|
|
| Author |
Message |
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 11:22 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
On 7 Jul 2006 09:07:38 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Henri Wilson wrote:
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?
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?
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
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?
|
If you believe that you would believe anything.
What they are measuring is the transverse doppler shift caused by c+v.
For the radar ranging, they also assume c instead of a component of c+v for the
reflected beam.
This is a typical example of how relativity appears to prove itself right by
using circular logic.
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: Fri Jul 07, 2006 11:26 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
On 7 Jul 2006 10:01:56 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Henri Wilson wrote:
(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, whatever the clock error, it is a genuine physical effect caused by
being placed into free fall.
It is observed and measured by the original observer in the original frame
using the original time reference.
THE CLOCKS ARE SEEN TO PHYSICALLY CHANGE.
It has absolutely nothing to do with relativity maths.
HW.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm
Appropriate message snipping is considerate and painless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dda1
science forum Guru
Joined: 06 Feb 2006
Posts: 762
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 07, 2006 11:36 pm Post subject:
Henri Wilson - Perenial Cretin
|
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
| Quote: | What they are measuring is the transverse doppler shift caused by c+v.
|
Umm, no. But Henri Wilson keeps measuring the depth of his a*****le with
his own nose, that's for sure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randy Poe
science forum Guru
Joined: 24 Mar 2005
Posts: 2485
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 12:02 am Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
| Quote: | On 7 Jul 2006 09:07:38 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
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?
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?
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
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?
If you believe that you would believe anything.
|
No. I wouldn't believe any of your nonsense for instance.
But what makes it so hard to believe that a laser-ranging
system could measure satellite range to 15 cm accuracy?
| Quote: |
What they are measuring is the transverse doppler shift caused by c+v.
|
Ranging is a time-delay measurement.
- Randy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 08, 2006 11:00 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
On 7 Jul 2006 17:02:35 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 7 Jul 2006 09:07:38 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
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?
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?
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
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?
If you believe that you would believe anything.
No. I wouldn't believe any of your nonsense for instance.
But what makes it so hard to believe that a laser-ranging
system could measure satellite range to 15 cm accuracy?
What they are measuring is the transverse doppler shift caused by c+v.
Ranging is a time-delay measurement.
|
That's right...and there is a small but significant transverse velocity
component of the return beam. The object is not where it appears... In
practice, its true position is found using constant c. If c+v is used, the
position is slightly different..
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: Sun Jul 09, 2006 2:41 am Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
| Quote: | On 7 Jul 2006 17:02:35 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ranging is a time-delay measurement.
That's right...and there is a small but significant transverse velocity
component of the return beam. The object is not where it appears... In
practice, its true position is found using constant c. If c+v is used, the
position is slightly different..
|
You've never answered this: What do you think is the limit
of precision of measuring a satellite position, and what
is your source for that limit?
- Randy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 09, 2006 10:54 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
On 8 Jul 2006 19:41:33 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 7 Jul 2006 17:02:35 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ranging is a time-delay measurement.
That's right...and there is a small but significant transverse velocity
component of the return beam. The object is not where it appears... In
practice, its true position is found using constant c. If c+v is used, the
position is slightly different..
You've never answered this: What do you think is the limit
of precision of measuring a satellite position, and what
is your source for that limit?
|
That's a good question. ..and the heart of the problem.
Incidentally, the best thing in that article you referred me to was the
reference to CHANGING THE CLOCK RATES WHEN THEY WERE IN ORBIT.
I thought you and Andersen said it was impossible.
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: Sun Jul 09, 2006 11:04 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
| Quote: | On 8 Jul 2006 19:41:33 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 7 Jul 2006 17:02:35 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Ranging is a time-delay measurement.
That's right...and there is a small but significant transverse velocity
component of the return beam. The object is not where it appears... In
practice, its true position is found using constant c. If c+v is used, the
position is slightly different..
You've never answered this: What do you think is the limit
of precision of measuring a satellite position, and what
is your source for that limit?
That's a good question.
|
And your answer is?
You've said you don't believe 15 cm is possible. So I guess you
think it's larger than that.
You've also said you think it could be "as much as 50% out",
which I guess means you think that you think the GPS
orbits could be as much as 50% larger than what we think
they are. Is that right?
Or do you in fact have a number in mind when you make
these pronouncements about what precisions are obviously
impossible and part of the conspiracy?
| Quote: | ..and the heart of the problem.
Incidentally, the best thing in that article you referred me to was the
reference to CHANGING THE CLOCK RATES WHEN THEY WERE IN ORBIT.
I thought you and Andersen said it was impossible.
|
No, we said that it isn't done, not that it's impossible.
The clock on GPS-2 was designed to run at two different
rates. The clocks on satellites since then run at only one
rate, the rate used by GPS-2 after it was determined that
that rate (the GR-corrected rate) gave better timing results.
- Randy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 10, 2006 11:06 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
On 9 Jul 2006 16:04:59 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 8 Jul 2006 19:41:33 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 7 Jul 2006 17:02:35 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
You've never answered this: What do you think is the limit
of precision of measuring a satellite position, and what
is your source for that limit?
That's a good question.
And your answer is?
You've said you don't believe 15 cm is possible. So I guess you
think it's larger than that.
|
THat kind of figure is claimed these days. It might be possible...but how does
one ever know?
| Quote: | You've also said you think it could be "as much as 50% out",
|
I didn't....
| Quote: | which I guess means you think that you think the GPS
orbits could be as much as 50% larger than what we think
they are. Is that right?
|
No.
| Quote: |
Or do you in fact have a number in mind when you make
these pronouncements about what precisions are obviously
impossible and part of the conspiracy?
|
Randy, the required corrections have never been measured accurately.
