Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!nntp.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: The Starmaker Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2026 16:54:14 -0700 Organization: The Starmaker Organization Lines: 120 Message-ID: <6AD55C26.7316@ix.netcom.com> References: <18dd9f33b63d4fa4$584$2574533$4006de53@news.newsgroupdirect.com> <11ajabc$3ss4t$1@dont-email.me> <11akq10$2mvnq$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> <11am4e6$stm6$1@dont-email.me> <11ans22$2u4o8$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> <11aojrf$1p05o$2@dont-email.me> <11aor1c$2v7k5$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> <11arfd7$2p5bp$1@dont-email.me> <1ob3dlhiusdplv2k5oihhpi1eha22p1opl@4ax.com> Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2026 23:54:10 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; logging-data="1678201"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18YEgyLjdqnM3OgRg0//F3kNQOfEpJWOAE="; posting-host="26d8b803eb2dc857292e6b05ac9ad2a4" Cancel-Lock: sha1:bYN0KbKmTGqIZtmIXOeKRBbVGCg= sha256:D2RU4B80A8zyCbDQ4z7L1QnwZOB9PVCg3nofpP//RrY= sha1:WzY4AEODSaomWOW06hA2jBo4a9k= sha256:MYsMufjXILGIs5Ekb0fJhdkqJS2a0oP7uGOz/JCo2A0= X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 261018-6, 10/18/2026), Outbound message X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:674629 The Starmaker wrote: > > On Thu, 15 Oct 2026 23:10:51 +0200, "Paul B. Andersen" > wrote: > > >My article: > >https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf > > This paper is a half-digested regurgitation of standard GNSS > relativity that collapses under its own sloppy equations, circular > definitions, and amateur-hour presentation. > > The metric and rate equations are an unreadable train wreck. > Look at equations (1)–(5), (7), (13)–(18). They arrive as > fragmented garbage: missing operators, broken fractions, undefined > symbols jammed together, and statements like “dt 2GM v² 1 / dt c²r c²” > that no competent reader can parse without reconstructing the entire > derivation from scratch. A paper whose central results cannot be read > without external knowledge is not a paper; it is noise. > The foundational claim that “SI-clocks per definition always run > at the rate 1 second per second” is pure tautological sludge. > Section 1.1 asserts this as if it were profound. It is > definitional emptiness. Proper time is what a clock measures; > declaring that an SI-clock therefore ticks at 1 s/s adds zero > information and papers over the entire problem of comparing rates > between different world-lines. > The derivation of orbital rates relative to UTC is a chain of > uncontrolled approximations sold as precision. > Equation (5) is declared “a very good approximation” with error > <10?²5; equation (17) claims error <10?¹7. No error budget, no > expansion order, no residual terms from higher multipoles, no > frame-dragging, no solar potential, no tidal contributions. You simply > assert the error and move on. That is not calculation; that is wishful > truncation. > The GNSS numerical results are presented as original while resting > on incomplete or outdated source data. > GPS radius is taken from a period of half a sidereal day; GLONASS > oscillates between a 2020 performance standard and a 2008 ICD that the > author himself labels outdated, then notes that Mudrak et al. used the > old number. The paper ends by declaring one geostationary value “the > correct value” with no independent verification. This is not analysis; > it is selective copying. > Coordinate-time definitions are internally inconsistent and poorly > distinguished. > Schwarzschild t is defined so that an SI-clock at infinity stays > in sync; UTC is defined so that a stationary SI-clock on the geoid > stays in sync. Then the text repeatedly states that clocks showing > either coordinate are “synchronous in the nonrotating Schwarzschild > coordinate system” while simultaneously acknowledging they are not > synchronous in the rotating Earth-fixed frame. The distinction between > coordinate simultaneity and proper-rate comparison is never cleanly > maintained, leaving the central comparison (dt/dt_utc) floating on > ambiguous foundations. > > You assume the weak-field, slow-motion Schwarzschild metric is > sufficient once the monopole and J2 terms are inserted, with no > residual from higher harmonics, no post-Newtonian corrections beyond > the first order you kept, and no need to transform between the > Earth-centered inertial frame and the actual satellite ephemerides > used by the systems. You assume that declaring an SI-clock independent > of acceleration and temperature magically removes all environmental > sensitivity at the 10?¹7 level you claim. You assume that citing > Wikipedia for TAI and a handful of interface-control documents > constitutes a literature foundation. > > Any competent reviewer or GNSS engineer who opens this PDF will stop > at the first mangled equation block and discard the rest. The people > who actually fly the clocks (GPS Wing, ESA, Roscosmos time > metrologists) already possess cleaner derivations (Ashby’s Living > Review being the obvious one). They have zero incentive to adopt a > document whose equations cannot be typeset legibly and whose numerical > claims require the reader to re-derive everything to trust them. > Regulators and standards bodies will treat this as non-peer-reviewed > noise. > > At the claimed 10?¹7 relative accuracy the paper pretends to reach, > the ignored effects (higher multipoles, Shapiro delay variations, > satellite eccentricity terms, antenna phase-center motion, thermal and > magnetic sensitivity of the actual atomic clocks) already exceed that > floor on operational GNSS satellites. The circular-orbit idealization > breaks the moment real eccentricity appears; the geoid-rate reduction > ignores the full equipotential surface definition used by the IERS. > The numbers therefore cannot be trusted at the precision the text > advertises, and the paper supplies no path to the next significant > digit. > > The entire equation presentation must be discarded and rewritten in > unambiguous, properly typeset form with every intermediate step shown. > The circular “SI-clocks tick at 1 s/s” rhetoric must be deleted. The > error analysis must be replaced by a complete post-Newtonian expansion > with quantified residuals. The source handling for GLONASS and the > geostationary claim must be replaced by primary, current ephemeris > parameters and an independent calculation. The coordinate-time section > must be rewritten so that the distinction between coordinate time and > proper time is surgically clear rather than repeatedly blurred. > > > > This is the intellectual equivalent of serving a half-cooked > Wellington with the raw center still cold and claiming it is a > precision metrology instrument. > > The Swarmaker I heard "Paul B. Andersen" commited suicide after reading his reviews from the swarm! Let me have a look at Einstein's theory of everything is everything. I think i can fix it up.. it might be called 'The Gravity Unified Theory' now... subtitled: 'FUCKING NOTHING TRAVELS FASTER THAN THE SPEED OF LIGHT...while I'm alive. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.