Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #377939 > unrolled thread

The challenge Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson never met

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  The challenge Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson never met "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-05 12:36 +0100
    Re: The challenge Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson never met pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2016-03-05 07:23 -0800
    Re: The challenge Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson never met HGW <hgw@...> - 2016-03-06 09:42 +1100
      Re: The challenge Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson never met Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-05 23:02 +0000
        Re: The challenge Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson never met Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-05 15:27 -0800
          Re: The challenge Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson never met Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-05 23:31 +0000
      Re: The challenge Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson never met Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-05 15:26 -0800
      Re: The challenge Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson never met "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-06 13:14 +0100
        Re: The challenge Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson never met Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-07 19:09 +0000
          Re: The challenge Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson never met "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-07 22:15 +0100
            Re: The challenge Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson never met Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-08 19:08 +0000
              Re: The challenge Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson never met "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-09 20:46 +0100
                Re: The challenge Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson never met HGW <hw@...> - 2016-03-10 08:08 +1100
                  Re: The challenge Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson never met "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-10 14:25 +0100
                    Re: The challenge Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson never met Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-12 19:07 +0000
                      Re: The challenge Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson never met Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-12 14:48 -0800
                        Re: The challenge Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson never met Iephthae Sparrow <yvosp@gideoncloud.net> - 2016-03-13 14:08 +0000
                      Re: The challenge Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson never met "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-13 09:52 +0100
                        Re: The challenge Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson never met Iephthae Sparrow <yvosp@gideoncloud.net> - 2016-03-13 12:00 +0000
                          Re: The challenge Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson never met "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-13 14:14 +0100
                            Re: The challenge Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson never met Iephthae Sparrow <yvosp@gideoncloud.net> - 2016-03-13 13:45 +0000
                          Re: The challenge Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson never met Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-13 13:15 -0500
                            Re: The challenge Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson never met Iephthae Sparrow <yvosp@gideoncloud.net> - 2016-03-13 18:58 +0000
                              Re: The challenge Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson never met Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-14 11:07 -0500
                                Re: The challenge Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson never met Iephthae Sparrow <yvosp@gideoncloud.net> - 2016-03-14 17:45 +0000
                                  Re: The challenge Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson never met paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-14 11:03 -0700
                                Re: The challenge Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson never met HGW <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-15 05:49 +1100
    Re: The challenge Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson never met Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-05 23:29 -0800
      Re: The challenge Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson never met "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-06 13:13 +0100

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#377939 — The challenge Ralph Rabbidge aka Henry Wilson never met

This is a repost from May 2011, but it is still relevant.

Ralph Malcom Rabbidge aka Henri Wilson aka Henry Wilson
has made a lot of claims about the GPS.

Among them are:
"The system works perfectly well without any 'GR correction'."

He was challenged to answer the question:
   By how much would the time reported by the satellite
   drift off sync between each update of the 'clock offset'
   if the clock rate weren't corrected by the -4.4647E-10
   correction factor?


He was given the following facts:
Fact #1:
| All GPS satellite clocks always were and still are
| adjusted by -4.4647E-10 before launch.
Comment:
   As this correction is specified in the official
   specification for the satellites,
   http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200H.pdf
   it is an indisputable fact.

Fact #2:
| No in flight tuning of the frequency
| is necessary to make the GPS-work.
| (If the "clock offset" is daily uploaded)
Comment:
   The GPS was working for years with Block I
   satellites only, and no in-flight adjustment
   of their frequency was possible. This proves
   that the rate of the frequency standards were
   sufficiently correct.
   But since the precision of the frequency standards are
   in the order of 1E-12 (mostly better, though), a worst
   case scenario will be that they during one day may drift
   as much as 80ns off sync. So a daily update of
   the "clock-offset" would be necessary to keep the reported
   time from the satellites within 100ns of GPS-time.
   The Block IIR satellites, which can be frequency adjusted
   in flight, are better than the Block I satellites, so
   these would obviously also work with no in flight adjustment,
   if the "clock offset" is uploaded daily. But the point with
   the in-flight frequency adjustment is to compensate for
   the drift of the frequency standards in order to increase
   the autonomy of the satellites; they can work for a very
   long time with no new upload of "clock offset".

Fact #3:
| For the GPS to work, the reported time
| ('clock time' - 'clock offset') from the SV
|  must be in sync with the GPS time to within 100ns.
Comment:
   So the frequency of the satellite must be correct
   to better than E-12.

Fact #4:
| The GPS works.
Comment:
   Which proves that the frequencies of the satellites are
   correct within E-12.

Fact #5:
| GPS-time is running with the rate defined by
| clocks on the geoid. (SI-seconds)
Comment:
    The rate of GPS-time is defined by the ground clocks,
    and the SV clocks must run at the same rate.

Fact #6:
| Each satellite will every day have a period of at least
| 12 hours where no measurement is made, and during which
| no update of the 'clock-offset' is possible.
Comment:
    So the period between uploads of the "clock-offset"
    is at least 12 hours.

But despite the fact that Ralph Malcom Rabbidge never expressed
any disagreement with any of these facts, but accepted
them as such, he never tried to answer the question,
obviously because he realized that the answer he would
have to give would prove him wrong.

Since the SV clocks _are_ adjusted by -4.4647E-10
before launch, and since the thus adjusted clocks
_do_ stay in sync with GPS-time to better than 1E-12,
it is obvious that if the clocks had not been adjusted
before launch, they would be running fast by 4.4647E-10.
If we assume that the 'software correction', the "clock offset"
is uploaded every 12 hours, the answer to the question is:

   If the SV clock rate weren't corrected by the -4.4647E-10
   before launch, then the time reported by the satellite
   would drift off sync by ca. 20 microseconds between each
   update of the 'clock offset'.

