|
|
| Author |
Message |
Paul B. Andersen
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 814
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 9:25 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
| Quote: | On 29 Jun 2006 03:30:01 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
One has to consider that photons move at c, and that their
energy corresponds to hf = mc^2, hence their mass is given by hf/c^2.
Otoh, the gravitational potential at a distance d from the
center of an object of mass M is gd = -GM/d^2. At the surface
of the object of radius R, one has gR = -GM/R^2.
A photon of mass m moving from d to R will gain a potential energy
Ep = m * gm * (d-R), where gm is the geometrical mean of gd and gR,
i.e. gm = GM/(d*R).
Thus, Ep = hf/c^2 * GM/(d*R) * (d-R)
= hf * GM/c^2 * (1/R - 1/d)
After having travelled the distance d-R the total energy of the photon
will be hf1 = hf + Ep
= hf + hf * GM/c^2 * (1/R - 1/d)
= hf * (1 + GM/c^2 * (1/R - 1/d))
Hence, f1/f = 1 + GM/c^2 * (1/R - 1/d), and the corresponding shift
is f1/f - 1 = GM/c^2 * (1/R - 1/d)
This last formula is identical to the GR formula for the gravitational
effect, for instance on a GPS satellite.
In such case, M is the Earth's mass Me, R is the Earth radius Re
and d is the distance of the satellite from the center of the Earth
The observed frequency shift of the satellite clock will be
GMe/c^2 * (1/Re - 1/d). By multiplying the shift by a sidereal day,
one gets about 45.6 microseconds.
I've been pointing this out for a year but they cannot understand let alone
accept it.
|
What have you been pointing out for a year?
That a photon changes frequency as predicted by GR?
Since you now accept that, who are 'they' who don't understand
or accept it?
| Quote: | The interesting thing is that GPS works largely on phase relationships between
signals, which means that the Newtonian correction is just as effective as the
GR one.
|
Still ignorant of how the GPS works, Henri?
It doesn't work 'largely by phase relationships between signals'.
It doesn't work by 'phase relationships between signals' at all.
And which "Newtonian correction' are you referring to?
There is no "Newtonian correction".
Marcell's calculation is but an alternative way to calculate
the gravitational part of the GR correction.
And it isn't so alternative after all.
Where in Newtonian mechanics do you find that the "mass" of
a photon is hf/c^2? From where does that expression come?
"Newtonian correction" indeed! :-)
| Quote: |
Of course, their claim that the clocks actually speed up by exactly the GR
prediction has never been accurately verified and would be purely coincidental
if approximately true.
|
Not accurately verified, eh? 
You know better.
Coincidence?
Only a blatant idiot can utter such a stupidity.
Paul |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 04, 2006 11:10 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 23:25:06 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
| Quote: | Henri Wilson wrote:
On 29 Jun 2006 03:30:01 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
One has to consider that photons move at c, and that their
energy corresponds to hf = mc^2, hence their mass is given by hf/c^2.
In such case, M is the Earth's mass Me, R is the Earth radius Re
and d is the distance of the satellite from the center of the Earth
The observed frequency shift of the satellite clock will be
GMe/c^2 * (1/Re - 1/d). By multiplying the shift by a sidereal day,
one gets about 45.6 microseconds.
I've been pointing this out for a year but they cannot understand let alone
accept it.
What have you been pointing out for a year?
That a photon changes frequency as predicted by GR?
Since you now accept that, who are 'they' who don't understand
or accept it?
|
Naturally the GR answer is the same as the Newtonian one on this. It is obvious
why. Earth centrism is correct in simple cases too.
| Quote: | The interesting thing is that GPS works largely on phase relationships between
signals, which means that the Newtonian correction is just as effective as the
GR one.
Still ignorant of how the GPS works, Henri?
It doesn't work 'largely by phase relationships between signals'.
It doesn't work by 'phase relationships between signals' at all.
|
Oh really?
| Quote: | And which "Newtonian correction' are you referring to?
