GPS and Relativity

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by MacM, Nov 16, 2004.

  1. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Many here have argued that GPS supports or proves Relativity. I thought perhaps you might like the opportunity to explain why a surface clock and an orbital clock do not produce the correct relative velocity time dilation affect and they shift the correction to earth's central inertial frame - The pole.

    It seems GPS actually favors Lorentz over Einstein.

    Oh. GR fairs better but not perfect either.

    *******************************************************
    http://egtphysics.net/GPS/RelGPS.htm

    RELATIVITY AND GPS

    (Section I: Special Relativity)

    Ronald R. Hatch
    The satellites of the global positioning system (GPS) travel around the earth in 12-hour periods in near-circular orbits. All of the satellites contain extremely precise atomic clocks whose rates depend both upon satellite velocity and altitude. An observer bound to the earth, in an airplane or in a satellite may determine his precise location by obtaining signals from several satellites simultaneously. This paper discusses the implications of GPS on Einstein's special theory of relativity. A subsequent paper will discuss the general theory.

    Introduction

    "Relativistic" effects within the Global Positioning System (GPS) are addressed. Hayden [1] has already provided an introduction to GPS, so the characteristics of the system are not reviewed.

    There are three fundamental effects, generally described as relativistic phenomena, which affect GPS. These are: (1) the effect of source velocity (GPS satellite) and receiver velocity upon the satellite and receiver clocks; (2) the effect of the gravitational potential upon satellite and receiver clocks; and (3) the effect of receiver motion upon the signal reception time (Sagnac effect) . There are a number of papers which have been written to explain these valid effects in the context of Einstein's relativity theories. However, quite often the explanations of these effects are patently incorrect. As an example of incorrect explanation, Ashby [2] in a GPS World article, "Relativity and GPS," gives an improper explanation for each of the three phenomena listed above.

    The three effects are discussed separately and contrasted with Ashby's explanations. But the Sagnac effect is shown to be in conflict with the special theory. A proposed resolution of the conflict is offered.

    The Sagnac effect is also in conflict with the general theory, if the common interpretation of the general theory is accepted. The launch of GPS Block II satellites capable of intersatellite communication and tracking will provide a new means for a giant Sagnac test of this general theory interpretation. Other general theory problems are reviewed and a proposed alternative to the general theory is also offered.

    Velocity Effects upon the Clock Rates.

    The fundamental question of velocity is always: "Velocity with respect to what?" Ashby, in the opening paragraph of his abstract, states:

    Important relativistic effects arise from relative motions of GPS satellites and users, ...

    And Ashby also states, at the start of a section on time dilation:

    First, clocks in relative motion suffer (relativistic) time dilation,...

    But these statements are patently untrue of GPS. It may appear to be a subtle difference, but it is very important to note that the GPS satellites' clock rate and the receiver's clock rate are not adjusted as a function of their velocity relative to one another. Instead, they are adjusted as a function of their velocity with respect to the chosen frame of reference—in this case the earth-centered, non- rotating, (quasi) inertial frame.

    The difference is easy to illustrate. GPS receivers are now routinely placed on missiles and other spacecraft. Spacecraft receivers can be used to illustrate Ashby's error. For illustrative simplicity, let us assume two "Star Wars" spacecraft are equipped with GPS receivers. Let one of the spacecraft move in an orbit such that the spacecraft follows a GPS satellite at a close and constant separation distance. Let the second "Star Wars" spacecraft move in the same orbit but in the opposite direction. The nominal velocity of a GPS satellite with respect to an earth-centered non-rotating frame is about 3.87 kilometers per second. Using this frame, the computed clock rates should slow by:


    (1)


    For low velocity compared to the speed of light, the change in frequency is approximated by 1/2 (v/c)2. Using this expression, one obtains a frequency decrease of 8.32 parts in 1011 for GPS satellites. Now, consider the first "Star Wars" receiver, which is following the GPS satellite. Since it has the same velocity relative to the earth-centered non-rotating frame, its frequency will be reduced by the same amount as the frequency of the GPS satellite; and there will, therefore, be no apparent relativistic shift in frequency of the received signal. This is, of course, also what one would get using the special theory of relativity, since there is no relative velocity between the first "Star Wars" spacecraft and the GPS satellite.

