Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

GPS - Relativity can be ignored...

Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 2:18:38 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At least insofar as establishing a geographical position anyway, here's why.

Atomic clocks launched from earth and placed into orbit at 20,200 km will "tick" more rapidly than their earthbound counterparts - this discrepancy seems to be that they gain 38 uS every 24 hours.

To compensate these clocks are adjusted to lose 38 uS per day and so once in orbit they more or less "tick" at the same rate and keep track with GMT (they are also periodically corrected by tiny amounts).

If a radio signal is sent from such a satellite it will take about 67 mS to reach the earth (speed_of_light / satellite_altitude_in_m).

So the question arises - how much error would we see between a earthbound clock and a orbiting clock that had been uncompensated?

Well we know it gains 38 uS every 24 hours or 38 uS every 864,000,000,000 uS.

This equates to 38 uS every 864,000,000 mS.

Therefore such an orbiting clock would gain (67 / 864,000,000) * 38 uS which is a very small number, in fact it amounts to around 3 pS (which is 10-12 of a second).

Well high quality GPS receivers have time resolutions around 15 nS so 3 pS is far below what could even be detected by a receiver, in fact the 3 pS represents and error to such a clock of around (3 / 15,000) = 0.02% of the receivers own resolution.

These simple calculations seem to show that despite orbiting clocks ticking more rapidly due to relativistic effects, the significance of this on a per-time signal basis is irrelevant.

In fact 3 pS at the speed of light amounts to a distance of around 0.8 mm !!

So Dummel please tell me if you agree or disagree with these calculations and if you disagree where have I erred?

Harry.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 2:43:07 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/11/2016 2:18:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At least insofar as establishing a geographical position anyway, here's why.

Atomic clocks launched from earth and placed into orbit at 20,200 km will "tick" more rapidly than their earthbound counterparts - this discrepancy seems to be that they gain 38 uS every 24 hours.

To compensate these clocks are adjusted to lose 38 uS per day and so once in orbit they more or less "tick" at the same rate and keep track with GMT (they are also periodically corrected by tiny amounts).

If a radio signal is sent from such a satellite it will take about 67 mS to reach the earth (speed_of_light / satellite_altitude_in_m).

So the question arises - how much error would we see between a earthbound clock and a orbiting clock that had been uncompensated?

Well we know it gains 38 uS every 24 hours or 38 uS every 864,000,000,000 uS.

This equates to 38 uS every 864,000,000 mS.

Therefore such an orbiting clock would gain (67 / 864,000,000) * 38 uS which is a very small number, in fact it amounts to around 3 pS (which is 10-12 of a second).

Well high quality GPS receivers have time resolutions around 15 nS so 3 pS is far below what could even be detected by a receiver, in fact the 3 pS represents and error to such a clock of around (3 / 15,000) = 0.02% of the receivers own resolution.

These simple calculations seem to show that despite orbiting clocks ticking more rapidly due to relativistic effects, the significance of this on a per-time signal basis is irrelevant.

In fact 3 pS at the speed of light amounts to a distance of around 0.8 mm !!

So Dummel please tell me if you agree or disagree with these calculations and if you disagree where have I erred?

Harry.

And on day 2?
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 3:39:47 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/11/2016 2:18:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At least insofar as establishing a geographical position anyway, here's why.

Atomic clocks launched from earth and placed into orbit at 20,200 km will "tick" more rapidly than their earthbound counterparts - this discrepancy seems to be that they gain 38 uS every 24 hours.

To compensate these clocks are adjusted to lose 38 uS per day and so once in orbit they more or less "tick" at the same rate and keep track with GMT (they are also periodically corrected by tiny amounts).

If a radio signal is sent from such a satellite it will take about 67 mS to reach the earth (speed_of_light / satellite_altitude_in_m).

So the question arises - how much error would we see between a earthbound clock and a orbiting clock that had been uncompensated?

Well we know it gains 38 uS every 24 hours or 38 uS every 864,000,000,000 uS.

This equates to 38 uS every 864,000,000 mS.

Therefore such an orbiting clock would gain (67 / 864,000,000) * 38 uS which is a very small number, in fact it amounts to around 3 pS (which is 10-12 of a second).

Well high quality GPS receivers have time resolutions around 15 nS so 3 pS is far below what could even be detected by a receiver, in fact the 3 pS represents and error to such a clock of around (3 / 15,000) = 0.02% of the receivers own resolution.

These simple calculations seem to show that despite orbiting clocks ticking more rapidly due to relativistic effects, the significance of this on a per-time signal basis is irrelevant.

In fact 3 pS at the speed of light amounts to a distance of around 0.8 mm !!

So Dummel please tell me if you agree or disagree with these calculations and if you disagree where have I erred?

Harry.

And, upon accumulation, the system would be almost useless in a few minutes to about 10 kilometers after just one day.

Still don't understand how it all works, Harry? After all the material provided to you and the time it should take for you to understand given your alleged credentials?
Very disappointing, Harry.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
chui
Posts: 511
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 3:56:44 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/11/2016 2:18:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At least insofar as establishing a geographical position anyway, here's why.

Atomic clocks launched from earth and placed into orbit at 20,200 km will "tick" more rapidly than their earthbound counterparts - this discrepancy seems to be that they gain 38 uS every 24 hours.

To compensate these clocks are adjusted to lose 38 uS per day and so once in orbit they more or less "tick" at the same rate and keep track with GMT (they are also periodically corrected by tiny amounts).

If a radio signal is sent from such a satellite it will take about 67 mS to reach the earth (speed_of_light / satellite_altitude_in_m).

So the question arises - how much error would we see between a earthbound clock and a orbiting clock that had been uncompensated?

Well we know it gains 38 uS every 24 hours or 38 uS every 864,000,000,000 uS.

This equates to 38 uS every 864,000,000 mS.

Therefore such an orbiting clock would gain (67 / 864,000,000) * 38 uS which is a very small number, in fact it amounts to around 3 pS (which is 10-12 of a second).

It is not the time dilation during a transmission that is important. It is the fact that 24hrs later this clock is 38us wrong, which is a potential distance error of 11400m. If this went uncorrected the system is useless. As you say this correction is mostly done by making a clock than runs slightly slow, but it must be done.

Well high quality GPS receivers have time resolutions around 15 nS so 3 pS is far below what could even be detected by a receiver, in fact the 3 pS represents and error to such a clock of around (3 / 15,000) = 0.02% of the receivers own resolution.

These simple calculations seem to show that despite orbiting clocks ticking more rapidly due to relativistic effects, the significance of this on a per-time signal basis is irrelevant.

In fact 3 pS at the speed of light amounts to a distance of around 0.8 mm !!

So Dummel please tell me if you agree or disagree with these calculations and if you disagree where have I erred?

Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 4:04:37 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/11/2016 2:43:07 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/11/2016 2:18:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At least insofar as establishing a geographical position anyway, here's why.

Atomic clocks launched from earth and placed into orbit at 20,200 km will "tick" more rapidly than their earthbound counterparts - this discrepancy seems to be that they gain 38 uS every 24 hours.

To compensate these clocks are adjusted to lose 38 uS per day and so once in orbit they more or less "tick" at the same rate and keep track with GMT (they are also periodically corrected by tiny amounts).

If a radio signal is sent from such a satellite it will take about 67 mS to reach the earth (speed_of_light / satellite_altitude_in_m).

So the question arises - how much error would we see between a earthbound clock and a orbiting clock that had been uncompensated?

Well we know it gains 38 uS every 24 hours or 38 uS every 864,000,000,000 uS.

This equates to 38 uS every 864,000,000 mS.

Therefore such an orbiting clock would gain (67 / 864,000,000) * 38 uS which is a very small number, in fact it amounts to around 3 pS (which is 10-12 of a second).

Well high quality GPS receivers have time resolutions around 15 nS so 3 pS is far below what could even be detected by a receiver, in fact the 3 pS represents and error to such a clock of around (3 / 15,000) = 0.02% of the receivers own resolution.

These simple calculations seem to show that despite orbiting clocks ticking more rapidly due to relativistic effects, the significance of this on a per-time signal basis is irrelevant.

In fact 3 pS at the speed of light amounts to a distance of around 0.8 mm !!

So Dummel please tell me if you agree or disagree with these calculations and if you disagree where have I erred?

Harry.

And on day 2?

Day number doesn't play a role in any of the above calculations.

Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 4:06:16 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/11/2016 3:39:47 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/11/2016 2:18:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At least insofar as establishing a geographical position anyway, here's why.

Atomic clocks launched from earth and placed into orbit at 20,200 km will "tick" more rapidly than their earthbound counterparts - this discrepancy seems to be that they gain 38 uS every 24 hours.

To compensate these clocks are adjusted to lose 38 uS per day and so once in orbit they more or less "tick" at the same rate and keep track with GMT (they are also periodically corrected by tiny amounts).

If a radio signal is sent from such a satellite it will take about 67 mS to reach the earth (speed_of_light / satellite_altitude_in_m).

So the question arises - how much error would we see between a earthbound clock and a orbiting clock that had been uncompensated?

Well we know it gains 38 uS every 24 hours or 38 uS every 864,000,000,000 uS.

This equates to 38 uS every 864,000,000 mS.

Therefore such an orbiting clock would gain (67 / 864,000,000) * 38 uS which is a very small number, in fact it amounts to around 3 pS (which is 10-12 of a second).