The reported time would stay in sync with GPS-time
to within the required 100ns for less than 10 minutes
after each update!

So it is blatantly obvious that the GPS couldn't work if
the clocks weren't corrected for relativistic effects
before launch.

So we can conclude that Ralph Malcom Rabbidge's claim:
"The system works perfectly well without any 'GR correction'."
is wrong.

We can also conclude that Ralph Malcom Rabbidge is aware of
this fact, because having accepted the facts, he couldn't
fail do realize what the answer to the question was.

But Ralph Malcom Rabbidge will never admit being wrong,
even if he knows he is.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#377944

You're assuming that concepts like 'facts" and 'truth' can actually exist in ralfs head.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377956

On 5/03/2016 10:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> This is a repost from May 2011, but it is still relevant.
>
> Henry Wilson
> has made a lot of claims about the GPS.
>
> Among them are:
> "The system works perfectly well without any 'GR correction'."
>
> He was challenged to answer the question:
>    By how much would the time reported by the satellite
>    drift off sync between each update of the 'clock offset'
>    if the clock rate weren't corrected by the -4.4647E-10
>    correction factor?

Oh dear! One can only feel sorry for Paul Bullshit Andersen. He doesn't 
understand what a software correction is. He doesn't understand that the 
rate of each GPS clock is given a permanently coarse software offset 
after launch so that its adjusted rate is very close to that of the 
Earth clocks. That is a relatively simple procedure and whilst not 
important for the actual positioning process, is useful for maintaining 
orbit parameters.
The only critical requirement for the whole GPS system is that all 
orbiting clocks are in absolute synch with each other. The receiver's 
clock error is cancels out in the maths, as PAUL BULLSHIT ANDERSEN WELL 
KNOWS. Here is proof that Paul Bullshit Andersen has no idea what is 
important in the GPS system.
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=wrist+gps&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1311.R7.TR12.TRC2.A0.H0.Xgps.TRS0&_nkw=gps+watch&_sacat=0 




> _do_ stay in sync with GPS-time to better than 1E-12,
> it is obvious that if the clocks had not been adjusted
> before launch, they would be running fast by 4.4647E-10.
> If we assume that the 'software correction', the "clock offset"
> is uploaded every 12 hours, the answer to the question is:
>
>    If the SV clock rate weren't corrected by the -4.4647E-10
>    before launch, then the time reported by the satellite
>    would drift off sync by ca. 20 microseconds between each
>    update of the 'clock offset'.

Paul, the clocks are software corrected to bring them into line with the 
Earth clocks. How much correction they need is not related to any 
desperate dingleberry delusion.

> The reported time would stay in sync with GPS-time
> to within the required 100ns for less than 10 minutes
> after each update!
>
> So it is blatantly obvious that the GPS couldn't work if
> the clocks weren't corrected for relativistic effects
> before launch.

I cant see any high accuracy in these clocks: 
http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=wrist+gps&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1311.R7.TR12.TRC2.A0.H0.Xgps.TRS0&_nkw=gps+watch&_sacat=0

> So we can conclude that Henry George Wilson's claim:
> "The system works perfectly well without any 'GR correction'."
> is wrong.
>
> We can also conclude that Henry George Wilson is aware of
> this fact, because having accepted the facts, he couldn't
> fail do realize what the answer to the question was.

Paul, Bullshit is not gold so why do you bother to create so much.

> But Henry George Wilson will never admit being wrong,
> even if he knows he is.

Then the Chinese and Russians must be wrong too. They never even heard 
of anyone called Einstein.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377958

HGW wrote:

> On 5/03/2016 10:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> He was challenged to answer the question:
>>    By how much would the time reported by the satellite drift off sync
>>    between each update of the 'clock offset' if the clock rate weren't
>>    corrected by the -4.4647E-10 correction factor?
> 
> Oh dear! One can only feel sorry for Paul Bullshit Andersen. He doesn't
> understand what a software correction is. He doesn't understand that the
> rate of each GPS clock is given a permanently coarse software offset
> after launch so that its adjusted rate is very close to that of the
> Earth clocks. That is a relatively simple procedure and whilst not
> important for the actual positioning process, is useful for maintaining
> orbit parameters.

Moreover, Paul Bullshit doesn't even know that there are two antagonist 
things involved due to Relativity allegedly associated with the doings of 
GPS. Firstly is the Time Dilation due to the motion wrt Earth. Secondly is 
the Time Relaxion due to the lower curvature those GPS satellites are 
sitting in and passively orbiting the planet Earth, at a constant distance 
to Earth. This things are as said, antagonist, hence needs subtraction 
from Each other.

Another thing Paul Bullshit Andersen doesn't know, is that the above 
things are not constant in magnitude, but are varying inbetween an upper 
and a lower envelope. 