    However, for the second "Star Wars" spacecraft moving in the opposite direction in the orbit, the results are dramatically different. Relative to the earth-centered non-rotating frame, this second spacecraft's speed is no different than the speed of the first spacecraft or the speed of the GPS satellite. Thus, the expected frequency shift is the same 8.32 parts in 1011. This means that, in the earth-centered non-rotating frame, there is no apparent relativistic shift in frequency between the second "Star Wars" spacecraft and the GPS satellite, even when the relative velocity between the spacecraft receiver and the GPS satellite is 7.74 kilometers per second (approaching each other at twice the orbital speed). But, if Ashby were right, the relativistic induced difference in frequency between this second "Star Wars" spacecraft and the GPS satellite would be 33.28 parts in 1011. (Four times the amount a receiver stationary in the earth-centered non-rotating frame would see.)

    Is this large discrepancy in expected frequency difference detectable? Not really. The special theory, in addition to claiming the frequency received is a function of the relative velocity, also claims that the speed of light is isotropic relative to the (observer) receiver; and the GPS system uses the earth-centered non-rotating frame and also assumes the speed of light is isotropic in that frame. Jorgenson [3], ironically calling upon work by Ashby, shows that, if one chooses a frame based upon the instantaneous velocity of the second "Star-Wars" satellite receiver, one gets exactly the same received-frequency difference when one combines the relativistic clock shift with the Doppler and aberration effects. Jorgenson makes the following statement:

    In considering alternative coordinate frames, the differences in special relativity exactly counterbalance those in classical Doppler. Einstein's special relativity is the great equalizer of coordinate systems. We are given the option of choosing the one most convenient to our needs, and in the case of GPS, this is an earth-centered inertial frame.

    But Jorgensen confuses the special theory claims with the claims of the Lorentz ether theory. Indeed, many people claim that they are equivalent. However, as we shall see later, there is direct experimental evidence which supports the Lorentz ether theory over the special theory.

    Whenever a frame is chosen which does not coincide with the receiver or observer, experiment demands that the speed of light be treated as non-isotropic as far as the receiver or observer is concerned. But this is anathema to the special theory, since it is a direct contradiction of the special-theory teaching that the speed of light is always isotropic relative to the observer (Einstein's "convention" that the round-trip time of a light pulse is composed of two equal time intervals for the outgoing and incoming pulse). And it is this aversion to non-isotropic light speed, as we will see later, which is responsible for the myriad attempts to explain the Sagnac effect without admitting that it simply arises from the choice of an isotropic frame in which the receiver is moving.

    Ashby is guilty of claiming that clocks run at a rate determined by their relative velocity. In fact, the rate at which clocks run must be computed using the clock velocity with respect to the chosen isotropic light-speed frame. This is consistent with the Lorentz ether theory but not with the special theory.
    ***************************************************

    Are not Relativists guilty of distorting facts (lying) to claim more support for their theory when we should now move back to Lorentz?
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2004
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    READERS:

    BTW:

    RONALD HATCH, of Wilmington, California. Chairman of the Satellite Division of the Institute of Navigation, Hatch is one of the premier specialists in the world on the Global Positioning System. In a pair of articles in the prominent dissident journal Galilean Electrodynamics (141 Rhinecliff St., Arlington, MA 02476), Hatch shows how GPOS data provides evidence against, not for, both special and general relativity: "Relativity and GPS," parts I and II, Galil. Electrodyn. , vol. 6 no. 3 (1995), pp. 51-57; and vol. 6 no. 4 (1995), pp.73-78. He promotes a Lorentzian alternative theory.
    *************************************

    He is one of the many "kooks" that are members of the NPA I referenced.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. geistkiesel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,471
    If the published data that the solar system is moving 300 km/se in the southrtly or whtever direction by some acountns are the orbits or trajectories correlated?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Correlated to what. I don't follow the question.
     
  8. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
  9. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    From your last link:
    Is wrong.

    The rest is essentially right, and boils down to the same exact problem you've been having with the twin paradox. The complaint once again boils down to
    He does nothing to actually say why this is wrong, probve that it is wrong, or anything. Just like your argument, it amounted to "I don't like it"

    Nothing new to see here... just you rehashing the same issue AGAIN.
     
