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: Thu, 22 Oct 2026 11:34:54 -0700 Organization: The Starmaker Organization Lines: 157 Message-ID: <6ADA574E.6810@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> Reply-To: starmaker@ix.netcom.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2026 18:34:47 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; logging-data="1175591"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19uFBoI13SVngXYFUHpyZeh6CQAJEgA9rk="; posting-host="44b2d869afb1e853b1d656cc2d178e55" Cancel-Lock: sha1:clPrUozaZ54T4V0ZiAn8ieKDHpQ= sha256:ofpaT6lBIPl6elyoVnFRDJq01cNKs4buZ2XC3YBfO4A= sha1:2KME2X6eRIzd/nER0OHjB1YmczA= sha256:D5pLW4fC9VebgOTAEoMbePB2LdCJwUxxyA6OEEnQwgM= X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.04Gold (WinNT; U) X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-Antivirus: Avast (VPS 261022-0, 10/21/2026), Outbound message Xref: csiph.com sci.physics.relativity:674843 sci.math:648293 The Starmaker wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Oct 2026 03:09:50 -0700, 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. > > > > I can do 'a little simple prompting' and I can solve this thing you > call...The Theory of Everything. with 'a little simple prompting' i can solve all your math problems. No need for yous to go to math skool anymore. with 'a little simple prompting' i can crack the mysteries of the universe. Your world is changing right before your very eyes now. i have all the knowledge i need. i have all the 'knowledge' i need. i have all the *knowledge* i need. -- The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable, to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable, and challenge the unchallengeable.