, that means spectral lines of atoms. >>>> [snip bollocks]
more or less mass or weight(acceleration)
resonances (the ones affected by gravity) are affected DIFFERENTLY than >> GR effects, varying by force or potential respectively.
You still have supplied zero evidence to prove that resonance cannot model changeI never claimed that force and potential cannot be explained by
in atomic frequency. Desperately and arbitrarily Invoking ‘force’ and ‘potential’
is meaningless unless you can explain how classical physics cannot explain force or potential.
classical physics.
Divide both by the mass of the resonating system and you'll get acceleration (GM/r²) and an energy per unit mass. (GM/r). They are not the same.
The classical resonating system is affected by the acceleration. GR effects, simplified, are proportional to the GM/r value.Notice that GR and classical resonance are two seperate distinct models. Trying to pretend that because GR can supposedly model changes in
the natural resonant frequencies of atoms due to G at different altitudes... does in no way refute the well known, well modelled classical phenomena called resonance. Which also predicts that at different altitudes G effects changes in natural resonant frequencies of atoms.
This change in frequency due to change in the systems weight
was already a well understood classical effect before Albert was even born.
And varying with force, not potential.
As for any additional redshifting seen in stars spectra due to mass, once
again the greater the mass of the star, the greater the gravitational strength
at its surface. And due to classical resonance effects this means the lower
the natural frequency of the stars atoms.
Nope. Resonances vary by force. Redshift is proportional to potential.
Gravitational potential you mean?Yes. Specifically, GM/r, which is NOT the acceleration (GM/r²). As I suspected, you didn't understand the difference. Perhaps you do now. Perhaps not.
You are desperate indeed ifWhere did I *ever* claim nobody knew of gravitational potential before Einstein?
you think nobody knew gravity and g potential existed until Einstein dreamed up his nonsense. Ever heard of Newton?
Especially considering it and it’s progeny
QT, can still not correctly model all spectral lines seen in atoms.
Predicting spectral lines is notoriously complicated for any non-trivial
atom. It's like the many-body Newtonian gravity, but worse.
Seeing as QT also can’t actually model anything above H...this seems an odd way to pretend it does.Maybe for a useless fantasy theory like QT. > But for H at least,As I said, notoriously complicated for all but the simplest atoms. H is the simplest atom.
all spectral lines can be predicted classically and simplyClassical analysis also works for "hydrogen-like" ions, like He+, Li++ etc. (one electron). Now try that for, say, neutral iron.
by looking at the Ritz Rydberg formula and/or by using harmonics.
Yes. And notice a balance clock beat frequency can be *modified* by varying
it’s mass. Without changing its altitude.
And why is that relevant?
Prove this fatuous claim. You can’t. Because resonance does adequately modelBecause you seem unable to understand that a resonating atom,For atoms in a star, this is much smaller than the GR potential effect. Plus the potential changes AT A DIFFERENT RATE than the acceleration does.
like all resonating systems, will change its natural resonating frequency simply by changing its weight through acceleration.
all your so called GR effects. There is no evidence to the contrary.
Nonsense. Classical resonance explains all the so calledNo need for relativity when classical physics does the same.Except classical physics cannot explain the redshifts of the spectra of massive stars correctly. Nor can classical physics explain the blueshift of signals from the GPS satellites. GR does.
relativistic effects in GPS, or light “redshifted” from massive stars. Prove to me that classical resonating systems will not change their
natural frequency when subjected to a change in weight or mass.
You can’t. Unless you ignore a few centuries of empirical
observations on resonating systems.
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 12:48:33 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
On 9/25/2023 12:11 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
absolute time exists.
Assertions are not evidence of anything. Making up garbage like absolute
time and pretending it's true is just an assertion with no evidence.
192,631,774.1 cycles on the GPS clock contains the same amount of absolute time as 9192631770 cycles on the earth clock.Assertions are not evidence, Stupid Ken.
Stupid Mike, are you disagreeing that "192,631,774.1 cycles on the GPS clock contains the same amount of absolute time as 9192631770 cycles on the earth clock.??????
Assertions are not e[vidence.]
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 19:03:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 10:35 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:11:22 UTC+1, Volney wrote:I never claimed that force and potential cannot be explained by
On 9/22/2023 5:54 AM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 19:57:19 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>> Lou wrote:That wasn't his field. Relativity was. And yet again, relativity and
Wrong. Einstein did not predict that resonating systems, like atoms
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote: >>>>>>>> El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak:Right, in Einstein 1905.