There is no "Newtonian correction".
Marcell's calculation is but an alternative way to calculate
the gravitational part of the GR correction.
|
No Paul. You have it back to front.
Rather than accept that light increases speed as it falls like everything else,
Einstein preferred to contract space parabolically so that light speed appeared
to remain constant. All aspects of his little trick are purely Newtonian.
| Quote: | And it isn't so alternative after all.
Where in Newtonian mechanics do you find that the "mass" of
a photon is hf/c^2? From where does that expression come?
"Newtonian correction" indeed!
|
Mass cancels out, Paul. Been on a beer swilling holiday again have we?
| Quote: | Of course, their claim that the clocks actually speed up by exactly the GR
prediction has never been accurately verified and would be purely coincidental
if approximately true.
Not accurately verified, eh?
You know better.
Coincidence?
Only a blatant idiot can utter such a stupidity.
|
Paul, all clocks change characteristics when placed in free fall....some more
than others. Their rates are checked and software corrected as soon as they are
placed in orbit.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul B. Andersen
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 814
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 8:23 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
| Quote: | On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 23:25:06 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 29 Jun 2006 03:30:01 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
One has to consider that photons move at c, and that their
energy corresponds to hf = mc^2, hence their mass is given by hf/c^2.
In such case, M is the Earth's mass Me, R is the Earth radius Re
and d is the distance of the satellite from the center of the Earth
The observed frequency shift of the satellite clock will be
GMe/c^2 * (1/Re - 1/d). By multiplying the shift by a sidereal day,
one gets about 45.6 microseconds.
I've been pointing this out for a year but they cannot understand let alone
accept it.
What have you been pointing out for a year?
That a photon changes frequency as predicted by GR?
Since you now accept that, who are 'they' who don't understand
or accept it?
Naturally the GR answer is the same as the Newtonian one on this. It is obvious
why. Earth centrism is correct in simple cases too.
|
There is no Newtonian answer.
| Quote: | The interesting thing is that GPS works largely on phase relationships between
signals, which means that the Newtonian correction is just as effective as the
GR one.
Still ignorant of how the GPS works, Henri?
It doesn't work 'largely by phase relationships between signals'.
It doesn't work by 'phase relationships between signals' at all.
Oh really?
|
If you still don't know, you must be senile.
| Quote: | And which "Newtonian correction' are you referring to?
There is no "Newtonian correction".
Marcell's calculation is but an alternative way to calculate
the gravitational part of the GR correction.
No Paul. You have it back to front.
Rather than accept that light increases speed as it falls like everything else,
Einstein preferred to contract space parabolically so that light speed appeared
to remain constant. All aspects of his little trick are purely Newtonian.
And it isn't so alternative after all.
Where in Newtonian mechanics do you find that the "mass" of
a photon is hf/c^2? From where does that expression come?
"Newtonian correction" indeed! :-)
Mass cancels out, Paul. Been on a beer swilling holiday again have we?
|
So you didn't read Marcell's calculation which you
were responding to? Or didn't you understand it?
Why did you then say:
"I've been pointing this out for a year but they cannot understand
let alone accept it."
| Quote: | Of course, their claim that the clocks actually speed up by exactly the GR
prediction has never been accurately verified and would be purely coincidental
if approximately true.
Not accurately verified, eh?
You know better.
Coincidence?
Only a blatant idiot can utter such a stupidity.
Paul, all clocks change characteristics when placed in free fall....some more
than others. Their rates are checked and software corrected as soon as they are
placed in orbit.
|
That the clocks of the GPS run as predicted by GR has been
proven every second for 28 years.
You know it.
Nothing to discuss.
If you think GR by coincidence can get such a prediction correct
to such a high precision (the precision of the clocks), you must be a moron.
Are you?
