Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #420688 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-27 06:49 +1000 |
| Last post | 2017-06-05 00:49 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 159 — 37 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
GPS Again. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-05-27 06:49 +1000
Re: GPS Again. Ckeho Baùkora <unukn@owyqar.og> - 2017-05-26 21:01 +0000
Re: GPS Again. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-26 15:49 -0700
Re: GPS Again. Ckeho Baùkora <unukn@owyqar.og> - 2017-05-27 09:20 +0000
Re: GPS Again. dancouriann@gmail.com - 2017-05-26 15:50 -0700
Re: GPS Again. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-26 17:58 -0500
GPS Again. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-26 16:14 -0700
GPS Again. "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-05-26 16:38 -0700
Re: GPS Again. xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-05-26 16:25 -0700
Re: GPS Again. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-05-27 00:18 +0000
Re: GPS Again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-26 19:51 -0500
Re: GPS Again. Ckeho Baùkora <unukn@owyqar.og> - 2017-05-27 10:37 +0000
Re: GPS Again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-30 09:57 -0500
Re: GPS Again. Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2017-05-30 20:52 +0200
Re: GPS Again. Ernest Rivers <erwm@weicnne.ac> - 2017-05-30 19:17 +0000
Re: GPS Again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-30 15:23 -0500
Re: GPS Again. Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2017-05-30 22:53 +0200
Re: GPS Again. Ernest Schwanenflügel <erwm@wanenf.oa> - 2017-05-30 20:59 +0000
Re: GPS Again. Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2017-05-31 00:42 +0200
Re: GPS Again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-05-30 19:03 -0500
Re: GPS Again. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-05-30 21:30 -0500
Re: GPS Again. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-05-30 19:01 -0500
Re: GPS Again. Ernest Rivers <erwm@weicnne.ac> - 2017-05-30 19:15 +0000
Re: GPS Again. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-09 11:37 +1000
Re: GPS Again. Jim Limey <eeug@dnne.ri> - 2017-06-09 14:32 +0000
Re: GPS Again. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-09 12:51 -0500
Re: GPS Again. Kitubu Nkyaku <akntuu@buwkau.kk> - 2017-06-09 18:52 +0000
Re: GPS Again. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-10 09:23 +1000
Re: GPS Again. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-10 11:23 +1000
Re: GPS Again. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-10 11:21 +1000
Re: GPS Again. Kitubu Nkyaku <akntuu@buwkau.kk> - 2017-06-10 10:42 +0000
Re: GPS Again. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-10 19:38 -0500
Re: GPS Again. Nými Icelulózy <ejienm@wzsfwe.ul> - 2017-06-16 11:30 +0000
Re: GPS Again. Sегgi о <iinvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-16 10:40 -0500
Re: GPS Again. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-11 11:11 +1000
Re: GPS Again. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-10 21:20 -0500
Re: GPS Again. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-11 12:31 +1000
Re: GPS Again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-10 22:40 -0500
Re: GPS Again. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-10 23:20 -0500
Re: GPS Again. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-11 05:14 +1000
Re: GPS Again. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-10 22:16 +0200
Re: GPS Again. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-11 07:19 +1000
Re: GPS Again. xxein1x1@gmail.com - 2017-06-10 16:11 -0700
Re: GPS Again. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-10 18:32 -0700
Re: GPS Again. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-11 14:43 +1000
Re: GPS Again. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-13 07:50 -0700
Re: GPS Again. Lolek Atoru <oitiruc@rwuca.oa> - 2017-06-13 20:56 +0000
Re: GPS Again. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-14 09:25 +1000
Re: GPS Again. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-13 17:02 -0700
Re: GPS Again. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-14 12:36 +1000
Re: GPS Again. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-13 20:04 -0700
Re: GPS Again. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-14 04:43 +0000
Re: GPS Again. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-14 20:11 +1000
Re: GPS Again. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-14 14:47 +0000
Re: GPS Again. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-06-11 22:35 +0200
Re: GPS Again. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-11 15:44 -0500
Re: GPS Again. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-11 18:03 -0500
Re: GPS Again. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-11 19:00 -0500
Re: GPS Again. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 11:39 +1000
Re: GPS Again. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-12 02:33 +0000
Re: GPS Again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-11 22:42 -0500
Re: GPS Again. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-11 23:27 -0500
Re: GPS Again. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-06-12 04:47 +0000
Re: GPS Again. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-12 08:20 -0500
Re: GPS Again. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-06-12 17:18 +0000
Re: GPS Again. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2017-06-15 10:06 -0700
Re: GPS Again. Kotovanich Nzerovu <ivhvruo@wovewvw.ev> - 2017-06-15 17:30 +0000
Re: GPS Again. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-12 18:15 -0400