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>>>GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see >>>>>>>> document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on >>>>>>>> the ground at 10.23 MHz.
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a >>>>>>>>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
That's what The Shit's brainwashing
is doing with the brains of its victims.
Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring
to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
(for mechanical watches, not pendulum clocks, aka 'balance clocks') >>>>>>> Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected
by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom >>>>>>> wasnt even considered in 1915.Wrong. Einstein predicted gravitational time dilation in 1915,
and he predicted that this would be observable in spectra
of light from heavy stars. Yes, that means spectral lines of atoms. >>>>>> [snip bollocks]
would resonate at different frequencies if subjected to
more or less mass or weight(acceleration)
resonances (the ones affected by gravity) are affected DIFFERENTLY than >>>> GR effects, varying by force or potential respectively.
You still have supplied zero evidence to prove that resonance cannot model change
in atomic frequency. Desperately and arbitrarily Invoking ‘force’ and ‘potential’
is meaningless unless you can explain how classical physics cannot
explain force or potential.
classical physics.
Divide both by the mass of the resonating system and you'll get
acceleration (GM/r²) and an energy per unit mass. (GM/r). They are not
the same.
The classical resonating system is affected by the acceleration. GR
effects, simplified, are proportional to the GM/r value.
Notice that GR and classical resonance are two seperate distinct models.
Trying to pretend that because GR can supposedly model changes in
the natural resonant frequencies of atoms due to G at different altitudes...
does in no way refute the well known, well modelled classical phenomena called resonance. Which also predicts that at different altitudes G effects changes in natural resonant frequencies of atoms.
all spectral lines can be predicted classically and simplyClassical analysis also works for "hydrogen-like" ions, like He+, Li++
by looking at the Ritz Rydberg formula and/or by using harmonics.
etc. (one electron). Now try that for, say, neutral iron.
Seeing as QT also can’t actually model anything above H...this seems an
odd way to pretend it does.
Yes. And notice a balance clock beat frequency can be *modified* by varying
it’s mass. Without changing its altitude.
And why is that relevant?
Because you seem unable to understand that a resonating atom,
like all resonating systems, will change its natural resonating
frequency simply by changing its weight through acceleration.
For atoms in a star, this is much smaller than the GR potential effect.
Plus the potential changes AT A DIFFERENT RATE than the acceleration does.
Prove this fatuous claim.
You can’t.
Because resonance does adequately model
all your so called GR effects.
There is no evidence to the contrary.
No need for relativity when classical physics does the same.
Except classical physics cannot explain the redshifts of the spectra of
massive stars correctly. Nor can classical physics explain the blueshift
of signals from the GPS satellites. GR does.
Nonsense. Classical resonance explains all the so called
relativistic effects in GPS, or light “redshifted” from massive stars.
Prove to me that classical resonating systems will not change their
natural frequency when subjected to a change in weight or mass.
You can’t. Unless you ignore a few centuries of empirical
observations on resonating systems.
Of course, Stupid Ken. I will also disagree that "192,631,774.1 cycles
on the GPS clock contains the same number of invisible pink polkadot
flying elephants as 9192631770 cycles on the earth clock." Because
absolute time is just as real as invisible pink polkadot flying
elephants. That is, not real at all.
On 9/25/2023 2:54 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 12:48:33 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
On 9/25/2023 12:11 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
absolute time exists.
Assertions are not evidence of anything. Making up garbage like absolute >> time and pretending it's true is just an assertion with no evidence.
192,631,774.1 cycles on the GPS clock contains the same amount of absolute time as 9192631770 cycles on the earth clock.Assertions are not evidence, Stupid Ken.
Stupid Mike, are you disagreeing that "192,631,774.1 cycles on the GPS clock contains the same amount of absolute time as 9192631770 cycles on the earth clock.??????Of course, Stupid Ken. I will also disagree that "192,631,774.1 cycles
on the GPS clock contains the same number of invisible pink polkadot
flying elephants as 9192631770 cycles on the earth clock." Because
absolute time is just as real as invisible pink polkadot flying
elephants. That is, not real at all.
Assertions are not e[vidence.]
Why haven't you *ever* learned this? After all, you were the one always stating that.
On 9/25/2023 4:51 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 19:03:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 10:35 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:11:22 UTC+1, Volney wrote:I never claimed that force and potential cannot be explained by
On 9/22/2023 5:54 AM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 19:57:19 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>> Lou wrote:That wasn't his field. Relativity was. And yet again, relativity and >>>> resonances (the ones affected by gravity) are affected DIFFERENTLY than >>>> GR effects, varying by force or potential respectively.
