10 Dec 19
1 edit
@metal-brain saidWOW, YET AGAIN, you really like making up your straw man lies don't you!
You even said GPS receivers are usually equipped with quartz crystal clocks and provided a link to prove it. They don't usually contain atomic clocks.
Dude, you proved yourself wrong.
And you STILL pretend to be so stupid as not able to read!
I DID NOT EVER SAY GPS receivers usually contain specifically atomic clocks and YOU KNOW THIS!
Well? What's your next straw man?
10 Dec 19
2 edits
@metal-brain saidHere we go YET again with your stupid pretence that you cannot read;
"In reality, BOTH the GPS satellites AND, as I proved, the GPS receivers have their own clocks but your article said the former but contradicted the latter thus showed the article (and thus you) to be wrong."
What is your source of information?
I have repeatedly posted this as my "source of information";
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog862/node/1716
"....GPS receivers are usually equipped with quartz crystal clocks, which are relatively inexpensive and compact. They have low power requirements and long life spans
...
It really isn't necessary for a GPS receiver clock to be wonderful, because we are solving for time. There are four unknowns (x, y, z, and time) and, therefore, four observations to make the solution.
Still we can't get along without an oscillator in the receiver. It is necessary for producing the replica code, for example. The replica code needs to match the incoming signals from the satellites. So, obviously, a receiver clock is necessary, but it doesn't need to be anything like an atomic standard.
..."
Thus, to any none-moron, it is clearly says (and correctly so) that GPS receivers DO have and use their own clocks (and usually non-atomic quartz crystal one's), thus contradicting the claim made by your link. And you can find other REAL science links that all say/imply the same thing.
Do you deny this fact? Yes or no?
If yes, explain how that's NOT true...
If not, then you admit I didn't lie about that and I am right.
10 Dec 19
@humy saidYes, you lied. You said this:
WOW you really like making up your straw man lies don't you!
And you pretend to be so stupid as not able to read!
I DID NOT EVER SAY the article you posted said that the GPS satellites do not have their own clocks and YOU KNOW THIS!
I very clearly REPEATEDLY said (and last time with the words " ...it is clearly claiming (and falsely so) that GPS receivers don' ...[text shortened]... ed the latter thus showed the article (and thus you) to be wrong.
And you accuse ME of lying!
"I very clearly REPEATEDLY said (and last time with the words " ...it is clearly claiming (and falsely so) that GPS receivers don't use a clock. " ) the article you posted very clearly implied that the GPS RECEIVERS, NOT the GPS satellites, do not have their own clocks."
The article I posted said GPS receivers contain no atomic clock. It didn't say they didn't contain clocks. You lied.
@humy said"It really isn't necessary for a GPS receiver clock to be wonderful, because we are solving for time. There are four unknowns (x, y, z, and time) and, therefore, four observations to make the solution."
Here we go YET again with your stupid pretence that you cannot read;
I have repeatedly posted this as my "source of information";
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog862/node/1716
"....GPS receivers are usually equipped with quartz crystal clocks, which are relatively inexpensive and compact. They have low power requirements and long life spans
...
It really isn't necessa ...[text shortened]... yes, explain how that's NOT true...
If not, then you admit I didn't lie about that and I am right.
You are contradicting yourself now. If it really isn't necessary for a GPS receiver clock to be wonderful the time dilation difference isn't that important. If it was, receivers would have to have atomic clocks to function. That is not the case.
GPS is NOT reliant on GR equations to function. That is a myth.
10 Dec 19
3 edits
@metal-brain saidYet again you pretend to be so stupid as to not able to read!
Yes, you lied. You said this:
"I very clearly REPEATEDLY said (and last time with the words " ...it is clearly claiming (and falsely so) that GPS receivers don't use a clock. " ) the article you posted very clearly implied that the GPS RECEIVERS, NOT the GPS satellites, do not have their own clocks."
The article I posted said GPS receivers contain no atomic clock. It didn't say they didn't contain clocks. You lied.
Your link said this;
"...This argument appears quite solid. So what are we overlooking?
What we are overlooking is the phrase ‘time at the receiver’. Problem is, GPS receivers contain no atomic clock because there’s no room to fit one in. Plus it would be very expensive even if possible.
That ‘time at the receiver’ must instead be determined from the satellites’ clocks...."
Thus, by the word "instead" above, it clearly and falsely IMPLIES the receiver doesn't use a clock.
