Den 22.09.2023 22:32, skrev Richard Hertz:
> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 3:25:49 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 20.09.2023 23:21, skrev Richard Hertz:
>>>
>>> BTW, I DEFY YOU to explain to us all, very clearly, how this master equation is applied when calculating ranges
>>>
>>> ΔtSV = af0 + af1 (t - toc) + af2 (t - toc)2 + ΔtF - Δtgd >
>>> Plus, why this equation has to applied, where is applied and HOW the parameters are calculated and broadcasted in terms
>>> of orbital parameters.
>>>
>>> Finally, HOW ΔtF (relativistic term) is applied to EVERY SINGLE SATELLITE, AND-IF it's dependent on user's position.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.gsc-europa.eu/sites/default/files/sites/all/files/Galileo-OS-SIS-ICD.pdf
>>>
>>
>> Are you unable to read the Interface Control Document for Galileo
>> yourself, since you ask me to help you?
>>
>> --
>> Paul
>>
>> https://paulba.no/

>
> So, you can't' explain the use of the relativistic correction ΔtF (also known as Δtr) by the end user terminal, for EACH GNSS satellite.

I explained it in my very
first response to you in this thread.

I will quote the relevant part of it here:

Den 19.09.2023 03:09, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
> Den 16.09.2023 06:25, skrev Richard Hertz:
>>

>
> Note that the SV-clocks are never corrected while
> the SVs are in service.
>
> 20.3.3.3.3.1:
>
> The corrected time is: t = t_SV - Δt_SV
> where:
> t = GPS system time
> t_SV = the time shown by the SV-clock.
> Δt_SV = the clock correction.
>
> The clock correction is calculated in the receiver with
> the clock correction parameters transmitted by the SV.
>
> Δt_SV = a_f0 + a_f1(t - t_oc) + a_f2 (t - t_oc)² + Δ_tR
> where:
> a_f0 = clock offset (error of t_SV at the time t_oc)
> a_f1 = rate error of the SV clock at the time t_oc
> a_f1 = rate of change of the rate error at the time t_oc
> t_OC = the GPS-time when the parameters were measured by
> the monitoring stations (before they were uploaded)
> Δ_tR = a relativistic correction (see below)
>

>>
>> Since these coefficients do not include corrections for relativistic effects, THE USER'S EQUIPMENT must determine the
>> requisite relativistic correction. Accordingly, the of offset given below includes a term to perform this function.

>
> Note that the SV-clocks are never corrected while the SVs
> are in service. So t_SV will typically be (several tens of)
> microseconds off sync, and the clock offset a_f0 will be equivalent.
>
> However, since the a_f0 is stored in a register with a limited number
> of bits, The "clock offset" must be less than ~ ± 1 ms, or the register
> containing it will overflow.
>
> If the rate of the SV-clock was not GR-corrected, it would be
> more than +1 ms off sync after ~25 days, and the "clock offset"
> would overflow, and the GPS wouldn't work
>
> NOTE THIS:
> # Since the GPS works, this prove that the rate of the SV-clock
> # _must_ be corrected by the factor -4.4647E-10.
> # This is the significant "GR-correction" of the clock rate done
> # before the satellite is set in service.
>
>
> If the orbit of the SV is circular (which it initially is),
> the relativistic correction Δ_tR is zero.
>
> But with time the orbit tends to be eccentric (caused by sun, moon).
> Since this means that both the speed of the satellite and its altitude
> will vary with the position in the orbit, the exact GR-correction will
> also vary a little from the factor -4.4647E-10 with the position in the orbit.
>

>> Δ_tR = F e √A sin E_k
>>
>> F = -4.442807633E-10 s/√m

>
> OK
>

>> √A = square root of semimajor axis of the satellite orbit : 4492.458 √m , for current 31 active SV.

>
> You have set A = altitude of SV,but A = the radius of the orbit.
> A = 26.56E6 m
, √A = 5055.6899 √m
>

>> e = space vehicle orbit eccentricity : 0.008573316 , for current 31 active SV
>> E_k = eccentric anomaly of the GPS satellite orbit.
>>
>> sin E_k = √(1 - e^2) sin θ /(1 + e cos θ) ; θ: True Anomaly (ANGLE BETWEEN EARTH AND THE SV)

>
> Since the eccentricity is very small, E_k and θ will be almost equal.
> E_k will always go from 0 to 2π during an orbit, obviously.

>
> Δ_tR = e⋅F⋅√A⋅sin(E_k)
> = e⋅(-4.442807633E-10 s/√m)⋅(5055.6899 √m)⋅sin(E_k)
> = e⋅(-2.24614E-06)⋅sin(E_k) s
>
> Valid values for the eccentricity e are 0.00 to 0.03
>
> So with e = 0.03 and E_k = 90° or 270° so sin(E_k) = ±1, we get:
>
> Δ_tR = ±0.03⋅(-2.24614E-06)s = ∓67.38437255232446 ns
>
> However, 0.03 is probably an unrealistic high value for e.
> So Δ_tR will probably seldom be higher than few ns.
> And the average is always zero, obviously.

With the eccentricity e = 0.008573316 you mention above
Δ_tR ≈ 19.3⋅sin(E_k) nS

And of course Δ_tR is different for each SV,
and of course the position of the receiver is utterly irrelevant.

------------------------

What exactly is it you don't understand?

To find the GPS time t at the instant when the signal was
sent from the SV, we have to use the equation:
t = t_SV - Δt_SV

Unless you are a complete moron, you must now have learned
how we find Δt_SV. But what about t_SV?

Do you know how the receiver measures what the SV clock t_SV
showed at the instant when the signal was sent from the SV?

I will explain if you ask nicely.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 15:37:03 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Lou wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 19:57:19 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Lou wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
> > > > > El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Woznia:
> > > > > > On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocks
> > > > > > > > set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
> > > > > > > Yes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
> > > > > > > frequency (9192631774.1)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
> > > > > > to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
> > > > > > way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
> > > > > > Isn't it sweet?
> > > > > > That's what The Shit's brainwashing
> > > > > > is doing with the brains of its victims.
> > > > > GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see
> > > > > document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on
> > > > > the ground at 10.23 MHz.
> > > >
> > > > Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was
> > > > referring to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
> > > Right, in Einstein 1905.
> > > (for mechanical watches, not pendulum clocks, aka 'balance clocks')
> > > > Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be
> > > > effected by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating
> > > > atom
> > > > wasnt even considered in 1915.
> > > Wrong. Einstein predicted gravitational time dilation in 1915,
> > > and he predicted that this would be observable in spectra
> > > of light from heavy stars. Yes, that means spectral lines of atoms.
> > > [snip bollocks]
> > >
> > Wrong. Einstein did not predict that resonating systems, like atoms
> > would resonate at different frequencies if subjected to
> > more or less mass or weight(acceleration)
> Einstein -did- predict that atomic spectral lines
> originating from atoms near the surface of a massive star
> would be red-shifted. (as observed later)
> It was one of the three 'classic tests of GR'.
> [snip nonsensical other explanations]
> >

So what. Classical physics predicted the same...probably even before Einstein
was born. It’s called resonance. And resonating systems will change
their natural resonant frequencies when subjected to a change in mass
or weight. And you can change its weight with *acceleration*
Notice G is acceleration.
No need for relativity.

> > > Jan
> > >
> > > --
> > > "Thence we conclude that a 'balance-clock' at the equator must go more
> > > slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated
> > > at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."
> > > (Albert Einstein 1905)
> >
> > Yes. And notice a balance clock beat frequency can be *modified* by varying
> > it's mass. Without changing its altitude.
> Of course. Pocket watches can, and need to be adjusted.
> One can take a miniaturised atomic clock instead, nowadays.
> > Einstein was lucky. As with Marconi, nobody noticed he was stealing
> > other phenomena described by classical theory, and pretending
> > these classical effects were relativistic!
> Twin paradox and transverse Dopple shift are not classical effects.