Paul |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randy Poe
science forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2485
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 8:28 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
| Quote: | Of course, their claim that the clocks actually speed up by exactly the GR
prediction has never been accurately verified and would be purely coincidental
if approximately true.
|
You mean they really didn't launch a GPS satellite with an uncorrected
clock? They really didn't compare the time reported by the clock with
identical clocks on earth? They didn't find a steady 38 usec/day
gain over 20 days?
- Randy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 11:55 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
On Wed, 05 Jul 2006 22:23:32 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
<paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
| Quote: | Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 23:25:06 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 29 Jun 2006 03:30:01 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
One has to consider that photons move at c, and that their
energy corresponds to hf = mc^2, hence their mass is given by hf/c^2.
In such case, M is the Earth's mass Me, R is the Earth radius Re
and d is the distance of the satellite from the center of the Earth
The observed frequency shift of the satellite clock will be
GMe/c^2 * (1/Re - 1/d). By multiplying the shift by a sidereal day,
one gets about 45.6 microseconds.
I've been pointing this out for a year but they cannot understand let alone
accept it.
What have you been pointing out for a year?
That a photon changes frequency as predicted by GR?
Since you now accept that, who are 'they' who don't understand
or accept it?
Naturally the GR answer is the same as the Newtonian one on this. It is obvious
why. Earth centrism is correct in simple cases too.
There is no Newtonian answer.
The interesting thing is that GPS works largely on phase relationships between
signals, which means that the Newtonian correction is just as effective as the
GR one.
Still ignorant of how the GPS works, Henri?
It doesn't work 'largely by phase relationships between signals'.
It doesn't work by 'phase relationships between signals' at all.
Oh really?
If you still don't know, you must be senile.
And which "Newtonian correction' are you referring to?
There is no "Newtonian correction".
Marcell's calculation is but an alternative way to calculate
the gravitational part of the GR correction.
No Paul. You have it back to front.
Rather than accept that light increases speed as it falls like everything else,
Einstein preferred to contract space parabolically so that light speed appeared
to remain constant. All aspects of his little trick are purely Newtonian.
And it isn't so alternative after all.
Where in Newtonian mechanics do you find that the "mass" of
a photon is hf/c^2? From where does that expression come?
"Newtonian correction" indeed! :-)
Mass cancels out, Paul. Been on a beer swilling holiday again have we?
So you didn't read Marcell's calculation which you
were responding to? Or didn't you understand it?
Why did you then say:
"I've been pointing this out for a year but they cannot understand
let alone accept it."
Of course, their claim that the clocks actually speed up by exactly the GR
prediction has never been accurately verified and would be purely coincidental
if approximately true.
Not accurately verified, eh?
You know better.
Coincidence?
Only a blatant idiot can utter such a stupidity.
Paul, all clocks change characteristics when placed in free fall....some more
than others. Their rates are checked and software corrected as soon as they are
placed in orbit.
That the clocks of the GPS run as predicted by GR has been
proven every second for 28 years.
You know it.
Nothing to discuss.
If you think GR by coincidence can get such a prediction correct
to such a high precision (the precision of the clocks), you must be a moron.
Are you?
|
So what is the physical connection between this purely mathematical theory 'GR'
and the fact that clocks are observed to PHYSICALLY change when placed in
orbit?
Do you deny that they emit more ticks per second when in free fall...as
measured by the original observer in the original frame, using the original
time reference?
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 05, 2006 11:57 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
On 5 Jul 2006 13:28:03 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Henri Wilson wrote:
Of course, their claim that the clocks actually speed up by exactly the GR
prediction has never been accurately verified and would be purely coincidental
if approximately true.
You mean they really didn't launch a GPS satellite with an uncorrected
clock? They really didn't compare the time reported by the clock with
identical clocks on earth? They didn't find a steady 38 usec/day
gain over 20 days?
|
They tried it once 20 years ago and got a rough answer that happened to be
somewhere near the Newtonian blueshift (also the GR correction).
Some enterprising relativist promptly seized the opportunity to use it to
promote his faith.