And, even if you insist that it does NOT imply that, that wouldn't make sense because that would merely mean the rest of the argument of that essay is STILL wrong because, if you read it, it clearly is based on the false premise that the receivers do NOT use their own clock!
Well?
10 Dec 19
3 edits
@metal-brain saidNow your change in argument is truly getting silly!
"It really isn't necessary for a GPS receiver clock to be wonderful, because we are solving for time. There are four unknowns (x, y, z, and time) and, therefore, four observations to make the solution."
You are contradicting yourself now. If it really isn't necessary for a GPS receiver clock to be wonderful the time dilation difference isn't that important.
I can only assume what you imply by "time dilation difference isn't that important" is that NO clock is needed, not EVEN a non-atomic one!
And yet I have repeatedly shown links saying GPS receivers DO need a clock.
So which is it? Are you now saying they do or they don't need a clock?
If you say they DO need a clock, then the "time dilation difference" IS "that important" and you now contradicting yourself and thus make no point.
If you say they do NOT need a clock, then my links prove you wrong because they say they need a clock. Here it is yet again;
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog862/node/1716
"....GPS receivers are usually equipped with quartz crystal clocks, which are relatively inexpensive and compact. They have low power requirements and long life spans
...
It really isn't necessary for a GPS receiver clock to be wonderful, because we are solving for time. There are four unknowns (x, y, z, and time) and, therefore, four observations to make the solution.
Still we can't get along without an oscillator in the receiver. It is necessary for producing the replica code, for example. The replica code needs to match the incoming signals from the satellites. So, obviously, a receiver clock is necessary, but it doesn't need to be anything like an atomic standard.
..."
Well?
10 Dec 19
@humy saidYou have not proven anything wrong. An inaccurate clock proves the minute difference in time doesn't matter for the GPS system to function. If it did the receiver would have an atomic clock. It doesn't.
Yet again you pretend to be so stupid as to not able to read!
Your link said this;
"...This argument appears quite solid. So what are we overlooking?
What we are overlooking is the phrase ‘time at the receiver’. Problem is, GPS receivers contain no atomic clock because there’s no room to fit one in. Plus it would be very expensive even if possible.
That ‘time at the rece ...[text shortened]... it, it clearly is based on the false premise that the receivers do NOT use their own clock!
Well?
@humy saidHere is an excerpt from the link below:
Now your change in argument is truly getting silly!
I can only assume what you imply by "time dilation difference isn't that important" is that NO clock is needed, not EVEN a non-atomic one!
And yet I have repeatedly shown links saying GPS receivers DO need a clock.
So which is it? Are you now saying they do or they don't need a clock?
If you say they DO need a clock, then ...[text shortened]... iver clock is necessary, but it doesn't need to be anything like an atomic standard.
..."
Well?
"In order to make this measurement, the receiver and satellite both need clocks that can be synchronized down to the nanosecond. To make a satellite positioning system using only synchronized clocks, you would need to have atomic clocks not only on all the satellites, but also in the receiver itself. But atomic clocks cost somewhere between $50,000 and $100,000, which makes them a just a bit too expensive for everyday consumer use."
"The Global Positioning System has a clever, effective solution to this problem. Every satellite contains an expensive atomic clock, but the receiver itself uses an ordinary quartz clock, which it constantly resets. In a nutshell, the receiver looks at incoming signals from four or more satellites and gauges its own inaccuracy. In other words, there is only one value for the "current time" that the receiver can use. The correct time value will cause all of the signals that the receiver is receiving to align at a single point in space. That time value is the time value held by the atomic clocks in all of the satellites. So the receiver sets its clock to that time value, and it then has the same time value that all the atomic clocks in all of the satellites have. The GPS receiver gets atomic clock accuracy "for free."
https://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/travel/gps3.htm
As you can see, the receiver is dependent on the satellites atomic clocks for accuracy. That means my article was right and you are wrong.
10 Dec 19
@metal-brain saidWOW yet ANOTHER and NEW straw man lie!
As you can see, the receiver is dependent on the satellites atomic clocks for accuracy. That means my article was right and you are wrong.
I NEVER SAID the GPS receiver is NOT dependent on the satellites atomic clocks for accuracy! I said the GPS receiver is also dependent on their OWN clock for accuracy! And its OWN (receiver's) clock need not be an atomic clock.
