GPS and Relativity

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

  1. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    In either case this would be a constant offset, not what is seen in the GPS system.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    You so casually glaze over the issue. It is truely amazing. That recalibration as required by SR to synchronize clocks from a different perspective:

    1 - Does not occur in reality in GPS. That should tell you something but it doesn't seem to.

    2 - It clearly would mean that physical clocks would display multiple accumulated times to accomodate multiple views. It doesn't and cannot physically happen.

    That again should tell you something but it doesn't seem to. Truely amazing.

    It is not my problem. It is the problem of SRT. Created by SRT and does not exist in reality nor in Lorentz Relativity. That should tell you something but it doesn't. Truely amazing. Really truely amazing.

    Only reality, GPS and good common sense, which you seem more than willing to disregard so as to continue to believe. Truely amazing.

    Speaking of "Silly". Truely amazing.

    And disregard what that means in terms jof physical clocks and multiple tick rates. Truely amazing.

    AND? Truely amazing. Disregarding the implications of the SRT component.

    Truely amazing.


    No strawman here. You want to totally disregard the physical implications of the claims jof SRT and also disregard the fact that such requirements are not evidenced in the GPS system (HINT: They are not real requirements in reality). Truely amazing.

    FALSE. THIS IS BOOT STRAPPING and is a totally false conclusion. GR may well be generally correct in terms of affect but totally wrong in terms of cause. Which is what I would actually would envision.

    More invalid conclusion on your part. It may or may not just be MY opinion but GPS seems to support my view and not yours. I can suggest you adpat a more realistic approach to your efforts to minimize my views. This one is not working. Truely amazing.

    It has been done several times already. Please digest the signifigance of how GPS actually works and differs from SR.

    Funny. GPS works. It uses my precalibrated techinique and it doesn't require the SRT recalibration for the opposing view. Once calibrated it properly remains synchronized from both views. DSo anyone with common sense it shows LR works and reflects relaity. SRT does not. Truely amazing.

    It does seem it is not my head that has lost its way here. Truely amazing.

    TRUELY AMAZING. TRUELY AMAZING. You are shown to be completely in left field and GPS proves your view invalid and yet I know nothing and you are correct. Get real. Truely amazing.

    1 - It is not MacM's principle. It is an unavoidable physics principle inherent in Relativity.

    2 - If you say Einstien didn't included it (which he did) then you have pointed out Einsteins failure.

    We all understand you cannot jprove a negative. There is no such data because there is no such affect. The burden is on you to show such an affect in the GPS which is a functioning clock process in physical reality. Truely amazing.

    My comment was directed at the assertion by others that the satellites had to know the relative velocity between each satellite. They don't but that has nothing to do with the arguement about LR vs SR in GPS.

    Pardon me James R but that is BS. Where the same physical principle is involved and you took a wrong position on that issue is very germain to this discussion.

    You like to keep telling people how stupid and ignorant I am but yet I properly described what would happen and you disagreed. This thread shows that GPS in fact uses that principle and I was correct not you.

    That is absolutely a point to be made here. Truely amazing.

    Well I can certainly see why you might prefer to not discuss it here but it is in fact highly appropriate here since that is what GPS does and you are shown to be completely wrong on this issue. Truely amazing.

    You are shown clearly wrong and still choose to argue that you are right.

    1 - Does GPS pre-calibrate the orbit clock to offset for relavistic affects.?

    Yes or No.

    2 - Does the calibration cause all clocks to remain synchronized if once looks from the orbit back to the earth clocks?

    Yes or No.

    My MA clock was claimed:

    1 - To properly display and remain synchronized with the clock assumed to be at rest.

    2 - To show that the SRT view from the moving clock does not exist and cannot exist in physical reality.

    The fact is that is exactly what GPS does.

    Truely amazing. Truely amazing. Get a new pitch line. SR loses to LR and MacM was right and you are wrong.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2004
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    You are babbling nonsense again. Totally irrelevant to the discussion.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Surely you jest.

    But just in case you missed it or don't comprehend it, it has been pointed out that a GR type affect (it may or may not be GR) causes the clocks to run approximately 42 micro-seconds/day fast while in orbit.

    There is also a 7+ micro-second/day slowing of clocks due to velocity (that is not measured between the orbit clock and earth surface clock which has a continuously changing relative velocity).

    Collectively they compensate the orbit clock by designing the cavity such that it vibrates approximately 38 micro-seconds slower than the clocks used on earth and the UTC system.

    A day has 86,400 seconds/day and the dilation of orbiting clocks is 7.2E<sup>-6</sup> tick per day slower. The orbiting clock ticks at a rate of (1 - 1/12 billion) to each earth based clock.

    Or in more comprehendable terms it loses 1 full second every 380.5175 years due to relative velocity!.