Well high quality GPS receivers have time resolutions around 15 nS so 3 pS is far below what could even be detected by a receiver, in fact the 3 pS represents and error to such a clock of around (3 / 15,000) = 0.02% of the receivers own resolution.

These simple calculations seem to show that despite orbiting clocks ticking more rapidly due to relativistic effects, the significance of this on a per-time signal basis is irrelevant.

In fact 3 pS at the speed of light amounts to a distance of around 0.8 mm !!

So Dummel please tell me if you agree or disagree with these calculations and if you disagree where have I erred?

Harry.

And, upon accumulation, the system would be almost useless in a few minutes to about 10 kilometers after just one day.

So what error do I make in those calculations?


Still don't understand how it all works, Harry? After all the material provided to you and the time it should take for you to understand given your alleged credentials?
Very disappointing, Harry.

Accusations without supporting mathematical support are like many of your posts - vacuous.

Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 4:16:38 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/11/2016 3:56:44 PM, chui wrote:
At 3/11/2016 2:18:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At least insofar as establishing a geographical position anyway, here's why.

Atomic clocks launched from earth and placed into orbit at 20,200 km will "tick" more rapidly than their earthbound counterparts - this discrepancy seems to be that they gain 38 uS every 24 hours.

To compensate these clocks are adjusted to lose 38 uS per day and so once in orbit they more or less "tick" at the same rate and keep track with GMT (they are also periodically corrected by tiny amounts).

If a radio signal is sent from such a satellite it will take about 67 mS to reach the earth (speed_of_light / satellite_altitude_in_m).

So the question arises - how much error would we see between a earthbound clock and a orbiting clock that had been uncompensated?

Well we know it gains 38 uS every 24 hours or 38 uS every 864,000,000,000 uS.

This equates to 38 uS every 864,000,000 mS.

Therefore such an orbiting clock would gain (67 / 864,000,000) * 38 uS which is a very small number, in fact it amounts to around 3 pS (which is 10-12 of a second).

It is not the time dilation during a transmission that is important. It is the fact that 24hrs later this clock is 38us wrong, which is a potential distance error of 11400m. If this went uncorrected the system is useless. As you say this correction is mostly done by making a clock than runs slightly slow, but it must be done.


No that isn't the case, every single distance measurement carries a fixed error of around 3 picoseconds, weather we make a measurement today or on ten years that measured time interval will always be off by about 3 picoseconds, because the orbiting clock counts 67 mS and 3 pS for every 67 mS counted by the earthbound clock. (assuming the satellite is overhead at 20,200 km).

Of course the orbiting clock's view of the "current time" will suffer an increasing error, that's not disputed but I'm talking only about establishing the distance of the satellite here.

I'm prepared to admit error if someone can shed light on where I do, I've not fully analyzed the algorithms for synching clocks or establishing latitude/longitude yet and I may have overlooked something there.

But you can surely see how it seems possible to estimate satellite distance without regard for relativistic effects?

Well high quality GPS receivers have time resolutions around 15 nS so 3 pS is far below what could even be detected by a receiver, in fact the 3 pS represents and error to such a clock of around (3 / 15,000) = 0.02% of the receivers own resolution.

These simple calculations seem to show that despite orbiting clocks ticking more rapidly due to relativistic effects, the significance of this on a per-time signal basis is irrelevant.

In fact 3 pS at the speed of light amounts to a distance of around 0.8 mm !!

So Dummel please tell me if you agree or disagree with these calculations and if you disagree where have I erred?

Harry.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2016 5:01:44 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/11/2016 4:04:37 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/11/2016 2:43:07 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/11/2016 2:18:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At least insofar as establishing a geographical position anyway, here's why.

Atomic clocks launched from earth and placed into orbit at 20,200 km will "tick" more rapidly than their earthbound counterparts - this discrepancy seems to be that they gain 38 uS every 24 hours.

To compensate these clocks are adjusted to lose 38 uS per day and so once in orbit they more or less "tick" at the same rate and keep track with GMT (they are also periodically corrected by tiny amounts).

If a radio signal is sent from such a satellite it will take about 67 mS to reach the earth (speed_of_light / satellite_altitude_in_m).

So the question arises - how much error would we see between a earthbound clock and a orbiting clock that had been uncompensated?

Well we know it gains 38 uS every 24 hours or 38 uS every 864,000,000,000 uS.

This equates to 38 uS every 864,000,000 mS.

Therefore such an orbiting clock would gain (67 / 864,000,000) * 38 uS which is a very small number, in fact it amounts to around 3 pS (which is 10-12 of a second).

Well high quality GPS receivers have time resolutions around 15 nS so 3 pS is far below what could even be detected by a receiver, in fact the 3 pS represents and error to such a clock of around (3 / 15,000) = 0.02% of the receivers own resolution.

These simple calculations seem to show that despite orbiting clocks ticking more rapidly due to relativistic effects, the significance of this on a per-time signal basis is irrelevant.

In fact 3 pS at the speed of light amounts to a distance of around 0.8 mm !!

So Dummel please tell me if you agree or disagree with these calculations and if you disagree where have I erred?

Harry.

And on day 2?

Day number doesn't play a role in any of the above calculations.

Harry.

You seem to be comparing receive time with sent time. At 40us per day clock drift, this works out as a cumulative 0.5ns per second error.

So "how much error would we see between a earthbound clock and a orbiting clock that had been uncompensated"

It depends when you make the measurement, as the error is cumulative.

If clocks are synched. Each second after, would see an increase of 0.5ns of the error between the two, so after a total of 80 seconds, you will have 40ns error between the earthbound clock and an uncompensated orbital clock.

Right?

You seem to be measuring the amount the error increases in the time it takes for the signal to be sent and received. I'm not sure I understand the relevance of that particular time error to any of the calculations if you're comparing absolute times with one another.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 1:34:30 AM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/11/2016 4:06:16 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/11/2016 3:39:47 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/11/2016 2:18:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At least insofar as establishing a geographical position anyway, here's why.

Atomic clocks launched from earth and placed into orbit at 20,200 km will "tick" more rapidly than their earthbound counterparts - this discrepancy seems to be that they gain 38 uS every 24 hours.

To compensate these clocks are adjusted to lose 38 uS per day and so once in orbit they more or less "tick" at the same rate and keep track with GMT (they are also periodically corrected by tiny amounts).

If a radio signal is sent from such a satellite it will take about 67 mS to reach the earth (speed_of_light / satellite_altitude_in_m).

So the question arises - how much error would we see between a earthbound clock and a orbiting clock that had been uncompensated?

Well we know it gains 38 uS every 24 hours or 38 uS every 864,000,000,000 uS.

This equates to 38 uS every 864,000,000 mS.

Therefore such an orbiting clock would gain (67 / 864,000,000) * 38 uS which is a very small number, in fact it amounts to around 3 pS (which is 10-12 of a second).

Well high quality GPS receivers have time resolutions around 15 nS so 3 pS is far below what could even be detected by a receiver, in fact the 3 pS represents and error to such a clock of around (3 / 15,000) = 0.02% of the receivers own resolution.

These simple calculations seem to show that despite orbiting clocks ticking more rapidly due to relativistic effects, the significance of this on a per-time signal basis is irrelevant.

In fact 3 pS at the speed of light amounts to a distance of around 0.8 mm !!

So Dummel please tell me if you agree or disagree with these calculations and if you disagree where have I erred?

Harry.

And, upon accumulation, the system would be almost useless in a few minutes to about 10 kilometers after just one day.

So what error do I make in those calculations?


Still don't understand how it all works, Harry? After all the material provided to you and the time it should take for you to understand given your alleged credentials?
Very disappointing, Harry.

Accusations without supporting mathematical support are like many of your posts - vacuous.

Harry.

Sorry Harry, I have no idea what you're on about there. Your calculations look like nonsense.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 3:38:12 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/12/2016 1:34:30 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/11/2016 4:06:16 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/11/2016 3:39:47 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/11/2016 2:18:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At least insofar as establishing a geographical position anyway, here's why.

Atomic clocks launched from earth and placed into orbit at 20,200 km will "tick" more rapidly than their earthbound counterparts - this discrepancy seems to be that they gain 38 uS every 24 hours.

To compensate these clocks are adjusted to lose 38 uS per day and so once in orbit they more or less "tick" at the same rate and keep track with GMT (they are also periodically corrected by tiny amounts).

If a radio signal is sent from such a satellite it will take about 67 mS to reach the earth (speed_of_light / satellite_altitude_in_m).

So the question arises - how much error would we see between a earthbound clock and a orbiting clock that had been uncompensated?

Well we know it gains 38 uS every 24 hours or 38 uS every 864,000,000,000 uS.

This equates to 38 uS every 864,000,000 mS.

Therefore such an orbiting clock would gain (67 / 864,000,000) * 38 uS which is a very small number, in fact it amounts to around 3 pS (which is 10-12 of a second).

Well high quality GPS receivers have time resolutions around 15 nS so 3 pS is far below what could even be detected by a receiver, in fact the 3 pS represents and error to such a clock of around (3 / 15,000) = 0.02% of the receivers own resolution.

These simple calculations seem to show that despite orbiting clocks ticking more rapidly due to relativistic effects, the significance of this on a per-time signal basis is irrelevant.

In fact 3 pS at the speed of light amounts to a distance of around 0.8 mm !!

So Dummel please tell me if you agree or disagree with these calculations and if you disagree where have I erred?