....and suckers like you and Andersen still lap it up...
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 3:33 am Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
[...]
| Quote: |
If you think GR by coincidence can get such a prediction correct
to such a high precision (the precision of the clocks), you must be a moron.
Are you?
So what is the physical connection between this purely mathematical theory 'GR'
and the fact that clocks are observed to PHYSICALLY change when placed in
orbit?
|
Classic. Since you can't assault the evidence, you assault the fact
that GR uses math.
| Quote: |
Do you deny that they emit more ticks per second when in free fall...as
measured by the original observer in the original frame, using the original
time reference?
Paul
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mluttgens@wanadoo.fr
science forum Guru Wannabe
Joined: 11 Sep 2005
Posts: 290
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 11:08 am Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
Paul B. Andersen wrote:
| Quote: | Henri Wilson wrote:
On Tue, 04 Jul 2006 23:25:06 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen"
paul.b.andersen@hiadeletethis.no> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 29 Jun 2006 03:30:01 -0700, mluttgens@wanadoo.fr wrote:
One has to consider that photons move at c, and that their
energy corresponds to hf = mc^2, hence their mass is given by hf/c^2.
In such case, M is the Earth's mass Me, R is the Earth radius Re
and d is the distance of the satellite from the center of the Earth
The observed frequency shift of the satellite clock will be
GMe/c^2 * (1/Re - 1/d). By multiplying the shift by a sidereal day,
one gets about 45.6 microseconds.
I've been pointing this out for a year but they cannot understand let alone
accept it.
What have you been pointing out for a year?
That a photon changes frequency as predicted by GR?
Since you now accept that, who are 'they' who don't understand
or accept it?
Naturally the GR answer is the same as the Newtonian one on this. It is obvious
why. Earth centrism is correct in simple cases too.
There is no Newtonian answer.
The interesting thing is that GPS works largely on phase relationships between
signals, which means that the Newtonian correction is just as effective as the
GR one.
Still ignorant of how the GPS works, Henri?
It doesn't work 'largely by phase relationships between signals'.
It doesn't work by 'phase relationships between signals' at all.
Oh really?
If you still don't know, you must be senile.
And which "Newtonian correction' are you referring to?
There is no "Newtonian correction".
Marcell's calculation is but an alternative way to calculate
the gravitational part of the GR correction.
|
Using:
Me = 5.977E+27 'Earth's mass in g
Re = 6.3782E+08 'Earth's radius in cm
G = 6.673E-08 'Universal gravitational constant (CGS)
c = 2.998E+10 'Speed of light in cm/s
H = 10000 'Signal emitted from the summit of a tower of
100 m
d = Re + H
Shift obtained from a photon mass of h*Nu/c^2 and potential energy
for a signal emitted from the summit of a tower of 100 m:
Shift = G * Me / c ^ 2 * (1 / Re - 1 / d), where d is the
Earth's radius Re + 100 m
Shift = 1.09078215E-14
The corresponding shift, obtained from the GR formula (week field
approximation, and ignoring the Earth's rotation), would be given by
Shift = SQR(1 - 2 * G * Me / (c ^ 2 * d)) / SQR(1 - 2 * G * Me / (c ^ 2
* Re)) - 1
Shift = 1.09078328E-14
Notice that with a further approximation, the GR formula becomes
identical to the "potential energy" formula.
Thus, it would be interesting to determine if a statistically
significative difference is
found between the observed value and 1.09078215E-14. But I doubt that
such a small difference could be detected.
Marcel Luttgens
| Quote: |
No Paul. You have it back to front.
Rather than accept that light increases speed as it falls like everything else,
Einstein preferred to contract space parabolically so that light speed appeared
to remain constant. All aspects of his little trick are purely Newtonian.
And it isn't so alternative after all.
Where in Newtonian mechanics do you find that the "mass" of
a photon is hf/c^2? From where does that expression come?
