11 Dec 19
@humy saidYou have failed to prove it. Nobody is going to take the word of a liar like you.
I 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 ...[text shortened]... 'tick' rate settings in GPS indirectly proves relativity correct. So this is all besides the point.
11 Dec 19
@sonhouse saidThe GPS receiver is dependent on the satellite atomic clocks for resetting the receiver's clock to be more accurate. Your previous assertion that the atomic clocks in orbit are corrected by some ground station doesn't make sense.
@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 cou ...[text shortened]... working on Apollo at Goddard, among other things, getting to hold a real moon rock in my hand. Sigh.
In any case there is too much time alignment between orbit and ground taking place for relativity to be required. The whole notion that GPS is dependent on GR or SR to function is hogwash.
11 Dec 19
@Metal-Brain
I didn't say there was an atomic clock on the sats.
Also, what do you think makes the big changes in time flow? Why would a clock in orbit, atomic or not, have differences to a similar clock on the ground?
12 Dec 19
@sonhouse saidThere are atomic clocks in GPS satellites.
@Metal-Brain
I didn't say there was an atomic clock on the sats.
Also, what do you think makes the big changes in time flow? Why would a clock in orbit, atomic or not, have differences to a similar clock on the ground?
Time dilation could be it. It has been suggested there could be other reasons for it though. One website I read said it could be a difference in the time of the transmitter is putting out the signal. Another suggested air pressure or temps could make a difference.
In any case the receiver is dependent on the GPS satellites for accurate time. Relativity equations are not necessary for GPS to function. It is a myth.
@metal-brain saidAnd all those loony pseudoscientific BS websites you love to read have all been debunked while you either refuse to read or just dismiss the many real science websites that just state the evidence and the facts.
One website I read said it could be a difference in the time of the transmitter is putting out the signal. Another suggested air pressure or temps could make a difference.
13 Dec 19
@metal-brain saidI and others here already did.
Prove it.
Reminder of my first post on that that proved this;
http://alternativephysics.org/book/GPSmythology.htm
I wondered where the hell you got that BS idea from!
Your link is a pseudoscientific one that hasn't gone through peer preview and can be easily debunked just by looking up the pretty basic facts which your link has repeatedly got wrong!
For example, Your link says
"...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...."
This above is false! Not only do GPS receivers generally do NOT need atomic clocks (unless the greater accuracy is specifically required), but most if not all those that don't have them have quartz crystal clocks instead that ARE used by the GPS receivers;
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.
..."
The whole argument of that link's essay is based not only on that false premise but some others that I can list and then debunk each in turn.
The author of that assay obviously didn't know the first thing about how GPS works and instead just made crap up to try and debunk relativity; you can easily find THOUSANDS of loons and morons trying to do just that all over the net (an extremely common problem) and they are all completely wrong and can be easily proven wrong without a single exception
13 Dec 19
@humy saidYou have gone through a lot of trouble to demonstrate you have not proved anything. Thanks for that. 😆
I and others here already did.
Reminder of my first post on that that proved this;
http://alternativephysics.org/book/GPSmythology.htm
I wondered where the hell you got that BS idea from!
Your link is a pseudoscientific one that hasn't gone through peer preview and can be easily debunked just by looking up the pretty basic facts which your link has repeate ...[text shortened]... nd they are all completely wrong and can be easily proven wrong without a single exception
13 Dec 19
@Metal-Brain
What are you trying to determine? If GR or SR is bogus? If GPS science is bogus? What is your POV here?
14 Dec 19
@sonhouse saidSee my OP in the relativity thread I created. I was asking if the guy in the video makes good points. Somehow it came up here.
@Metal-Brain
What are you trying to determine? If GR or SR is bogus? If GPS science is bogus? What is your POV here?
16 Dec 19
@sonhouse saidWhat dude?
@Metal-Brain
So read MY analysis of that dude in your previous thread.
28 Dec 19
@Metal-Brain
He said among other things galaxies were SEEN going faster than the speed of light which is total BS.
If there was something receding faster than light how would you get the light coming off it?
What MAY be receding faster than light is the entire universe and what we see is the further away we look galaxies are red shifted due to relativistic doppler shift.
So extending that idea that maybe the universe is bigger than we can see with telescopes, it would mean galaxies indeed are receding faster than light but you can't see them because in the 14 odd billion years of the age of the universe, or maybe OUR universe, the light from those galaxies cannot get here because it might take say 15 billion years to get here so we would never be able to see those galaxies EVER. Current thinking is the universe may be 50 billion light years 'across' or more meaning there are parts of the universe, galaxies we will NEVER see unless we come up with a magic drive going a trillion times the speed of light.
Even at that speed to cross the universe would still take a month or so.