He cannot know these things since he just plonked me, presumly without 
reading, since I refuse to think that he is first reading, then he plonks. 
As that another moron does, say his name, yeah, Pointedears (!!).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377961

On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 4:02:51 PM UTC-7, Helene Swanhild wrote:
>
> [Unbelievably stupid BS]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHssMlJlFUo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377963

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 4:02:51 PM UTC-7, Helene Swanhild wrote:
>>
>> [Unbelievably stupid BS]
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHssMlJlFUo

You are so abysmal stupid. Tangents to regurgitation.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377960

On Saturday, March 5, 2016 at 3:42:33 PM UTC-7, HGW wrote:
>
> [Lies and stupidity]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHssMlJlFUo

You really do have a mental disorder to be posting this BS

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#377991

On 05.03.2016 23:42, HGW wrote:
> On 5/03/2016 10:36 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> This is a repost from May 2011, but it is still relevant.
>>
>> Ralph Malcom Rabbidge aka Henri Wilson aka Henry Wilson
>> has made a lot of claims about the GPS.
>>
>> Among them are:
>> "The system works perfectly well without any 'GR correction'."
>>
>> He was challenged to answer the question:
>>    By how much would the time reported by the satellite
>>    drift off sync between each update of the 'clock offset'
>>    if the clock rate weren't corrected by the -4.4647E-10
>>    correction factor?
>>
> Oh dear! One can only feel sorry for Paul Bullshit Andersen. He doesn't
> understand what a software correction is. He doesn't understand that the
> rate of each GPS clock is given a permanently coarse software offset
> after launch so that its adjusted rate is very close to that of the
> Earth clocks. That is a relatively simple procedure and whilst not
> important for the actual positioning process, is useful for maintaining
> orbit parameters.

Incoherent babble can't change the facts.
See 'Fact 1' and 'Fact 2' below.

> The only critical requirement for the whole GPS system is that all
> orbiting clocks are in absolute synch with each other.

"Absolute sync" is somewhat exaggerated, but as explained in
'Fact 3' below, they must be within 100ns of GPS time
and thus with each other.

> The receiver's
> clock error is cancels out in the maths, as PAUL BULLSHIT ANDERSEN WELL
> KNOWS.Here is proof that Paul Bullshit Andersen has no idea what is
> important in the GPS system.
> http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=wrist+gps&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1311.R7.TR12.TRC2.A0.H0.Xgps.TRS0&_nkw=gps+watch&_sacat=0

Wow! You have shown that there are no atomic clocks in
GPS receivers, and thus proven that I have no idea of
what is important in the GPS system!!!
Well done Ralph! :-D

(I can't but wonder if you are drunk or simply plain stupid.)


>> He was given the following facts:
>> Fact #1:
>> | All GPS satellite clocks always were and still are
>> | adjusted by -4.4647E-10 before launch.
>> Comment:
>>   As this correction is specified in the official
>>   specification for the satellites,
>>   http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200H.pdf
>>   it is an indisputable fact.
>>
>> Fact #2:
>> | No in flight tuning of the frequency
>> | is necessary to make the GPS-work.
>> | (If the "clock offset" is daily uploaded)
>> Comment:
>>   The GPS was working for years with Block I
>>   satellites only, and no in-flight adjustment
>>   of their frequency was possible. This proves
>>   that the rate of the frequency standards were
>>   sufficiently correct.
>>   But since the precision of the frequency standards are
>>   in the order of 1E-12 (mostly better, though), a worst
>>   case scenario will be that they during one day may drift
>>   as much as 80ns off sync. So a daily update of
>>   the "clock-offset" would be necessary to keep the reported
>>   time from the satellites within 100ns of GPS-time.
>>   The Block IIR satellites, which can be frequency adjusted
>>   in flight, are better than the Block I satellites, so
>>   these would obviously also work with no in flight adjustment,
>>   if the "clock offset" is uploaded daily. But the point with
>>   the in-flight frequency adjustment is to compensate for
>>   the drift of the frequency standards in order to increase
>>   the autonomy of the satellites; they can work for a very
>>   long time with no new upload of "clock offset".

A comment to the expressions 'reported time', 'clock time'
and 'clock offset' used below:
The actual satellite clock (the phase) called the "clock time"
is never corrected while the satellite is in service.
The "clock time" which is transmitted by the satellite
may be several us, (or even hundreds of us in some cases)
off sync from the GPS-time.
But the satellite is monitored by ground stations, and
the clock error is measured. The error, called the "clock offset",
is uploaded to the satellite typically once a day.
The satellite will transmit this "clock offset" together
with the "clock time". The correction is made in the receiver,
the corrected "reported time" = "clock time"-"clock offset".

>>
>> Fact #3:
>> | For the GPS to work, the reported time
>> | ('clock time' - 'clock offset') from the SV
>> |  must be in sync with the GPS time to within 100ns.
>> Comment:
>>   So the frequency of the satellite must be correct
>>   to better than E-12.
>>
>> Fact #4:
>> | The GPS works.
>> Comment:
>>   Which proves that the frequencies of the satellites are
>>   correct within E-12.
>>
>> Fact #5:
>> | GPS-time is running with the rate defined by
>> | clocks on the geoid. (SI-seconds)
>> Comment:
>>    The rate of GPS-time is defined by the ground clocks,
>>    and the SV clocks must run at the same rate.
>>
>> Fact #6:
>> | Each satellite will every day have a period of at least
>> | 12 hours where no measurement is made, and during which
>> | no update of the 'clock-offset' is possible.
>> Comment:
>>    So the period between uploads of the "clock-offset"
>>    is at least 12 hours.
>>
>> But despite the fact that Ralph Malcom Rabbidge never expressed
>> any disagreement with any of these facts, but accepted
>> them as such, he never tried to answer the question,
>> obviously because he realized that the answer he would
>> have to give would prove him wrong.
>>
>> Since the SV clocks _are_ adjusted by -4.4647E-10
>> before launch, and since the thus adjusted clocks
>> _do_ stay in sync with GPS-time to better than 1E-12,
>> it is obvious that if the clocks had not been adjusted
>> before launch, they would be running fast by 4.4647E-10.
>> If we assume that the 'software correction', the "clock offset"
>> is uploaded every 12 hours, the answer to the question is:
>>
>>    If the SV clock rate weren't corrected by the -4.4647E-10
>>    before launch, then the time reported by the satellite
>>    would drift off sync by ca. 20 microseconds between each
>>    update of the 'clock offset'.
>
> Paul, the clocks are software corrected to bring them into line with the
> Earth clocks. How much correction they need is not related to any
> desperate dingleberry delusion.