Harry.

And, upon accumulation, the system would be almost useless in a few minutes to about 10 kilometers after just one day.

So what error do I make in those calculations?


Still don't understand how it all works, Harry? After all the material provided to you and the time it should take for you to understand given your alleged credentials?
Very disappointing, Harry.

Accusations without supporting mathematical support are like many of your posts - vacuous.

Harry.

Sorry Harry, I have no idea what you're on about there. Your calculations look like nonsense.

Can't say I'm surprised to see you struggling Dummel.

Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 3:54:27 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/11/2016 5:01:44 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/11/2016 4:04:37 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/11/2016 2:43:07 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/11/2016 2:18:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At least insofar as establishing a geographical position anyway, here's why.

Atomic clocks launched from earth and placed into orbit at 20,200 km will "tick" more rapidly than their earthbound counterparts - this discrepancy seems to be that they gain 38 uS every 24 hours.

To compensate these clocks are adjusted to lose 38 uS per day and so once in orbit they more or less "tick" at the same rate and keep track with GMT (they are also periodically corrected by tiny amounts).

If a radio signal is sent from such a satellite it will take about 67 mS to reach the earth (speed_of_light / satellite_altitude_in_m).

So the question arises - how much error would we see between a earthbound clock and a orbiting clock that had been uncompensated?

Well we know it gains 38 uS every 24 hours or 38 uS every 864,000,000,000 uS.

This equates to 38 uS every 864,000,000 mS.

Therefore such an orbiting clock would gain (67 / 864,000,000) * 38 uS which is a very small number, in fact it amounts to around 3 pS (which is 10-12 of a second).

Well high quality GPS receivers have time resolutions around 15 nS so 3 pS is far below what could even be detected by a receiver, in fact the 3 pS represents and error to such a clock of around (3 / 15,000) = 0.02% of the receivers own resolution.

These simple calculations seem to show that despite orbiting clocks ticking more rapidly due to relativistic effects, the significance of this on a per-time signal basis is irrelevant.

In fact 3 pS at the speed of light amounts to a distance of around 0.8 mm !!

So Dummel please tell me if you agree or disagree with these calculations and if you disagree where have I erred?

Harry.

And on day 2?

Day number doesn't play a role in any of the above calculations.

Harry.

You seem to be comparing receive time with sent time. At 40us per day clock drift, this works out as a cumulative 0.5ns per second error.

So "how much error would we see between a earthbound clock and a orbiting clock that had been uncompensated"

It depends when you make the measurement, as the error is cumulative.

No it doesn't a clock that's three minutes fast is three minutes fast today, next week next year. Your confusing the accumulating error in the current time with the unchanging error in measured time intervals.

If clocks are synched. Each second after, would see an increase of 0.5ns of the error between the two, so after a total of 80 seconds, you will have 40ns error between the earthbound clock and an uncompensated orbital clock.

Right?

You seem to be measuring the amount the error increases in the time it takes for the signal to be sent and received. I'm not sure I understand the relevance of that particular time error to any of the calculations if you're comparing absolute times with one another.

I'm not interested in absolute times. The distance of a satellite depends ONLY upon the transit time of a signal that's sent from the satellite and received by the receiver.

All that's required is for the sender and receiver to be synchronized - (be in step) - and the system does this currently by using algorithms in the receiver and pseudo-random timestamps.

GPS does not refer to an external reference when synchronizing a receiver, its all done by analysis of received signals from several satellites so is independent of any GMT reference.

If the satellite clocks were uncompensated and the receiver clock designed to sync and run at that same rate, then the existing synchronization algorithms would still work.

Then once synchronized we'd be measuring time intervals as we do now - and my simple calculations in my earlier post clearly show that there'e be an error in estimated distance of 0.8 mm !!

So IF we're only interested in measuring satellite distance (which is needed from 3 satellites) THEN we can safely disregard relativistic effects.

Once again though IF we want the receiver to know the current GMT (which is part of GPS) then we must do more and for this requirement compensation for relativity is required.

This is where some are getting confused, I'm not denying that we need to compensate for relativity period, I'm denying that compensation is required IF WE ONLY WANT TO DETERMINE OUR POSITION.

I've said this over and over yet some here (Dummel) are blind and can't grasp this simple point.

Think about this, think about designing a GPS system that ONLY gave us our position - no consideration given to knowing the current time, then this will make more sense.

Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 3:56:43 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
Just imagine you have a stopwatch that you KNOW gains a second every minute.

Well can we use that to measure an athlete's speed?

Do we need to know what time it is in order to measure that speed?

Harry.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 6:04:59 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/12/2016 3:38:12 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/12/2016 1:34:30 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/11/2016 4:06:16 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/11/2016 3:39:47 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/11/2016 2:18:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At least insofar as establishing a geographical position anyway, here's why.

Atomic clocks launched from earth and placed into orbit at 20,200 km will "tick" more rapidly than their earthbound counterparts - this discrepancy seems to be that they gain 38 uS every 24 hours.

To compensate these clocks are adjusted to lose 38 uS per day and so once in orbit they more or less "tick" at the same rate and keep track with GMT (they are also periodically corrected by tiny amounts).

If a radio signal is sent from such a satellite it will take about 67 mS to reach the earth (speed_of_light / satellite_altitude_in_m).

So the question arises - how much error would we see between a earthbound clock and a orbiting clock that had been uncompensated?

Well we know it gains 38 uS every 24 hours or 38 uS every 864,000,000,000 uS.

This equates to 38 uS every 864,000,000 mS.

Therefore such an orbiting clock would gain (67 / 864,000,000) * 38 uS which is a very small number, in fact it amounts to around 3 pS (which is 10-12 of a second).

Well high quality GPS receivers have time resolutions around 15 nS so 3 pS is far below what could even be detected by a receiver, in fact the 3 pS represents and error to such a clock of around (3 / 15,000) = 0.02% of the receivers own resolution.

These simple calculations seem to show that despite orbiting clocks ticking more rapidly due to relativistic effects, the significance of this on a per-time signal basis is irrelevant.

In fact 3 pS at the speed of light amounts to a distance of around 0.8 mm !!

So Dummel please tell me if you agree or disagree with these calculations and if you disagree where have I erred?

Harry.

And, upon accumulation, the system would be almost useless in a few minutes to about 10 kilometers after just one day.

So what error do I make in those calculations?


Still don't understand how it all works, Harry? After all the material provided to you and the time it should take for you to understand given your alleged credentials?
Very disappointing, Harry.

Accusations without supporting mathematical support are like many of your posts - vacuous.

Harry.

Sorry Harry, I have no idea what you're on about there. Your calculations look like nonsense.

Can't say I'm surprised to see you struggling Dummel.

Of course, I never learned to speak the language of gibberish, which is what your equations and explanations look like, Harry.

It's as hilarious as it is boring to watch you fill these pages with nonsense long after so much material was provided for you. You simply refuse to learn anything, Harry.

Harry.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 6:21:23 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/12/2016 6:04:59 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/12/2016 3:38:12 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/12/2016 1:34:30 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/11/2016 4:06:16 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/11/2016 3:39:47 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/11/2016 2:18:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At least insofar as establishing a geographical position anyway, here's why.

Atomic clocks launched from earth and placed into orbit at 20,200 km will "tick" more rapidly than their earthbound counterparts - this discrepancy seems to be that they gain 38 uS every 24 hours.

To compensate these clocks are adjusted to lose 38 uS per day and so once in orbit they more or less "tick" at the same rate and keep track with GMT (they are also periodically corrected by tiny amounts).

If a radio signal is sent from such a satellite it will take about 67 mS to reach the earth (speed_of_light / satellite_altitude_in_m).

So the question arises - how much error would we see between a earthbound clock and a orbiting clock that had been uncompensated?

Well we know it gains 38 uS every 24 hours or 38 uS every 864,000,000,000 uS.

This equates to 38 uS every 864,000,000 mS.

Therefore such an orbiting clock would gain (67 / 864,000,000) * 38 uS which is a very small number, in fact it amounts to around 3 pS (which is 10-12 of a second).

Well high quality GPS receivers have time resolutions around 15 nS so 3 pS is far below what could even be detected by a receiver, in fact the 3 pS represents and error to such a clock of around (3 / 15,000) = 0.02% of the receivers own resolution.

These simple calculations seem to show that despite orbiting clocks ticking more rapidly due to relativistic effects, the significance of this on a per-time signal basis is irrelevant.

In fact 3 pS at the speed of light amounts to a distance of around 0.8 mm !!

So Dummel please tell me if you agree or disagree with these calculations and if you disagree where have I erred?

Harry.

And, upon accumulation, the system would be almost useless in a few minutes to about 10 kilometers after just one day.

So what error do I make in those calculations?


Still don't understand how it all works, Harry? After all the material provided to you and the time it should take for you to understand given your alleged credentials?
Very disappointing, Harry.

Accusations without supporting mathematical support are like many of your posts - vacuous.

Harry.

Sorry Harry, I have no idea what you're on about there. Your calculations look like nonsense.

Can't say I'm surprised to see you struggling Dummel.

Of course, I never learned to speak the language of gibberish, which is what your equations and explanations look like, Harry.

It's as hilarious as it is boring to watch you fill these pages with nonsense long after so much material was provided for you. You simply refuse to learn anything, Harry.

Harry.