Re: GPS Again. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-06-12 22:32 +0000
Re: GPS Again. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-12 20:48 -0400
Re: GPS Again. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-06-13 01:52 +0000
Re: GPS Again. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-13 19:57 -0400
Re: GPS Again. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-06-14 00:46 +0000
Re: GPS Again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-12 09:58 -0500
Re: GPS Again. Selina Dieter <uiueeits@wlwtwstd.ci> - 2017-06-12 15:08 +0000
Re: GPS Again. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-12 10:37 -0500
Re: GPS Again. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-06-12 17:21 +0000
Re: GPS Again. Selina Dieter <uiueeits@wlwtwstd.ci> - 2017-06-12 17:40 +0000
Re: GPS Again. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-06-12 18:05 +0000
Re: GPS Again. Selina Dieter <uiueeits@wlwtwstd.ci> - 2017-06-12 18:19 +0000
Re: GPS Again. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-06-12 19:16 +0000
Re: GPS Again. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-12 19:43 +0000
Re: GPS Again. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-12 18:25 -0400
Re: GPS Again. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-12 18:45 -0500
Re: GPS Again. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 10:35 +1000
Re: GPS Again. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-12 11:05 +1000
Re: GPS Again. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-11 23:29 -0500
Re: GPS Again. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-12 20:12 +1000
Re: GPS Again. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-12 13:54 +0200
Re: GPS Again. Selina Dieter <uiueeits@wlwtwstd.ci> - 2017-06-12 12:47 +0000
Re: GPS Again. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-13 04:13 +1000
Re: GPS Again. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-13 12:59 +1000
Re: GPS Again. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-12 23:03 -0700
Re: GPS Again. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-13 04:22 +1000
Re: GPS Again. Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-06-13 13:00 +1000
Re: GPS Again. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2017-06-13 13:32 -0500
Re: GPS Again. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-14 10:09 +1000
Re: GPS Again. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-14 09:34 +1000
Re: GPS Again. Серг ио <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-13 18:42 -0500
Re: GPS Again. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-14 12:40 +1000
Re: GPS Again. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-14 04:06 +0000
Re: GPS Again. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-14 01:20 -0700
Re: GPS Again. Sегg iо <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-13 23:19 -0500
Re: GPS Again. Sегg iо <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-13 23:46 -0500
Re: GPS Again. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-14 20:07 +1000
Re: GPS Again. Sегg iо <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-14 09:17 -0500
Re: GPS Again. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-17 08:26 +1000
Re: GPS Again. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-16 20:40 -0400
Re: GPS Again. Ecembre Abin <umueuu@eibbwaw.ee> - 2017-06-17 08:05 +0000
Re: GPS Again. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-17 22:20 +1000
Re: GPS Again. Sегgi о <iinvalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-17 07:58 -0500
Re: GPS Again. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-14 17:06 -0400
Re: GPS Again. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-05-31 09:58 +1000
Re: GPS Again. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-05-27 07:36 +0200
Re: GPS Again. "HGW... DSc." <hgw@....> - 2017-05-28 10:57 +1000
Re: GPS Again. Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 07:02 -0700
Re: GPS Again. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-01 09:00 +1000
Re: GPS Again. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-05-31 23:42 +0000
Re: GPS Again. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-01 19:36 +1000
Re: GPS Again. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-01 05:33 -0700
Re: GPS Again. "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> - 2017-06-02 19:51 +1000
Re: GPS Again. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-03 05:10 -0700
Re: GPS Again. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-04 08:08 +1000
Re: GPS Again. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-03 15:27 -0700
Re: GPS Again. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-04 08:50 +1000
Re: GPS Again. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-06-03 19:37 -0700
Re: GPS Again. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 07:09 +0200
Re: GPS Again. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-04 16:06 +1000
Re: GPS Again. Prudence Youngs <usue@weuem.ge> - 2017-06-04 11:11 +0000
Re: GPS Again. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 14:23 +0200
Re: GPS Again. Prudence Youngs <usue@weuem.ge> - 2017-06-04 12:33 +0000
Re: GPS Again. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-04 18:17 +0000
Re: GPS Again. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-04 05:06 -0700
Re: GPS Again. Prudence Youngs <usue@weuem.ge> - 2017-06-04 12:12 +0000
Re: GPS Again. anne <0140519@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 05:32 -0700
Re: GPS Again. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-05 08:48 +1000
Re: GPS Again. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-04 16:09 -0700