Right. As explained above.
The "software correction" is the "clock offset".

>> The reported time would stay in sync with GPS-time
>> to within the required 100ns for less than 10 minutes
>> after each update!
>>
>> So it is blatantly obvious that the GPS couldn't work if
>> the clocks weren't corrected for relativistic effects
>> before launch.
>
> I cant see any high accuracy in these clocks:
> http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=wrist+gps&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1311.R7.TR12.TRC2.A0.H0.Xgps.TRS0&_nkw=gps+watch&_sacat=0

Did you have a point with this?
(Still wondering if you are drunk or simply stupid.)

>> So we can conclude that Ralph Malcom Rabbidge's claim:
>> "The system works perfectly well without any 'GR correction'."
>> is wrong.
>>
>> We can also conclude that Ralph Malcom Rabbidge is aware of
>> this fact, because having accepted the facts, he couldn't
>> fail do realize what the answer to the question was.
>
> Paul, Bullshit is not gold so why do you bother to create so much.
>
>> But Ralph Malcom Rabbidge will never admit being wrong,
>> even if he knows he is.
>
> Then the Chinese and Russians must be wrong too. They never even heard
> of anyone called Einstein.


It's interesting to note that you are even more confused now
than back in 2011. Why is that?


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378188

On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 13:14:15 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> On 05.03.2016 23:42, HGW wrote:


> 
>> The only critical requirement for the whole GPS system is that all
>> orbiting clocks are in absolute synch with each other.
> 
> "Absolute sync" is somewhat exaggerated, but as explained in 'Fact 3'
> below, they must be within 100ns of GPS time and thus with each other.

Yes, in absolute synch. Thanks for agreeing.

>> The receiver's clock error is cancels out in the maths, as PAUL
>> BULLSHIT ANDERSEN WELL KNOWS.Here is proof that Paul Bullshit Andersen
>> has no idea what is important in the GPS system.
>> http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=wrist
+gps&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1311.R7.TR12.TRC2.A0.H0.Xgps.TRS0&_nkw=gps
+watch&_sacat=0
> 
> Wow! You have shown that there are no atomic clocks in GPS receivers,
> and thus proven that I have no idea of what is important in the GPS
> system!!!
> Well done Ralph! :-D
> 
> (I can't but wonder if you are drunk or simply plain stupid.)

Well I have reason to celebrate. I have finally convinced Paul Bullshit 
Andersen that the ground clocks play no part in the positioning process.


> A comment to the expressions 'reported time', 'clock time'
> and 'clock offset' used below:
> The actual satellite clock (the phase) called the "clock time"
> is never corrected while the satellite is in service.
> The "clock time" which is transmitted by the satellite may be several
> us, (or even hundreds of us in some cases)
> off sync from the GPS-time.
> But the satellite is monitored by ground stations, and the clock error
> is measured. The error, called the "clock offset",
> is uploaded to the satellite typically once a day.
> The satellite will transmit this "clock offset" together with the "clock
> time". The correction is made in the receiver, the corrected "reported
> time" = "clock time"-"clock offset".

HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHA! PAUL BULLSHIT ANDERSEN has finally admitted that the 
infamous and totally useless GR correction does not keep the orbiting 
clocks in anything like synch with the ground clocks. HUNDREDS OF us off! 
HAHAHHAHHA! Maybe they would remain in much better synch if the stupid 
thing had not been incorporated at all. HAHHAHHAHAHHHAHA!
He has finally admitted that the orbiting clock errors are included in 
their signals and easily software corrected out in each receiver. That is 
what I have been telling him for years.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378210