"Newtonian correction" indeed! :-)
Mass cancels out, Paul. Been on a beer swilling holiday again have we?
So you didn't read Marcell's calculation which you
were responding to? Or didn't you understand it?
Why did you then say:
"I've been pointing this out for a year but they cannot understand
let alone accept it."
Of course, their claim that the clocks actually speed up by exactly the GR
prediction has never been accurately verified and would be purely coincidental
if approximately true.
Not accurately verified, eh?
You know better.
Coincidence?
Only a blatant idiot can utter such a stupidity.
Paul, all clocks change characteristics when placed in free fall....some more
than others. Their rates are checked and software corrected as soon as they are
placed in orbit.
That the clocks of the GPS run as predicted by GR has been
proven every second for 28 years.
You know it.
Nothing to discuss.
If you think GR by coincidence can get such a prediction correct
to such a high precision (the precision of the clocks), you must be a moron.
Are you?
Paul |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randy Poe
science forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2485
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:54 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
| Quote: | On 5 Jul 2006 13:28:03 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
Of course, their claim that the clocks actually speed up by exactly the GR
prediction has never been accurately verified and would be purely coincidental
if approximately true.
You mean they really didn't launch a GPS satellite with an uncorrected
clock? They really didn't compare the time reported by the clock with
identical clocks on earth? They didn't find a steady 38 usec/day
gain over 20 days?
They tried it once 20 years ago and got a rough answer that happened to be
somewhere near the Newtonian blueshift (also the GR correction).
|
How far off was this "rough answer" from the prediction?
- Randy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 06, 2006 11:02 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
On 6 Jul 2006 05:54:22 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 5 Jul 2006 13:28:03 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
Of course, their claim that the clocks actually speed up by exactly the GR
prediction has never been accurately verified and would be purely coincidental
if approximately true.
You mean they really didn't launch a GPS satellite with an uncorrected
clock? They really didn't compare the time reported by the clock with
identical clocks on earth? They didn't find a steady 38 usec/day
gain over 20 days?
They tried it once 20 years ago and got a rough answer that happened to be
somewhere near the Newtonian blueshift (also the GR correction).
How far off was this "rough answer" from the prediction?
|
That depends on how accurately known was the orbit parameters and the position
of the clock. The answer could easily have been 50% out.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randy Poe
science forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2485
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 1:50 am Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
| Quote: | On 6 Jul 2006 05:54:22 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 5 Jul 2006 13:28:03 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
Of course, their claim that the clocks actually speed up by exactly the GR
prediction has never been accurately verified and would be purely coincidental
if approximately true.
You mean they really didn't launch a GPS satellite with an uncorrected
clock? They really didn't compare the time reported by the clock with
identical clocks on earth? They didn't find a steady 38 usec/day
gain over 20 days?
They tried it once 20 years ago and got a rough answer that happened to be
somewhere near the Newtonian blueshift (also the GR correction).
How far off was this "rough answer" from the prediction?
That depends on how accurately known was the orbit parameters and the position
of the clock. The answer could easily have been 50% out.
|
Henri, Henri, Henri. You fully well know that the predicted value
is 38 usec/day. You also know that the observed value was
38 usec/day, within .010 usec or so.
Since both of those numbers are matters of public record,
which one is it you are choosing to disbelieve and that I
should track down for you?
(The satellite had a laser ranging device as I recall, and
the position was known to within centimeters).
- Randy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:26 am Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
On 6 Jul 2006 18:50:00 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 6 Jul 2006 05:54:22 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
How far off was this "rough answer" from the prediction?
That depends on how accurately known was the orbit parameters and the position
of the clock. The answer could easily have been 50% out.
Henri, Henri, Henri. You fully well know that the predicted value
is 38 usec/day. You also know that the observed value was
38 usec/day, within .010 usec or so.
|
Crap. 20 days at 38us per day is 0.76 millisecs. The signal takes 100 millisecs
to get here, for one thing.
| Quote: | Since both of those numbers are matters of public record,
which one is it you are choosing to disbelieve and that I
should track down for you?
