CMBR's motion wrt the Earth
in [Relativity]
|
From: Inertial on 12 Sep 2009 02:17 "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:019e7b68-6b6c-4aee-9a21-89ac856cec51(a)o41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 11, 7:00 am, Tom Roberts wrote: >> Koobee Wublee wrote: > >> > By acquiring signals from at least 4 GPS satellites, >> > there is no need to keep the synchronicity in the GPS time and the >> > ground time. >> >> This is just plain false, for the GPS as it is implemented. They have a >> REQUIREMENT to keep GPS time within 1 microsecond of UTC after >> correcting for leap seconds. > > Show me that spec that requires the satellite time to be maintained > within 1 usec of the UTC, and explain to me why this is necessary. Didn't take me long to find something... http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/gpssps1.pdf "GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM STANDARD POSITIONING SERVICE SIGNAL SPECIFICATION" ==== 2.3.5 GPS Time and the Satellite Z-Count GPS time is established by the Control Segment and is used as the primary time reference for all GPS operations. GPS time is referenced to a UTC (as maintained by the U.S. Naval Observatory) zero time-point defined as midnight on the night of January 5, 1980/morning of January 6, 1980. The largest unit used in stating GPS time is one week, defined as 604,800 seconds. GPS time may differ from UTC because GPS time is a continuous time scale, while UTC is corrected periodically with an integer number of leap seconds. There also is an inherent but bounded drift rate between the UTC and GPS time scales. ***** The GPS time scale is maintained to be within one microsecond of UTC (Modulo one second) *****. The navigation data contains the requisite data for relating GPS time to UTC. ====
From: Tom Roberts on 12 Sep 2009 11:37 Inertial wrote: > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:019e7b68-6b6c-4aee-9a21-89ac856cec51(a)o41g2000yqb.googlegroups.com... >> On Sep 11, 7:00 am, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> for the GPS as it is implemented. They have a >>> REQUIREMENT to keep GPS time within 1 microsecond of UTC after >>> correcting for leap seconds. >> Show me that spec that requires the satellite time to be maintained >> within 1 usec of the UTC, and explain to me why this is necessary. > > http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/gpssps1.pdf > [...] Yes. This is required so the ground control segment can use a large, ground-based, ensemble of atomic clocks to disentangle the various errors of each satellite, such as: A) non-circular orbit B) incorrect altitude of orbit C) intrinsic clock drift D) effects of sun, moon, etc. E) variations of atmospheric propagation delay F) surely more... The GPS is an OPERATIONAL SYSTEM, not some figment of Koobee's imagination. It must cope with real-world engineering effects. And it must use GR, because GR is the best model we have for its physical situation. Tom Roberts
From: Koobee Wublee on 13 Sep 2009 02:34 On Sep 11, 11:25 pm, "Inertial" wrote: > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dont thank me. Thank your own ignorance. <shrug> > > I see you dishonestly put my reply as though it was to some other statement. What are you talking about? > Your total dishonesty and continual lies What dishonesty? What lies? > make you unworthy of further reply You dont even keep your words. So, why should I respect one who does not keep his words? If you have no more replies, get the fvck lost.
From: Koobee Wublee on 13 Sep 2009 02:40 On Sep 11, 11:22 pm, "Inertial" wrote: > "Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wub...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Nonsense! All students are in awe of their teachers. <shrug> > > How is that comment at all related to what I said? Well, you brought up the subject. So, you tell me. <shrug> > > That is a total nonsense. > > I see you don't understand teh twins paradox then. That's not a surprise.. <shrug> > > It was proposed by Einstein the nitwit, the > > plagiarist, and the liar. Having two twins originally at rest > > relative to each other, accelerate away, and finally meeting at rest > > with each other with the exact same acceleration profile would easily > > point out the fault in that absurd claim. <shrug> > > As per SR, that would result in no difference in 'aging' for the twins No, this would violate the Lorentz transform and thus SR. <shrug> > > Wow! So, you know that. > > Yes .. don't you? Guess you do, now that I've told you No, I dont know you know that, but you actually dont know that because you have mis-applied the Lorentz transform. <shrug> > > During accelerations, you can have a period > > where both twins were coasting away with no acceleration. > > Irrelevant It is in fact very relevant. This shows you that you do not really understand the issues at hand. <shrug> Therefore, the rest of nonsense is snipped due to your ignorance in the Lorentz transform. <shrug>
From: Inertial on 13 Sep 2009 02:56
"Koobee Wublee" <koobee.wublee(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:2f095e66-9202-4d69-b7a7-826c5bce9932(a)k33g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 12, 8:37 am, Tom Roberts wrote: >> Inertial wrote: > >> > http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/gpssps1.pdf > > Wow! You actually believe in the nonsense of this 1usec accuracy. You asked to see a spec. There it is. [snip koobee trying in vain to still have a point] |