SR/GR use absolute time to synchronize the GPS clocks with the ground clock.
in [Relativity]
|
From: Koobee Wublee on 20 Apr 2010 21:28 Ah, the myth deepens about the mismatched clock rate between the satellites and on the ground affecting GPS designs. First all, no one seems to understand what the issue is. The issue is to synchronize the time count. As long as the time count is synchronized among all the satellites, the GPS cares none the less about the different time flow between the satellites and on the ground even if the difference is true. There is a difference between time count and clock input. The clock input is to accumulate the time count at a precise time interval. So, even if the clock on each satellite is off tuned, as long as each gets to synchronize its time count with the other satellites at a specified time, all is fine. Again for the self-styled physicists on how GPS works, ** Each satellite broadcasts its position and time count ever so often at a very slow rate of 50 bits/sec. That is fifty. It would take several seconds to acquire a complete reading. ** For someone who does not know his position and time can try to acquire the position and time information of at least 4 satellites. ** With 4 known positions and time from the 4 satellites, one can then solve a set of 4 equations with 4 unknowns with the unknowns being his position and (satellite) time. ** If there is any mismatched clock rate among the satellites, the time count needs to be updated (synchronized) every so often. Even if someone tries to update the time count of each satellite one by one with mismatched clock, as long as each satellite gets the same time count, all will be fine. ** The GR influence is the biggest myth in GPS. <shrug> ** GPS works because the real world is absolute not relative. <shrug>
From: Sam Wormley on 20 Apr 2010 21:45 On 4/20/10 8:28 PM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > Ah, the myth deepens about the mismatched clock rate between the > satellites and on the ground affecting GPS designs. > Do some self-education, Koobee! See Relativistic Effects on Satellite Clocks http://relativity.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=lrr-2003-1&page=node5.html
From: PD on 22 Apr 2010 10:31 On Apr 22, 8:34 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Apr 19, 12:25 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 19, 8:36 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 18, 4:57 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 4/18/10 10:11 AM, kenseto wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 18, 1:14 am, PD<thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> On Apr 17, 10:05 am, kenseto<kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > >>> On Apr 16, 5:29 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > >>> wrote: > > > > > >>>>> Why do I need to rebut what SR says? > > > > > >>>> You keep saying there is an absolute frame. SR states there is no > > > > >>>> absolute frame. If you're going to stick to your claim, you're going to > > > > >>>> have to rebut SR. > > > > > >>> Sigh....SR doesn't say that. SR says that it doen't need the absolute > > > > >>> frame after it adopted the laws of physics of the absolute frame. > > > > > >> Stop making things up, Ken. SR says no such thing. > > > > > > Do you deny that the laws of physics in any inerial frame are the same > > > > > as the laws of phyiscs in an absolute frame? > > > > > Since there is no "absolute" reference frame, we have no idea (and > > > > neither do you) of what you are obsessed with. Whether a body is > > > > in motion or at rest depends strictly on the point of view of the > > > > observer. > > > > NO....there is an absolute frame. The laws of physics of the absolute > > > frame is adopted by every inertial observer an dthat's why all > > > inertial frame have the same laws of physics. > > > No, Ken, what YOU think are the properties of an absolute reference > > frame, are NOT the properties of the absolute reference frame. > > assertion is not a valid arguement. That's correct, Ken, and what you assert are the properties of an absolute frame is not a valid argument. What an absolute frame in physics is, is documented in black and white in several books I can recommend to you. This removes the matter completely from argument. If you disbelieve what I tell you, then look it up. If you don't want to look it up, and would rather believe what you want to believe, and you expect people to convince you by argument, then you will always remain ignorant of what physics says. Some things are just documented fact, and the way to be convinced is to look up the documentation of those facts. Period. End of story. It's your choice, Ken. You can live in your fantasy world, or you can reconnect with the real world. Your choice. > > >You are > > simply mistaken about that. "Absolute reference frame" has a very > > specific meaning in physics, and it is not the meaning you attribute > > to the term. > > > > - Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: PD on 22 Apr 2010 10:41 On Apr 22, 8:32 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > On Apr 19, 12:24 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 19, 8:27 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > On Apr 18, 2:18 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Apr 18, 11:11 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Apr 18, 1:14 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Apr 17, 10:05 am, kenseto <kens...(a)erinet.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Apr 16, 5:29 pm, moro...(a)world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Why do I need to rebut what SR says? > > > > > > > > > You keep saying there is an absolute frame. SR states there is no > > > > > > > > absolute frame. If you're going to stick to your claim, you're going to > > > > > > > > have to rebut SR. > > > > > > > > Sigh....SR doesn't say that. SR says that it doen't need the absolute > > > > > > > frame after it adopted the laws of physics of the absolute frame. > > > > > > > Stop making things up, Ken. SR says no such thing. > > > > > > Do you deny that the laws of physics in any inerial frame are the same > > > > > as the laws of phyiscs in an absolute frame? > > > > > Yes, I deny that. The laws of physics in the absolute frame are > > > > DIFFERENT than they are in inertial reference frames. That's what > > > > distinguishes the absolute rest frame. That's what it means. > > > > Then why can't you describe the differences in the laws of physics > > > between an inertial frame and an absolute frame? > > > I have already, Ken, in this thread. I characterized how, in inertial > > reference frames, the Newtonian laws of mechanics and the laws of > > electrodynamics hold. I also described how the laws of physics would > > be different in an absolute reference frame. The properties that YOU > > think are ascribed to an absolute reference frame are incorrect. Those > > are not the properties of an absolute reference frame. > > No....every inertial frame adopts the special properties of the > absolute frame No, Ken, what you say are the properties of the absolute frame are NOT the properties of the absolute frame, as that word is used in physics. Sorry, you're just mistaken. > then you SRians turn around and claim that these > special properties of the absolute frame are the exclusive properties > of every inertial frame. > > Now you are asking what are the special properties of the absolute > frame. I'm not asking for what the special properties are. I've told you what the special properties are already. > This is much like after your mother gave birth to you and you > grow up and claim that your mathe ris not your mother. > > > > > Since we have found no reference frame in which the laws of physics > > are different than what they are in inertial reference frames, > > Of course...that's because the laws of physics of every inertial frame > are adopted from the special laws of physics of the absolute frame. > > >in a > > manner that singles out a velocity with respect to an absolute > > reference, we have no evidence for an absolute reference frame at all, > > despite searching for one experimentally. In special relativity, the > > absolute reference frame is explicitly said not to exist. > > > > > > Ken Seto > > > > > > > > Ken Seto- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > >
From: Michael Moroney on 22 Apr 2010 13:20
kenseto <kenseto(a)erinet.com> writes: >> No, Ken, what YOU think are the properties of an absolute reference >> frame, are NOT the properties of the absolute reference frame. >assertion is not a valid arguement. So why do you keep asserting that inertial frames take on the property of some absolute frame which exists only in your mind, and which SR disavows? |