On 07.03.2016 20:09, Henry Wilson wrote:
> On Sun, 06 Mar 2016 13:14:15 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>> On 05.03.2016 23:42, HGW wrote:
>
>
>>
>>> The only critical requirement for the whole GPS system is that all
>>> orbiting clocks are in absolute synch with each other.
>>
>> "Absolute sync" is somewhat exaggerated, but as explained in 'Fact 3'
>> below, they must be within 100ns of GPS time and thus with each other.
>
> Yes, in absolute synch. Thanks for agreeing.
>
>>> The receiver's clock error is cancels out in the maths, as PAUL
>>> BULLSHIT ANDERSEN WELL KNOWS.Here is proof that Paul Bullshit Andersen
>>> has no idea what is important in the GPS system.
>>> http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=wrist
> +gps&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1311.R7.TR12.TRC2.A0.H0.Xgps.TRS0&_nkw=gps
> +watch&_sacat=0
>>
>> Wow! You have shown that there are no atomic clocks in GPS receivers,
>> and thus proven that I have no idea of what is important in the GPS
>> system!!!
>> Well done Ralph! :-D
>>
>> (I can't but wonder if you are drunk or simply plain stupid.)
>
> Well I have reason to celebrate. I have finally convinced Paul Bullshit
> Andersen that the ground clocks play no part in the positioning process.
>
>
>> A comment to the expressions 'reported time', 'clock time'
>> and 'clock offset' used below:
>> The actual satellite clock (the phase) called the "clock time"
>> is never corrected while the satellite is in service.
>> The "clock time" which is transmitted by the satellite may be several
>> us, (or even hundreds of us in some cases)
>> off sync from the GPS-time.
>> But the satellite is monitored by ground stations, and the clock error
>> is measured. The error, called the "clock offset",
>> is uploaded to the satellite typically once a day.
>> The satellite will transmit this "clock offset" together with the "clock
>> time". The correction is made in the receiver, the corrected "reported
>> time" = "clock time"-"clock offset".
>
> HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHA! PAUL BULLSHIT ANDERSEN has finally admitted that the
> infamous and totally useless GR correction does not keep the orbiting
> clocks in anything like synch with the ground clocks. HUNDREDS OF us off!
> HAHAHHAHHA! Maybe they would remain in much better synch if the stupid
> thing had not been incorporated at all. HAHHAHHAHAHHHAHA!
> He has finally admitted that the orbiting clock errors are included in
> their signals and easily software corrected out in each receiver. That is
> what I have been telling him for years.
>

Delirium ?

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378295

On Mon, 07 Mar 2016 22:15:19 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

"I'm suffering from Delirium?"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378402

On 08.03.2016 20:08, Henry Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2016 22:15:19 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> On 07.03.2016 20:09, Henry Wilson wrote:
>>>
>>> HAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHA! PAUL BULLSHIT ANDERSEN has finally admitted that the
>>> infamous and totally useless GR correction does not keep the orbiting
>>> clocks in anything like synch with the ground clocks. HUNDREDS OF us off!
>>> HAHAHHAHHA! Maybe they would remain in much better synch if the stupid
>>> thing had not been incorporated at all. HAHHAHHAHAHHHAHA!
>>> He has finally admitted that the orbiting clock errors are included in
>>> their signals and easily software corrected out in each receiver. That is
>>> what I have been telling him for years.
>>
>> Delirium ?
>
> "I'm suffering from Delirium?"
>

Ralph, I challenge you to answer the question you failed to
answer back in 2011:
   By how much would the time reported by the satellite
   drift off sync between each update of the 'clock offset'
   if the clock rate weren't corrected by the -4.4647E-10
   correction factor?

I don't think you will be able to answer it, though,
because all you have done so far is to demonstrate
that you have a serious reading comprehension problem,
last displayed in your delirium attack quoted above.

But I will give you another chance, maybe you will surprise me?

Here are a few facts which should enable you to answer the question.

But to understand the facts it is necessary to know what
is meant by "clock time", "clock offset" and "reported time",
so I will repeat the explanation which gave you delirium:
(If you calm down, read slowly and think while you read,
  you may avoid another delirium attack.)

  The actual satellite clock (the phase) called the "clock time"
  is never corrected while the satellite is in service.
  The "clock time" which is transmitted by the satellite
  may be several us, (or even hundreds of us in some cases)
  off sync from the GPS-time.
  But the satellite is monitored by ground stations, and
  the clock error is measured. The error, called the "clock offset",
  is uploaded to the satellite typically once a day.
  The satellite will transmit this "clock offset" together
  with the "clock time". The correction is made in the receiver,
  the corrected "reported time" = "clock time"-"clock offset".

See:
https://paulba.no/temp/GPS_clocks.pdf


Fact #1:
| All frequency standards in GPS satellites always were
| and still are adjusted by -4.4647E-10 before launch.
Comment:
   As this correction is specified in the official
   specification for the satellites, it is an indisputable fact.
   http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200H.pdf
   (See chapter 3.3.1.1)

Fact #2:
| No in flight tuning of the frequency
| is necessary to make the GPS-work.
| (If the "clock offset" is daily uploaded)
Comment:
   The GPS was working for years with Block I
   satellites only, and no in-flight adjustment
   of their frequency was possible. This proves
   that the pre launch adjusted frequency of the standards
   was sufficiently correct.
   But since the precision of the frequency standards are
   in the order of 1E-12 (mostly better, though), a worst
   case scenario will be that they during one day may drift
   as much as 80ns off sync. So a daily update of
   the "clock-offset" would be necessary to keep the reported
   time from the satellites within 100ns of GPS-time.
   The Block IIR satellites, which can be frequency adjusted
   in flight, are better than the Block I satellites, so
   these would obviously also work with no in flight adjustment,
   if the "clock offset" is uploaded daily. But the point with
   the in-flight frequency adjustment is to compensate for
   the drift of the frequency standards in order to increase
   the autonomy of the satellites; they can work for a very
   long time with no new upload of "clock offset".

Fact #3:
| For the GPS to work, the reported time
| ('clock time' - 'clock offset') from the SV
|  must be in sync with the GPS time to within 100ns.
Comment:
   So the frequency of the satellite must be correct
   to better than ~E-12.

Fact #4:
| The GPS works.
Comment:
   Which proves that the frequencies of the satellites are
   correct within ~E-12.

Fact #5:
| GPS-time is running with the rate defined by
| clocks on the geoid. (SI-seconds)
Comment:
    The rate of GPS-time is defined by the ground clocks,
    and the SV clocks must run at the same rate as observed
    from the ground.

