Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #634501 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ckeho Baùkora <unukn@owyqar.og> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-05-27 10:37 +0000 |
| Last post | 2017-06-09 13:35 -0700 |
| Articles | 15 on this page of 115 — 26 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
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. "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. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-06-12 10:15 -0700
Re: GPS Again. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-12 13:40 -0500
Re: GPS Again. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-06-12 14:19 -0700
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. 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. pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2017-06-12 12:22 -0700
Re: GPS Again. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-06-12 20:01 +0000
Re: GPS Again. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-12 18:32 -0500
Re: GPS Again. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-06-13 01:54 +0000
Re: GPS Again. Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-12 22:28 -0500
Re: GPS Again. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-13 19:59 -0400
Re: GPS Again. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-06-14 00:48 +0000
Re: GPS Again. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-13 21:35 -0400
Re: GPS Again. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-06-14 02:11 +0000
Re: GPS Again. Mahipal <mahipal7638@gmail.com> - 2017-06-13 19:50 -0700
Re: GPS Again. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-13 23:53 -0400
Re: GPS Again. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-06-14 05:27 +0000
Re: GPS Again. Sегg iо <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-14 09:10 -0500
Re: GPS Again. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-14 17:10 -0400
Re: GPS Again. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-06-14 21:33 +0000
Re: GPS Again. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-14 18:19 -0400
Re: GPS Again. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-06-14 22:33 +0000
Re: GPS Again. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-15 17:01 -0400
Re: GPS Again. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-06-15 23:09 +0000
Re: GPS Again. benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-06-13 23:49 -0400
Re: GPS Again. jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-06-14 05:29 +0000
Re: GPS Again. Sегg iо <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-13 20:29 -0500
Re: GPS Again. pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2017-06-13 12:33 -0700
Re: GPS Again. Серг ио <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-06-13 16:39 -0500
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. "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. "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2017-06-13 23:01 -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. pcardinale@volcanomail.com - 2017-06-09 13:35 -0700
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-14 12:40 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ohq7lv$rs8$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #636289 |
On 14/06/17 09:42, Серг ио wrote:
> On 6/13/2017 6:34 PM, HGW... wrote:
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, shifting ground. Either the wavelength is absolute, or it's not.
>>> You cannot have a moderately absolute wavelength.
>>
>> The absolute wavelength will very slightly decrease to a new absolute
>> length as the signals slow in the atmosphere. The changes are easy to
>> calculate from each satellite's ephemeris.
>
> wavelength also changes due to its orbitle velocity and relitivity effects.
In the real world, there are no 'relativity effects'.
> additionally;
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System
>
>
> source Effect (meters)
> Signal arrival C/A ±3
> Signal arrival P(Y) ±0.3
> Ionospheric effects ±5
> Ephemeris errors ±2.5
> Satellite clock errors ±2
> Multipath distortion ±1
> Tropospheric effects ±0.5
> 3 σ R {\displaystyle \ 3\sigma _{R}} \ 3\sigma_R C/A ±6.7
> 3 σ R {\displaystyle \ 3\sigma _{R}} \ 3\sigma_R P(Y) ±6.0
What is that supposed to prove? The use of wave count rather than light
speed is clearly a far better way to operate the GPS system.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-14 04:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ohqcoh$bh$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #636324 |
"HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >In the real world, there are no 'relativity effects'. No, Ralph, your fantasy world without relativity is not "the real world". The real world has a GPS system that depends on general relativity to work at all. >What is that supposed to prove? The use of wave count rather than light >speed is clearly a far better way to operate the GPS system. Ralph, I know that you, as a non-scientist, don't understand error bars and error analysis at all, but real scientists analyze all potential sources of error and come up with an overall error analysis. That's what you saw there. Maybe you should learn about error bars/analysis when you try to learn something about physics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-13 23:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ohqjaa$eh9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #636337 |