Dummel you really are an ill mannered blabber moth and we both know I'm probably not the first person to tell you this.

Why not take a stab at the stopwatch question I just asked or is that too deep for you?

You're a pop-science reader with ideas above his station , the calculations I posted are trivial and pose no challenge - if there was an error someone would have pointed out the algebra, they haven't.

Glibly labeling things as "gibberish" is the cowardly way of avoiding being honest - I'm sure others are picking this up too.

So tell me is it or is it not possible to measure the speed of a marathon runner using a stopwatch that you know gains one second every second? and does one need to know what time it is in order to do this?

This is your opportunity to demonstrate your depth of scientific knowledge!

Harry.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 6:34:58 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/12/2016 6:21:23 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/12/2016 6:04:59 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/12/2016 3:38:12 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/12/2016 1:34:30 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/11/2016 4:06:16 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/11/2016 3:39:47 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/11/2016 2:18:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At least insofar as establishing a geographical position anyway, here's why.

Atomic clocks launched from earth and placed into orbit at 20,200 km will "tick" more rapidly than their earthbound counterparts - this discrepancy seems to be that they gain 38 uS every 24 hours.

To compensate these clocks are adjusted to lose 38 uS per day and so once in orbit they more or less "tick" at the same rate and keep track with GMT (they are also periodically corrected by tiny amounts).

If a radio signal is sent from such a satellite it will take about 67 mS to reach the earth (speed_of_light / satellite_altitude_in_m).

So the question arises - how much error would we see between a earthbound clock and a orbiting clock that had been uncompensated?

Well we know it gains 38 uS every 24 hours or 38 uS every 864,000,000,000 uS.

This equates to 38 uS every 864,000,000 mS.

Therefore such an orbiting clock would gain (67 / 864,000,000) * 38 uS which is a very small number, in fact it amounts to around 3 pS (which is 10-12 of a second).

Well high quality GPS receivers have time resolutions around 15 nS so 3 pS is far below what could even be detected by a receiver, in fact the 3 pS represents and error to such a clock of around (3 / 15,000) = 0.02% of the receivers own resolution.

These simple calculations seem to show that despite orbiting clocks ticking more rapidly due to relativistic effects, the significance of this on a per-time signal basis is irrelevant.

In fact 3 pS at the speed of light amounts to a distance of around 0.8 mm !!

So Dummel please tell me if you agree or disagree with these calculations and if you disagree where have I erred?

Harry.

And, upon accumulation, the system would be almost useless in a few minutes to about 10 kilometers after just one day.

So what error do I make in those calculations?


Still don't understand how it all works, Harry? After all the material provided to you and the time it should take for you to understand given your alleged credentials?
Very disappointing, Harry.

Accusations without supporting mathematical support are like many of your posts - vacuous.

Harry.

Sorry Harry, I have no idea what you're on about there. Your calculations look like nonsense.

Can't say I'm surprised to see you struggling Dummel.

Of course, I never learned to speak the language of gibberish, which is what your equations and explanations look like, Harry.

It's as hilarious as it is boring to watch you fill these pages with nonsense long after so much material was provided for you. You simply refuse to learn anything, Harry.

Harry.

Dummel you really are an ill mannered blabber moth and we both know I'm probably not the first person to tell you this.

Why not take a stab at the stopwatch question I just asked or is that too deep for you?

You're a pop-science reader with ideas above his station , the calculations I posted are trivial and pose no challenge - if there was an error someone would have pointed out the algebra, they haven't.

Glibly labeling things as "gibberish" is the cowardly way of avoiding being honest - I'm sure others are picking this up too.

So tell me is it or is it not possible to measure the speed of a marathon runner using a stopwatch that you know gains one second every second? and does one need to know what time it is in order to do this?

This is your opportunity to demonstrate your depth of scientific knowledge!

Harry.

That was meant to be "one second every minute" - but the principle is the same either way.

Harry.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 10:38:35 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/12/2016 6:21:23 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/12/2016 6:04:59 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/12/2016 3:38:12 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/12/2016 1:34:30 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/11/2016 4:06:16 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/11/2016 3:39:47 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/11/2016 2:18:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At least insofar as establishing a geographical position anyway, here's why.

Atomic clocks launched from earth and placed into orbit at 20,200 km will "tick" more rapidly than their earthbound counterparts - this discrepancy seems to be that they gain 38 uS every 24 hours.

To compensate these clocks are adjusted to lose 38 uS per day and so once in orbit they more or less "tick" at the same rate and keep track with GMT (they are also periodically corrected by tiny amounts).

If a radio signal is sent from such a satellite it will take about 67 mS to reach the earth (speed_of_light / satellite_altitude_in_m).

So the question arises - how much error would we see between a earthbound clock and a orbiting clock that had been uncompensated?

Well we know it gains 38 uS every 24 hours or 38 uS every 864,000,000,000 uS.

This equates to 38 uS every 864,000,000 mS.

Therefore such an orbiting clock would gain (67 / 864,000,000) * 38 uS which is a very small number, in fact it amounts to around 3 pS (which is 10-12 of a second).

Well high quality GPS receivers have time resolutions around 15 nS so 3 pS is far below what could even be detected by a receiver, in fact the 3 pS represents and error to such a clock of around (3 / 15,000) = 0.02% of the receivers own resolution.

These simple calculations seem to show that despite orbiting clocks ticking more rapidly due to relativistic effects, the significance of this on a per-time signal basis is irrelevant.

In fact 3 pS at the speed of light amounts to a distance of around 0.8 mm !!

So Dummel please tell me if you agree or disagree with these calculations and if you disagree where have I erred?

Harry.

And, upon accumulation, the system would be almost useless in a few minutes to about 10 kilometers after just one day.

So what error do I make in those calculations?


Still don't understand how it all works, Harry? After all the material provided to you and the time it should take for you to understand given your alleged credentials?
Very disappointing, Harry.

Accusations without supporting mathematical support are like many of your posts - vacuous.

Harry.

Sorry Harry, I have no idea what you're on about there. Your calculations look like nonsense.

Can't say I'm surprised to see you struggling Dummel.

Of course, I never learned to speak the language of gibberish, which is what your equations and explanations look like, Harry.

It's as hilarious as it is boring to watch you fill these pages with nonsense long after so much material was provided for you. You simply refuse to learn anything, Harry.

Harry.

Dummel you really are an ill mannered blabber moth and we both know I'm probably not the first person to tell you this.

Btw, Harry, rather than having to constantly copy and paste YOUR words to me as a reminder, I placed them, strategically, in my signature to remind you every time you post. This of course, is a no charge service.

Why not take a stab at the stopwatch question I just asked or is that too deep for you?

You're a pop-science reader with ideas above his station , the calculations I posted are trivial and pose no challenge - if there was an error someone would have pointed out the algebra, they haven't.

And, somehow you've managed to equate the gibberish there with , "I must be right because no one has proven me wrong."

Glibly labeling things as "gibberish" is the cowardly way of avoiding being honest - I'm sure others are picking this up too.

Yes, I'm sure they have.

So tell me is it or is it not possible to measure the speed of a marathon runner using a stopwatch that you know gains one second every second? and does one need to know what time it is in order to do this?

This is your opportunity to demonstrate your depth of scientific knowledge!

Should I be forever grateful that you're bestowing this prestigious honor on me? Or, is it an excuse for me to do your homework for you?

Harry.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2016 11:00:44 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/12/2016 10:38:35 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/12/2016 6:21:23 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/12/2016 6:04:59 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/12/2016 3:38:12 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/12/2016 1:34:30 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/11/2016 4:06:16 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/11/2016 3:39:47 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/11/2016 2:18:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At least insofar as establishing a geographical position anyway, here's why.

Atomic clocks launched from earth and placed into orbit at 20,200 km will "tick" more rapidly than their earthbound counterparts - this discrepancy seems to be that they gain 38 uS every 24 hours.

To compensate these clocks are adjusted to lose 38 uS per day and so once in orbit they more or less "tick" at the same rate and keep track with GMT (they are also periodically corrected by tiny amounts).

If a radio signal is sent from such a satellite it will take about 67 mS to reach the earth (speed_of_light / satellite_altitude_in_m).

So the question arises - how much error would we see between a earthbound clock and a orbiting clock that had been uncompensated?

Well we know it gains 38 uS every 24 hours or 38 uS every 864,000,000,000 uS.

This equates to 38 uS every 864,000,000 mS.

Therefore such an orbiting clock would gain (67 / 864,000,000) * 38 uS which is a very small number, in fact it amounts to around 3 pS (which is 10-12 of a second).

Well high quality GPS receivers have time resolutions around 15 nS so 3 pS is far below what could even be detected by a receiver, in fact the 3 pS represents and error to such a clock of around (3 / 15,000) = 0.02% of the receivers own resolution.

These simple calculations seem to show that despite orbiting clocks ticking more rapidly due to relativistic effects, the significance of this on a per-time signal basis is irrelevant.

In fact 3 pS at the speed of light amounts to a distance of around 0.8 mm !!

So Dummel please tell me if you agree or disagree with these calculations and if you disagree where have I erred?

Harry.

And, upon accumulation, the system would be almost useless in a few minutes to about 10 kilometers after just one day.

So what error do I make in those calculations?


Still don't understand how it all works, Harry? After all the material provided to you and the time it should take for you to understand given your alleged credentials?
Very disappointing, Harry.