  10. Yuriy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,080
    As one can conclude of Hatch’s article, the indeed important claim against SRT that this article contains is so called “the Sagnac effect.” Author claims: “the Sagnac effect is shown to be in conflict with the special theory.” (“special theory” is a term that author uses for SRT. It is noticeable that anti-SRT apologist like to attribute SRT with different humiliating nicknames). Everybody can easily find out what the Sagnac effect is by searching the Internet for key word “Sagnac effect”. There are the tones of sites about it. Theorists many times investigated this effect. The most recent and enough complete description of that effect is in
    http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:gr-qc/0401005
    reading this very professional research everyone will recognize that Mr. Hatch has no clue what this effect really is and what are its origins. Sagnac effect is totally described by SRT as a common effect of the relativistic kinematics.
    So, one more time we deal with the same insinuation against SRT. I guess, we will see 49 more posts of that kind, because MacM is a member (or sympathizing to) of Club of 50…
     
  11. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    More crap. Everyone knows about the Sgnac affect. Yes it is involved. Yes they found an SRT solution for what appears as a conflict between Sagnac and SRT.

    However, the GPS problem is not limited to any Sagnac affect. It has to do with the prior claims that GPS corrections have proven Relativity. They have not. The corections used are based on LR not SR, in that the frame of referance used is the central inertial axis of the earth (poles) and not the relative velocity refereance frame of the moving surface click.

    Stop lying Yuriy and admit that LR and not SR is actually used to make GPS work.
     
  12. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    See response to Yuriy.
     
  13. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,592
    The following site describes relativistic corrections required to avoid incorrect positions being calculated by GPS devices.

    http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html

    That article indicates that both SR & GR are valid and corrections using those theories are required by GPS devices.

    While I have always been one who trusts GR & SR, my intuition was way off base on this one. I did not expect SR & GR corrections to be necessary for GPS devices. I would like to think that I could have figured it out if I did the arithmetic.

    Once again, MacM and the anti-relativity crowd are off base. When/If some better theory replaces SR & GR, I expect that theory to provide only very small corrections to SR/GR calculations.

    I wonder if SR will ever be replaced. It might be a precise description of a universe with no gravity and no accelerated motion, which is all it ever claimed to be. As such it is known to be only an approximation to our real universe.
     
  14. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Let me clarify for the readers:

    The author

    http://www-astronomy.mps.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/

    A Professor of Astronomy who's limited research seems to be in "imaging" with no referances to any prior experience or indepth knowledge of Relativity.

    Further if you read carefully there is absolutely nothing about how the features of SR and GR might have been applied (SR wasn't) but LR was. This man has general knowledge that Relativity exists but no apparent actual understanding of the GPS system or its corrections.

    In the case of my link, that is his primary function. Guess who I will believe.
     
  15. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,592
    I can only gues who MacM will believe if I know who disagrees with SR/GR.

    As I have discovered in the past, arguing with MacM is a waste of time. He has faith in his beliefs. You cannot change the mind of those whose belief is based on faith.

    For those interested in determing the truth for themselves, I suggest a search using GPS and relativity. You will find various articles describing how GPS systems would become inaccurate without relativistic corrections. The errors are primarily due to satellite clocks running slower than earth bound clocks as predicted by SR.

    Do not believe either MacM nor myself. Do the research yourself.
     
  16. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    No in fact you can believe MacM: Dinosaur is correct relavistic corrections are indeed required. I have never stated otherwise. The issue is "Who's Relativity?"

    And that turns out to be Lorentz as I have claimed and not Einstien as they claim.

    Enough of this bull crap. Yuriy!, Persol.! Stick it in your ear.

    http://www.imar-navigation.de/download/iapg_english_imar_final.pdf

    Calibration is NOT done using relative velocity between clocks. SRT is surpressed in favor of LR, an ether based system which relies on calibration to the Earth's Central Inertial Axis.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2004
  17. Yuriy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,080
    This MacM indeed is a crazy.
    I show him the most modern prove that Sagnac effect never was contradicted to SRT published in the most prestige Scientific Annals with exact Math, etc and he repeats the same BS about "a conflict between Sagnac and SRT."
    Then he takes some tells about efforts of one author to explain some problems he sees in GPS and tells about critics of these efforts by another author ... as divine prove of GPS contradicts to SRT and insist that I should admit this conclusion.
    No formulas, no calculations, no analysis ... nothing that can be checked by independent mind. What kind discussion in area of Natural Science it is? Exchange by believes? And he wants all us to act the same: explain the natural phenomena ... by voting? Crazy, absolutely crazy man...
     
