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,sci.math, Subject: Re: GPS clocks should run Slow Not Fast. Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2026 23:20:59 -0700 Organization: The Starmaker Organization Lines: 167 Message-ID: <6AD7084B.70F0@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> <6AD55C26.7316@ix.netcom.com> <6AD64A43.523D@ix.netcom.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: Tue, 20 Oct 2026 06:20:42 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; logging-data="2890698"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+ZwD/hKVh9Jq4E43uQsrpyY7hjHdcDw68="; posting-host="4f99be3109c21850ae65a6e772bb0690" Cancel-Lock: sha1:m7kFngSx2oaNACYPY8cUEzvLnnQ= sha256:Js0LG1/6DCsXzRI60uwTD6g2M9FwCEq9w/ugIMr9u5g= sha1:dVRFGxbPBps4n6QVpqmJ6q4PfqE= sha256:AGBkXSJ/WbmItZ7Vn8u9CVNN+idrPCwE8KoP+LNi/Ns= X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 261019-10, 10/19/2026), Outbound message Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:674708 sci.math:648224 The Starmaker wrote: > > Ross Finlayson wrote: > > > > On 10/18/2026 04:54 PM, The Starmaker wrote: > > > 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. > > > > > > > You'll be spinning in your grave a long time. > > Truth is, he is busy redoing his paper after I pointed out his errors. > > There are Math guys who spend years in their attic trying to solve one > equation. > > Ai can solve it in a second. > > What does that mean? The end of Math guys?... > > It means humans need to change their goals.. > > how about making babies? > > You got more time. The pretty wife is alone at home, while her husband > is out to work. > > Make babies with her! > > May I borrow a cup of sugar? > > wham bang thank you mam! > > Just like the cavemen times. > > Yous will become Ai's pets. > > Don't worry, Ai will feed you... > > Ai will even take you out for a walk. > > You get to see all the other Ai pets. > A dog thinks, "Hey this is great, they feed me!" -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.