Accusations without supporting mathematical support are like many of your posts - vacuous.

Harry.

Sorry Harry, I have no idea what you're on about there. Your calculations look like nonsense.

Can't say I'm surprised to see you struggling Dummel.

Of course, I never learned to speak the language of gibberish, which is what your equations and explanations look like, Harry.

It's as hilarious as it is boring to watch you fill these pages with nonsense long after so much material was provided for you. You simply refuse to learn anything, Harry.

Harry.

Dummel you really are an ill mannered blabber moth and we both know I'm probably not the first person to tell you this.

Btw, Harry, rather than having to constantly copy and paste YOUR words to me as a reminder, I placed them, strategically, in my signature to remind you every time you post. This of course, is a no charge service.

Why not take a stab at the stopwatch question I just asked or is that too deep for you?

You're a pop-science reader with ideas above his station , the calculations I posted are trivial and pose no challenge - if there was an error someone would have pointed out the algebra, they haven't.

And, somehow you've managed to equate the gibberish there with , "I must be right because no one has proven me wrong."

Glibly labeling things as "gibberish" is the cowardly way of avoiding being honest - I'm sure others are picking this up too.

Yes, I'm sure they have.

So tell me is it or is it not possible to measure the speed of a marathon runner using a stopwatch that you know gains one second every second? and does one need to know what time it is in order to do this?

This is your opportunity to demonstrate your depth of scientific knowledge!

Should I be forever grateful that you're bestowing this prestigious honor on me? Or, is it an excuse for me to do your homework for you?

Harry.

Just imagine you have a stopwatch that you KNOW gains a second every minute.

Well can we use that to measure an athlete's speed?

Do we need to know what time it is in order to measure that speed?

Grow a pair man and answer the question.

Harry.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 4:29:03 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/12/2016 11:00:44 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/12/2016 10:38:35 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/12/2016 6:21:23 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/12/2016 6:04:59 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/12/2016 3:38:12 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/12/2016 1:34:30 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/11/2016 4:06:16 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/11/2016 3:39:47 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/11/2016 2:18:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At least insofar as establishing a geographical position anyway, here's why.

Atomic clocks launched from earth and placed into orbit at 20,200 km will "tick" more rapidly than their earthbound counterparts - this discrepancy seems to be that they gain 38 uS every 24 hours.

To compensate these clocks are adjusted to lose 38 uS per day and so once in orbit they more or less "tick" at the same rate and keep track with GMT (they are also periodically corrected by tiny amounts).

If a radio signal is sent from such a satellite it will take about 67 mS to reach the earth (speed_of_light / satellite_altitude_in_m).

So the question arises - how much error would we see between a earthbound clock and a orbiting clock that had been uncompensated?

Well we know it gains 38 uS every 24 hours or 38 uS every 864,000,000,000 uS.

This equates to 38 uS every 864,000,000 mS.

Therefore such an orbiting clock would gain (67 / 864,000,000) * 38 uS which is a very small number, in fact it amounts to around 3 pS (which is 10-12 of a second).

Well high quality GPS receivers have time resolutions around 15 nS so 3 pS is far below what could even be detected by a receiver, in fact the 3 pS represents and error to such a clock of around (3 / 15,000) = 0.02% of the receivers own resolution.

These simple calculations seem to show that despite orbiting clocks ticking more rapidly due to relativistic effects, the significance of this on a per-time signal basis is irrelevant.

In fact 3 pS at the speed of light amounts to a distance of around 0.8 mm !!

So Dummel please tell me if you agree or disagree with these calculations and if you disagree where have I erred?

Harry.

And, upon accumulation, the system would be almost useless in a few minutes to about 10 kilometers after just one day.

So what error do I make in those calculations?


Still don't understand how it all works, Harry? After all the material provided to you and the time it should take for you to understand given your alleged credentials?
Very disappointing, Harry.

Accusations without supporting mathematical support are like many of your posts - vacuous.

Harry.

Sorry Harry, I have no idea what you're on about there. Your calculations look like nonsense.

Can't say I'm surprised to see you struggling Dummel.

Of course, I never learned to speak the language of gibberish, which is what your equations and explanations look like, Harry.

It's as hilarious as it is boring to watch you fill these pages with nonsense long after so much material was provided for you. You simply refuse to learn anything, Harry.

Harry.

Dummel you really are an ill mannered blabber moth and we both know I'm probably not the first person to tell you this.

Btw, Harry, rather than having to constantly copy and paste YOUR words to me as a reminder, I placed them, strategically, in my signature to remind you every time you post. This of course, is a no charge service.

Why not take a stab at the stopwatch question I just asked or is that too deep for you?

You're a pop-science reader with ideas above his station , the calculations I posted are trivial and pose no challenge - if there was an error someone would have pointed out the algebra, they haven't.

And, somehow you've managed to equate the gibberish there with , "I must be right because no one has proven me wrong."

Glibly labeling things as "gibberish" is the cowardly way of avoiding being honest - I'm sure others are picking this up too.

Yes, I'm sure they have.

So tell me is it or is it not possible to measure the speed of a marathon runner using a stopwatch that you know gains one second every second? and does one need to know what time it is in order to do this?

This is your opportunity to demonstrate your depth of scientific knowledge!

Should I be forever grateful that you're bestowing this prestigious honor on me? Or, is it an excuse for me to do your homework for you?

Harry.

Just imagine you have a stopwatch that you KNOW gains a second every minute.

Well can we use that to measure an athlete's speed?

Do we need to know what time it is in order to measure that speed?

Grow a pair man and answer the question.

Harry.

Just imagine if you had a grasp of the material, just imagine.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 4:56:53 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 4:29:03 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/12/2016 11:00:44 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/12/2016 10:38:35 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/12/2016 6:21:23 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/12/2016 6:04:59 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/12/2016 3:38:12 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/12/2016 1:34:30 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/11/2016 4:06:16 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/11/2016 3:39:47 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/11/2016 2:18:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At least insofar as establishing a geographical position anyway, here's why.

Atomic clocks launched from earth and placed into orbit at 20,200 km will "tick" more rapidly than their earthbound counterparts - this discrepancy seems to be that they gain 38 uS every 24 hours.

To compensate these clocks are adjusted to lose 38 uS per day and so once in orbit they more or less "tick" at the same rate and keep track with GMT (they are also periodically corrected by tiny amounts).

If a radio signal is sent from such a satellite it will take about 67 mS to reach the earth (speed_of_light / satellite_altitude_in_m).

So the question arises - how much error would we see between a earthbound clock and a orbiting clock that had been uncompensated?

Well we know it gains 38 uS every 24 hours or 38 uS every 864,000,000,000 uS.

This equates to 38 uS every 864,000,000 mS.

Therefore such an orbiting clock would gain (67 / 864,000,000) * 38 uS which is a very small number, in fact it amounts to around 3 pS (which is 10-12 of a second).

Well high quality GPS receivers have time resolutions around 15 nS so 3 pS is far below what could even be detected by a receiver, in fact the 3 pS represents and error to such a clock of around (3 / 15,000) = 0.02% of the receivers own resolution.

These simple calculations seem to show that despite orbiting clocks ticking more rapidly due to relativistic effects, the significance of this on a per-time signal basis is irrelevant.

In fact 3 pS at the speed of light amounts to a distance of around 0.8 mm !!

So Dummel please tell me if you agree or disagree with these calculations and if you disagree where have I erred?

Harry.

And, upon accumulation, the system would be almost useless in a few minutes to about 10 kilometers after just one day.

So what error do I make in those calculations?


Still don't understand how it all works, Harry? After all the material provided to you and the time it should take for you to understand given your alleged credentials?
Very disappointing, Harry.

Accusations without supporting mathematical support are like many of your posts - vacuous.

Harry.

Sorry Harry, I have no idea what you're on about there. Your calculations look like nonsense.

Can't say I'm surprised to see you struggling Dummel.

Of course, I never learned to speak the language of gibberish, which is what your equations and explanations look like, Harry.

It's as hilarious as it is boring to watch you fill these pages with nonsense long after so much material was provided for you. You simply refuse to learn anything, Harry.

Harry.

Dummel you really are an ill mannered blabber moth and we both know I'm probably not the first person to tell you this.

Btw, Harry, rather than having to constantly copy and paste YOUR words to me as a reminder, I placed them, strategically, in my signature to remind you every time you post. This of course, is a no charge service.

Why not take a stab at the stopwatch question I just asked or is that too deep for you?

You're a pop-science reader with ideas above his station , the calculations I posted are trivial and pose no challenge - if there was an error someone would have pointed out the algebra, they haven't.

And, somehow you've managed to equate the gibberish there with , "I must be right because no one has proven me wrong."

Glibly labeling things as "gibberish" is the cowardly way of avoiding being honest - I'm sure others are picking this up too.

Yes, I'm sure they have.

So tell me is it or is it not possible to measure the speed of a marathon runner using a stopwatch that you know gains one second every second? and does one need to know what time it is in order to do this?

This is your opportunity to demonstrate your depth of scientific knowledge!

Should I be forever grateful that you're bestowing this prestigious honor on me? Or, is it an excuse for me to do your homework for you?

Harry.

Just imagine you have a stopwatch that you KNOW gains a second every minute.

Well can we use that to measure an athlete's speed?

Do we need to know what time it is in order to measure that speed?

Grow a pair man and answer the question.

Harry.

Just imagine if you had a grasp of the material, just imagine.