Twin paradox and time dilation aren’t part of classical physics
Because they are imaginary effects.
And classical physics isn’t based on fantasy like relativity.

>
> Jan

On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:11:22 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 9/22/2023 5:54 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 19:57:19 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> Lou wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
> >>>> El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak:
> >>>>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocks
> >>>>>>> set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
> >>>>>> Yes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
> >>>>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
> >>>>> to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
> >>>>> way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
> >>>>> Isn't it sweet?
> >>>>> That's what The Shit's brainwashing
> >>>>> is doing with the brains of its victims.
> >>>> GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see
> >>>> document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on
> >>>> the ground at 10.23 MHz.
> >>>
> >>> Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring
> >>> to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
> >> Right, in Einstein 1905.
> >> (for mechanical watches, not pendulum clocks, aka 'balance clocks')
> >>> Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected
> >>> by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom
> >>> wasnt even considered in 1915.
> >> Wrong. Einstein predicted gravitational time dilation in 1915,
> >> and he predicted that this would be observable in spectra
> >> of light from heavy stars. Yes, that means spectral lines of atoms.
> >> [snip bollocks]
> >>
> > Wrong. Einstein did not predict that resonating systems, like atoms
> > would resonate at different frequencies if subjected to
> > more or less mass or weight(acceleration)
> That wasn't his field. Relativity was. And yet again, relativity and
> resonances (the ones affected by gravity) are affected DIFFERENTLY than
> GR effects, varying by force or potential respectively.

You still have supplied zero evidence to prove that resonance cannot model change
in atomic frequency. Desperately and arbitrarily Invoking ‘force’ and ‘potential’
is meaningless unless you can explain how classical physics cannot
explain force or potential.

> > This change in frequency due to change in the systems weight
> > was already a well understood classical effect before Albert was even born.
> And varying with force, not potential.
> > As for any additional redshifting seen in stars spectra due to mass, once
> > again the greater the mass of the star, the greater the gravitational strength
> > at its surface. And due to classical resonance effects this means the lower
> > the natural frequency of the stars atoms.
> Nope. Resonances vary by force. Redshift is proportional to potential.

Gravitational potential you mean? You are desperate indeed if
you think nobody knew gravity and g potential existed until Einstein
dreamed up his nonsense. Ever heard of Newton?
Obviously not.

> > Incidentally contrary to common misunderstanding
> > among relativists and quantum theorists...spectral lines can all
> > be modelled as specific frequency harmonic emissions by atoms.
> And...? We see the redshift from massive stars changes by potential so
> it is not some force-related effect on resonances.
> > No need for the Bohr electron shell model.
> Obsolete long ago.

Never was workable. It was Complete utter nonsense.

> > Especially considering it and it’s progeny
> > QT, can still not correctly model all spectral lines seen in atoms.
> Predicting spectral lines is notoriously complicated for any non-trivial
> atom. It's like the many-body Newtonian gravity, but worse.
> >

Maybe for a useless fantasy theory like QT.
But for H at least, all spectral lines can be predicted classically and simply
by looking at the Ritz Rydberg formula and/or by using harmonics.
No need for imaginary electron shells that don’t work anyways.

> >> Jan
> >>
> >> --
> >> "Thence we conclude that a 'balance-clock' at the equator must go more
> >> slowly, by a very small amount, than a precisely similar clock situated
> >> at one of the poles under otherwise identical conditions."
> >> (Albert Einstein 1905)
> Einstein was actually wrong there, because he didn't know of GR yet, nor
> that the earth isn't a sphere. But Einstein corrected himself with GR.
> >
> > Yes. And notice a balance clock beat frequency can be *modified* by varying
> > it’s mass. Without changing its altitude.
> And why is that relevant?

Because you seem unable to understand that a resonating atom,
like all resonating systems, will change its natural resonating
frequency simply by changing its weight through acceleration.
No need for relativity when classical physics does the same.

On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 16:58:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 9/22/2023 6:14 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 03:36:01 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 9/20/2023 2:39 PM, Lou wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 18:27:59 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 9/20/2023 9:55 AM, Lou wrote:
>
> >>>>> So you can’t very well pretend that additional external force on resonant systems
> >>>>> resulting in lower resonant frequencies, a well known fact before Albert was even born,
> >>>>> is due to your garbage relativistic dogma.
>
> >>>> That's not the cause of GR time dilation. Gravitational force will
> >>>> affect certain gravity-dependent systems like a pendulum clock. But GR
> >>>> effects are due to differences in the gravitational potential, not the
> >>>> force. I bet you don't even know what the difference between
> >>>> gravitational force and potential is!
> >>>
> >>> Just word salad for people who don’t understand physics.
>
> >> That's what I expected. You don't understand the difference so you blow
> >> it off as 'word salad'. Hint: word salad is authored by anti-relativity
> >> cranks (and other cranks) when they try to explain what they can't explain.
> >
> > The cranks are the ones who co opt classical effects
> > like resonance and pretend they are complex formations of
> > little winged albert angels dancing on pin heads.
> You are desperate; grasping for straws. In this case you grabbed a
> "resonance" straw. Resonances exist but have nothing to do with the
> cause of GR effects seen.
> >
> >>>
> >>> But, I bet you don’t know that resonant systems like atoms will,
> >>> when subjected to a change in conditions like mass or weight or acceleration
> >>> (and thus changes in G) will change their natural resonant frequencies.
> >>> And that change is directly proportional. So that increased mass, weight,
> >>> acceleration or G (all being intimately linked) will lead to a decrease in natural
> >>> frequency of ANY classical resonant system.
>
> >> Nope. Only those dependent on the gravitational force, such as a
> >> pendulum clock.
> >>
> >>> As observed in GPS.
> >>
> >> Remember, when local to the Cs clock, the Cs clock it ticks 1 second per
> >> 9192631770 Cs transitions. No matter what the gravity is.
> >>
> >> It's only when the gravitational potential (not force) is different
> >> between locations (say, between the geoid and the satellite in orbit)
> >> when this is not true. As they are definitely not local.
> >
> > I think you will find it hard to prove that the atoms in the atomic clock
> > are not resonating at a higher frequency than the same atoms on earths
> > surface. As predicted classically with resonance.
> Nope. You compare actual measurements with the predictions of GR. You
> compare measured differences to see if they vary with gravitational
> force or gravitational potential (something you don't even understand
> what the difference is).

If acceleration can slow the natural resonant frequency of a classical
resonant system like an atom...and this is observed in GPS, and many
other experiments...then you don’t need relativity.

> Also the first postulate points out the laws of physics are the same
> everywhere. The result of that is that a Cs clock in high orbit will
> tick at 9192631770 cycles per second, according to an astronaut orbiting
> with it.
> > How would you disprove the classical resonance model?
> Classical resonances still exist; they won't be disproven. But they are
> not the source of GR effects.
>

Of course not. GR effects are imaginary. What’s actually
happening in GPS is that the natural resonant frequency of atoms
speed up with an increase in altitude. Due to a decrease in weight?
Are you familiar with r^2 ?
..

> For one, a resonance affected by gravity is affected by the
> gravitational force. GR effects are affected according to the
> gravitational potential. You don't know the difference.

I do know the difference between good science and snake oil.
And classical resonance is good science. Because it only uses
empirical observations. Not fantasy assumptions.