Wrong. Einstein did not predict that resonating systems, like atoms >>>>> would resonate at different frequencies if subjected to
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote: >>>>>>>> El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak:Right, in Einstein 1905.
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>>>GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see >>>>>>>> document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
frequency (9192631774.1)
So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
That's what The Shit's brainwashing
is doing with the brains of its victims.
the ground at 10.23 MHz.
Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring
to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
(for mechanical watches, not pendulum clocks, aka 'balance clocks') >>>>>>> Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected
by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom >>>>>>> wasnt even considered in 1915.Wrong. Einstein predicted gravitational time dilation in 1915,
and he predicted that this would be observable in spectra
of light from heavy stars. Yes, that means spectral lines of atoms. >>>>>> [snip bollocks]
more or less mass or weight(acceleration)
You still have supplied zero evidence to prove that resonance cannot model change
in atomic frequency. Desperately and arbitrarily Invoking ‘force’ and ‘potential’
is meaningless unless you can explain how classical physics cannot
explain force or potential.
classical physics.
Divide both by the mass of the resonating system and you'll get
acceleration (GM/r²) and an energy per unit mass. (GM/r). They are not >> the same.
The classical resonating system is affected by the acceleration. GR
effects, simplified, are proportional to the GM/r value.
Notice that GR and classical resonance are two seperate distinct models.Which depend on *different* gravity effects.
Trying to pretend that because GR can supposedly model changes inGR time dilation effects don't care about resonant frequency changes.
the natural resonant frequencies of atoms due to G at different altitudes...
They depend on whether the resonance is affected by the g acceleration.
does in no way refute the well known, well modelled classical phenomena called resonance. Which also predicts that at different altitudes G effectsAnd the variation are *different*. Gravitational acceleration from a
changes in natural resonant frequencies of atoms.
point source depends on the inverse square of the distance.
Gravitational potential depends on the inverse of the distance. Easiest
way to tell: Double the distance. Gravitational acceleration is 1/4 as
much. The potential change is 1/2 as deep in the well.
all spectral lines can be predicted classically and simplyClassical analysis also works for "hydrogen-like" ions, like He+, Li++
by looking at the Ritz Rydberg formula and/or by using harmonics.
etc. (one electron). Now try that for, say, neutral iron.
Seeing as QT also can’t actually model anything above H...this seems an odd way to pretend it does.I didn't.
Note that classical physics can't predict the lines more complicated
than hydrogen-like atoms.
Yes. And notice a balance clock beat frequency can be *modified* by varying
it’s mass. Without changing its altitude.
And why is that relevant?
Because you seem unable to understand that a resonating atom,
like all resonating systems, will change its natural resonating
frequency simply by changing its weight through acceleration.
For atoms in a star, this is much smaller than the GR potential effect. >> Plus the potential changes AT A DIFFERENT RATE than the acceleration does.
Prove this fatuous claim.GM/r² vs. GM/r.
You can’t.
I just did. NEXT!
Because resonance does adequately modelBecause GR effects have nothing to do with resonance.
all your so called GR effects.
There is no evidence to the contrary.That the GPS system works is evidence.
Also other nations GNSS, with their satellites at different altitudes
(so using different corrections than GPS) is also evidence. Stellar
spectra from heavy stars.
No need for relativity when classical physics does the same.
Except classical physics cannot explain the redshifts of the spectra of >> massive stars correctly. Nor can classical physics explain the blueshift >> of signals from the GPS satellites. GR does.
Nonsense. Classical resonance explains all the so calledNope. It simply doesn't work for different altitudes. Compare all the
relativistic effects in GPS, or light “redshifted” from massive stars.
GNSS systems in existence. No way to explain using acceleration/force (GM/r²) since it doesn't even follow a 1/r² curve.
Prove to me that classical resonating systems will not change their natural frequency when subjected to a change in weight or mass.A correctly designed system will not depend on the weight of anything
since it will depend on the 1/r² of its altitude. And the mass remains
the same.
You can’t. Unless you ignore a few centuries of empiricalThe first prototype GPS satellite blew your claim out of the water in
observations on resonating systems.
1977, when it operated in Newton mode (no GR corrections) for 20 days, didn't work, then was switched to Einstein mode (GR correction used) and then it worked as expected.
On 9/25/2023 4:51 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 19:03:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 10:35 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:11:22 UTC+1, Volney wrote:I never claimed that force and potential cannot be explained by
On 9/22/2023 5:54 AM, Lou wrote:
On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 19:57:19 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote: >>>>>> Lou wrote:That wasn't his field. Relativity was. And yet again, relativity and >>>> resonances (the ones affected by gravity) are affected DIFFERENTLY than >>>> GR effects, varying by force or potential respectively.
