Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #422201 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-06-11 06:39 +1000 |
| Last post | 2017-06-14 13:19 +1000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 72 — 14 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-11 06:39 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-10 18:15 -0700
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-11 19:26 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-11 20:05 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-11 20:34 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-11 11:38 +0000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 10:19 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Mikko <mikko.levanto@outlook.com> - 2017-06-14 13:14 +0300
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-15 07:19 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-15 12:47 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-15 19:59 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-16 11:48 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-17 08:53 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-17 08:59 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-17 02:19 +0000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-17 15:05 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-18 03:35 +0000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-19 08:13 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-17 12:34 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-17 15:06 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-17 17:02 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-17 22:27 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-17 09:49 -0500
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-11 21:38 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 10:14 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-12 12:11 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 20:14 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-13 13:05 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-14 13:16 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-14 12:07 +0200
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-15 07:14 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-15 11:57 +0200
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-15 20:27 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 12:06 -0700
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 12:23 -0700
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-17 08:52 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-17 15:23 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-17 22:40 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-18 19:57 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-19 08:10 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-19 11:45 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-19 06:02 +0000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-19 18:44 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 03:17 -0700
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-19 20:22 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-19 12:49 +0000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-19 18:39 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-19 22:46 -0500
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-20 20:20 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-20 11:20 +0000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-21 08:48 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 15:03 -0700
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-15 08:58 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-12 03:54 +0000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 20:17 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Lolek Atoru <oitiruc@rwuca.oa> - 2017-06-13 20:58 +0000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-12 09:20 -0500
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Selina Dieter <uiueeits@wlwtwstd.ci> - 2017-06-12 14:29 +0000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-13 14:22 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Nými Icelulózy <ejienm@wzsfwe.ul> - 2017-06-16 11:42 +0000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-16 22:22 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Ecembre Abin <umueuu@eibbwaw.ee> - 2017-06-17 08:37 +0000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-17 19:37 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-13 09:13 -0500
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-13 04:35 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-12 19:40 +0000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-13 11:07 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-13 16:13 +0000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-14 13:18 +1000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-14 04:31 +0000
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-13 19:49 +0200
Re: The BIG GPS Accuracy Breakthrough Explained. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-14 13:19 +1000
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-19 11:45 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <eqoomcF731nU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #422941 |
On 19/06/2017 8:10 AM, HGW... wrote: > On 18/06/17 19:57, Sylvia Else wrote: >> On 17/06/2017 10:40 PM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > >>>>> >>>> >>>> There are plenty of places where mobile phones don't work. >>> >>> Yes I realise that but for things like driverless vehicles and even >>> sporting events it shouldn't be difficult to cover all relevant areas. >>> >>> Also, large >>>> areas of ocean are unreachable by anything other than low radio >>>> frequencies from land-based stations. >>> >>> True, but a rudimentary satellite system would suffice there because >>> high accuracy is not generally needed. >> >> How would you envisage that the rudimentary satellite system would work? > > Rudimentary satellites, of course. Same what we have now but not so > accurate. Twenty metre resolution would be ample. > >> Sylvia. > > How much cheaper would such a system be? Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-19 06:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oi7pdl$feq$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #422945 |
Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> writes: >On 19/06/2017 8:10 AM, HGW... wrote: >>> How would you envisage that the rudimentary satellite system would work? >> >> Rudimentary satellites, of course. Same what we have now but not so >> accurate. Twenty metre resolution would be ample. >How much cheaper would such a system be? Maybe by "rudimentary", Ralph means using a GPS system that assumes the DirtyBaThWater assumption that the speed of light is c+v at the receiver, not a cheaper system. And Ralph figures that such a system could only get a twenty metre resolution instead of the much higher resolution the current system gets. For some reason, Ralph thinks that is a better system. (DirtyBaThWater and 20m resolution? Win-win!! Right, Ralph?)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-19 18:44 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oi82ss$vlr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422947 |
On 19/06/17 16:02, Michael Moroney wrote: > Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> writes: > >> How much cheaper would such a system be? > > Maybe by "rudimentary", Henry means using a GPS system that assumes the > DirtyBaThWater assumption that the speed of light is c+v at the receiver, > not a cheaper system. And Henry figures that such a system could only > get a twenty metre resolution instead of the much higher resolution the > current system gets. For some reason, Henry thinks that is a better > system. (DirtyBaThWater and 20m resolution? Win-win!! Right, Henry?) The hilarious little Irish joke, Micky Moron, doesn't understand that it costs a lot more to send an atomic clock into space and maintain it there than it does to utilize existing mobile phone towers for quadrangulation. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-19 03:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2c51ca7a-9460-4954-bf96-17d823db3675@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422955 |
On Monday, June 19, 2017 at 3:44:16 AM UTC-5, HGW... wrote: > The hilarious little Irish joke, Micky Moron, doesn't understand that it > costs a lot more to send an atomic clock into space and maintain it > there than it does to utilize existing mobile phone towers for > quadrangulation. Phone towers over the ocean? In the desert? In the middle of the Caspian Sea? Across large empty stretches of Australia? Canada?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-19 20:22 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <eqpmvkFdk4fU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #422955 |
On 19/06/2017 6:44 PM, HGW... wrote: > On 19/06/17 16:02, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> writes: > >> >>> How much cheaper would such a system be? >> >> Maybe by "rudimentary", Henry means using a GPS system that assumes the >> DirtyBaThWater assumption that the speed of light is c+v at the receiver, >> not a cheaper system. And Henry figures that such a system could only >> get a twenty metre resolution instead of the much higher resolution the >> current system gets. For some reason, Henry thinks that is a better >> system. (DirtyBaThWater and 20m resolution? Win-win!! Right, Henry?) > > The hilarious little Irish joke, Micky Moron, doesn't understand that it > costs a lot more to send an atomic clock into space and maintain it > there than it does to utilize existing mobile phone towers for > quadrangulation. > > Can you not even keep track of your own argument? The rudimentary satellites were proposed by you as a solution to the problem of providing navigation in places where the land based solutions don't work. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-19 12:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oi8h96$7lc$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #422955 |
"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >On 19/06/17 16:02, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> writes: >> >>> How much cheaper would such a system be? >> >> Maybe by "rudimentary", Ralph means using a GPS system that assumes the >> DirtyBaThWater assumption that the speed of light is c+v at the receiver, >> not a cheaper system. And Ralph figures that such a system could only >> get a twenty metre resolution instead of the much higher resolution the >> current system gets. For some reason, Ralph thinks that is a better >> system. (DirtyBaThWater and 20m resolution? Win-win!! Right, Ralph?) >The hilarious little Irish joke, Micky Moron, doesn't understand that it >costs a lot more to send an atomic clock into space and maintain it >there than it does to utilize existing mobile phone towers for >quadrangulation. Irish Ralph Malcolm, it was YOU who proposed the rudimentary satellite system to maintain 20m accuracy in the ocean where there are no existing mobile phone towers. I never mentioned cost, but did mention that using DirtyBaThWater instead of GR may be worsen the resolution to 20m and therefore make it much more rudimentary. It wouldn't decrease the cost, just the resolution.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-19 18:39 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oi82k6$v4n$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422945 |
On 19/06/17 11:45, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 19/06/2017 8:10 AM, HGW... wrote: >> On 18/06/17 19:57, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> Also, large >>>>> areas of ocean are unreachable by anything other than low radio >>>>> frequencies from land-based stations. >>>> >>>> True, but a rudimentary satellite system would suffice there because >>>> high accuracy is not generally needed. >>> >>> How would you envisage that the rudimentary satellite system would work? >> >> Rudimentary satellites, of course. Same what we have now but not so >> accurate. Twenty metre resolution would be ample. >> >>> Sylvia. >> >> > > How much cheaper would such a system be? Not much, particularly as it will be set up already for defense purposes...but the point is, local ground based systems can be much faster and more accurate. They could also monitor the movements of many objects as well. I understand that some football codes are already recording how far each player runs during a match. GPS tracking is being carried out now regularly and its accuracy and capacity could be much improved. Driverless vehicles will be common soon and just imagine the chaos if they all relied on GPS and the system broke down. > Sylvia. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-19 22:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <QrCdnVqLKvUZB9XEnZ2dnUU7_8xj4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #422945 |