> > It predicts the same effect as the relativistic model.
> No it doesn't. Again gravitational force vs. potential, they have
> different predictions.
> > All you have are observations on earth that show an increased
> > frequency due to altitude.
> Which exactly matches the GR predicted gravitational blueshift of a
> signal in a gravitational field. (see Pound-Rebka)
> > There is no way to discern between the
> > change in frequency being caused by classical effects or by relativistic effects.
> And yet again, gravitational force vs. gravitational potential make
> different predictions.
> > That was Alberts only ability. He managed to successfully steal
> > classical effects...and pretend they were relativistic.
> Why do you make up garbage and pretend that it's true?
> >

Isn’t that what most of Alberts peers said to him in the early 1900’s?
They must have been very smart. Because they were right all along.

> >>> No nonsensical relativity needed to explain this purely classical phenomenon
> >>> called resonance.
> >> Nope. It cannot be explained by normal gravitational force. This was
> >> clearly demonstrated with the prototype GPS satellite when they switched
> >> between "Newton Mode" and "Einstein Mode". Of course it worked only in
> >> Einstein Mode. Relativity vindicated yet again!

Lou wrote:

> On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:11:22 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> That wasn't his field. Relativity was. And yet again, relativity and
>> resonances (the ones affected by gravity) are affected DIFFERENTLY than
>> GR effects, v̶a̶r̶y̶i̶n̶g̶ b̶y̶ f̶o̶r̶c̶e̶ o̶r̶ p̶o̶t̶e̶n̶t̶i̶a̶l̶ r̶e̶s̶p̶e̶c̶t̶i̶v̶e̶l̶y̶.

nonsense. The curved spacetime doesn't introduces any forces, only strain
locally, iff the gradient is too extreme.

> You still have supplied zero evidence to prove that resonance cannot
> model change in atomic frequency. Desperately and arbitrarily Invoking
> ‘force’ and ‘potential’

those frequencies are 🆆🅷🅰🆃_🅳🅴🅵🅸🅽🅴🆂_🆃🅷🅴_🅰🆃🅾🅼, fucking stupid.
Built in 🅃🄷🄴_🄲🄾🄽🅂🅃🅁🅄🄲🅃🄸🄾🄽_🄾🄵_🅃🄷🄴_🅄🄽🄸🅅🄴🅁🅂🄴. Here's some
datasheet tables from the manufacturer, you have to use.

https://𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻_𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲_𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗰𝗸𝘀_𝗮𝗻𝗱_𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗱-𝘂𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘂𝗺_𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗹𝘀_𝗱𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗱__𝗠𝗼𝘀𝗰𝗼𝘄
The Russian Defense Ministry says 12 major strikes targeting military
infrastructure have taken place in the past week
https://%72%74.com/ru%73%73ia/583438-ukraine-depleted-uranium-missiles/

On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 10:20:16 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 22.09.2023 22:32, skrev Richard Hertz:
> > On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 3:25:49 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 20.09.2023 23:21, skrev Richard Hertz:
> >>>
> >>> BTW, I DEFY YOU to explain to us all, very clearly, how this master equation is applied when calculating ranges
> >>>
> >>> ΔtSV = af0 + af1 (t - toc) + af2 (t - toc)2 + ΔtF - Δtgd >
> >>> Plus, why this equation has to applied, where is applied and HOW the parameters are calculated and broadcasted in terms
> >>> of orbital parameters.
> >>>
> >>> Finally, HOW ΔtF (relativistic term) is applied to EVERY SINGLE SATELLITE, AND-IF it's dependent on user's position.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> https://www.gsc-europa.eu/sites/default/files/sites/all/files/Galileo-OS-SIS-ICD.pdf
> >>>
> >>
> >> Are you unable to read the Interface Control Document for Galileo
> >> yourself, since you ask me to help you?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Paul
> >>
> >> https://paulba.no/
>
> >
> > So, you can't' explain the use of the relativistic correction ΔtF (also known as Δtr) by the end user terminal, for EACH GNSS satellite.
>
> I explained it in my very
> first response to you in this thread.
>
> I will quote the relevant part of it here:
>
> Den 19.09.2023 03:09, skrev Paul B. Andersen:
> > Den 16.09.2023 06:25, skrev Richard Hertz:
> >>
>
> >
> > Note that the SV-clocks are never corrected while
> > the SVs are in service.
> >
> > 20.3.3.3.3.1:
> >
> > The corrected time is: t = t_SV - Δt_SV
> > where:
> > t = GPS system time
> > t_SV = the time shown by the SV-clock.
> > Δt_SV = the clock correction.
> >
> > The clock correction is calculated in the receiver with
> > the clock correction parameters transmitted by the SV.
> >
> > Δt_SV = a_f0 + a_f1(t - t_oc) + a_f2 (t - t_oc)² + Δ_tR
> > where:
> > a_f0 = clock offset (error of t_SV at the time t_oc)
> > a_f1 = rate error of the SV clock at the time t_oc
> > a_f1 = rate of change of the rate error at the time t_oc
> > t_OC = the GPS-time when the parameters were measured by
> > the monitoring stations (before they were uploaded)
> > Δ_tR = a relativistic correction (see below)
> >
>
> >>
> >> Since these coefficients do not include corrections for relativistic effects, THE USER'S EQUIPMENT must determine the
> >> requisite relativistic correction. Accordingly, the of offset given below includes a term to perform this function.
>
> >
> > Note that the SV-clocks are never corrected while the SVs
> > are in service. So t_SV will typically be (several tens of)
> > microseconds off sync, and the clock offset a_f0 will be equivalent.
> >
> > However, since the a_f0 is stored in a register with a limited number
> > of bits, The "clock offset" must be less than ~ ± 1 ms, or the register
> > containing it will overflow.
> >
> > If the rate of the SV-clock was not GR-corrected, it would be
> > more than +1 ms off sync after ~25 days, and the "clock offset"
> > would overflow, and the GPS wouldn't work
> >
> > NOTE THIS:
> > # Since the GPS works, this prove that the rate of the SV-clock
> > # _must_ be corrected by the factor -4.4647E-10.
> > # This is the significant "GR-correction" of the clock rate done
> > # before the satellite is set in service.
> >
> >
> > If the orbit of the SV is circular (which it initially is),
> > the relativistic correction Δ_tR is zero.
> >
> > But with time the orbit tends to be eccentric (caused by sun, moon).
> > Since this means that both the speed of the satellite and its altitude
> > will vary with the position in the orbit, the exact GR-correction will
> > also vary a little from the factor -4.4647E-10 with the position in the orbit.
> >
>
>
> >> Δ_tR = F e √A sin E_k
> >>
> >> F = -4.442807633E-10 s/√m
>
> >
> > OK
> >
>
> >> √A = square root of semimajor axis of the satellite orbit : 4492.458 √m , for current 31 active SV.
>
> >
> > You have set A = altitude of SV,but A = the radius of the orbit.
> > A = 26.56E6 m , √A = 5055.6899 √m
> >
>
>
> >> e = space vehicle orbit eccentricity : 0.008573316 , for current 31 active SV
> >> E_k = eccentric anomaly of the GPS satellite orbit.
> >>
> >> sin E_k = √(1 - e^2) sin θ /(1 + e cos θ) ; θ: True Anomaly (ANGLE BETWEEN EARTH AND THE SV)
>
> >
> > Since the eccentricity is very small, E_k and θ will be almost equal.
> > E_k will always go from 0 to 2π during an orbit, obviously.
>
> >
> > Δ_tR = e⋅F⋅√A⋅sin(E_k)
> > = e⋅(-4.442807633E-10 s/√m)⋅(5055.6899 √m)⋅sin(E_k)
> > = e⋅(-2.24614E-06)⋅sin(E_k) s
> >
> > Valid values for the eccentricity e are 0.00 to 0.03
> >
> > So with e = 0.03 and E_k = 90° or 270° so sin(E_k) = ±1, we get:
> >
> > Δ_tR = ±0.03⋅(-2.24614E-06)s = ∓67.38437255232446 ns
> >
> > However, 0.03 is probably an unrealistic high value for e.
> > So Δ_tR will probably seldom be higher than few ns.
> > And the average is always zero, obviously.
>
> With the eccentricity e = 0.008573316 you mention above
> Δ_tR ≈ 19.3⋅sin(E_k) nS
>
> And of course Δ_tR is different for each SV,
> and of course the position of the receiver is utterly irrelevant.
>
> ------------------------
>
> What exactly is it you don't understand?
>
> To find the GPS time t at the instant when the signal was
> sent from the SV, we have to use the equation:
> t = t_SV - Δt_SV
>
> Unless you are a complete moron, you must now have learned
> how we find Δt_SV. But what about t_SV?
>
> Do you know how the receiver measures what the SV clock t_SV
> showed at the instant when the signal was sent from the SV?
>
> I will explain if you ask nicely.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

Bla, bla, bla, bla!