  18. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    Yuriy, I would have thought someone with your education would have know how GPS
    ACTUALLY works. I found out a long time ago and I am not even a physicist. I got my
    information from the military branch that actually operates the system. There are no
    'continous time corrections to keep it working'. That is an Old Wives Tale repeated
    by most Universities teaching their students. When GPS was being designed, most
    Relativists said it could never work because it would be too difficult to 'the keep the
    clocks updated.' That was what their theory predicted. But, others saw it differently
    and GPS was launched. Guess what, all time dilations are preset into the GPS clocks
    BEFORE LAUNCH and it works beautifully, no more 'adjustments' are necessary for
    Special Relativistic effects. The problem is, it is still taught in most Universities that
    'corrections' are made to the clocks, proving Special Relativity. Look at University
    websites and you still see H&K cited as 'proving' time dilation, M&M as having '0'
    results, 'proving' relativity. Yes, James R, it does sound like a 'conspiracy' to me,
    and it is not the only one I am aware of, but that is a different subject. You can't
    buck the system though, or you become a 'kook'. It doesn't bother me because I am
    not a physicist and I am not supposed to know anything anyway.
     
  19. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Look you obnoxious, so and so. At least tell the truth. Read my post.

    Sagnac introduced his experimental findings believing it invalidated SRT. That is historical fact. If you like it or not. It took some doing before relavistic mathematics were developed to show it could be accounted for maintaining the SRT view - not that we should have however.

    Now this is interesting. I post a paper by one of the key men involved in GPS system development. I post a paper by highly qualified other scientist which show the same facts. I have now posted "Official" descriptions of the calibration method .

    http://www.imar-navigation.de/download/iapg_english_imar_final.pdf

    And all you can do is sit back and call me crazy and complain that I don't understand and have not presented the mathematics.

    OK where the hell are your mathematics showing GPS requires SRT and how it is applied. Come on big mouth lets get it on.

    I've waited two years for this. You don't have the moxy little guy. Big mouth, small brain. I've presented the facts, lets see you do more than claim your authority and superiority.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2004
  20. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Good post 2Inquisitive.

    I want to clarify one comment you have made. The relavistic pre-adjustment has nothing to do with relative velocity time dilation affect between clocks.

    The clocks are designed to lose 38.4 micro-seconds per day to compensate for "Velocity Relative to Earth" and "Gravitational Red Shift" due to altitude.

    See "Time and Position" on page 11.:

    http://metrologyforum.tm.agilent.com/pdf/AN1272.pdf

    Further these predesigned alterations in earth bound and orbiting clocks operate on a system of UT (Universal Time) and remain within 2 nano-seconds of each other. Tick rate remains fixed from prelaunch to orbit with the exceptions of the designed offset for compenstions as stated. The clock does not slow down due to any velocity relationship to any other clock, only the earth. The clocks are updated each second using earth based UTC:

    See Page 8 "Introduction"

    http://msp.gsfc.nasa.gov/tdrss/usccs.pdf

    Relativists claims of any SR time dilation affect due to relative velocity between clocks is simply false - a lie by liars. Foxes guarding the hen house.

    My only addition to this is that I agree with James R that it is difficult if not impossible to justify a conspiracy.

    However, what I think I see is .

    1 - Stupidity disguised as superior intelligence as being one that understands the mathematics of Einstein's Relativity.

    2 - A fear of embarrassment for the scientific community of having to admit such a grotesque failure of logic and reason by being sucked into this mess and having to go back 100 years to just before Einstien fucked things up by turning LR into garbage. And the need to bury their idol Einstien in a poupers grave.

    3 - The fear of loss of credability among the scientific peer community to come out of the closet, so to speak.

    4 - The monetary nightmare and job reprecussions associated with lose of billions of dollars funding for universities, research groups and the like if they get out of line and try to oppose the government funded line for science.

    5 - Regardless of the relativists claims that there is no stigma to opposing Relativity the dissdent groups I have become associated with (not all are kooks but some are) are highly qualified scientists and have been black balled, can't get published, are demoted, supressed, shunned or fired by the community that enjoys the benefits of being the ruling class supporting the farce of Einstien's Relativity.

    It has been claimed that any physicst would love to prove Einstien wrong and collect the Noble. He will not collect the Noble since his work will not be evaluated. He will be ridiculed and the community will rally around numerous efforts to find a way to sweep his findings under the rug and claim SRT or GR explains the data.

    It has been clearly shown in the papers I have posted that Relativity is mathematically consistant. That one can produce SR results through transformations to account for all the know observations or anticipated variations of producing data in that the postulates are selfcontained and any measurement including light must be achievable via the transformations developed for that purpose.