On 6/18/17 6/18/17 8:45 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > On 19/06/2017 8:10 AM, HGW... wrote: >> On 18/06/17 19:57, Sylvia Else wrote: >>> On 17/06/2017 10:40 PM, HGW, DSc. wrote: >> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> There are plenty of places where mobile phones don't work. >>>> >>>> Yes I realise that but for things like driverless vehicles and even >>>> sporting events it shouldn't be difficult to cover all relevant areas. >>>> >>>> Also, large >>>>> areas of ocean are unreachable by anything other than low radio >>>>> frequencies from land-based stations. >>>> >>>> True, but a rudimentary satellite system would suffice there because >>>> high accuracy is not generally needed. >>> >>> How would you envisage that the rudimentary satellite system would work? >> >> Rudimentary satellites, of course. Same what we have now but not so >> accurate. Twenty metre resolution would be ample. >> >>> Sylvia. >> >> > > How much cheaper would such a system be? Not nearly enough to be economically viable, as any civilian system must be. The GPS is a MILITARY system that lets civilians use it when it suits the US military purposes; it has no constraint to be profitable. Wilson just doesn't have a clue, and his ignorance is not at all limited to physics. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 20:20 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oiasst$1dp4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423057 |
On 20/06/17 13:46, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 6/18/17 6/18/17 8:45 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: >>>> How would you envisage that the rudimentary satellite system would >>>> work? >>> >>> Rudimentary satellites, of course. Same what we have now but not so >>> accurate. Twenty metre resolution would be ample. >>> >>>> Sylvia. >>> >>> >> >> How much cheaper would such a system be? > > Not nearly enough to be economically viable, as any civilian system must > be. The GPS is a MILITARY system that lets civilians use it when it > suits the US military purposes; it has no constraint to be profitable. > > Wilson just doesn't have a clue, and his ignorance is not at all limited > to physics. You don't even know what I am talking about. I gather you are upset because the name 'Einstein' would not get a mention in such systems. For gadgets like driverless vehicles, a local ground based system would be far superior and much cheaper than one using satellites. How many antennas would be need in a city of five million people?...not many. ...and synching each one would be infinitely easier than doing the same with a large group in orbit. I can also imagine such systems finding wide application in sporting activities...maybe even getting rid of referees,..and enforcing rules precisely and fairly rather than the way the betting shops demand. > Tom Roberts --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-20 11:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oib0ee$1jsb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423072 |
HGW... <hgw@....> wrote: > On 20/06/17 13:46, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 6/18/17 6/18/17 8:45 PM, Sylvia Else wrote: > >>>>> How would you envisage that the rudimentary satellite system would >>>>> work? >>>> >>>> Rudimentary satellites, of course. Same what we have now but not so >>>> accurate. Twenty metre resolution would be ample. >>>> >>>>> Sylvia. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> How much cheaper would such a system be? >> >> Not nearly enough to be economically viable, as any civilian system must >> be. The GPS is a MILITARY system that lets civilians use it when it >> suits the US military purposes; it has no constraint to be profitable. >> >> Wilson just doesn't have a clue, and his ignorance is not at all limited >> to physics. > > You don't even know what I am talking about. I gather you are upset > because the name 'Einstein' would not get a mention in such systems. > > For gadgets like driverless vehicles, a local ground based system would > be far superior and much cheaper than one using satellites. > How many antennas would be need in a city of five million people?...not > many. ...and synching each one would be infinitely easier than doing the > same with a large group in orbit. > > I can also imagine such systems finding wide application in sporting > activities...maybe even getting rid of referees,..and enforcing rules > precisely and fairly rather than the way the betting shops demand. > Well, let's see. We can devise a navigation system for land based transportation based on land based towers that would not need satellites and that would be sufficient. Or we can take advantage of an existing system that already provides more than required precision and which was devised to support global navigation and not just in civilized areas. Hmmm, which should we use? Hey I know! Let's use the new land based tower system because the existing global system makes Henry gag reflexively out of some reference to a dead guy he hates. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-21 08:48 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oic8nl$1qbf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #423078 |