"Michael Moroney" <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote: > > Henry Wilson/Ralph Rabbidge "HGW..." <hgw@....> writes: >>In the real world, there are no 'relativity effects'. > "Michael Moroney" wrote: > > The real world has a GPS system that depends on > > general relativity to work at all.... > ... which is the aberrant BELIEF of all Einstein Dingleberries. Mickey, are you just fucking with Henry/Ralph's head, or are you one of those Einstein Dingleberries, in which case there is a Repost below for your, Mickey's benefit re: this issue: > No sales literature of any manufacturer that makes GPS involved items ever mentions the use of SR or GR. > ...... < http://tinyurl.com/622an2> or < http://tinyurl.com/57asbg> <http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm> > |||||||| ---- GPS NEVER NEEDED neither SR nor GR ---- ||||||||| ||||| not for its design, manufacturing, testing nor operations. ||||| ||||| --------- GPS was in operation LONG before... ------ ||||| ||||| Einstein Dingleberries came along to nuzzle into the ||||| ||||| show, hoping to get some credit away from Newton. ||||| > ||||| Albert's SR/GR is the Kosher Tax levied onto academia ||||| > Mickey, you in your sorry mental condition, don't even see that it is common knowledge for more then 60+ years now, and 2 years before Einstein puffed, when <http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR> wherein AE concluded that: SR is short for __STUPID RANT__ & GR being nothing but a __GULLIBLE RECITAL__, with plenty of <http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery> > So, here, for your benefit, is Einstein's intellectual evolution, which started with his 1905 paper, wherein ||AE|| wrote: > |||AE||| "the velocity of light 'c' in our theory (SR) plays |||AE||| the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity." > From 1905 on, & during the next 3 decades when Einstein was riding high on his Zionist financed wake that put & kept him in the lime light, it became clearer that > == Einstein & his contributions to physics is/are what == Picasso's contributions are to the world of fine art, == namely mental aberrations, Gedanken farts and == his lunacies like: > ||| AE:: "People like us, who _BELIEVE_ in physics, ||| AE:: know that the distinction between the ||| AE:: past, resent, and future is only a stubbornly ||| AE:: persistent illusion." ||| AE:: "Space & time are NOT conditions in which we ||| AE:: live; they are simply modes in which we think." > That then was the Weltbild of these 2 Fartist kikes. <http://tinyurl.com/2-Jewish-Fartists> ... yet Einstein never had the guts to prove his SR/GR, by him simply jumping out of a 5th story window & manipulating the curvature of space & handling space-time, to avoid him being splattered on the side walk, and thereby proving his insistence that Gravity is not a force like Newton said. > But towards the end of his life, Einstein came clean & __ Einstein himself became a relativity DENIER ____ & he changed his mind by 1954 when he declared that > ||AE|| All these 50 years of conscious brooding have ||AE|| brought me [= Einstein] NO nearer to the answer ||AE|| to the question, 'What are light quanta?' aka photons. > And furthermore Einstein saw the handwriting on the wall, when in 1954, a year before he died, he wrote to his Jewish friend Besso: > |||AE:||| "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to |||AE:||| reality, they are not certain; and as far as they |||AE:||| are certain, they do not refer to reality." > |||AE:||| "why would anyone be interested in getting exact |||AE:||| solutions from such an ephemeral set of equations?" > |||AE:||| "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be |||AE:||| based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous |||AE:||| structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire |||AE:||| castle in the air, my gravitation theory included." |||AE:||| "If I had my life to live over again, I'd be a plumber". |||AE:||| ... [and I would make blouses instead (see link)] <http://tinyurl.com/Blouse-Plumber-Einstein> with plenty of <http://tinyurl.com/Tears-for-Einsteins-Misery> & so, ergo: > . ____ SR is short for STUPID RANT _____ and . ____ GR stands for GULLIBLE RECITAL _____. > or as expressed rather civilized by poster Tom Roberts [TR], who, when he had a flash of lucidity, wrote: > [TR:] ___ "SR/GR happen to be "META-Theories"__, iow: . ____ Relativity is a theory about a theory.____, iow: . ______ SR & GR is Physics by "Hear-say"______. > Up-shot: Why then is SR/GR still so popular. for Morons? People hang on to & fanatically believe in all kind of shit, which they do OBSERVE & MEASURE, like in "UFO's", "Crop circles", the "Bible", the "Koran", "SR&GR" & etc, etc., etc.... The list is long and like Einstein said: > |||AE:: "they are NOT conditions in which we live; |||AE:: they are simply modes in which we think." > Once indoctrinated by any of these esoteric gags, which are escapes from harsh reality, people do build that into their Weltbild, proselytize for it and defend it with their lives!!!..... ___ It is far easier to believe then to think! _____ > .... .... Einstein's early (~1920) hatred onto QM with its "spooky action at a distance" and AE's (~1954) admission that > |||AE:||| "I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be |||AE:||| based on the field concept, i. e., on continuous |||AE:||| structures. In that case nothing remains of my entire |||AE:||| castle in the air, my gravitation theory included." > in which "physic cannot be based on the field concept by which AE referred to "entangled photons" that allow info transfer at FTL and regardless of distance.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sегg iо <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-13 23:19 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ohqdg7$12v2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #636324 |
On 6/13/2017 9:40 PM, HGW... wrote:
> On 14/06/17 09:42, Серг ио wrote:
>> On 6/13/2017 6:34 PM, HGW... wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, shifting ground. Either the wavelength is absolute, or it's not.