I don't want your explanation from above, which is trivial so far.

I want you to justify WHY the relativistic correction DEPENDS ON the angle user-satellite, referred to user plane.

Explain this equation, Einstein.

Δt_F = -17,11159 sin E_k (nsec)

Lou wrote:

> On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 16:58:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> Nope. You compare actual measurements with the predictions of GR. You
>> compare measured differences to see i̳f̳ t̳h̳e̳y̳ v̳a̳r̳y̳ w̳i̳t̳h̳ g̳r̳a̳v̳i̳t̳a̳t̳i̳o̳n̳a̳l̳
>> f̳o̳r̳c̳e̳ o̳r̳ g̳r̳a̳v̳i̳t̳a̳t̳i̳o̳n̳a̳l̳ p̳o̳t̳e̳n̳t̳i̳a̳l̳ (something you don't even understand
>> what the difference is).

completely nonsense. You watch too many movies.

> If acceleration can slow the natural resonant frequency of a classical
> resonant system like an atom...and this is observed in GPS, and many
> other experiments...then you don’t need relativity.

It doesn't, fucking stupid. You are again confusing the local, remote and
neutral observer reference. A neutral is a remote. It stays clearly that
the putina is a traitor. Wants to destroy Russia in small pieces. He is a
🆆🅴🅵 fucking "🆈🅾🆄🅽🅶_🅶🅻🅾🅱🅰🅻_🅻🅴🅰🅳🅴🆁".

🄻🄾🄽🄳🄾🄽_🄰🄽🄳_🄼🄾🅂🄲🄾🅆_🄷🄴🄻🄳_🅂🄴🄲🅁🄴🅃_🅃🄰🄻🄺🅂__🄱🅁🄸🅃🄸🅂🄷_🄼🄴🄳🄸🄰
https://r%74.com/news/583444-uk-russia-secret-talks/

UK wants to kill Russians and destroy Russia but be 𝗮𝘁 𝗻𝗼 𝗿𝗶𝘀𝗸 𝗼𝗳 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮
𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗨𝗞.

I assume that during the secret meetings, Russia beg the UK 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗶𝘁 𝗖𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗮
𝘁𝗼𝗼 𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗱??

Russian civilians are being killed 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗺 𝘀𝗵𝗮𝗱𝗼𝘄 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗹𝗲𝘀 and someone is
talking about 𝗮 𝘀𝗲𝗰𝗿𝗲𝘁 𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 𝗯𝗲𝘁𝘄𝗲𝗲𝗻 𝘂𝗸 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗠𝗼𝘀𝗰𝗼𝘄.

And British Storm Shadow missiles 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗲𝗱 𝗦𝗲𝘃𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗽𝗼𝗹, which Russia
claims to be Russia. And there is a report in the West that a very 𝗵𝗶𝗴𝗵
𝗿𝗮𝗻𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗻𝗮𝘃𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗲𝗿 𝘄𝗮𝘀 𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗲𝗱 or severely wounded by the attack.

This US-led bloc especially London & the United States insist on having an
open channel to talk to the Russian Federation. On one hand they FAKE
SMILE and want to talk and on 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮 𝗞𝗡𝗜𝗙𝗘.

All working behind closed doors to choreograph the next step in the in
war .Lots of $$$ to made . 🅸🆃🆂 🅰🅻🅻 🅰 🅲🅷🅰🆁🅰🅳🅴 🆃🅾 🅱🆁🅸🅽🅶
🅸🅽 🅽🆆🅾

On 9/23/2023 10:35 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:11:22 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> On 9/22/2023 5:54 AM, Lou wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 19:57:19 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
>>>> Lou wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
>>>>>> El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak:
>>>>>>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocks
>>>>>>>>> set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
>>>>>>>> Yes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
>>>>>>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
>>>>>>> to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
>>>>>>> way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
>>>>>>> Isn't it sweet?
>>>>>>> That's what The Shit's brainwashing
>>>>>>> is doing with the brains of its victims.
>>>>>> GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see
>>>>>> document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on
>>>>>> the ground at 10.23 MHz.
>>>>>
>>>>> Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring
>>>>> to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
>>>> Right, in Einstein 1905.
>>>> (for mechanical watches, not pendulum clocks, aka 'balance clocks')
>>>>> Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected
>>>>> by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom
>>>>> wasnt even considered in 1915.
>>>> Wrong. Einstein predicted gravitational time dilation in 1915,
>>>> and he predicted that this would be observable in spectra
>>>> of light from heavy stars. Yes, that means spectral lines of atoms.
>>>> [snip bollocks]
>>>>
>>> Wrong. Einstein did not predict that resonating systems, like atoms
>>> would resonate at different frequencies if subjected to
>>> more or less mass or weight(acceleration)
>> That wasn't his field. Relativity was. And yet again, relativity and
>> resonances (the ones affected by gravity) are affected DIFFERENTLY than
>> GR effects, varying by force or potential respectively.
>
> You still have supplied zero evidence to prove that resonance cannot model change
> in atomic frequency. Desperately and arbitrarily Invoking ‘force’ and ‘potential’
> is meaningless unless you can explain how classical physics cannot
> explain force or potential.

I never claimed that force and potential cannot be explained by
classical physics.

Divide both by the mass of the resonating system and you'll get
acceleration (GM/r²) and an energy per unit mass. (GM/r). They are not
the same.

The classical resonating system is affected by the acceleration. GR
effects, simplified, are proportional to the GM/r value.
>
>>> This change in frequency due to change in the systems weight
>>> was already a well understood classical effect before Albert was even born.

>> And varying with force, not potential.

>>> As for any additional redshifting seen in stars spectra due to mass, once
>>> again the greater the mass of the star, the greater the gravitational strength
>>> at its surface. And due to classical resonance effects this means the lower
>>> the natural frequency of the stars atoms.

>> Nope. Resonances vary by force. Redshift is proportional to potential.
>
> Gravitational potential you mean?

Yes. Specifically, GM/r, which is NOT the acceleration (GM/r²). As I
suspected, you didn't understand the difference. Perhaps you do now.
Perhaps not.

> You are desperate indeed if
> you think nobody knew gravity and g potential existed until Einstein
> dreamed up his nonsense. Ever heard of Newton?

Where did I *ever* claim nobody knew of gravitational potential before
Einstein?

>>> Especially considering it and it’s progeny
>>> QT, can still not correctly model all spectral lines seen in atoms.

>> Predicting spectral lines is notoriously complicated for any non-trivial
>> atom. It's like the many-body Newtonian gravity, but worse.
>>>
>
> Maybe for a useless fantasy theory like QT. > But for H at least,

As I said, notoriously complicated for all but the simplest atoms. H is
the simplest atom.

> all spectral lines can be predicted classically and simply
> by looking at the Ritz Rydberg formula and/or by using harmonics.

Classical analysis also works for "hydrogen-like" ions, like He+, Li++
etc. (one electron). Now try that for, say, neutral iron.