Even if they were, they would merely show how much the clocks malfunction when
in free fall.
| Quote: |
..and the heart of the problem.
Incidentally, the best thing in that article you referred me to was the
reference to CHANGING THE CLOCK RATES WHEN THEY WERE IN ORBIT.
I thought you and Andersen said it was impossible.
No, we said that it isn't done, not that it's impossible.
The clock on GPS-2 was designed to run at two different
rates. The clocks on satellites since then run at only one
rate, the rate used by GPS-2 after it was determined that
that rate (the GR-corrected rate) gave better timing results.
|
Naturally it is better to incorporate the free fall correction before launch,
then (software) fine tune the clocks when in orbit..
I don't see the problem.
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: Tue Jul 11, 2006 2:49 am Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
| Quote: | On 9 Jul 2006 16:04:59 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 8 Jul 2006 19:41:33 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 7 Jul 2006 17:02:35 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
You've never answered this: What do you think is the limit
of precision of measuring a satellite position, and what
is your source for that limit?
That's a good question.
And your answer is?
You've said you don't believe 15 cm is possible. So I guess you
think it's larger than that.
THat kind of figure is claimed these days. It might be possible...but how does
one ever know?
|
Well if you don't know if it's possible or not, why declare with
such certainty that it isn't?
C'mon Henri. You've even offered a theory as to the source of the
error: using c*t instead (c+v)*t to estimate the range from time delay.
So show us your physics prowess -- what error would that cause?
If the real distance is (c+v)*t and we use c*t, the error is...?
| Quote: | You've also said you think it could be "as much as 50% out",
I didn't....
|
Huh. So you didn't write this message?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/98d5c6d42d41097a
"That depends on how accurately known was the orbit parameters and the
position
of the clock. The answer could easily have been 50% out."
I originally read that as saying the orbit parameters could have been
50% out. Are you saying that the measurement of the clock rate could
have been 50% out?
- Randy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 7:16 am Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
On 10 Jul 2006 19:49:49 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 9 Jul 2006 16:04:59 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 8 Jul 2006 19:41:33 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 7 Jul 2006 17:02:35 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
You've never answered this: What do you think is the limit
of precision of measuring a satellite position, and what
is your source for that limit?
That's a good question.
And your answer is?
You've said you don't believe 15 cm is possible. So I guess you
think it's larger than that.
THat kind of figure is claimed these days. It might be possible...but how does
one ever know?
Well if you don't know if it's possible or not, why declare with
such certainty that it isn't?
C'mon Henri. You've even offered a theory as to the source of the
error: using c*t instead (c+v)*t to estimate the range from time delay.
So show us your physics prowess -- what error would that cause?
If the real distance is (c+v)*t and we use c*t, the error is...?
You've also said you think it could be "as much as 50% out",
I didn't....
Huh. So you didn't write this message?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/98d5c6d42d41097a
"That depends on how accurately known was the orbit parameters and the
position
of the clock. The answer could easily have been 50% out."
I originally read that as saying the orbit parameters could have been
50% out. Are you saying that the measurement of the clock rate could
have been 50% out?
|
No I meant the DIFFERENCE between the measured rates of the orbiting and ground
clocks could easily be way out, when measured over 20 orbits. Andersen once
claimed they are accurate to 4.6 parts in 10^10 to better than 1%.
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: Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:34 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
| Quote: | On 10 Jul 2006 19:49:49 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
I originally read that as saying the orbit parameters could have been
50% out. Are you saying that the measurement of the clock rate could
have been 50% out?
No I meant the DIFFERENCE between the measured rates of the orbiting and ground
clocks could easily be way out, when measured over 20 orbits. Andersen once
claimed they are accurate to 4.6 parts in 10^10 to better than 1%.
|
Shall we go back to the 1978 paper and look at the data and see
the precision of that measurement?
- Randy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Henri Wilson
science forum Guru
Joined: 08 May 2005
Posts: 3381
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:16 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
On 11 Jul 2006 06:34:25 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
| Quote: |
Henri Wilson wrote:
On 10 Jul 2006 19:49:49 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
I originally read that as saying the orbit parameters could have been
50% out. Are you saying that the measurement of the clock rate could
have been 50% out?
No I meant the DIFFERENCE between the measured rates of the orbiting and ground
clocks could easily be way out, when measured over 20 orbits. Andersen once
claimed they are accurate to 4.6 parts in 10^10 to better than 1%.
Shall we go back to the 1978 paper and look at the data and see
the precision of that measurement?
|
You can if you want to. I'm not particularly interested.
There is no doubt that the clock physically changes when being placed into free
fall orbit. That is clearly observed by the original observer in the original
frame using the original time reference.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with any silly maths theory.
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: Tue Jul 11, 2006 11:21 pm Post subject:
Re: GPS falsifies H&K experimental claims
|
|
|
Henri Wilson wrote:
| Quote: | On 11 Jul 2006 06:34:25 -0700, "Randy Poe" <poespam-trap@yahoo.com> wrote:
Henri Wilson wrote:
No I meant the DIFFERENCE between the measured rates of the orbiting and ground
clocks could easily be way out, when measured over 20 orbits. Andersen once
claimed they are accurate to 4.6 parts in 10^10 to better than 1%.
Shall we go back to the 1978 paper and look at the data and see
the precision of that measurement?
You can if you want to. I'm not particularly interested.
|
But you feel free nevertheless to comment on the experiment,
make declarations about what accuracy was and wasn't
achievable, etc. While refusing to read what the experiment
actually was.
- Randy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Google
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
The time now is Fri Jul 30, 2010 5:43 am | All times are GMT
|
|
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