>>>> You cannot have a moderately absolute wavelength.
>>>
>>> The absolute wavelength will very slightly decrease to a new absolute
>>> length as the signals slow in the atmosphere. The changes are easy to
>>> calculate from each satellite's ephemeris.
>>
>> wavelength also changes due to its orbitle velocity and relitivity
>> effects.
> In the real world, there are no 'relativity effects'.
>
>> additionally;
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System
>>
>>
>> source Effect (meters)
>> Signal arrival C/A ±3
>> Signal arrival P(Y) ±0.3
>> Ionospheric effects ±5
>> Ephemeris errors ±2.5
>> Satellite clock errors ±2
>> Multipath distortion ±1
>> Tropospheric effects ±0.5
>> 3 σ R {\displaystyle \ 3\sigma _{R}} \ 3\sigma_R C/A ±6.7
>> 3 σ R {\displaystyle \ 3\sigma _{R}} \ 3\sigma_R P(Y) ±6.0
>
> What is that supposed to prove? The use of wave count
like counting knots in a rope?
> rather than light
> speed is clearly a far better way to operate the GPS system.
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sегg iо <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-13 23:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ohqf3g$14t6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #636340 |
On 6/13/2017 11:19 PM, Sегg iо wrote:
> On 6/13/2017 9:40 PM, HGW... wrote:
>> On 14/06/17 09:42, Серг ио wrote:
>>> On 6/13/2017 6:34 PM, HGW... wrote:
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, shifting ground. Either the wavelength is absolute, or it's
>>>>> not. You cannot have a moderately absolute wavelength.
>>>>
>>>> The absolute wavelength will very slightly decrease to a new
>>>> absolute length as the signals slow in the atmosphere. The changes
>>>> are easy to calculate from each satellite's ephemeris.
>>>
>>> wavelength also changes due to its orbitle velocity and relitivity
>>> effects.
>> In the real world, there are no 'relativity effects'.
>>
>>> additionally;
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System
>>>
>>>
>>> source Effect (meters)
>>> Signal arrival C/A ±3
>>> Signal arrival P(Y) ±0.3
>>> Ionospheric effects ±5
>>> Ephemeris errors ±2.5
>>> Satellite clock errors ±2
>>> Multipath distortion ±1
>>> Tropospheric effects ±0.5
>>> 3 σ R {\displaystyle \ 3\sigma _{R}} \ 3\sigma_R C/A ±6.7
>>> 3 σ R {\displaystyle \ 3\sigma _{R}} \ 3\sigma_R P(Y) ±6.0
>>
>> What is that supposed to prove? The use of wave count
>
Arrr... the same the way the pirates of yester-year would find their
position, tie a knotted rope to each island, and have a sub-pirate walk
the rope and count the knots. then figger out the position on the mighty
sea....arrr...
>
>> rather than light speed is clearly a far better way to operate the GPS
>> system.
>>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-14 20:07 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ohr1pr$2i2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #636345 |
On 14/06/17 14:46, Sегg iо wrote:
> On 6/13/2017 11:19 PM, Sегg iо wrote:
>>>> source Effect (meters)
>>>> Signal arrival C/A ±3
>>>> Signal arrival P(Y) ±0.3
>>>> Ionospheric effects ±5
>>>> Ephemeris errors ±2.5
>>>> Satellite clock errors ±2
>>>> Multipath distortion ±1
>>>> Tropospheric effects ±0.5
>>>> 3 σ R {\displaystyle \ 3\sigma _{R}} \ 3\sigma_R C/A ±6.7
>>>> 3 σ R {\displaystyle \ 3\sigma _{R}} \ 3\sigma_R P(Y) ±6.0
>>>
>>> What is that supposed to prove? The use of wave count
>>
>
> Arrr... the same the way the pirates of yester-year would find their
> position, tie a knotted rope to each island, and have a sub-pirate walk
> the rope and count the knots. then figger out the position on the mighty
> sea....arrr...
>
>>
>>> rather than light speed is clearly a far better way to operate the
>>> GPS system.