On 20/06/17 21:20, Odd Bodkin wrote: > HGW... <hgw@....> wrote: >>> >>> Wilson just doesn't have a clue, and his ignorance is not at all >>> limited to physics. >> >> You don't even know what I am talking about. I gather you are >> upset because the name 'Einstein' would not get a mention in such >> systems. >> >> For gadgets like driverless vehicles, a local ground based system >> would be far superior and much cheaper than one using satellites. >> How many antennas would be need in a city of five million >> people?...not many. ...and synching each one would be infinitely >> easier than doing the same with a large group in orbit. >> >> I can also imagine such systems finding wide application in >> sporting activities...maybe even getting rid of referees,..and >> enforcing rules precisely and fairly rather than the way the >> betting shops demand. >> > > > Well, let's see. We can devise a navigation system for land based > transportation based on land based towers that would not need > satellites and that would be sufficient. Or we can take advantage of > an existing system that already provides more than required precision > and which was devised to support global navigation and not just in > civilized areas. Hmmm, which should we use? IF the existing system is adequate, then use it by all means.... but I can envisage many applications where it would not be adequate and besides, the whole GPS can be jammed any time the Yanks want to do that. I don't think the North Koreans would be relying on GPS to direct their missiles at California. > Hey I know! Let's use the new land based tower system because the > existing global system makes Henry gag reflexively out of some > reference to a dead guy he hates. Oh! So Bodkin too would be very upset if Einstein could not be associated with a local PS. The antenna towers would be stationary. Hahahhhaha! --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-14 15:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <91e5b424-2f89-49ed-b214-49a374519d0c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #422545 |
On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 5:07:56 AM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > This incredible stupid! > If it is true that the GPS receiver on your wrist give you > the position to sub cm precision: > There must be a reference station in your vicinity. > Your GPS receiver must, in addition to communicate with > SVs, communicate with the reference station. > To do that the producers of the GPS-receiver must obviously > know in minute detail how the augmented GPS system works. > And you claim it is secret! :-D "The principle of GPS is actually based upon super-accurate time signals, broadcast over radio waves from a constellation of 24 satellites circling the globe. At any given moment, at least three satellites will be within range of every point on the planet, permitting a GPS receiver to triangulate its position to within 10 yards or meters. Golf courses seek better accuracy than that and they use a modification of GPS called "Differential GPS". Differential GPS involves the use of one additional time signal... one broadcast from a ground facility situated on the golf course itself! So a golf course equipped with highly accurate GPS will actually have a stationary broadcasting unit affixed to a pole or tower somewhere on premises. The location of the stationary signal is known with great accuracy and its signal, when combined with those of the orbiting satellites, allows a golf cart GPS receiver to pinpoint its location to within a yard (meter) or so." http://www.leaderboard.com/aboutgps.htm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-15 08:58 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ohsf28$h8e$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422595 |
On 15/06/17 08:03, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 5:07:56 AM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> This incredible stupid! >> If it is true that the GPS receiver on your wrist give you >> the position to sub cm precision: >> There must be a reference station in your vicinity. >> Your GPS receiver must, in addition to communicate with >> SVs, communicate with the reference station. >> To do that the producers of the GPS-receiver must obviously >> know in minute detail how the augmented GPS system works. >> And you claim it is secret! :-D > > "The principle of GPS is actually based upon super-accurate time signals, > broadcast over radio waves from a constellation of 24 satellites circling the > globe. At any given moment, at least three satellites will be within range of > every point on the planet, permitting a GPS receiver to triangulate its position > to within 10 yards or meters. > > Golf courses seek better accuracy than that and they use a modification of GPS > called "Differential GPS". > > Differential GPS involves the use of one additional time signal... one broadcast > from a ground facility situated on the golf course itself! So a golf course > equipped with highly accurate GPS will actually have a stationary broadcasting > unit affixed to a pole or tower somewhere on premises. THe stationary facility only sends a time signal. That is precisely what is needed for counting wavelengths...and this is an efficient way to do that. > The location of the stationary signal is known with great accuracy and its > signal, when combined with those of the orbiting satellites, allows a golf cart > GPS receiver to pinpoint its location to within a yard (meter) or so." Its location is pretty useless unless the position of the receiver is already known. Receiving clock offset is likely to be much greater than time of flight of the signal to receiver. I suggest that the facility's main purpose is to synch the receiving clock with the orbiting ones. > http://www.leaderboard.com/aboutgps.htm > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-12 03:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ohl39u$vf9$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #422237 |
"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >On 11/06/17 20:05, Sylvia Else wrote: >> Care to provide more detail? >Wel I can't tell you exactly how it is done becasue it is top secret, >for obvious reasons.... Yeah, right, Ralph. "Top secret" yet some Australian nut has access to this top secret. Ralph, do you think anyone actually believes you here? >Then, all the receiver has to know is which numbered wave arrived at the >instant a particular numbered wave was emitted. Subtract one numbers >from the other and you have number of wavelengths in he path at the >instant. >If number 10000000000 arrived at the instant number 10000300000 was >emitted, according to the receiver's corrected clock time, then the path >length at that instant was just the difference..Multiply that by >19.xxxxxxxxx cms and you know the distance. Bullshit, Ralph! Somehow "numbering" each wave would amount to another transmission on another (higher) frequency. A carrier wave is a simple sine wave and if it's not, it means there is a signal on a harmonic (multiple) of the base frequency or on some other new (higher) frequency to encode the data you suggest. You don't know anything about RF theory, do you, Ralph. >There is an easy way to do that by just monitoring the difference in >phases...receivers have memories and can predict what is likely to >happen, particularly if the receiver is not moving quickly. There is that, Ralph, quadrature or angle modulation, but the data rate is much too low to encode a unique number to each wave, Ralph, plus that technique is already used by the GPS system to encode other information (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS_signals ), Mr. Rabbidge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-12 20:17 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ohlpnn$1f69$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422304 |