>>> Yes. And notice a balance clock beat frequency can be *modified* by varying
>>> it’s mass. Without changing its altitude.

>> And why is that relevant?
>
> Because you seem unable to understand that a resonating atom,
> like all resonating systems, will change its natural resonating
> frequency simply by changing its weight through acceleration.

For atoms in a star, this is much smaller than the GR potential effect.
Plus the potential changes AT A DIFFERENT RATE than the acceleration does.

> No need for relativity when classical physics does the same.

Except classical physics cannot explain the redshifts of the spectra of
massive stars correctly. Nor can classical physics explain the blueshift
of signals from the GPS satellites. GR does.

On 9/23/2023 10:50 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 16:58:17 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>> On 9/22/2023 6:14 AM, Lou wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 21 September 2023 at 03:36:01 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 9/20/2023 2:39 PM, Lou wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 18:27:59 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/20/2023 9:55 AM, Lou wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> So you can’t very well pretend that additional external force on resonant systems
>>>>>>> resulting in lower resonant frequencies, a well known fact before Albert was even born,
>>>>>>> is due to your garbage relativistic dogma.
>>
>>>>>> That's not the cause of GR time dilation. Gravitational force will
>>>>>> affect certain gravity-dependent systems like a pendulum clock. But GR
>>>>>> effects are due to differences in the gravitational potential, not the
>>>>>> force. I bet you don't even know what the difference between
>>>>>> gravitational force and potential is!
>>>>>
>>>>> Just word salad for people who don’t understand physics.
>>
>>>> That's what I expected. You don't understand the difference so you blow
>>>> it off as 'word salad'. Hint: word salad is authored by anti-relativity
>>>> cranks (and other cranks) when they try to explain what they can't explain.
>>>
>>> The cranks are the ones who co opt classical effects
>>> like resonance and pretend they are complex formations of
>>> little winged albert angels dancing on pin heads.
>> You are desperate; grasping for straws. In this case you grabbed a
>> "resonance" straw. Resonances exist but have nothing to do with the
>> cause of GR effects seen.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But, I bet you don’t know that resonant systems like atoms will,
>>>>> when subjected to a change in conditions like mass or weight or acceleration
>>>>> (and thus changes in G) will change their natural resonant frequencies.
>>>>> And that change is directly proportional. So that increased mass, weight,
>>>>> acceleration or G (all being intimately linked) will lead to a decrease in natural
>>>>> frequency of ANY classical resonant system.
>>
>>>> Nope. Only those dependent on the gravitational force, such as a
>>>> pendulum clock.
>>>>
>>>>> As observed in GPS.
>>>>
>>>> Remember, when local to the Cs clock, the Cs clock it ticks 1 second per
>>>> 9192631770 Cs transitions. No matter what the gravity is.
>>>>
>>>> It's only when the gravitational potential (not force) is different
>>>> between locations (say, between the geoid and the satellite in orbit)
>>>> when this is not true. As they are definitely not local.
>>>
>>> I think you will find it hard to prove that the atoms in the atomic clock
>>> are not resonating at a higher frequency than the same atoms on earths
>>> surface. As predicted classically with resonance.
>> Nope. You compare actual measurements with the predictions of GR. You
>> compare measured differences to see if they vary with gravitational
>> force or gravitational potential (something you don't even understand
>> what the difference is).
>
> If acceleration can slow the natural resonant frequency of a classical
> resonant system like an atom...and this is observed in GPS, and many
> other experiments...then you don’t need relativity.
>
>> Also the first postulate points out the laws of physics are the same
>> everywhere. The result of that is that a Cs clock in high orbit will
>> tick at 9192631770 cycles per second, according to an astronaut orbiting
>> with it.
>>> How would you disprove the classical resonance model?
>> Classical resonances still exist; they won't be disproven. But they are
>> not the source of GR effects.
>>
>
> Of course not. GR effects are imaginary. What’s actually
> happening in GPS is that the natural resonant frequency of atoms
> speed up with an increase in altitude. Due to a decrease in weight?
> Are you familiar with r^2 ?
> .
>
>> For one, a resonance affected by gravity is affected by the
>> gravitational force. GR effects are affected according to the
>> gravitational potential. You don't know the difference.
>
> I do know the difference between good science and snake oil.
> And classical resonance is good science. Because it only uses
> empirical observations. Not fantasy assumptions.
>
>>> It predicts the same effect as the relativistic model.
>> No it doesn't. Again gravitational force vs. potential, they have
>> different predictions.
>>> All you have are observations on earth that show an increased
>>> frequency due to altitude.
>> Which exactly matches the GR predicted gravitational blueshift of a
>> signal in a gravitational field. (see Pound-Rebka)
>>> There is no way to discern between the
>>> change in frequency being caused by classical effects or by relativistic effects.
>> And yet again, gravitational force vs. gravitational potential make
>> different predictions.
>>> That was Alberts only ability. He managed to successfully steal
>>> classical effects...and pretend they were relativistic.

>> Why do you make up garbage and pretend that it's true?
>>>
>
> Isn’t that what most of Alberts peers said to him in the early 1900’s?

We all evolved in a rather classical world, with no experience with any
relativistic effects other than light itself (which had an infinite
speed for all practical purposes). Yes ideas like relativity seem absurd
at first to those who never learned it in detail, so he was attacked by
the poorer scientists at first. Nowadays, it's 100+ year old settled
science among scientists, even if the crackpots babble on against it.

> They must have been very smart. Because they were right all along.

Except that it turns out that they were all wrong.

On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 3:10:07 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
> On 9/23/2023 10:50 AM, Lou wrote:

<snip>

> > Isn’t that what most of Alberts peers said to him in the early 1900’s?

> We all evolved in a rather classical world, with no experience with any
> relativistic effects other than light itself (which had an infinite
> speed for all practical purposes). Yes ideas like relativity seem absurd
> at first to those who never learned it in detail, so he was attacked by
> the poorer scientists at first. Nowadays, it's 100+ year old settled
> science among scientists, even if the crackpots babble on against it.
> > They must have been very smart. Because they were right all along.
> Except that it turns out that they were all wrong.

No, imbecile. They still are right.

The problem with your relativity is that it's A MARGINAL PSEUDOSCIENCE.

Marginal, because it works in the limits of untestable values, which are NOT NEEDED in this modern world.

Call me when humans can move faster than 21600000 Km/Hr (2% of c). While not, relativity is a fairy tale.

El sábado, 23 de septiembre de 2023 a las 15:25:26 UTC-3, Richard Hertz escribió:
> On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 3:10:07 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:

> No, imbecile. They still are right.
>
> The problem with your relativity is that it's A MARGINAL PSEUDOSCIENCE.
>
> Marginal, because it works in the limits of untestable values, which are NOT NEEDED in this modern world.
>
> Call me when humans can move faster than 21600000 Km/Hr (2% of c). While not, relativity is a fairy tale.

So why are you wasting your time around here?