So Mr. Armchair pop-scientist once again evades answering a question about science!

What's the matter Dummel can't find your copy of the Idiots Guide to Science!

http://www.amazon.com...

You may have fooled some here on these forums but your predictable pattern of never answering questions when you've been cornered (and not just by me) makes it crystal clear to me that you're a lightweight amateur on a host of scientific areas.

As is your custom under these circumstances vacuities and insults are your tools of choice, something I've seen over and over from atheist knowalls who've read too much pop science.

Harry.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2016 10:54:02 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/12/2016 3:56:43 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
Just imagine you have a stopwatch that you KNOW gains a second every minute.

Well can we use that to measure an athlete's speed?

Do we need to know what time it is in order to measure that speed?

Harry.

Okay, I was going to reply to yours directly, but this one shows where your error in thinking is.

If you have a stopwatch that you know gains a second every minute, can you use it to measure an athletes speed?

Yes.

If you know how accurate your stop watch is, you know when the athlete started, and when they stopped to a high degree of accuracy you can use that to measure the duration of the race.

However, in terms of GPS, you don't know any of those things; and indeed, I would have thought it would be obvious that this analogy falls apart when you actually consider the information GPS has.

So, lets rephrase the analogy.

You have a clock, whose accuracy you aren't completely sure of at any given time (remember quartz oscillators typically have an accuracy of somewhere between 6ppm and 50ppm, meaning that in 100ms, the clock may have drifted by between 600ns, and 5us.)

You can record to fairly high precision when the Athlete finished the race, but you have no idea when they started.

The athlete has a clock too, one that you know is much more accurate than yours, but the only way you can tell what time it tells, is by asking him what time he thinks he started the race.

So when you compare clocks to measure the time the athlete took to complete the race, you have no clue whatsoever how long it took them because you have no idea how different your clocks are.

You can get a rough idea of how different your clocks are by making multiple measurements; but as each race takes a slightly different amount of time, you need lots of measurements, which takes time.

If your pretty sure that every athletes clocks are telling the same time, you can make a sequential estimate because you can get an idea for the rough amount of time it should take them to complete the race, you know roughly how fast they run, and how long they need to run.

From this, you can sequentially reset and refine your clock so that:

a) you're pretty sure it tells the same time as the athletes clocks.
b) You can mostly work out how much faster and slower it runs compared to the athletes clock is.

You won't be able to do that with one race, or even a few races; it will have to be worked out iteratively. But after a while you'll get things in fairly good sync, and you'll be able to know that your clocks are ticking at the same rate, and are telling the same time.

Importantly, though, if with all of that, your adjustment doesn't take into account that the athletes clocks are ticking 38us/day slower than they should be, then every time you ensure that your clocks are telling the same time (a synchronization), the error in times shown between you and the athletes are reset to 0.

You can only sync at the end of a race, and you need multiple races to sync; and at the rate of drift between the two clocks, every second you leave it between syncing, adds 0.5ns error into the time; so after ten seconds, you'll have 5ft error, after 30 seconds, you'll have 15 ns error. after 60, 30ns. Etc.

So in this example, you need to repeatedly keep synching your clock to the the athlete, and any errors you get, or inaccuracies in that sync will effect the time you measure the athletes race time.

In reality, using this method, all you can tell, is how much faster or slower your clock is ticking than the athletes clock, you can't really tell whether the error is your error, or the athletes error. But provided that both sides have a systematic error (IE: an error doesn't change much from one second to the next), you can tell how much faster or slower one side is ticking from the other.

So, you use this method and you find some way to sync with races every 90s or so accuracy to maintain your accuracy of 40ns; and you adjust your clock time to match the athletes.

You then go compare your clock to an extraordinarily accurate UTC clock somewhere.

If you did this, you'd find your clock is ticking 38us/day slower than the UTC clock.

So, shockingly, your clock error has no accounted for the relativistic changes in the athletes clocks because in synchronizing to them, you've taken on the athletes error into your clock error.

Now, it's all well and good if all you want to do is measure the athletes races, but if you want to accurately tell the time too, you're kinda screwed. The only way of accurately telling the time, as well as the athletes race time, is to make sure that the athletes clock is accurate compared to the UTC clock.

Even more importantly, is this where the analogy can't be used to compare:

You need to know the position of the satellite. How do you do that? If you know the orbital parameters, and you know the time, you can work that out; but if you're time is wrong, the satellite is not going to be in the same position as you think it is. The more absolute time error that is in the system the more inaccurate that position will be. You can constantly monitor it's position, and then send that information to the satellite, or receiver, but you have the same issue of timing, and distance you had in the first place!

If you have a super accurate clock you can work out your position pretty accurately, and the cumulative inaccuracies are small; but any clock inaccuracy between sender and receiver makes it more inaccurate over time to tell where the satellite actually is, compared to where you think it is.

Obviously, you can repeatedly correct for this over time, but insodoing, you are still taking into account and knowingly correcting for relativistic error. So either way relativity cannot be ignored.

More importantly, is that the system is all about minimizing error; the error in timing and the error in position that would be present may not individually be enough to put the system as a whole out of specification, but it would evidently mean that it would reduce the overall accuracy from where it is now, through the systematic errors introduced by relativity.

Knowing your position to a resolution of 40 feet, requires a precise accuracy of position and time. If you remove and reduce as much of the systematic error as you can, you are still limited in accuracy based on non-systematic errors, clock jitter and clock edge uncertainty on both sides, inaccuracies and non-constant errors in group delay between acquiring accurate time stamps, and physically sending the signal that would all server to add errors to the system that can not be effectively calibrated out. This means to maximize accuracy, the more systematic error that is introduced eats into your tolerance budget, meaning that every other part of the system needs to be more accurate.

The only way of minimizing the measurement uncertainty, is by adjusting the satellite clock, otherwise there will always be uncertainty creeping adding cumulative errors compound errors; some of this can be accounted for in methodology; but the only way of eliminating them to a high degree is changing the satellite clock. Most of the current level of accuracy is dependent on the accuracy of parts of the system you can't improve and thus, any errors you have in the system will increase that inaccuracy; potentially way more than the quoted accuracy.

Ergo: to get the accuracy quoted by GPS today, you must account for relativistic effects, this can be done in many ways; but doing so on the satellite reduces the overall error, and makes more sense.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 3:51:07 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 4:56:53 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/13/2016 4:29:03 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/12/2016 11:00:44 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/12/2016 10:38:35 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/12/2016 6:21:23 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/12/2016 6:04:59 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/12/2016 3:38:12 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/12/2016 1:34:30 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/11/2016 4:06:16 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/11/2016 3:39:47 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/11/2016 2:18:38 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At least insofar as establishing a geographical position anyway, here's why.

Atomic clocks launched from earth and placed into orbit at 20,200 km will "tick" more rapidly than their earthbound counterparts - this discrepancy seems to be that they gain 38 uS every 24 hours.

To compensate these clocks are adjusted to lose 38 uS per day and so once in orbit they more or less "tick" at the same rate and keep track with GMT (they are also periodically corrected by tiny amounts).

If a radio signal is sent from such a satellite it will take about 67 mS to reach the earth (speed_of_light / satellite_altitude_in_m).

So the question arises - how much error would we see between a earthbound clock and a orbiting clock that had been uncompensated?

Well we know it gains 38 uS every 24 hours or 38 uS every 864,000,000,000 uS.

This equates to 38 uS every 864,000,000 mS.

Therefore such an orbiting clock would gain (67 / 864,000,000) * 38 uS which is a very small number, in fact it amounts to around 3 pS (which is 10-12 of a second).

Well high quality GPS receivers have time resolutions around 15 nS so 3 pS is far below what could even be detected by a receiver, in fact the 3 pS represents and error to such a clock of around (3 / 15,000) = 0.02% of the receivers own resolution.

These simple calculations seem to show that despite orbiting clocks ticking more rapidly due to relativistic effects, the significance of this on a per-time signal basis is irrelevant.

In fact 3 pS at the speed of light amounts to a distance of around 0.8 mm !!

So Dummel please tell me if you agree or disagree with these calculations and if you disagree where have I erred?

Harry.

And, upon accumulation, the system would be almost useless in a few minutes to about 10 kilometers after just one day.

So what error do I make in those calculations?


Still don't understand how it all works, Harry? After all the material provided to you and the time it should take for you to understand given your alleged credentials?
Very disappointing, Harry.

Accusations without supporting mathematical support are like many of your posts - vacuous.

Harry.

Sorry Harry, I have no idea what you're on about there. Your calculations look like nonsense.

Can't say I'm surprised to see you struggling Dummel.

Of course, I never learned to speak the language of gibberish, which is what your equations and explanations look like, Harry.

It's as hilarious as it is boring to watch you fill these pages with nonsense long after so much material was provided for you. You simply refuse to learn anything, Harry.

Harry.

Dummel you really are an ill mannered blabber moth and we both know I'm probably not the first person to tell you this.

Btw, Harry, rather than having to constantly copy and paste YOUR words to me as a reminder, I placed them, strategically, in my signature to remind you every time you post. This of course, is a no charge service.

Why not take a stab at the stopwatch question I just asked or is that too deep for you?

You're a pop-science reader with ideas above his station , the calculations I posted are trivial and pose no challenge - if there was an error someone would have pointed out the algebra, they haven't.

And, somehow you've managed to equate the gibberish there with , "I must be right because no one has proven me wrong."