On 12/06/17 13:54, Michael Moron-y proved that he knows nothing about the structure of digital radio signals, particularly those of GPS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Lolek Atoru <oitiruc@rwuca.oa> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-13 20:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ohpjl4$1v21$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422212 |
Gary Harnagel wrote: >> In light of this improved technique, there is no doubt that GPS fully >> supports BaTh and that all arguments to the contrary are now rendered >> null and void. > > Thank you for this great contribution to science. Pardon me for > questioning such an erudite presentation, but just how does one go about > measuring the number of wavelengths in the signal carrier? Very easy. You look like an Azerbaijani in that costume.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-12 09:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <c5SdnQLKZpunPqPEnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #422201 |
On 6/10/17 6/10/17 - 3:39 PM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > Have you ever wondered why the latest GPS receivers have become so accurate? They haven't become significantly more accurate than they were a decade ago. Sub-centimeter precision could always be obtained in several ways: a) by averaging over several days, b) via differential GPS, or c) other specialized configurations. For instance, GPS surveying equipment can obtain sub-millimeter accuracy BETWEEN UNITS. They do this by comparing carrier phases between units; their global accuracy remains several meters. > The reason is that the system no longer uses light speed in its Nav > calculations. It actually works by establishing the number of wavelengths in the > signal carrier wave to directly determine satellite/receiver distance. This is just Wilson making stuff up and pretending it is true. If it were true, he would be able to point to the descriptions of the satellite signals that make it possible. He will be unable to do so, for the simple reason that the specs are freely available and it is EASY to see that they do not contain such information. > [...] further fantasies] > I can't tell you exactly how it is done becasue it is top secret, for obvious reasons. More smoke and nonsense. Almost all of the specifications of the GPS system and it signals are not classified. The exceptions are the military aspects. Wilson fantasizes that the U.S. military would reveal "top secret" information to the dozens of CIVILIAN manufacturers of GPS receivers. That is HOPELESSLY naive. MILITARY receivers can be built by MILITARY contractors with appropriate clearances, and can use classified aspects -- THE RESULTING HARDWARE IS ALSO CLASSIFIED. So you will find such receivers in military vehicles, but not on Amazon. From the specs we can see that the secret aspects of the GPS are cryptographic, intended so the U.S. military can deny use of GPS navigation to adversaries (and civilians), while preserving it for military forces allied with the U.S. In particular, this has NOTHING to do with navigation accuracy, just with access to the encrypted signals (during a war the unencrypted signals would be turned off in the region). Everything I have said is available in the open literature via Google. Rather than actually LEARNING something about the subject, Wilson prefers to make stuff up and pretend it is true. He leads a rich fantasy life unrelated to the real world. How sad. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Selina Dieter <uiueeits@wlwtwstd.ci> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-12 14:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ohm8fp$1v0d$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422356 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > Sub-centimeter precision could always be obtained in several ways: a) by > averaging over several days, b) via differential GPS, or c) other > specialized configurations. The answer is augmented GPS, that'a why. Amazing you are not aware of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-13 14:22 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <eq97jqFkaiaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #422359 |
On 13/06/2017 12:29 AM, Selina Dieter wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: > >> Sub-centimeter precision could always be obtained in several ways: a) by >> averaging over several days, b) via differential GPS, or c) other >> specialized configurations. > > The answer is augmented GPS, that'a why. Amazing you are not aware of. > Augmented GPS relies on signals from other GPS receivers whose location has been determined accurately by other means. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nými Icelulózy <ejienm@wzsfwe.ul> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-16 11:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oi0g6m$b8f$6@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #422438 |
Sylvia Else wrote: >> The answer is augmented GPS, that'a why. Amazing you are not aware of. > > Augmented GPS relies on signals from other GPS receivers whose location > has been determined accurately by other means. Popping into this discussion, from the other receivers?? This reveals you misunderstood the subject entirely. Not only this one, the GPS, but many others as well. Let me summarise, GPS is a _one way communication_, then no GPS data leaks out of the ones whatever brand GPS receiver.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web