Re: GPS Again. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-05 11:12 +1000
Re: GPS Again. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-04 19:24 -0700
Re: GPS Again. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-05 16:38 +1000
Re: GPS Again. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-05 04:49 -0700
Re: GPS Again. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2017-06-05 05:53 -0700
Re: GPS Again. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-06 08:38 +1000
Re: GPS Again. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-06-05 20:30 -0700
Re: GPS Again. Poutnik <poutnik4nntp@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 15:00 +0200
Re: GPS Again. Prudence Youngs <usue@weuem.ge> - 2017-06-04 11:10 +0000
Re: GPS Again. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 13:25 +0000
Re: GPS Again. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-05 08:46 +1000
Re: GPS Again. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-04 23:13 +0000
Re: GPS Again. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-05 11:16 +1000
Re: GPS Again. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 09:26 -0500
Re: GPS Again. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-06 08:46 +1000
Re: GPS Again. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-05 23:17 +0000
Re: GPS Again. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-07 10:11 +1000
Re: GPS Again. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 03:04 +0000
Re: GPS Again. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-07 14:58 +1000
Re: GPS Again. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2017-06-07 12:17 -0500
Re: GPS Again. "HGW..." <hgw@....> - 2017-06-08 09:06 +1000
Re: GPS Again. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2017-06-05 00:49 +0000
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
| From | "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-27 06:49 +1000 |
| Subject | GPS Again. |
| Message-ID | <oga4b8$1u3c$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
Do GPS signals travel at c in the ECI frame or c in the receiver's instantaneous frame? The algorithms assume the latter. Why don't the two alternatives produce different answers?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ckeho Baùkora <unukn@owyqar.og> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-26 21:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oga53k$1v7k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #420688 |
HGW, DSc. wrote: > Do GPS signals travel at c in the ECI frame or c in the receiver's > instantaneous frame? No, those travel only outside. The receivers don't really care. > The algorithms assume the latter. No, but certainly the data they carry. The receivers gets the time info from the satellites as well. Encapsulated in the data. The local time, which can be off, is only used in startups. preamble. > Why don't the two alternatives produce different answers? There are no two alternatives.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-26 15:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <818880cf-d187-427a-82fb-138e272c6f7a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420689 |
"physical mechanism" is the ( Inertial & Elastic Properties of the Medium) times the Mass Loading per cubic Meter http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/permot3.html http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/souspe2.html#c1 http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Sound/imgsou/soundwater.gif http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=((+(6.6740800122e-11%2F2)+Newtons+%2F+meters%5E2)%2F(3.712958e-28+kg%2Fmeter%5E3))%5E0.5+%3D (((6.6740800122e-11)/2 N/m^2 (newtons per square meter))/(3.71295775e-28 kg/m^3 (kilograms per cubic meter)))^(1/2) = 299792458 Acoustic Wave speed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System#Special_and_General_Relativity
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ckeho Baùkora <unukn@owyqar.og> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-27 09:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ogbgck$1l4v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #420692 |
David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller wrote: > "physical mechanism" is the ( Inertial & Elastic Properties of the > Medium) times the Mass Loading per cubic Meter > > http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/permot3.html This is Nothing. Unrelated to anything. Go away.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dancouriann@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-26 15:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eebcc209-2ea5-481c-87de-e1b4bdfe2f7c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420688 |
On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 1:48:44 PM UTC-7, HGW, DSc. wrote: > Do GPS signals travel at c in the ECI frame... Yes (to the extent that it really is an inertial coordinate system). > ... or c in the receiver's instantaneous frame? It isn't "OR", it's "AND". Light propagates (in vacuum) at the speed c in terms of every system of inertial coordinates, including the ECI coordinates and the inertial coordinate system in which a receiver is instantaneously at rest. > Why don't the two alternatives produce different answers? The choice of coordinate system doesn't affect the answer, provided the calculations are done correctly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-26 17:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ogabtq$alv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #420688 |