(The satellite had a laser ranging device as I recall, and
the position was known to within centimeters).
|
It wasn't known to anything like that precision.
Only DHRs cared anyway....the manufacturers certainly didn't. They simply
software adjust the clock rates when they are in orbit.
They would have to be mad not to.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eric Gisse
science forum Guru
Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 1999
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:26 am Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
| Quote: | On 6 Jul 2006 18:50:00 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 6 Jul 2006 05:54:22 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
How far off was this "rough answer" from the prediction?
That depends on how accurately known was the orbit parameters and the position
of the clock. The answer could easily have been 50% out.
Henri, Henri, Henri. You fully well know that the predicted value
is 38 usec/day. You also know that the observed value was
38 usec/day, within .010 usec or so.
Crap. 20 days at 38us per day is 0.76 millisecs. The signal takes 100 millisecs
to get here, for one thing.
Since both of those numbers are matters of public record,
which one is it you are choosing to disbelieve and that I
should track down for you?
(The satellite had a laser ranging device as I recall, and
the position was known to within centimeters).
It wasn't known to anything like that precision.
|
Liar.
| Quote: | Only DHRs cared anyway....the manufacturers certainly didn't. They simply
software adjust the clock rates when they are in orbit.
They would have to be mad not to.
- Randy
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randy Poe
science forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2485
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 4:07 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
| Quote: | On 6 Jul 2006 18:50:00 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 6 Jul 2006 05:54:22 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
How far off was this "rough answer" from the prediction?
That depends on how accurately known was the orbit parameters and the position
of the clock. The answer could easily have been 50% out.
Henri, Henri, Henri. You fully well know that the predicted value
is 38 usec/day. You also know that the observed value was
38 usec/day, within .010 usec or so.
Crap. 20 days at 38us per day is 0.76 millisecs.
|
Yes it is. Why does that make it crap? Does something about
the value "0.76" bother you? Do you think it's an imaginary
number or something?
| Quote: | The signal takes 100 millisecs to get here, for one thing.
|
And? Make the connection. You know from daily GPS data
that drifts of a couple of nanoseconds are routinely observed
every day from every satellite. So why are you saying it's
impossible to measure a drift of 760000 nsec?
| Quote: | Since both of those numbers are matters of public record,
which one is it you are choosing to disbelieve and that I
should track down for you?
(The satellite had a laser ranging device as I recall, and
the position was known to within centimeters).
|
Here's the original paper.
http://www.leapsecond.com/history/1978-PTTI-v9-NTS-2.pdf
| Quote: | It wasn't known to anything like that precision.
|
See p.181-2. "A laser program has been started for the purpose
of verification of the GPS orbit accuracy... Figure 38 presents
measurement resolutions from some of those stations."
Going to Figure 38 one finds a quote of 15 cm accuracy in
the laser resolution.
What's your source for the position precision?
- Randy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randy Poe
science forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2485
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 5:01 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
| Quote: | (The satellite had a laser ranging device as I recall, and
the position was known to within centimeters).
It wasn't known to anything like that precision.
|
I remember some other papers from about that time period
discussing methods for AUTONOMOUS spacecraft navigation using
reference stars that could achieve navigation accuracies
on that order of magnitude without a ground station.
Henri seems to think that we can only know satellite
positions to -- what? 10000 km?
What number do you think is the limit of our accuracy and
where do you get it from?
- Randy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Thu Jan 08, 2009 10:09 pm | All times are GMT
|
|
Debt Consolidation | Birthday Gifts | Personal Loans | Bad Credit Mortgages | Loans
|
|
Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
|
|
Other DeniX Solutions sites:
Electronics forum |
Medicine forum |
Unix/Linux blog |
Unix/Linux documentation |
Unix/Linux forums
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Forum index
»
Science and Technology
»
Physics
»
Relativity