Here is what I ACTUALLY said;
"Thus, to any none-moron, it is clearly says (and correctly so) that GPS receivers DO have and use their own clocks (and usually non-atomic quartz crystal one's), thus contradicting the claim made by your link..."
Which part of "their own" do you pretend to not understand?
10 Dec 19
1 edit
@metal-brain saidIt isn't 'inaccurate' relative to the required accuracy. As explained by my links, it is accurate enough to do the job and the fact that such a clock is needed at all is evidence that time dilation exists and thus relativity theory is correct.
You have not proven anything wrong. An inaccurate clock proves
Thus I have proven you wrong.
10 Dec 19
@humy saidYour effort to disprove the article has failed. You will have to find something else.
It isn't 'inaccurate' relative to the required accuracy. As explained by my links, it is accurate enough to do the job and the fact that such a clock is needed at all is evidence that time dilation exists and thus relativity theory is correct.
Thus I have proven you wrong.
10 Dec 19
@Metal-Brain
The system as a whole HAS SR equations to deal with changing time flows of altitude and velocity.
Regardless of whether the sats have atomic clocks or not.
BTW, atomic clocks are getting to be the size of sugar cubes now or child's blocks, at least in the labs so future GPS sats may indeed have atomic clocks onboard..
For instance, in one case, a probe going to Jupiter had a radio that developed a problem, it was unable to change its receive frequency. Now doppler effect will change the frequency that you need to tune in to to get data back and forth from probe to Earth.
So realizing that, the guys on Earth were able to use SR and doppler equations on Earth, not in the probe, to calculate exactly what frequency they had to send in order to communicate with the defunct oscillator that was unable to change frequency.
A similar problem to GPS which has not so much frequency of reception issues but time flow issues and if you can get sneaky enough with your SR equations on the ground, you can tell the clocks onboard GPS sats how far off they are and to have them put in corrections to enable the accuracy we see in present day GPS.
Ten years from now the present GPS system will be slowly replaced with much more accurate sats but that is for the future.
10 Dec 19
@sonhouse said"The system as a whole HAS SR equations to deal with changing time flows of altitude and velocity."
@Metal-Brain
The system as a whole HAS SR equations to deal with changing time flows of altitude and velocity.
Regardless of whether the sats have atomic clocks or not.
BTW, atomic clocks are getting to be the size of sugar cubes now or child's blocks, at least in the labs so future GPS sats may indeed have atomic clocks onboard..
For instance, in one case, a probe ...[text shortened]... present GPS system will be slowly replaced with much more accurate sats but that is for the future.
What is your source of information?
"A similar problem to GPS which has not so much frequency of reception issues but time flow issues and if you can get sneaky enough with your SR equations on the ground, you can tell the clocks onboard GPS sats how far off they are and to have them put in corrections to enable the accuracy we see in present day GPS.
What is your source of info for that? Even if so, you would have to establish that the greater accuracy is reliant on the GPS to function. You have not done that.
10 Dec 19
4 edits
@sonhouse saidI think you got that a bit confused, and possibly by confusing GPS sats in space with GPS receivers on Earth; All GPS sats ALREADY have atomic clocks onboard. But most GPS receivers on Earth don't and, perhaps surprisingly, unless the MUCH greater accuracy is required (which it rarely is), don't need to because they can get away with non-atomic clocks within them that are still accurate enough for the job.
BTW, atomic clocks are getting to be the size of sugar cubes now or child's blocks, at least in the labs so future GPS sats may indeed have atomic clocks onboard..
Of course, the required level of clock accuracy needed by either has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the proven need for the different clock 'tick' rate settings in GPS indirectly proves relativity correct. So this is all besides the point.
10 Dec 19
@Metal-Brain
You forget I was an Apollo tech, my job was in fact atomic clocks, there were three on each ground station, one cesium beam, one rubidium clock backup and tertiary backup a highly temperature controlled quartz crystal like our modern watches but a LOT more accurate, not near like either of the two atomics but good enough to get through a day or two.
Well I could not find the story of that probe directly online, it kept pointing me to Voyager stuff, I know it wasn't voyager, I think a Jovian probe but it was maybe 10 years ago. I contacted NASA email, it is gsfc-public-inquiries@mail.nasa.gov
if you are interested. It will probably take a week for them to respond.
I have lots of fond memories working on Apollo at Goddard, among other things, getting to hold a real moon rock in my hand. Sigh.