Don't like relativity? look for another hobby

Den 23.09.2023 18:05, skrev Richard Hertz:

> Den 19.09.2023 03:09, skrev Paul B. Andersen:>
>> The corrected time is: t = t_SV - Δt_SV
>> where:
>> t = GPS system time
>> t_SV = the time shown by the SV-clock.
>> Δt_SV = the clock correction.
>>
>> The clock correction is calculated in the receiver with
>> the clock correction parameters transmitted by the SV.
>>
>> Δt_SV = a_f0 + a_f1(t - t_oc) + a_f2 (t - t_oc)² + Δ_tR
>> where:
>> a_f0 = clock offset (error of t_SV at the time t_oc)
>> a_f1 = rate error of the SV clock at the time t_oc
>> a_f1 = rate of change of the rate error at the time t_oc
>> t_OC = the GPS-time when the parameters were measured by
>> the monitoring stations (before they were uploaded)
>> Δ_tR = a relativistic correction (see below)
>>
>> If the orbit of the SV is circular (which it initially is),
>> the relativistic correction Δ_tR is zero.
>>
>> But with time the orbit tends to be eccentric (caused by sun, moon).
>> Since this means that both the speed of the satellite and its altitude
>> will vary with the position in the orbit, the exact GR-correction will
>> also vary a little from the factor -4.4647E-10 with the position in the orbit.
>>
>> Δ_tR = F⋅e⋅√A⋅sin(E_k)
>> F = -4.442807633E-10 S/√m
>> A = 26.56E6 m
, √A = 5055.6899 √m
>>
>> E_k will always go from 0 to 2π during an orbit, obviously.
>>
>> Δ_tR = e⋅F⋅√A⋅sin(E_k)
>> = e⋅(-4.442807633E-10 s/√m)⋅(5055.6899 √m)⋅sin(E_k)
>> = e⋅(-2.24614E-06)⋅sin(E_k) s
>>
>> Valid values for the eccentricity e are 0.00 to 0.03
>>
>> So with e = 0.03 and E_k = 90° or 270° so sin(E_k) = ±1, we get:
>>
>> Δ_tR = ±0.03⋅(-2.24614E-06)s = ∓67.38437255232446 ns
>>
>> However, 0.03 is probably an unrealistic high value for e.
>> So Δ_tR will probably seldom be higher than few ns.
>> And the average is always zero, obviously.
>>
>> With the eccentricity e = 0.008573316 you mention
>> Δ_tR ≈ 19.3⋅sin(E_k) nS
>>

>
> Bla, bla, bla, bla!
>
> I don't want your explanation from above, which is trivial so far.

If it is trivial, why are you still so ignorant that you can state:

> I want you to justify WHY the relativistic correction DEPENDS ON the angle user-satellite, referred to user plane.

Your confusion is obviously MUCH greater than I thought possible.

Ek is the angle in the satellite's orbit. (Eccentric anomaly)

>
> Explain this equation, Einstein.
>
> Δt_F = -17,11159 sin E_k (nsec)

You probably meant Δ_tR = -17.11159⋅sin(E_k) nS

Didn't you find the explanation trivial?
Here it is AGAIN:

Since the orbit of the SV in this case is eccentric (e = 0.007473451)
both the speed of the satellite and its altitude will vary with
the position in the orbit, the exact GR-correction will also
vary a little from the factor -4.4647E-10 with the position in
the orbit.

During the 12 hours of an orbit Δ_tR will have a sinusoidal
variation with amplitude 17.11159 nS.

-----------------------

I understand that you have a LOOONG way to go before you will
even understand what I am talking about when I said:

| To find the GPS time t at the instant when the signal was
| sent from the SV, we have to use the equation:
| t = t_SV - Δt_SV
| | Unless you are a complete moron, you must now have learned
| how we find Δt_SV. But what about t_SV?
| | Do you know how the receiver measures what the SV clock t_SV
| showed at the instant when the signal was sent from the SV?

You will never get there.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 22:00:22 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> Since the orbit of the SV in this case is eccentric (e = 0.007473451)
> both the speed of the satellite and its altitude will vary with
> the position in the orbit, the exact GR-correction will also

It's no way GR correction, oppositely - it's forbidden by
your postulates, your ISO idiocy and the whole of
your moronic religion.

On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 5:00:22 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 23.09.2023 18:05, skrev Richard Hertz:

<snip>

> Your confusion is obviously MUCH greater than I thought possible.
> Ek is the angle in the satellite's orbit. (Eccentric anomaly)
> >
> > Explain this equation, Einstein.
> > Δt_F = -17,11159 sin E_k (nsec)

> You probably meant Δ_tR = -17.11159⋅sin(E_k) nS
>
> Didn't you find the explanation trivial? Here it is AGAIN:
>
> Since the orbit of the SV in this case is eccentric (e = 0.007473451) both the speed of the satellite and its altitude will vary with
> the position in the orbit, the exact GR-correction will also vary a little from the factor -4.4647E-10 with the position in the orbit.
> During the 12 hours of an orbit Δ_tR will have a sinusoidal variation with amplitude 17.11159 nS.
>
> -----------------------
>
> I understand that you have a LOOONG way to go before you will even understand what I am talking about when I said:

<snip><snip><snip>

I'm tired of snipping your trivial but wrongful comments. I only left this part to sweep the floor with you.

The correction Δt_F = -17;11159 sin E_k (ns) is despised by any serious GNSS professional.

HAS TO BE MADE AT THE GPS RECEIVER, and is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from what you invented.

The eccentricity E, related to the true anomaly θ, is the value calculated at the user LLH position (Latitude, Longitude, Height),
and only cover a restricted range OF VISIBILITY of each satellite BY THE USER GPS RECEIVER. GOT IT?

It's different from your average Schwarzschild solution, as it's computed locally.

For the user receiver, the range of valid values of the true anomaly θ barely extend beyond +/- 50° from the azimuth, because
the signal has lost a valid SNR.

But, what can I teach you, Paul? You're the smart ass regarding GNSS, atomic clocks, Einstein, etc.

And you are just a pretender with a declining mental ability, which shows here.

Try learning this in Spanish. Maybe it will get you, because the opposite isn't happening.

https://www.academia.edu/27970004/Sistemas_de_Navegacion_Beneyto
Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenieros Aeronáuticos
Sistemas de Navegación
Curso 2012-2013
Jaime Beneyto Gómez de Barreda
508 páginas

On 9/23/2023 2:25 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 3:10:07 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
>> On 9/23/2023 10:50 AM, Lou wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Isn’t that what most of Alberts peers said to him in the early 1900’s?
>
>> We all evolved in a rather classical world, with no experience with any
>> relativistic effects other than light itself (which had an infinite
>> speed for all practical purposes). Yes ideas like relativity seem absurd
>> at first to those who never learned it in detail, so he was attacked by
>> the poorer scientists at first. Nowadays, it's 100+ year old settled
>> science among scientists, even if the crackpots babble on against it.
>>> They must have been very smart. Because they were right all along.
>> Except that it turns out that they were all wrong.
>
> No, imbecile. They still are right.

Too bad for you that scientific observations and experimental evidence
support Einstein.
>
> The problem with your relativity is that it's A MARGINAL PSEUDOSCIENCE.

Relativity is considered settled science by actual scientists. It really
an engineering problem. You've been left in the dust some 100+ years now.
>
> Marginal, because it works in the limits of untestable values, which are NOT NEEDED in this modern world.

Using GPS is not necessary? Particle beam accelerators for the latest
medical treatments aren't good? Things are still largely in the pure
science range, but clever engineers will come up with relativity based
goodies in due time. The GPS system is already a clever device using GR.
>
> Call me when humans can move faster than 21600000 Km/Hr (2% of c). While not, relativity is a fairy tale.

But subatomic particles sure can. And the GPS satellites use GR despite
being in a relatively weak gravitational potential and moving very
slowly compared to c.

Den 24.09.2023 00:15, skrev Richard Hertz:
>
> I'm tired of snipping your trivial but wrongful comments. I only left this part to sweep the floor with you.
>
> The correction Δt_F = -17;11159 sin E_k (ns) is despised by any serious GNSS professional.

This is the document GNSS professionals use:

https://www.gsc-europa.eu/sites/default/files/sites/all/files/Galileo_OS_SIS_ICD_v2.0.pdf

5.1.4 Satellite Time Correction Algorithm, page 47:

Δtᵣ = F⋅e⋅√A⋅sin(E)
where:
F = -2√(GMₑ/c²)/c² = ‑4.442807309E-10 a constant.
e = the eccentricity of the satellite's orbit
√A = square root of semi major axis of satellite's orbit
these parameters are sent from the SV to the receiver
and will vary very slowly (ignorable during one orbit)

E = eccentric anomaly
E can be computed from a number of parameters which all
are sent from the satellite to the receiver. See 5.1.1 page 44.
This means that E is a function of the system time t.