Wrong. Einstein did not predict that resonating systems, like atoms >>>>> would resonate at different frequencies if subjected to
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote: >>>>>>>> El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak:Right, in Einstein 1905.
On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote: >>>>>>>>>GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see >>>>>>>> document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on
Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocksYes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
frequency (9192631774.1)
So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
Isn't it sweet?
That's what The Shit's brainwashing
is doing with the brains of its victims.
the ground at 10.23 MHz.
Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring
to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
(for mechanical watches, not pendulum clocks, aka 'balance clocks') >>>>>>> Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected
by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom >>>>>>> wasnt even considered in 1915.Wrong. Einstein predicted gravitational time dilation in 1915,
and he predicted that this would be observable in spectra
of light from heavy stars. Yes, that means spectral lines of atoms. >>>>>> [snip bollocks]
more or less mass or weight(acceleration)
You still have supplied zero evidence to prove that resonance cannot model change
in atomic frequency. Desperately and arbitrarily Invoking ‘force’ and ‘potential’
is meaningless unless you can explain how classical physics cannot
explain force or potential.
classical physics.
Divide both by the mass of the resonating system and you'll get
acceleration (GM/r²) and an energy per unit mass. (GM/r). They are not >> the same.
The classical resonating system is affected by the acceleration. GR
effects, simplified, are proportional to the GM/r value.
Notice that GR and classical resonance are two seperate distinct models.Which depend on *different* gravity effects.
Trying to pretend that because GR can supposedly model changes inGR time dilation effects don't care about resonant frequency changes.
the natural resonant frequencies of atoms due to G at different altitudes...
They depend on whether the resonance is affected by the g acceleration.
does in no way refute the well known, well modelled classical phenomena called resonance. Which also predicts that at different altitudes G effectsAnd the variation are *different*. Gravitational acceleration from a
changes in natural resonant frequencies of atoms.
point source depends on the inverse square of the distance.
Gravitational potential depends on the inverse of the distance. Easiest
way to tell: Double the distance. Gravitational acceleration is 1/4 as
much. The potential change is 1/2 as deep in the well.
all spectral lines can be predicted classically and simplyClassical analysis also works for "hydrogen-like" ions, like He+, Li++
by looking at the Ritz Rydberg formula and/or by using harmonics.
etc. (one electron). Now try that for, say, neutral iron.
Seeing as QT also can’t actually model anything above H...this seems an odd way to pretend it does.I didn't.
Note that classical physics can't predict the lines more complicated
than hydrogen-like atoms.
Yes. And notice a balance clock beat frequency can be *modified* by varying
it’s mass. Without changing its altitude.
And why is that relevant?
Because you seem unable to understand that a resonating atom,
like all resonating systems, will change its natural resonating
frequency simply by changing its weight through acceleration.
For atoms in a star, this is much smaller than the GR potential effect. >> Plus the potential changes AT A DIFFERENT RATE than the acceleration does.
Prove this fatuous claim.GM/r² vs. GM/r.
You can’t.
I just did. NEXT!
On Tuesday, 26 September 2023 at 03:05:06 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/25/2023 4:51 PM, Lou wrote:
On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 19:03:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/23/2023 10:35 AM, Lou wrote:
On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:11:22 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
On 9/22/2023 5:54 AM, Lou wrote:
Yes. And notice a balance clock beat frequency can be *modified* by varying
it’s mass. Without changing its altitude.
And why is that relevant?
Because you seem unable to understand that a resonating atom,
like all resonating systems, will change its natural resonating
frequency simply by changing its weight through acceleration.
For atoms in a star, this is much smaller than the GR potential effect. >>>> Plus the potential changes AT A DIFFERENT RATE than the acceleration does. >>>Prove this fatuous claim.
GM/r² vs. GM/r.
You can’t.
I just did. NEXT!
Im not so sure you did.
How do you come to the conclusion
r^2 applies to weight vs altitude?
GM/r^2 doesn’t calculate for weight at different heights!
That’s the formula for gravitational acceleration.
If anything GM/r is the correct formula for calculating resonance
vs altitude.
Seeing as gravitational potential energy F= weight * distance
Not d^2.
Because gravitational acceleration is an inverse square effect. (1/r^2)
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 384 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 62:33:11 |
| Calls: | 8,173 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 13,113 |
| Messages: | 5,864,569 |