    But they also make the point that to do so makes no sense because it is complicated, lengthy and indirect whereas the LR approach is simple straight foward and does not create the complexities and physical impossibilities that are disguised as merely being "Counter Intuitive" to those that aren't so well educated to be able to do the transformations.

    This violates Occam's Razor big time. And for what cause? :bugeye:

    Einstein himself said (paraphrased) "We have not proven an ether does not exist. We have only proven we don't need one."

    What that really means is "I have found a mathematical way of disregarding reality concerns and proceed using only mathematics".

    What he failed to mention was that to do so creates undue complexiety and conflicts with our common sense of any reality and requires us to accept that which clearly appears to be physical impossiblities.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2004
  21. Yuriy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,080
    Liar,
    I have in my collection anti-SRT book written by Nobel Prize winner, a very good experimenter, Lenard, and what? 75 years past and every professional knows who was right.
    You can cite 49 more books and articles of members of you Club of 50 and what?
    Do you expect that anybody will through out SRT for all these believe and wrong interpretations, errors and misleading? Should they through out, for example absolutely checkable accurate Math of works I have sited that are proving that at least one accusation of SRT in Hatch's article is absolutely wrong, only to believe your stupid posts here? GPS works due to SRT, not in contrast to SRT no matter what members of Club 50 are saying.
    You say SRT is wrong, so, you prove it by showing that SRT axioms lead to wrong result at using Math of SRT, not some stupid math of MacM. Do it just as always people do in Science. But you can not, because you know that you are unable of any Math, even Algebra. Do not link to works that you can even understand. I have shown it to you many times: you will be caught, as any other crook.
    And remember: any assumption that the victory in the journey against lie you spread in Internet is not what you finally will think about SRT, but in how many young people I save from poison you spread…
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2004
  22. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Learn to spell Liar yourself.

    Poor Yuriy. So you have a book written by a Nobel 75 years ago (1930). I guess he already understood what we would learn by developent of the GPS system (1997) - huh? :bugeye:

    What in biology? Even if in physics James R has already made the arguement that even Nobels can go kooky. Since I pointed out some Nobel had openly rejected Relativity. You guys need to get your defenses straight. You keep shooting each others defense in the foot. Now we are supposed to believe that any Nobel that supports your view is an authority but if a Nobel rejects your view he is a kook. Sounds like a two headed coin to me.

    What "My Club"? of 50. I don't have a club and that is only one group. The other is 160 and there are as many groups world wide. There are thousands of scientists that do not believe in Relativity. You guys are losing. You just don't know it yet.

    It doesn't matter what these groups say. What matters is the facts as they are learned. The facts are against you.

    I have done all that is required of me. I have shown that you have not told the truth. The clocks do NOT depend on relative velocity between the clocks. The adjustment made is using the central inertial frame of the earth - its poles. That is an LR function not an SR function.

    Stop blabbing and post formal infomation showing otherwise. The crooks have been caught and I am not in cuffs.

    I have an even greater drive to free their minds to advance beyond this lunacy and house of cards that you support.

    While you are at it please comment for these young folks you are concerned about and explain to them the signifigance of Hafele's Report to the Navy regarding H&K's Atomic Clock Test results claiming Time Dilation due to relative velocity before the data became massaged and published.

    In case you are not familiar with these facts:

    I find it a more honorable goal to teach our youth to think freely and to search for answers than to impose an arrogant attitude of compliance with authority based on fraud, deceat, greed and stupidity.
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2004
  23. Yuriy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,080
    Attantion to all people on the Earth!
    The Grate scientist MacM has discovered a huge act of the economical terrorism against USA!
    MacM has discovered that in 1971 there was found out the fact that SRT is a wrong theory. He discovered Secret United States Naval Observatory internal report of some very safisticated scientist, Mr. Hafele, who has reported to Navy that the experiments are shown that " the time gained by any one of these clocks is indicative of anything .... the difference between theory and experiment is disturbing."
    In spite of this timely warning, 5 Presidents, together with Congress of the USA had continued to spend billions of dollars to support and develop contemporary Physics, which is totally based upon this absolutely wrong theory. It is the worse wasting of taxpayers money and resources of USA. We should stop this terroristical conspiracy against American people! Go on MacM posted thread and vote against SRT! Vote for UniKEF!!!
     
    Last edited: Nov 17, 2004

Share This Page