The system doesn't need to worry much about any of those now that it
uses wavelength instead of light
>>>
>>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sегg iо <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-14 09:17 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ohrgia$s89$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #636367 |
On 6/14/2017 5:07 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote:
> On 14/06/17 14:46, Sегg iо wrote:
>> On 6/13/2017 11:19 PM, Sегg iо wrote:
>
>>>>> source Effect (meters)
>>>>> Signal arrival C/A ±3
>>>>> Signal arrival P(Y) ±0.3
>>>>> Ionospheric effects ±5
>>>>> Ephemeris errors ±2.5
>>>>> Satellite clock errors ±2
>>>>> Multipath distortion ±1
>>>>> Tropospheric effects ±0.5
>>>>> 3 σ R {\displaystyle \ 3\sigma _{R}} \ 3\sigma_R C/A ±6.7
>>>>> 3 σ R {\displaystyle \ 3\sigma _{R}} \ 3\sigma_R P(Y) ±6.0
>>>>
>>>> What is that supposed to prove? The use of wave count
>>
>> Arrr... the same the way the pirates of yester-year would find their
>> position, tie a knotted rope to each island, and have a sub-pirate walk
>> the rope and count the knots. then figger out the position on the mighty
>> sea....arrr...
>>
>>>
>>>> rather than light speed is clearly a far better way to operate the
>>>> GPS system.
>
> The system doesn't need to worry much about any of those now that it
> uses wavelength instead of light
it uses the UHF band, and agree that it is not an optical system.
but it doesn't count wavelengths.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-17 08:26 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oi1lts$bfk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #636385 |
On 15/06/17 00:17, Sегg iо wrote: >>>> >>>>> rather than light speed is clearly a far better way to operate the >>>>> GPS system. >> >> The system doesn't need to worry much about any of those now that it >> uses wavelength instead of light > > > it uses the UHF band, and agree that it is not an optical system. > but it doesn't count wavelengths. Sorry, that's what the latest systems use...and it is much better. Think about it instead of raving about out of date stuff... > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-16 20:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59447a74$0$1262$c3e8da3$1cbc7475@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #636691 |
On 6/16/2017 6:26 PM, HGW... wrote: > On 15/06/17 00:17, Sегg iо wrote: > >>>>> >>>>>> rather than light speed is clearly a far better way to operate the >>>>>> GPS system. >>> >>> The system doesn't need to worry much about any of those now that it >>> uses wavelength instead of light >> >> >> it uses the UHF band, and agree that it is not an optical system. >> but it doesn't count wavelengths. > > Sorry, that's what the latest systems use...and it is much better. Think > about it instead of raving about out of date stuff... >> > > Yeah, Sergio, don't you know it doesn't matter if you know how stuff works, the important thing with science AND software is to always have the latest version!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ecembre Abin <umueuu@eibbwaw.ee> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-17 08:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <oi2nrc$1hg3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #636691 |
HGW... wrote: >> it uses the UHF band, and agree that it is not an optical system. >> but it doesn't count wavelengths. > > Sorry, that's what the latest systems use...and it is much better. Think > about it instead of raving about out of date stuff... What carrier frequencies are there. You may mostly count ticks, not cm. Even those after proper BPF, amplifier and a very FAST counter/comparator. That's how we do Physics, my dear friend, Dr. HGW. In my opinion, hardly achievable, since the GPS signal is VERY WEAK compared to all the other EM NOISE surrounding it. You, and your dear friend, Dr. Silvia Elses, don't know much Physics, I'm surprised to experience. But good point to arise, since there are alot of morons around here not knowing ehat they are talking about. Thanks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW, DSc." <HG@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-17 22:20 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <oi36nr$6j5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #636713 |
On 17/06/17 18:05, Ecembre Abin wrote: > HGW... wrote: > >>> it uses the UHF band, and agree that it is not an optical system. >>> but it doesn't count wavelengths. >> >> Sorry, that's what the latest systems use...and it is much better. Think >> about it instead of raving about out of date stuff... > > What carrier frequencies are there. You may mostly count ticks, not cm. > Even those after proper BPF, amplifier and a very FAST counter/comparator. > That's how we do Physics, my dear friend, Dr. HGW. In my opinion, hardly > achievable, since the GPS signal is VERY WEAK compared to all the other EM > NOISE surrounding it. > > You, and your dear friend, Dr. Silvia Elses, don't know much Physics, I'm > surprised to experience. But good point to arise, since there are alot of > morons around here not knowing ehat they are talking about. Thanks. When I said it counts wavelengths, I didn't mean it 'actually counts them'. There are better ways, which I outlined before. It is actually quite easy to do, the only real problem being that the receiving clock discrepancy must be known very accurately. There are ways to do that, one of which is to use a ground base.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sегgi о <iinvalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-17 07:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oi391i$9ni$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #636716 |