Fact #6:
| Each satellite will every day have a period of at least
| 12 hours where no measurement is made, and during which
| no update of the 'clock-offset' is possible.
Comment:
    So the period between uploads of the "clock-offset"
    is at least 12 hours.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378413

On 10/03/16 06:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 08.03.2016 20:08, Henry Wilson wrote:

> I don't think you will be able to answer it, though,
> because all you have done so far is to demonstrate
> that you have a serious reading comprehension problem,
> last displayed in your delirium attack quoted above.
>
> But I will give you another chance, maybe you will surprise me?
>
> Here are a few facts which should enable you to answer the question.
>
> But to understand the facts it is necessary to know what
> is meant by "clock time", "clock offset" and "reported time",
> so I will repeat the explanation which gave you delirium:
> (If you calm down, read slowly and think while you read,
>   you may avoid another delirium attack.)
>
>   The actual satellite clock (the phase) called the "clock time"
>   is never corrected while the satellite is in service.
>   The "clock time" which is transmitted by the satellite
>   may be several us, (or even hundreds of us in some cases)
>   off sync from the GPS-time.
>   But the satellite is monitored by ground stations, and
>   the clock error is measured. The error, called the "clock offset",
>   is uploaded to the satellite typically once a day.
>   The satellite will transmit this "clock offset" together
>   with the "clock time". The correction is made in the receiver,
>   the corrected "reported time" = "clock time"-"clock offset".
>
> See:
> https://paulba.no/temp/GPS_clocks.pdf
>
>
> Fact #1:
> | All frequency standards in GPS satellites always were
> | and still are adjusted by -4.4647E-10 before launch.
> Comment:
>    As this correction is specified in the official
>    specification for the satellites, it is an indisputable fact.
>    http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200H.pdf
>    (See chapter 3.3.1.1)
>
> Fact #2:
> | No in flight tuning of the frequency
> | is necessary to make the GPS-work.
> | (If the "clock offset" is daily uploaded)
> Comment:
>    The GPS was working for years with Block I
>    satellites only, and no in-flight adjustment
>    of their frequency was possible. This proves
>    that the pre launch adjusted frequency of the standards
>    was sufficiently correct.
>    But since the precision of the frequency standards are
>    in the order of 1E-12 (mostly better, though), a worst
>    case scenario will be that they during one day may drift
>    as much as 80ns off sync. So a daily update of
>    the "clock-offset" would be necessary to keep the reported
>    time from the satellites within 100ns of GPS-time.
>    The Block IIR satellites, which can be frequency adjusted
>    in flight, are better than the Block I satellites, so
>    these would obviously also work with no in flight adjustment,
>    if the "clock offset" is uploaded daily. But the point with
>    the in-flight frequency adjustment is to compensate for
>    the drift of the frequency standards in order to increase
>    the autonomy of the satellites; they can work for a very
>    long time with no new upload of "clock offset".

Obviously, once the main clock offset has been determined after launch, 
subsequent drift will be minimal.
Are you aware that each GPS satellite contains a secondary clock that is 
synched by the atomic one. It is easy to software correct that 
relationship to bring the secondary clock into synch with the ground 
clocks.
The GR correction plays no part in the operation of the GPS system and 
has served no purpose at all other than linking the name Einstein with 
the system as a pure publicity stunt.


> Fact #3:
> | For the GPS to work, the reported time
> | ('clock time' - 'clock offset') from the SV
> |  must be in sync with the GPS time to within 100ns.
> Comment:
>    So the frequency of the satellite must be correct
>    to better than ~E-12.
>
> Fact #4:
> | The GPS works.
> Comment:
>    Which proves that the frequencies of the satellites are
>    correct within ~E-12.
>
> Fact #5:
> | GPS-time is running with the rate defined by
> | clocks on the geoid. (SI-seconds)
> Comment:
>     The rate of GPS-time is defined by the ground clocks,
>     and the SV clocks must run at the same rate as observed
>     from the ground.
>
> Fact #6:
> | Each satellite will every day have a period of at least
> | 12 hours where no measurement is made, and during which
> | no update of the 'clock-offset' is possible.
> Comment:
>     So the period between uploads of the "clock-offset"
>     is at least 12 hours.

Fact #7: So fucking what?
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378470

On 09.03.2016 22:08, HGW wrote:
> On 10/03/16 06:46, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Ralph, I challenge you to answer the question you failed to
>> answer back in 2011:
>>   By how much would the time reported by the satellite
>>   drift off sync between each update of the 'clock offset'
>>   if the clock rate weren't corrected by the -4.4647E-10
>>   correction factor?
>>
>> I don't think you will be able to answer it, though,
>> because all you have done so far is to demonstrate
>> that you have a serious reading comprehension problem,
>> last displayed in your delirium attack quoted above.
>>
>> But I will give you another chance, maybe you will surprise me?
>>
>> Here are a few facts which should enable you to answer the question.
>>
>> But to understand the facts it is necessary to know what
>> is meant by "clock time", "clock offset" and "reported time",
>> so I will repeat the explanation which gave you delirium:
>> (If you calm down, read slowly and think while you read,
>>   you may avoid another delirium attack.)
>>
>>   The actual satellite clock (the phase) called the "clock time"
>>   is never corrected while the satellite is in service.
>>   The "clock time" which is transmitted by the satellite
>>   may be several us, (or even hundreds of us in some cases)
>>   off sync from the GPS-time.
>>   But the satellite is monitored by ground stations, and
>>   the clock error is measured. The error, called the "clock offset",
>>   is uploaded to the satellite typically once a day.
>>   The satellite will transmit this "clock offset" together
>>   with the "clock time". The correction is made in the receiver,
>>   the corrected "reported time" = "clock time"-"clock offset".
>>
>> See:
>> https://paulba.no/temp/GPS_clocks.pdf
>>
>>
>> Fact #1:
>> | All frequency standards in GPS satellites always were
>> | and still are adjusted by -4.4647E-10 before launch.
>> Comment:
>>    As this correction is specified in the official
>>    specification for the satellites, it is an indisputable fact.
>>    http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200H.pdf
>>    (See chapter 3.3.1.1)
>>