    The net adjustment is to 1 second per approximately every 66 years.
     
  8. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    Both greater distance or a change in the the speed of light will result in a constant delay, not an increasing one as you claim.
     
  9. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Bullshit. It goes to the issue of the invariance of light question. Without it your SRT is crap. GPS shows your SRT is crap. GPS shows that a clock process is enfluenced by external forces, etc, and is not in accordance with the claims of SRT but LRT. Neither of which prove time is in any way affected. Get a new tune this one doesn't play.
     
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,354
    MacM:

    You seem to find many things "truely amazing". But the only really amazing part is that you have failed to grasp the basics of relativity after over two years of discussions and explanations.

    Are you actually attempting to deny that GR contains SR? SR is, in fact, just GR in flat spacetime. Your argument is just wrong.

    On the other hand, if you're claiming GR is wrong, you need to explain why, and also why the GPS system, based on GR calculations, works.

    Why don't you explain it for me, if you can.

    It doesn't use the "opposing view".

    You're wrong about that.

    Yes. It is calibrated to work in the Earth frame, where GPS receivers are used.

    No.
     
  11. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    To the contrary. I not only grasp but apparently grasp better than yourself the implications of Relativity and you completely fail to recognize even the most simple failures of the concept.

    They have been laid in your lap. You have been given absolute impossiblilities claimed by SRT and yet you blow it off as being "I don't understand". Pardon me while I take a break from laughing. My side is starting to hurt.

    Since that was not my arguement, your arguement is meaningless. My position is simply you cannot boot strap SR to GR no more than I can boot strap UniKEF to Relatvitiy since there are many aspects of Relativity inherent in it.

    Nice try James R but no cigar.

    1 - I have not commented on the validity of GR one way or the other.

    2 - GPS incudes GR but only works because it does not use SR but LR principles.

    Already done several times.

    True but your response deliberately avoids the issue. The opposing view is physically there and does not require the SRT predicted adjustment. The fact that nobody looks from the orbit clock to the UTC clocks doesn't change the fact that they are all synchronized which means the view does not see the earth clock running slower than itself.

    I beg your pardon. You best back that up.

    Don't pretend to be obtuse. You know very well that synchronized clocks are synchronized in both views.

    Orbit 11:30 AM, UTC Earth 11:30AM

    Orbit 1:00PM, UTC Earth 1:00PM.

    etc,etc,

    Reversed:

    UTC Earth 11:30AM, Orbit 11:30AM

    UTC Earth 1:00PM, Orbit 1:00PM

    Just how is it that you see any requirement for SR adjustment when reversing frame view????

    Pardon me for being blunt but you are a stubborn fool. GPS proves your view (SRT) is crap. Just as the above examples indicate the correct answer here would be "Yes".
     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2004
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,354
    What is simultaneous in one frame of reference will not be simultaneous is a relatively-moving frame.

    Do you recall our previous, rather extended discussion, about that?
     
  13. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Yes and I claimed that I could use preset timers and use precalibrated offsets to defeat that issue where inertial frames were being considered.

    You scoffed at that and made some rather unkind remarks; which have now been shown to be incorrect and GPS upholds my view not yours.
     
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    30,354
    Unsupported assertion is a waste of time, MacM.
     
  15. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    I'll leave it to readers to determine the truth of this matter. The functioning of the GPS has been posted from official sources. My claims are posted on this issue and can be compared.

    You are turning into a sore loser James R.
     
  16. Persol I am the great and mighty Zo. Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,946
    You are still missing the point. Please explain how a greater distance or a slower spped of light can make the GPS sats increase their offset every single day....

    This is your claim. At least attempt to support it.
     
  17. Paul T Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    460
    Funny. You had argued concerning GPS that there was only problem with SR (which you mistakenly claimed that it should be LR). I have been reminding you that there was more important to correct those GPS clock rate for effect related to GR. And now, you worry about I missed the consideretion of correction for GR effect. Hahaha. You are a funny guy. BTW, it is not 42 microseconds/day but 45 something. Where did you get that 42 microseconds? Care to share your supporting calculation?

    Solution using appropriate reference frame will save us the hassle of handling the changing relative velocity. Please do not think just in one direction. You do not have to use cartesian coordinate system to solve this problem. A cylindrical coordinate system will be much more appropriate. See this.

    That is correct.

    What does this imply? Are you trying to say that 1 second in 66 years is not a big deal? It is not an issue for clock hanging on your wall or your watch, but not for GPS clocks. In 1 second light travel 300,000km almost as far as the moon. If GPS clock is allowed to have that much of time-off, those GPS satelites become mere space junks. You are funny.
     