On 6/17/2017 7:20 AM, HGW, DSc. wrote: > On 17/06/17 18:05, Ecembre Abin wrote: >> HGW... wrote: >> >>>> it uses the UHF band, and agree that it is not an optical system. >>>> but it doesn't count wavelengths. >>> >>> Sorry, that's what the latest systems use...and it is much better. Think >>> about it instead of raving about out of date stuff... >> >> What carrier frequencies are there. You may mostly count ticks, not cm. >> Even those after proper BPF, amplifier and a very FAST >> counter/comparator. >> That's how we do Physics, my dear friend, Dr. HGW. In my opinion, hardly >> achievable, since the GPS signal is VERY WEAK compared to all the >> other EM >> NOISE surrounding it. >> You, and your dear friend, Dr. Silvia Elses, don't know much Physics, I'm >> surprised to experience. But good point to arise, since there are alot of >> morons around here not knowing ehat they are talking about. Thanks. > > When I said it counts wavelengths, I didn't mean it 'actually counts > them'. There are better ways, which I outlined before. It is actually > quite easy to do, the only real problem being that the receiving clock > discrepancy must be known very accurately. There are ways to do that, > one of which is to use a ground base. > not to worry, there are already tiny GPS units in your cellphone, that has already been solved.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-14 17:06 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <5941a56b$0$44644$c3e8da3$76a7c58f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #636345 |
On 6/14/2017 12:46 AM, Sегg iо wrote:
> On 6/13/2017 11:19 PM, Sегg iо wrote:
>> On 6/13/2017 9:40 PM, HGW... wrote:
>>> On 14/06/17 09:42, Серг ио wrote:
>>>> On 6/13/2017 6:34 PM, HGW... wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oh, shifting ground. Either the wavelength is absolute, or it's
>>>>>> not. You cannot have a moderately absolute wavelength.
>>>>>
>>>>> The absolute wavelength will very slightly decrease to a new
>>>>> absolute length as the signals slow in the atmosphere. The changes
>>>>> are easy to calculate from each satellite's ephemeris.
>>>>
>>>> wavelength also changes due to its orbitle velocity and relitivity
>>>> effects.
>
>>> In the real world, there are no 'relativity effects'.
>>>
>>>> additionally;
>>>>
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> source Effect (meters)
>>>> Signal arrival C/A ±3
>>>> Signal arrival P(Y) ±0.3
>>>> Ionospheric effects ±5
>>>> Ephemeris errors ±2.5
>>>> Satellite clock errors ±2
>>>> Multipath distortion ±1
>>>> Tropospheric effects ±0.5
>>>> 3 σ R {\displaystyle \ 3\sigma _{R}} \ 3\sigma_R C/A ±6.7
>>>> 3 σ R {\displaystyle \ 3\sigma _{R}} \ 3\sigma_R P(Y) ±6.0
>>>
>>> What is that supposed to prove? The use of wave count
>>
>
> Arrr... the same the way the pirates of yester-year would find their
> position, tie a knotted rope to each island, and have a sub-pirate walk
> the rope and count the knots. then figger out the position on the mighty
> sea....arrr...
>
>>
>>> rather than light speed is clearly a far better way to operate the
>>> GPS system.
>>>
>>
>
This is where the expression: "Better to walk the rope rather than walk
the plank!" comes from. (or was that Planck?)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGW..." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-05-31 09:58 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ogl0ve$c74$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #634748 |
On 31/05/17 00:57, Tom Roberts 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. 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. I'm sure the operators have woken up to the fact that the signals take a little longer when the satellites are rising than when they are falling. The signals take ~85 MILLI-seconds to reach ground level and never arrive simultaneously...so there is plenty of opportunity to include fudge factors that might make Einstein look good. Besides, I have been informed by a person who actually knows something about GPS that triangulation is only a preliminary guide and that the actual positioning process uses a complicated method involving phase relationships. > 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 | pcardinale@volcanomail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-06-09 13:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <877f1fca-0443-412d-9764-fba26f512f56@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #634501 |
On Saturday, May 27, 2017 at 3:37:29 AM UTC-7, 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. > > 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. I see you have a reading comprehension problem. The fact that the receivers are using "the OBSERVATION that the vacuum speed of light is isotropically c" does not mean that they are measuring it. In fact it would be absurd to measure something that is known to be a constant.
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web