On 5/26/17 3:49 PM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > Do GPS signals travel at c in the ECI frame or c in the receiver's > instantaneous frame? Yes. > The algorithms assume the latter. Yes, though either would work just as well. > Why don't the two > alternatives produce different answers? Because the speed of the signals is the same. -- Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-26 16:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4326d05b-8a43-4f63-9325-de96f31a8f7c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420688 |
HGW, DSc. wrote Do GPS signals travel at c in the ECI frame or c in the receiver's instantaneous frame? The algorithms assume the latter. Why don't the two alternatives produce different answers? You need a better definition describing a vacuum that produces a wave speed of c before speculating how and why signal transit times are changed by velocity & gravity Like this one below describing a perfect Fluid based solely off of mass density & isotopic pressure...... https://sites.google.com/site/lordkronosprime/friedmann-density-kg A perfect Fluid would be unable to absorb and dissipate the energy of a photon, it would only be a transmission medium for the photon.... just like our vacuum
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-26 16:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <468a0d8c-9d33-4c70-88b8-2ccf05dc5b48@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420695 |
HGW, DSc. wrote Do GPS signals travel at c in the ECI frame or c in the receiver's instantaneous frame? The algorithms assume the latter. Why don't the two alternatives produce different answers? You need a better definition describing a vacuum that produces a wave speed of c before speculating how and why signal transit times are changed by velocity & gravity Like this one below describing a perfect Fluid based solely off of mass density & isotopic pressure...... https://sites.google.com/site/lordkronosprime/friedmann-density-kg A perfect Fluid would be unable to absorb and dissipate the energy of a photon, it would only be a transmission medium for the photon.... just like our vacuum A Perfect Fluid would also retain conformity to newton's first three laws First law: In an inertial reference frame, an object either remains at rest or continues to move at a constant velocity, unless acted upon by a force.[2][3] Second law: In an inertial reference frame, the vector sum of the forces F on an object is equal to the mass m of that object multiplied by the acceleration a of the object: F = ma. (It is assumed here that the mass m is constant - see below.) Third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | xxein1x1@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-26 16:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <60d5d7c3-08d5-4c61-95c5-7c22a99addfb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #420688 |
On Friday, May 26, 2017 at 4:48:44 PM UTC-4, HGW, DSc. wrote: > Do GPS signals travel at c in the ECI frame or c in the receiver's > instantaneous frame? The algorithms assume the latter. Why don't the two > alternatives produce different answers? xxein: They travel in whatever frame they're in. You can 'assume' the latter but that would only be for sake of convenience. Would you want to calculate using an infinite number of intermediate frames as the signal passes through them? Try https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth-centered_inertial for some clarification. But in the end, they are influenced by the conditions of wherever they find themselves at the time. How they end up 'looking' is what they are at the receiver conditioned by the receiver's own movement and instantaneous position. Everything changes all the time but we know how to get a 'descent and adequate' estimate for our present GPS needs. Note that many interpretations put the speed of light as changing as the gravitational potential changes along the signal path. Insignificant? Depends.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-27 00:18 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ogagkn$6uf$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #420688 |
"HGW, DSc." <HG@....> writes: >Do GPS signals travel at c in the ECI frame or c in the receiver's >instantaneous frame? Yes. > The algorithms assume the latter. Why don't the two >alternatives produce different answers? There are no two alternatives, Ralph. GPS signals travel at c in the ECI frame *AND* the receiver's instantaneous frame!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-26 19:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0smdnRoX7NsQULXEnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #420688 |
On 5/26/17 5/26/17 3:49 PM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > Do GPS signals travel at c in the ECI frame or c in the receiver's instantaneous > frame? The algorithms assume the latter. You REALLY need to learn about what you attempt to write about. Just making stuff up like this is HOPELESS. The GPS receiver's position calculation is based on the OBSERVATION that the vacuum speed of light is isotropically c relative to the ECI coordinates. The entire path is not in vacuum, so there are corrections for ionospheric and atmospheric effects. > Why don't the two alternatives produce > different answers? There are no "alternatives" -- EVERY receiver computes position in the ECI, based on the OBSERVATION that the vacuum speed of light is isotropically c in the ECI. The ECI position is then transformed to the rotating-earth coordinates for reporting to the user. (Here "position" includes GPS time.) The receiver's instantaneous frame is USELESS. And not used. At all. If you had thought about it at all you would realize that no matter which coordinates are used, the calculation needs to know the position of each satellite when its timing mark was transmitted. How could a satellite possibly know its position in millions of receiver instantaneous frames???? What's the point in just making stuff up and pretending it is true? Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ckeho Baùkora <unukn@owyqar.og> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-27 10:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ogbkt4$1sge$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #420713 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > The GPS receiver's position calculation is based on the OBSERVATION that > the vacuum speed of light is isotropically c relative to the ECI > coordinates. The entire path is not in vacuum, so there are corrections > for ionospheric and atmospheric effects. This tangents to bullshits, mister Tom. The receivers are working only, and only, on the DATA received from the satellites. NOT on the speeds of the signals carrying IT. You do same UNFORGIVABLE mistake Dr. HGW does. > There are no "alternatives" -- EVERY receiver computes position in the > ECI, based on the OBSERVATION that the vacuum speed of light is > isotropically c in the ECI. The ECI position is then transformed to the > rotating-earth coordinates for reporting to the user. (Here "position" > includes GPS time.) That's not what is done in Receivers. You never had your fingers in the algorithm, actually performing those triangulations. There are no SPEED detectors embedded in GPS receivers. I must insist. All the algorithms are running on the received decrypted DATA, not on the signals. Huge difference. You guys are having it so wrong for so long time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 09:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <hcSdnRPYgd7oFbDEnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #420742 |
On 5/27/17 5/27/17 - 5:37 AM, Ckeho BaÚkora wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: >> The GPS receiver's position calculation is based on the OBSERVATION that >> the vacuum speed of light is isotropically c relative to the ECI >> coordinates. The entire path is not in vacuum, so there are corrections >> for ionospheric and atmospheric effects. > > The receivers are working only, > and only, on the DATA received from the satellites. NOT on the speeds of > the signals carrying IT. The algorithm does depend on the speed of the signals relative to the ECI. From the data stream the receiver can determine the satellite's position and the GPS time when a given timing mark was transmitted. Using that information for 4 (or more) satellites, plus knowledge of the speed of light relative to the ECI, plus its measured receive time for the timing marks, the receiver calculates its position in the ECI. It then transforms this to the rotating-earth coordinates for reporting to the user. If the wrong speed were used (such as Wilson's fantasy of c+V_satellite), the position calculation would yield the wrong answer. Like so many others around here, you need to LEARN something about the subject before attempting to write about it. It is USELESS to just make stuff up and pretend it is true. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 20:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <jpfric53b8s3j90nh608f4dfb3snet3plf@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #421057 |
On Tue, 30 May 2017 09:57:56 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >On 5/27/17 5/27/17 - 5:37 AM, Ckeho BaÚkora wrote: >> Tom Roberts wrote: >>> The GPS receiver's position calculation is based on the OBSERVATION that >>> the vacuum speed of light is isotropically c relative to the ECI >>> coordinates. The entire path is not in vacuum, so there are corrections >>> for ionospheric and atmospheric effects. >> >> The receivers are working only, >> and only, on the DATA received from the satellites. NOT on the speeds of >> the signals carrying IT. > >The algorithm does depend on the speed of the signals relative to the ECI. How does the receiver know the speed (velocity) of the signal? w. ======= >From >the data stream the receiver can determine the satellite's position and the GPS >time when a given timing mark was transmitted. Using that information for 4 (or >more) satellites, plus knowledge of the speed of light relative to the ECI, plus >its measured receive time for the timing marks, the receiver calculates its >position in the ECI. It then transforms this to the rotating-earth coordinates >for reporting to the user. > >If the wrong speed were used (such as Wilson's fantasy of c+V_satellite), the >position calculation would yield the wrong answer. > >Like so many others around here, you need to LEARN something about the subject >before attempting to write about it. It is USELESS to just make stuff up and >pretend it is true. > >Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ernest Rivers <erwm@weicnne.ac> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 19:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ogkgfm$1epg$5@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #421086 |
Helmut Wabnig wrote: >>> The receivers are working only, >>> and only, on the DATA received from the satellites. NOT on the speeds >>> of the signals carrying IT. >> >>The algorithm does depend on the speed of the signals relative to the >>ECI. > > How does the receiver know the speed (velocity) of the signal? LOL.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 15:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <O-qdnfXgr_Y4SbDEnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #421086 |