Glibly labeling things as "gibberish" is the cowardly way of avoiding being honest - I'm sure others are picking this up too.

Yes, I'm sure they have.

So tell me is it or is it not possible to measure the speed of a marathon runner using a stopwatch that you know gains one second every second? and does one need to know what time it is in order to do this?

This is your opportunity to demonstrate your depth of scientific knowledge!

Should I be forever grateful that you're bestowing this prestigious honor on me? Or, is it an excuse for me to do your homework for you?

Harry.

Just imagine you have a stopwatch that you KNOW gains a second every minute.

Well can we use that to measure an athlete's speed?

Do we need to know what time it is in order to measure that speed?

Grow a pair man and answer the question.

Harry.

Just imagine if you had a grasp of the material, just imagine.

So Mr. Armchair pop-scientist once again evades answering a question about science!

: What's the matter Dummel can't find your copy of the Idiots Guide to Science!

"Here you go again - the descent into insulting anyone who dares to disagree with you, how predictable you're becoming. -Dirty Harry."



http://www.amazon.com...

You may have fooled some here on these forums but your predictable pattern of never answering questions when you've been cornered (and not just by me) makes it crystal clear to me that you're a lightweight amateur on a host of scientific areas.

As is your custom under these circumstances vacuities and insults are your tools of choice, something I've seen over and over from atheist knowalls who've read too much pop science.

Harry.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 7:53:52 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 10:54:02 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Okay, I was going to reply to yours directly, but this one shows where your error in thinking is.

If you have a stopwatch that you know gains a second every minute, can you use it to measure an athletes speed?

Yes.

If you know how accurate your stop watch is, you know when the athlete started, and when they stopped to a high degree of accuracy you can use that to measure the duration of the race.

However, in terms of GPS, you don't know any of those things; and indeed, I would have thought it would be obvious that this analogy falls apart when you actually consider the information GPS has.

So, lets rephrase the analogy.

It wasn't really intended as an analogy, it was intended to show that despite a clock ticking too fast or slow we can nevertheless correctly measure intervals with the same accuracy as if the clock ticked at the correct rate - so long as we know the magnitude of the deviation.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 7:58:55 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/14/2016 7:53:52 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/13/2016 10:54:02 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Okay, I was going to reply to yours directly, but this one shows where your error in thinking is.

If you have a stopwatch that you know gains a second every minute, can you use it to measure an athletes speed?

Yes.

If you know how accurate your stop watch is, you know when the athlete started, and when they stopped to a high degree of accuracy you can use that to measure the duration of the race.

However, in terms of GPS, you don't know any of those things; and indeed, I would have thought it would be obvious that this analogy falls apart when you actually consider the information GPS has.

So, lets rephrase the analogy.

It wasn't really intended as an analogy, it was intended to show that despite a clock ticking too fast or slow we can nevertheless correctly measure intervals with the same accuracy as if the clock ticked at the correct rate - so long as we know the magnitude of the deviation.

And I pointed out, that if you use that analogy, it becomes clear it isn't easy or quick to determine the magnitude of that deviation, and certainly not without taking into account relativistic deviations, which you claim can be ignored.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 8:16:07 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/13/2016 10:54:02 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
You have a clock, whose accuracy you aren't completely sure of at any given time (remember quartz oscillators typically have an accuracy of somewhere between 6ppm and 50ppm, meaning that in 100ms, the clock may have drifted by between 600ns, and 5us.)

You can record to fairly high precision when the Athlete finished the race, but you have no idea when they started.

The athlete has a clock too, one that you know is much more accurate than yours, but the only way you can tell what time it tells, is by asking him what time he thinks he started the race.

So when you compare clocks to measure the time the athlete took to complete the race, you have no clue whatsoever how long it took them because you have no idea how different your clocks are.

You can get a rough idea of how different your clocks are by making multiple measurements; but as each race takes a slightly different amount of time, you need lots of measurements, which takes time.

If your pretty sure that every athletes clocks are telling the same time, you can make a sequential estimate because you can get an idea for the rough amount of time it should take them to complete the race, you know roughly how fast they run, and how long they need to run.

From this, you can sequentially reset and refine your clock so that:

a) you're pretty sure it tells the same time as the athletes clocks.
b) You can mostly work out how much faster and slower it runs compared to the athletes clock is.

You won't be able to do that with one race, or even a few races; it will have to be worked out iteratively. But after a while you'll get things in fairly good sync, and you'll be able to know that your clocks are ticking at the same rate, and are telling the same time.


Importantly, though, if with all of that, your adjustment doesn't take into account that the athletes clocks are ticking 38us/day slower than they should be, then every time you ensure that your clocks are telling the same time (a synchronization), the error in times shown between you and the athletes are reset to 0.

You can only sync at the end of a race, and you need multiple races to sync; and at the rate of drift between the two clocks, every second you leave it between syncing, adds 0.5ns error into the time; so after ten seconds, you'll have 5ft error, after 30 seconds, you'll have 15 ns error. after 60, 30ns. Etc.

So in this example, you need to repeatedly keep synching your clock to the the athlete, and any errors you get, or inaccuracies in that sync will effect the time you measure the athletes race time.

In reality, using this method, all you can tell, is how much faster or slower your clock is ticking than the athletes clock, you can't really tell whether the error is your error, or the athletes error. But provided that both sides have a systematic error (IE: an error doesn't change much from one second to the next), you can tell how much faster or slower one side is ticking from the other.

So, you use this method and you find some way to sync with races every 90s or so accuracy to maintain your accuracy of 40ns; and you adjust your clock time to match the athletes.

You then go compare your clock to an extraordinarily accurate UTC clock somewhere.

If you did this, you'd find your clock is ticking 38us/day slower than the UTC clock.

So, shockingly, your clock error has no accounted for the relativistic changes in the athletes clocks because in synchronizing to them, you've taken on the athletes error into your clock error.

Now, it's all well and good if all you want to do is measure the athletes races, but if you want to accurately tell the time too, you're kinda screwed. The only way of accurately telling the time, as well as the athletes race time, is to make sure that the athletes clock is accurate compared to the UTC clock.

Even more importantly, is this where the analogy can't be used to compare:

You need to know the position of the satellite. How do you do that? If you know the orbital parameters, and you know the time, you can work that out; but if you're time is wrong, the satellite is not going to be in the same position as you think it is. The more absolute time error that is in the system the more inaccurate that position will be. You can constantly monitor it's position, and then send that information to the satellite, or receiver, but you have the same issue of timing, and distance you had in the first place!

If you have a super accurate clock you can work out your position pretty accurately, and the cumulative inaccuracies are small; but any clock inaccuracy between sender and receiver makes it more inaccurate over time to tell where the satellite actually is, compared to where you think it is.

Obviously, you can repeatedly correct for this over time, but insodoing, you are still taking into account and knowingly correcting for relativistic error. So either way relativity cannot be ignored.

More importantly, is that the system is all about minimizing error; the error in timing and the error in position that would be present may not individually be enough to put the system as a whole out of specification, but it would evidently mean that it would reduce the overall accuracy from where it is now, through the systematic errors introduced by relativity.

Knowing your position to a resolution of 40 feet, requires a precise accuracy of position and time. If you remove and reduce as much of the systematic error as you can, you are still limited in accuracy based on non-systematic errors, clock jitter and clock edge uncertainty on both sides, inaccuracies and non-constant errors in group delay between acquiring accurate time stamps, and physically sending the signal that would all server to add errors to the system that can not be effectively calibrated out. This means to maximize accuracy, the more systematic error that is introduced eats into your tolerance budget, meaning that every other part of the system needs to be more accurate.

The only way of minimizing the measurement uncertainty, is by adjusting the satellite clock, otherwise there will always be uncertainty creeping adding cumulative errors compound errors; some of this can be accounted for in methodology; but the only way of eliminating them to a high degree is changing the satellite clock. Most of the current level of accuracy is dependent on the accuracy of parts of the system you can't improve and thus, any errors you have in the system will increase that inaccuracy; potentially way more than the quoted accuracy.

Ergo: to get the accuracy quoted by GPS today, you must account for relativistic effects, this can be done in many ways; but doing so on the satellite reduces the overall error, and makes more sense.

You took rather a long time to reach an erroneous conclusion Ramshutu.

GPS receivers set their clocks by firstly deducing where the receiver has to be situated in order for signals sent at the same time from different satellites, to be received at the relative times they're received.

This requires the receiver to be able to generate the same timestamp at the same time as the timestamps present in received messages.

Assume the receiver has already synchronized, well it knows how long some message took from satellite A by saying in essence "hmm, I just received a timestamp for 12:03:05.005 with the code 12345678 and I know that I generated that same code 95 ms ago, therefore that message took 95 ms to travel, therefore satellite A is X km away". (X being 98 ms X speed of light).

As I've shown elsewhere relativity introduces an error of around 3 picoseconds for every 68 ms which equates to an error in calculated distance of 0.8 mm. Intervals beteween received and locally generated codes are the core of this - intervals...
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 8:24:54 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/14/2016 7:58:55 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/14/2016 7:53:52 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/13/2016 10:54:02 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Okay, I was going to reply to yours directly, but this one shows where your error in thinking is.

If you have a stopwatch that you know gains a second every minute, can you use it to measure an athletes speed?

Yes.