  18. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Go try to muddy the water elsewhere. I have made no such claim. Mercury/Venus radar data is decades old and has nothing to do with GPS.
     
  19. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Not my mistake. Yours. If you claim otherwise we await you showing us the slowed earth clock from the orbiting clocks view (a unique feature of SR over LR).

    You reminding me. Don't kid yourself or try to fool readers.

    I got the 42 from the same place you just got 45 "something" care to show your calculations? No need to calculate the precise figures have been posted. I (and you just now) are talking generalities and principles not specific numerical value. Note the 7+ below.

    Remember the issue?

    It is not the precise value but the function that is at stake. If you can't justify the function in full SR theory then precise values don't help you.

    Your link states GR but does not mention SR. It just says relavistic affects. LR covers such relavistic affects remember. that way nobody is beating up on poor losing SR.

    How about that! Now lets finish the calibration so the system will function in SRT shall we. Go ahead calibrate the earth clock so that the SR function showing it running slower than the orbit clock is compensated. Go ahead calibrate the UTC clocks so they run 7.2 micro-seconds per day faster so that view is unheld in SRT.

    Having completed that taks please tell us the status of the GPS. Is it still synchronized?

    No you are stupid. This goes to the point of accumulative time adjusment being made by the 7.2 micro-second/day shift in calibration and the comments being made in this thread that such adjustment was merely an offset and wouldn't accumulate.
     
  20. Paul T Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    460
    Forgot to put on your spectacles, huh? 42-7=35. It's wrong! But, 45-7=38 microseconds/day. Silly guy. Do not fool around. Is it 42 or 45?

    Even though the precise value is not all that important, but your refusal to admit that the correct value is 45 and not 42 tells us you will not admit your mistake, as usual. Instead you tried to bury your mistake with more lie and crap argument. Stop doing that silly thing, it is a waste of time.

    Sure enough, you have reading difficulty. Let me quote for you (just for an example):
    12 Conclusions
    The GPS is a remarkable laboratory for applications of the concepts of special and general relativity. GPS is also valuable as an outstanding source of pedagogical examples. It is deserving of more scrutiny from relativity experts. It is particularly important to confirm that the basis for synchronization is on a firm conceptual foundation. A number of other agencies have expressed interest in establishing alternatives to the GPS, since this system is under the military control.
    It's on the last page. You sure need to take some reading lesson.

    Hahaha. Are you now claiming that the so-called "offset" done once only or what? What do you mean by wouldn't accumulate? It needs correction 7.2 microseconds on one day only and then everything okay? What's a silly idea, hahahaha.
     
  21. Yuriy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,080
    Paul T,
    can you stop for today your journey, to give MacM a possibility to concentrate on "Mathematical Challenge to the Consistancy Claim of SR"? We will very appreciate your kindness...
     
  22. 2inquisitive The Devil is in the details Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,181
    Paul T, thanks for your link to the papers by Neil Ashby. I have read bits and pieces
    of his work in the GPS system, and other sites on the GPS system. I had learned enough to know that time dilation due to relativistic velocity could NOT be preset into
    the SATELLITE clocks and keep all the frames in synch. It is not. Dr. Ashby's papers
    describe exactly what is happening (he does leave out the modelling of gravity effects
    though). The preset on the satellite clocks before launch is 44.647 microseconds,
    to run slow by that amount to keep in synch with GPS system clocks. There is NO
    7.2 microseconds deducted from that preset before launch. The clocks are not preset
    to run 38 microseconds slow, but 44.647 microseconds. Dr. Ashby states the time
    dilation due to relative velocity is 'supposedly' handled by the GPS recievers during
    their time synch with the satellite clocks. That is in question, however, due to data
    from the new TOPEX satellite where SR theory and actual results are not matching
    too well. This is from just a quick reading, I will have to go over the papers a little
    closer. A link to one of the pages where the preset is discussed:
    http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/node5.html
     
  23. MacM Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,104
    Opps. You are correct another typo but the point was the generalization of principles and not specific times. Silly is trying to make more out of things than they are. If you wish I will start to knit pick your typing as well.

    Seems you were more worried about it than I was. I didn't TRY to bury anything. I merely pointed out the precise numbers were not the issue. We'll note here that you have not responded to the core issues.

    Oh, by golly you are right. You have provided a referance to SR. Which paper was that from? Was it from the two official calibration manuals I posted or is it by a Relativist; which I have already indicated in other places that some do in fact make that incorrect assertion.

    Silly is to try and take incorrect comments and put them into my mouth. It was others that had suggested the calibration made was an offset would not accumulate a time differential. My post clearly shows that is in error.

    This is typical of your worthless posts. If you are so smart perhaps you can help Yuriy find the flaw in my presentation. TECHNICALLY not Paul T BS.
     

Share This Page