Note that it is only the eccentric anomaly that will change
as the satellite move in its orbit.
E will obviously go from 0 to 2π during an orbit.

So the value Δtᵣ will only depend on the satellite's
position in it's orbit E(t), Δtᵣ is positive half the orbit
and negative the other half, the average is always zero.

>
> HAS TO BE MADE AT THE GPS RECEIVER, and is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from what you invented.

The correction Δt_SV, which Δtᵣ is part of, is computed by the receiver
with parameters received from the satellite, EXACTLY as I have explained
several times.

>
> The eccentricity E, related to the true anomaly θ, is the value calculated at the user LLH position (Latitude, Longitude, Height),
> and only cover a restricted range OF VISIBILITY of each satellite BY THE USER GPS RECEIVER. GOT IT?

The relevant eccentric anomaly is E(t) at the instant t when
the signal received by receiver was sent from the SV.

At that instant the satellite must obviously be visible by
the receiver, so why do you state the obvious? (in an awkward way)

>
> It's different from your average Schwarzschild solution, as it's computed locally.

Of course Δtᵣ is different from the "GR-correction" Δf/f = -4.7219E-10.
Why do you yet again state the obvious?

The rate of the SV clock is corrected by the factor Δf/f = -4.7219E-10.
That means that if the satellite orbit is circular the Δt_SV will be
fairly constant. (Rate error less than 1 μS/day).

But if the orbit is eccentric, the speed and altitude of the SV will
vary during the orbit, and the clock would, with no further correction,
be too fast for half the orbit and too slow for half the orbit.
The Δtᵣ will correct this.

Two different relativistic corrections.

>
> For the user receiver, the range of valid values of the true anomaly θ barely extend beyond +/- 50° from the azimuth, because
> the signal has lost a valid SNR.

The angle E will go from 0 to 360° around the orbit.
But a receiver will obviously only be able to observe
part of the orbit.
So why do you yet again state the obvious? (in an awkward way)

>
> But, what can I teach you, Paul? You're the smart ass regarding GNSS, atomic clocks, Einstein, etc.

So far you have only stated a few obvious trivialities
in an hilarious awkward way.

You have not shown that anything I have said is wrong.

So I defy you you do quote one statement of mine, and explain
in detail why it is wrong.

>
> And you are just a pretender with a declining mental ability, which shows here.
>

In Norway we have a saying:
"Don't throw a stone if you sit in a house made of glass."

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Sunday, 24 September 2023 at 20:11:31 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> On 9/23/2023 2:25 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 3:10:07 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
> >> On 9/23/2023 10:50 AM, Lou wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >>> Isn’t that what most of Alberts peers said to him in the early 1900’s?
> >
> >> We all evolved in a rather classical world, with no experience with any
> >> relativistic effects other than light itself (which had an infinite
> >> speed for all practical purposes). Yes ideas like relativity seem absurd
> >> at first to those who never learned it in detail, so he was attacked by
> >> the poorer scientists at first. Nowadays, it's 100+ year old settled
> >> science among scientists, even if the crackpots babble on against it.
> >>> They must have been very smart. Because they were right all along.
> >> Except that it turns out that they were all wrong.
> >
> > No, imbecile. They still are right.
> Too bad for you that scientific observations and experimental evidence
> support Einstein.

Only such an idiot can believe such impudent lies,
stupid Mike.

> Using GPS is not necessary?

> But subatomic particles sure can. And the GPS satellites use GR despite

No, they don't. Your idiot gurus have lied to you.
As you're very stupid - it's easy. 9 192 631 770
is not any Newton mode, it's the proper time
idiocy of your Shit - and it had to be switched off.

Volney wrote:

> On 9/23/2023 2:25 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> On Saturday, September 23, 2023 at 3:10:07 PM UTC-3, Volney wrote:
>> No, imbecile. They still are right.
>
> Too bad for you that scientific observations and experimental evidence
> support Einstein.

Destroy ALL Ukrainian military hardware, so that Russian jets can cruise
over Kiev freely.

🔴 Another enemy attack is reported, which was stopped by our army.
Several foreign armored fighting vehicles and a tank are on fire. Enemy
infantry is being cleared and destroyed in the Verbovoy area.

Yes take out those western junk. Manufactured to make money . Companies
like Raytheon, Logheed Martin, ... wants to make money. So they create
weapons that needs maintenance so that they make money on maintenance.

On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:44:08 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 9/15/2023 8:00 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> >
> >>> Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocks
> >>> set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
> >> Yes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
> >> frequency (9192631774.1)
> >
> > So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
> > to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
> > way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
> > Isn't it sweet?
> Exactly, to compensate for GR
Very simple:.
91926317774.1 on the earth clock represents the same amount of absolute time as 9192631770 on a GPS clock.
>
> Just like if, for some reason, you wanted the horn of an approaching
> train to be heard in the station at a musical tone of "B♭", the train's
> horn must sound at, perhaps "A", to compensate for the Doppler Effect.

On Monday, 25 September 2023 at 17:24:41 UTC+2, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:44:08 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> > On 9/15/2023 8:00 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> > > On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> > >
> > >>> Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocks
> > >>> set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
> > >> Yes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
> > >> frequency (9192631774.1)
> > >
> > > So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
> > > to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
> > > way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
> > > Isn't it sweet?
> > Exactly, to compensate for GR
> Very simple:.
> 91926317774.1 on the earth clock represents the same amount of absolute time as 9192631770 on a GPS clock.

GPS time is a kind of absolute time, true,
But - 9192631770 is Earth, 91926317774.1
is satellite. Generally, GPS second matches
the old (<1960)definition, not the contemporary
SI idiocy.

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 1:08:07 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 9/21/2023 3:51 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:44:08 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 9/15/2023 8:00 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocks
> >>>>> set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
> >>>> Yes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
> >>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
> >>>
> >>> So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
> >>> to9192631774.1 2631774.1 is an indirect
> >>> way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
> >>> Isn't it sweet?
> >> Exactly, to compensate for GR.
> >
> > No it is because clocks in different frames accumulate clock seconds at different rates.
> Stupid Ken, why do you make up garbage and pretend that it is true?

Stupid Mike, all you know is Einstein's shit.
absolute time exists.
192,631,774.1 cycles on the GPS clock contains the same amount of absolute time as 9192631770 cycles on the earth clock.

On 9/25/2023 12:11 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 1:08:07 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>> On 9/21/2023 3:51 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:44:08 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
>>>> On 9/15/2023 8:00 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocks
>>>>>>> set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
>>>>>> Yes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
>>>>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
>>>>>
>>>>> So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
>>>>> to9192631774.1 2631774.1 is an indirect
>>>>> way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
>>>>> Isn't it sweet?
>>>> Exactly, to compensate for GR.
>>>
>>> No it is because clocks in different frames accumulate clock seconds at different rates.
>> Stupid Ken, why do you make up garbage and pretend that it is true?
>
> Stupid Mike, all you know is Einstein's shit.

Einstein, at least, showed how he derived his physics that other
scientists can verify (or refute, which hasn't happened) rather than
making up garbage and pretending that it's true.

> absolute time exists.

Assertions are not evidence of anything. Making up garbage like absolute
time and pretending it's true is just an assertion with no evidence.

> 192,631,774.1 cycles on the GPS clock contains the same amount of absolute time as 9192631770 cycles on the earth clock.

Assertions are not evidence, Stupid Ken.