On 5/30/17 5/30/17 - 1:52 PM, Helmut Wabnig wrote: > On Tue, 30 May 2017 09:57:56 -0500, Tom Roberts > <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> The algorithm does depend on the speed of the signals relative to the ECI. > > How does the receiver know the speed (velocity) of the signal? It is hard-coded into the software. It has been solidly established that the vacuum speed of light relative to the ECI is 299,792,458 meters/sec, isotropically. (There are corrections for non-vacuum propagation in the atmosphere.) Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 22:53 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pomrictddf8ii0bmk5158jghg139ov40i3@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #421110 |
On Tue, 30 May 2017 15:23:01 -0500, Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >On 5/30/17 5/30/17 - 1:52 PM, Helmut Wabnig wrote: >> On Tue, 30 May 2017 09:57:56 -0500, Tom Roberts >> <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> The algorithm does depend on the speed of the signals relative to the ECI. >> >> How does the receiver know the speed (velocity) of the signal? > >It is hard-coded into the software. It has been solidly established that the >vacuum speed of light relative to the ECI is 299,792,458 meters/sec, >isotropically. (There are corrections for non-vacuum propagation in the atmosphere.) > >Tom Roberts You do not know how things work. According to you, the receiver must have a clock with ultra high precision, which is not the case. Withou that ultra reference clock a number like 299,792,458 in software makes no sense. You do know that CPU's are clocked, do you? w.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ernest Schwanenflügel <erwm@wanenf.oa> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 20:59 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ogkmek$1qeh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #421114 |
Helmut Wabnig wrote: >>> How does the receiver know the speed (velocity) of the signal? >> >>It is hard-coded into the software. It has been solidly established that >>the vacuum speed of light relative to the ECI is 299,792,458 meters/sec, >>isotropically. (There are corrections for non-vacuum propagation in the >>atmosphere.) Tom Roberts > > You do not know how things work. > According to you, the receiver must have a clock with ultra high > precision, which is not the case. > Withou that ultra reference clock a number like 299,792,458 in software > makes no sense. You do know that CPU's are clocked, do you? Excellent Helmut, finally one of the many, understood what is going on concerning GPS. Lol, thanks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 00:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1980322.iZASKD2KPV@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #421115 |
The ’nym-shifting troll gibbered as "Ernest Schwanenflügel": > Helmut Wabnig wrote: >> Tom Roberts wrote: >>> Helmut Wabnig wrote: >>>> How does the receiver know the speed (velocity) of the signal? >>> It is hard-coded into the software. It has been solidly established that >>> the vacuum speed of light relative to the ECI is 299,792,458 meters/sec, >>> isotropically. (There are corrections for non-vacuum propagation in the >>> atmosphere.) >> >> You do not know how things work. No, *you* don’t. >> According to you, the receiver must have a clock with ultra high >> precision, which is not the case. >> Withou that ultra reference clock a number like 299,792,458 in software >> makes no sense. You do know that CPU's are clocked, do you? > > Excellent Helmut, finally one of the many, understood what is going on > concerning GPS. Lol, thanks. Unsurprisingly, the ’nym-shifting troll and his address-munging crackpot sidekick are understanding nothing at all. One does _not_ need a “clock with ultra high precision” in the GPS receiver, because the receiver clock’s bias against GPS time is the same for all GPS satellites (I am having a dèjá vu here): <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Basic_concept_of_GPS> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Navigation_equations> *PLONK* -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-30 19:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <u6ydnQ0OtYn2lbPEnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #421114 |
On 5/30/17 5/30/17 3:53 PM, Helmut Wabnig wrote: > On Tue, 30 May 2017 15:23:01 -0500, Tom Roberts > <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> On 5/30/17 5/30/17 - 1:52 PM, Helmut Wabnig wrote: >>> On Tue, 30 May 2017 09:57:56 -0500, Tom Roberts >>> <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>>> The algorithm does depend on the speed of the signals relative to the ECI. >>> >>> How does the receiver know the speed (velocity) of the signal? >> >> It is hard-coded into the software. It has been solidly established that the >> vacuum speed of light relative to the ECI is 299,792,458 meters/sec, >> isotropically. (There are corrections for non-vacuum propagation in the atmosphere.) >> >> Tom Roberts > > You do not know how things work. But I _DO_ know how the GPS works, because unlike you I have studied it. And I have the background to understand the design specifications (both physics and electronics). I first learned of the GPS at MILCOM'88, and I remember being amazed that such a thing was possible, and flabbergasted that it was actually up and (partially) operational. Even though it was not relevant to my reason for being there, I attended every session on GPS. > According to you, the receiver must have a clock with > ultra high precision, NONSENSE! I have never said anything like that. GPS receivers do NOT need a high-precision clock, because they use FOUR (or more) satellite signals from which they can fit to the data and determine the time with high precision (as well as position). Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 8 [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web