Ralph, read this again.
Is it anything particular you don't understand or you claim is wrong?

>> Fact #2:
>> | No in flight tuning of the frequency
>> | is necessary to make the GPS-work.
>> | (If the "clock offset" is daily uploaded)
>> Comment:
>>    The GPS was working for years with Block I
>>    satellites only, and no in-flight adjustment
>>    of their frequency was possible. This proves
>>    that the pre launch adjusted frequency of the standards
>>    was sufficiently correct.
>>    But since the precision of the frequency standards are
>>    in the order of 1E-12 (mostly better, though), a worst
>>    case scenario will be that they during one day may drift
>>    as much as 80ns off sync. So a daily update of
>>    the "clock-offset" would be necessary to keep the reported
>>    time from the satellites within 100ns of GPS-time.
>>    The Block IIR satellites, which can be frequency adjusted
>>    in flight, are better than the Block I satellites, so
>>    these would obviously also work with no in flight adjustment,
>>    if the "clock offset" is uploaded daily. But the point with
>>    the in-flight frequency adjustment is to compensate for
>>    the drift of the frequency standards in order to increase
>>    the autonomy of the satellites; they can work for a very
>>    long time with no new upload of "clock offset".

The following is incoherent babble:

> Obviously, once the main clock offset has been determined after launch,
> subsequent drift will be minimal.
> Are you aware that each GPS satellite contains a secondary clock that is
> synched by the atomic one. It is easy to software correct that
> relationship to bring the secondary clock into synch with the ground
> clocks.

There are four atomic frequency standards (two Cs and two Rb).
All four are adjusted by the factor -4.4647E-10 before launch.
Only one of these standards (the most stable one) is used at any time
to drive the SV-clock which show the "clock time" explained above.
So what "secondary clock" are you babbling about?

> The GR correction plays no part in the operation of the GPS system and
> has served no purpose at all other than linking the name Einstein with
> the system as a pure publicity stunt.

Gobbledygook.

>
>> Fact #3:
>> | For the GPS to work, the reported time
>> | ('clock time' - 'clock offset') from the SV
>> |  must be in sync with the GPS time to within 100ns.
>> Comment:
>>    So the frequency of the satellite must be correct
>>    to better than ~E-12.
>>
>> Fact #4:
>> | The GPS works.
>> Comment:
>>    Which proves that the frequencies of the satellites are
>>    correct within ~E-12.
>>
>> Fact #5:
>> | GPS-time is running with the rate defined by
>> | clocks on the geoid. (SI-seconds)
>> Comment:
>>     The rate of GPS-time is defined by the ground clocks,
>>     and the SV clocks must run at the same rate as observed
>>     from the ground.
>>
>> Fact #6:
>> | Each satellite will every day have a period of at least
>> | 12 hours where no measurement is made, and during which
>> | no update of the 'clock-offset' is possible.
>> Comment:
>>     So the period between uploads of the "clock-offset"
>>     is at least 12 hours.
>
> Fact #7: So fucking what?

Does that mean that you are capitulating?

Or will you make - not another - but a first attempt
to answer the question:
   By how much would the time reported by the satellite
   drift off sync between each update of the 'clock offset'
   if the clock rate weren't corrected by the -4.4647E-10
   correction factor?

The facts listed above should contain enough information
to enable you to answer the question.

If there is anything in the facts you don't understand,
just ask.


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378752

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 14:25:13 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
...the usual crap
> On 09.03.2016 22:08, HGW wrote:


>>>
>>> Fact #4:
>>> | The GPS works.
>>> Comment:
>>>    Which proves that the frequencies of the satellites are correct
>>>    within ~E-12.

Don't try to wriggle out Paul. The clocks are software aligned with the 
ground clocks after launch. After that, only small daily corrections are 
needed by way of a small clock offset sent with the signals. 
The GR correction plays no part in the GPS system and was merely a 
publicity stunt for the name of Einstein.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378764

On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 12:07:23 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
>
> Don't try to wriggle out Paul. The clocks are software aligned with the 
> ground clocks after launch. After that, only small daily corrections are 
> needed by way of a small clock offset sent with the signals. 
> The GR correction plays no part in the GPS system and was merely a 
> publicity stunt for the name of Einstein.