On Monday, 25 September 2023 at 18:48:33 UTC+2, Volney wrote:

> Einstein, at least, showed how he derived his physics that other
> scientists can verify (or refute, which hasn't happened) rather

Bullshit, stupid Mike, he was just a mumbling inconsistently
idiot mystician. Sometimes people like that are making some
career - and he did.

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 12:48:33 PM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> On 9/25/2023 12:11 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> > On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 1:08:07 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >> On 9/21/2023 3:51 PM, Ken Seto wrote:
> >>> On Friday, September 15, 2023 at 10:44:08 AM UTC-4, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 9/15/2023 8:00 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocks
> >>>>>>> set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
> >>>>>> Yes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
> >>>>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
> >>>>> to9192631774.1 2631774.1 is an indirect
> >>>>> way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
> >>>>> Isn't it sweet?
> >>>> Exactly, to compensate for GR.
> >>>
> >>> No it is because clocks in different frames accumulate clock seconds at different rates.
> >> Stupid Ken, why do you make up garbage and pretend that it is true?
> >
> > Stupid Mike, all you know is Einstein's shit.
> Einstein, at least, showed how he derived his physics that other
> scientists can verify (or refute, which hasn't happened) rather than
> making up garbage and pretending that it's true.
>
> > absolute time exists.
>
> Assertions are not evidence of anything. Making up garbage like absolute
> time and pretending it's true is just an assertion with no evidence.
> > 192,631,774.1 cycles on the GPS clock contains the same amount of absolute time as 9192631770 cycles on the earth clock.
> Assertions are not evidence, Stupid Ken.

Stupid Mike, are you disagreeing that "192,631,774.1 cycles on the GPS clock contains the same amount of absolute time as 9192631770 cycles on the earth clock.??????

> Assertions are not e

On Saturday, 23 September 2023 at 19:03:54 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 9/23/2023 10:35 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Friday, 22 September 2023 at 17:11:22 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> >> On 9/22/2023 5:54 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, 20 September 2023 at 19:57:19 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >>>> Lou wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 15:12:46 UTC+1, Paparios wrote:
> >>>>>> El viernes, 15 de septiembre de 2023 a las 9:00:40 UTC-3, Maciej Wozniak:
> >>>>>>> On Friday, 15 September 2023 at 00:13:53 UTC+2, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Excuse me, stupid Mike, are GPS clocks
> >>>>>>>>> set to your 9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy?
> >>>>>>>> Yes, poor quarterbrain. But indirectly, of course. They are set to a
> >>>>>>>> frequency (9192631774.1)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So, for a relativistic idiot setting it
> >>>>>>> to 9192631774.1 is an indirect
> >>>>>>> way of setting it to 9 192 631 770.
> >>>>>>> Isn't it sweet?
> >>>>>>> That's what The Shit's brainwashing
> >>>>>>> is doing with the brains of its victims.
> >>>>>> GPS clocks are set to tick, in orbit, at 10.2299999954326 MHz (see
> >>>>>> document IS-GPS-200M, section 3.3.1.1). Those signals are received on
> >>>>>> the ground at 10.23 MHz.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Einstein predicted ticking clocks would show time dilation. He was referring
> >>>>> to the mechanical ticking pocket watch in his waistcoat.
> >>>> Right, in Einstein 1905.
> >>>> (for mechanical watches, not pendulum clocks, aka 'balance clocks')
> >>>>> Einstein did not predict that resonant systems (like atoms) would be effected
> >>>>> by GR. Seeing as the atomic clock, essentially a resonating atom
> >>>>> wasnt even considered in 1915.
> >>>> Wrong. Einstein predicted gravitational time dilation in 1915,
> >>>> and he predicted that this would be observable in spectra
> >>>> of light from heavy stars. Yes, that means spectral lines of atoms.
> >>>> [snip bollocks]
> >>>>
> >>> Wrong. Einstein did not predict that resonating systems, like atoms
> >>> would resonate at different frequencies if subjected to
> >>> more or less mass or weight(acceleration)
> >> That wasn't his field. Relativity was. And yet again, relativity and
> >> resonances (the ones affected by gravity) are affected DIFFERENTLY than
> >> GR effects, varying by force or potential respectively.
> >
> > You still have supplied zero evidence to prove that resonance cannot model change
> > in atomic frequency. Desperately and arbitrarily Invoking ‘force’ and ‘potential’
> > is meaningless unless you can explain how classical physics cannot
> > explain force or potential.
> I never claimed that force and potential cannot be explained by
> classical physics.
>
> Divide both by the mass of the resonating system and you'll get
> acceleration (GM/r²) and an energy per unit mass. (GM/r). They are not
> the same.
>
> The classical resonating system is affected by the acceleration. GR
> effects, simplified, are proportional to the GM/r value.

Notice that GR and classical resonance are two seperate distinct models.
Trying to pretend that because GR can supposedly model changes in
the natural resonant frequencies of atoms due to G at different altitudes....
does in no way refute the well known, well modelled classical phenomena
called resonance. Which also predicts that at different altitudes G effects
changes in natural resonant frequencies of atoms.

> >>> This change in frequency due to change in the systems weight
> >>> was already a well understood classical effect before Albert was even born.
>
> >> And varying with force, not potential.
>
> >>> As for any additional redshifting seen in stars spectra due to mass, once
> >>> again the greater the mass of the star, the greater the gravitational strength
> >>> at its surface. And due to classical resonance effects this means the lower
> >>> the natural frequency of the stars atoms.
>
> >> Nope. Resonances vary by force. Redshift is proportional to potential.
> >
> > Gravitational potential you mean?
> Yes. Specifically, GM/r, which is NOT the acceleration (GM/r²). As I
> suspected, you didn't understand the difference. Perhaps you do now.
> Perhaps not.
> > You are desperate indeed if
> > you think nobody knew gravity and g potential existed until Einstein
> > dreamed up his nonsense. Ever heard of Newton?
> Where did I *ever* claim nobody knew of gravitational potential before
> Einstein?
> >>> Especially considering it and it’s progeny
> >>> QT, can still not correctly model all spectral lines seen in atoms.
>
> >> Predicting spectral lines is notoriously complicated for any non-trivial
> >> atom. It's like the many-body Newtonian gravity, but worse.
> >>>
> >
> > Maybe for a useless fantasy theory like QT. > But for H at least,
> As I said, notoriously complicated for all but the simplest atoms. H is
> the simplest atom.
> > all spectral lines can be predicted classically and simply
> > by looking at the Ritz Rydberg formula and/or by using harmonics.
> Classical analysis also works for "hydrogen-like" ions, like He+, Li++
> etc. (one electron). Now try that for, say, neutral iron.

Seeing as QT also can’t actually model anything above H...this seems an
odd way to pretend it does.

> >>> Yes. And notice a balance clock beat frequency can be *modified* by varying
> >>> it’s mass. Without changing its altitude.
>
> >> And why is that relevant?
> >
> > Because you seem unable to understand that a resonating atom,
> > like all resonating systems, will change its natural resonating
> > frequency simply by changing its weight through acceleration.
> For atoms in a star, this is much smaller than the GR potential effect.
> Plus the potential changes AT A DIFFERENT RATE than the acceleration does..

Prove this fatuous claim. You can’t. Because resonance does adequately model
all your so called GR effects. There is no evidence to the contrary.

> > No need for relativity when classical physics does the same.
> Except classical physics cannot explain the redshifts of the spectra of
> massive stars correctly. Nor can classical physics explain the blueshift
> of signals from the GPS satellites. GR does.

Nonsense. Classical resonance explains all the so called
relativistic effects in GPS, or light “redshifted” from massive stars.
Prove to me that classical resonating systems will not change their
natural frequency when subjected to a change in weight or mass.
You can’t. Unless you ignore a few centuries of empirical
observations on resonating systems.