Delusional Ralphie-boy, aka "Henry" dishonestly chooses to ignore the
FACT that the satellite clocks are deliberately set to run slow when
on the ground so that they run within 10^-12 of the properly running
ground clocks.  THAT is the GR correction.  Otherwise, the satellite
clocks would have to be readjusted every few minutes.  But, in fact,
they are only readjusted every day or so, thus refuting Ralphie-boy's
outrageously-stupid assertions.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378817

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 12:07:23 PM UTC-7, Henry Wilson wrote:
>>
>> Don't try to wriggle out Paul. The clocks are software aligned with the
>> ground clocks after launch. After that, only small daily corrections
>> are needed by way of a small clock offset sent with the signals.
>> The GR correction plays no part in the GPS system and was merely a
>> publicity stunt for the name of Einstein.
> 
> Delusional Ralphie-boy, aka "Henry" dishonestly chooses to ignore the
> FACT that the satellite clocks are deliberately set to run slow when on
> the ground so that they run within 10^-12 of the properly running ground
> clocks.  THAT is the GR correction.  Otherwise, the satellite clocks
> would have to be readjusted every few minutes.  But, in fact, they are
> only readjusted every day or so, thus refuting Ralphie-boy's
> outrageously-stupid assertions.

http://cdns.yournewswire.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/TSA-body-scanner-cancer-risk-300x225.jpg

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378795

On 12.03.2016 20:07, Henry Wilson wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 14:25:13 +0100, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> ...the usual crap

So Ralph snips everything and repeats his mantra:
https://paulba.no/div/Ralph_listening.pdf

>> On 09.03.2016 22:08, HGW wrote:
>
> Don't try to wriggle out Paul. The clocks are software aligned with the
> ground clocks after launch. After that, only small daily corrections are
> needed by way of a small clock offset sent with the signals.
> The GR correction plays no part in the GPS system and was merely a
> publicity stunt for the name of Einstein.
>

OK, I take this as a capitulation.

Ralph Malcom Rabbidge hasn't even tried to answer
the question he failed to answer back in 2011:
   By how much would the time reported by the satellite
   drift off sync between each update of the 'clock offset'
   if the clock rate weren't corrected by the -4.4647E-10
   correction factor?

And the reason is that he doesn't like the answer he
would have to give considering these facts:

To understand the facts below it is necessary to know what
is meant by "clock time", "clock offset" and "reported time":

  The actual satellite clock (the phase) called the "clock time"
  is never corrected while the satellite is in service.
  The "clock time" which is transmitted by the satellite
  may be several us, (or even hundreds of us in some cases)
  off sync from the GPS-time.
  But the satellite is monitored by ground stations, and
  the clock error is measured. The error, called the "clock offset",
  is uploaded to the satellite typically once a day.
  The satellite will transmit this "clock offset" together
  with the "clock time". The correction is made in the receiver,
  the corrected "reported time" = "clock time"-"clock offset".

See:
https://paulba.no/temp/GPS_clocks.pdf


Fact #1:
| All frequency standards in GPS satellites always were
| and still are adjusted by -4.4647E-10 before launch.
Comment:
   As this correction is specified in the official
   specification for the satellites, it is an indisputable fact.
   http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200H.pdf
   (See chapter 3.3.1.1)

Fact #2:
| No in flight tuning of the frequency
| is necessary to make the GPS-work.
| (If the "clock offset" is daily uploaded)
Comment:
   The GPS was working for years with Block I
   satellites only, and no in-flight adjustment
   of their frequency was possible. This proves
   that the pre launch adjusted frequency of the standards
   was sufficiently correct.
   But since the precision of the frequency standards are
   in the order of 1E-12 (mostly better, though), a worst
   case scenario will be that they during one day may drift
   as much as 80ns off sync. So a daily update of
   the "clock-offset" would be necessary to keep the reported
   time from the satellites within 100ns of GPS-time.
   The Block IIR satellites, which can be frequency adjusted
   in flight, are better than the Block I satellites, so
   these would obviously also work with no in flight adjustment,
   if the "clock offset" is uploaded daily. But the point with
   the in-flight frequency adjustment is to compensate for
   the drift of the frequency standards in order to increase
   the autonomy of the satellites; they can work for a very
   long time with no new upload of "clock offset".

Fact #3:
| For the GPS to work, the reported time
| ('clock time' - 'clock offset') from the SV
|  must be in sync with the GPS time to within 100ns.
Comment:
   So the frequency of the satellite must be correct
   to better than ~E-12.

Fact #4:
| The GPS works.
Comment:
   Which proves that the frequencies of the satellites are
   correct within ~E-12.

Fact #5:
| GPS-time is running with the rate defined by
| clocks on the geoid. (SI-seconds)
Comment:
    The rate of GPS-time is defined by the ground clocks,
    and the SV clocks must run at the same rate as observed
    from the ground.

Fact #6:
| Each satellite will every day have a period of at least
| 12 hours where no measurement is made, and during which
| no update of the 'clock-offset' is possible.
Comment:
    So the period between uploads of the "clock-offset"
    is at least 12 hours.


Are there any of these facts you don't think are facts, Ralph?
In that case, please give references showing what are the correct facts.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378808

Paul B. Andersen wrote:

>   But the satellite is monitored by ground stations, and the clock error
>   is measured. The error, called the "clock offset",
>   is uploaded to the satellite typically once a day.
>   The satellite will transmit this "clock offset" together with the
>   "clock time". The correction is made in the receiver, the corrected
>   "reported time" = "clock time"-"clock offset".

Fine, you just gave the proof that no relativistic corrections take place. 
This is pure software engineering.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#378813

On 13.03.2016 13:00, Iephthae Sparrow wrote:
 > []

It doesn't help to change your name,
the trolling idiot is recognized anyway.

One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance make
a person constantly change his name and write nonsense only.

plonk


-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web