If you know how accurate your stop watch is, you know when the athlete started, and when they stopped to a high degree of accuracy you can use that to measure the duration of the race.

However, in terms of GPS, you don't know any of those things; and indeed, I would have thought it would be obvious that this analogy falls apart when you actually consider the information GPS has.

So, lets rephrase the analogy.

It wasn't really intended as an analogy, it was intended to show that despite a clock ticking too fast or slow we can nevertheless correctly measure intervals with the same accuracy as if the clock ticked at the correct rate - so long as we know the magnitude of the deviation.

And I pointed out, that if you use that analogy, it becomes clear it isn't easy or quick to determine the magnitude of that deviation, and certainly not without taking into account relativistic deviations, which you claim can be ignored.

Reconsider my scenario Ramshutu but this time with one athlete and two stopwatches - one ticks at same rate as GMT the other gains 1 sec/minute.

Each stopwatch is set to zero, you fire the starting gun and start each watch - he runs....

After he's run 10 miles he hits the finish line, you stop the watches.

I can use either watch to announce how long he actually took; the correct watch, I just read the clock face. The fast watch I read the clock face and multiply by 60/61.

No clock offers any accuracy advantage, because we can compensate for the incorrect time interval from the fast clock just by multiplying by a constant.

Much of the confusion I'm seeing here from Dummel and others stems from the failure to grasp the difference between measuring "the time" and measuring an "interval".

Harry.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2016 9:07:25 PM
Posted: 9 months ago
At 3/14/2016 8:24:54 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/14/2016 7:58:55 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/14/2016 7:53:52 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/13/2016 10:54:02 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Okay, I was going to reply to yours directly, but this one shows where your error in thinking is.

If you have a stopwatch that you know gains a second every minute, can you use it to measure an athletes speed?

Yes.

If you know how accurate your stop watch is, you know when the athlete started, and when they stopped to a high degree of accuracy you can use that to measure the duration of the race.

However, in terms of GPS, you don't know any of those things; and indeed, I would have thought it would be obvious that this analogy falls apart when you actually consider the information GPS has.

So, lets rephrase the analogy.

It wasn't really intended as an analogy, it was intended to show that despite a clock ticking too fast or slow we can nevertheless correctly measure intervals with the same accuracy as if the clock ticked at the correct rate - so long as we know the magnitude of the deviation.

And I pointed out, that if you use that analogy, it becomes clear it isn't easy or quick to determine the magnitude of that deviation, and certainly not without taking into account relativistic deviations, which you claim can be ignored.

Reconsider my scenario Ramshutu but this time with one athlete and two stopwatches - one ticks at same rate as GMT the other gains 1 sec/minute.

Each stopwatch is set to zero, you fire the starting gun and start each watch - he runs....

After he's run 10 miles he hits the finish line, you stop the watches.

I can use either watch to announce how long he actually took; the correct watch, I just read the clock face. The fast watch I read the clock face and multiply by 60/61.

No clock offers any accuracy advantage, because we can compensate for the incorrect time interval from the fast clock just by multiplying by a constant.

Much of the confusion I'm seeing here from Dummel

Don't forget the words you wrote to me, Harry. Here they are once again as a friendly reminder:

Here you go again - the descent into insulting anyone who dares to disagree with you, how predictable you're becoming. -Dirty Harry.

and others stems from the failure to grasp the difference between measuring "the time" and measuring an "interval".

Harry.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 1:38:05 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/14/2016 9:07:25 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/14/2016 8:24:54 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/14/2016 7:58:55 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/14/2016 7:53:52 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/13/2016 10:54:02 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Okay, I was going to reply to yours directly, but this one shows where your error in thinking is.

If you have a stopwatch that you know gains a second every minute, can you use it to measure an athletes speed?

Yes.

If you know how accurate your stop watch is, you know when the athlete started, and when they stopped to a high degree of accuracy you can use that to measure the duration of the race.

However, in terms of GPS, you don't know any of those things; and indeed, I would have thought it would be obvious that this analogy falls apart when you actually consider the information GPS has.

So, lets rephrase the analogy.

It wasn't really intended as an analogy, it was intended to show that despite a clock ticking too fast or slow we can nevertheless correctly measure intervals with the same accuracy as if the clock ticked at the correct rate - so long as we know the magnitude of the deviation.

And I pointed out, that if you use that analogy, it becomes clear it isn't easy or quick to determine the magnitude of that deviation, and certainly not without taking into account relativistic deviations, which you claim can be ignored.

Reconsider my scenario Ramshutu but this time with one athlete and two stopwatches - one ticks at same rate as GMT the other gains 1 sec/minute.

Each stopwatch is set to zero, you fire the starting gun and start each watch - he runs....

After he's run 10 miles he hits the finish line, you stop the watches.

I can use either watch to announce how long he actually took; the correct watch, I just read the clock face. The fast watch I read the clock face and multiply by 60/61.

No clock offers any accuracy advantage, because we can compensate for the incorrect time interval from the fast clock just by multiplying by a constant.

Much of the confusion I'm seeing here from Dummel

Don't forget the words you wrote to me, Harry. Here they are once again as a friendly reminder:

Here you go again - the descent into insulting anyone who dares to disagree with you, how predictable you're becoming. -Dirty Harry.


and others stems from the failure to grasp the difference between measuring "the time" and measuring an "interval".

Harry.

You'll seek any excuse to avoid answering science questions won't you! What a cry baby you've become. Of course I'm going to get exasperated with you man, you claim to understand stuff, I sometimes disagree so I ask a question that goes to the heart of the matter, you realize you're cornered so seek excuses to evade, this poppycock about feeling insulted is simply one more example of this evasion.

You'd get some of your credibility back if you answered my questions and demonstrated either honesty or intelligent reasoning by admitting error or asking a related deeper question, you never do though.

Harry.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 2:12:45 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 1:38:05 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/14/2016 9:07:25 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/14/2016 8:24:54 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/14/2016 7:58:55 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/14/2016 7:53:52 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/13/2016 10:54:02 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Okay, I was going to reply to yours directly, but this one shows where your error in thinking is.

If you have a stopwatch that you know gains a second every minute, can you use it to measure an athletes speed?

Yes.

If you know how accurate your stop watch is, you know when the athlete started, and when they stopped to a high degree of accuracy you can use that to measure the duration of the race.

However, in terms of GPS, you don't know any of those things; and indeed, I would have thought it would be obvious that this analogy falls apart when you actually consider the information GPS has.

So, lets rephrase the analogy.

It wasn't really intended as an analogy, it was intended to show that despite a clock ticking too fast or slow we can nevertheless correctly measure intervals with the same accuracy as if the clock ticked at the correct rate - so long as we know the magnitude of the deviation.

And I pointed out, that if you use that analogy, it becomes clear it isn't easy or quick to determine the magnitude of that deviation, and certainly not without taking into account relativistic deviations, which you claim can be ignored.

Reconsider my scenario Ramshutu but this time with one athlete and two stopwatches - one ticks at same rate as GMT the other gains 1 sec/minute.

Each stopwatch is set to zero, you fire the starting gun and start each watch - he runs....

After he's run 10 miles he hits the finish line, you stop the watches.

I can use either watch to announce how long he actually took; the correct watch, I just read the clock face. The fast watch I read the clock face and multiply by 60/61.

No clock offers any accuracy advantage, because we can compensate for the incorrect time interval from the fast clock just by multiplying by a constant.

Much of the confusion I'm seeing here from Dummel

Don't forget the words you wrote to me, Harry. Here they are once again as a friendly reminder:

Here you go again - the descent into insulting anyone who dares to disagree with you, how predictable you're becoming. -Dirty Harry.


and others stems from the failure to grasp the difference between measuring "the time" and measuring an "interval".

Harry.

You'll seek any excuse to avoid answering science questions won't you! What a cry baby you've become.

If, when you say I'm a cry baby, is it because I quoted YOUR words back to you?

Of course I'm going to get exasperated with you man, you claim to understand stuff, I sometimes disagree so I ask a question that goes to the heart of the matter, you realize you're cornered so seek excuses to evade, this poppycock about feeling insulted is simply one more example of this evasion.

Then, you now need to come up with a very good reason as to why you said those words to me, or else you look like a completely foolish hypocrite.

No one is evading anything, I have provided you plenty of information for you to learn something about how GPS works, only to have you create threads like this in which you claim "Relativity can be ignored". Clearly, you have no intention of learning anything.

You'd get some of your credibility back if you answered my questions and demonstrated either honesty or intelligent reasoning by admitting error or asking a related deeper question, you never do though.

No, my credibility has nothing to do with answering your nonsensical questions that were answered had you read any of the material provided for you. That said, I even undertook the adventure of reading the woo woo paper you provided. I do need to admit where none was made. The errors are entirely on your side.


Harry.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,589
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 8:17:03 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 2:12:45 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/16/2016 1:38:05 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/14/2016 9:07:25 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/14/2016 8:24:54 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/14/2016 7:58:55 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/14/2016 7:53:52 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/13/2016 10:54:02 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Okay, I was going to reply to yours directly, but this one shows where your error in thinking is.

If you have a stopwatch that you know gains a second every minute, can you use it to measure an athletes speed?

Yes.

If you know how accurate your stop watch is, you know when the athlete started, and when they stopped to a high degree of accuracy you can use that to measure the duration of the race.

However, in terms of GPS, you don't know any of those things; and indeed, I would have thought it would be obvious that this analogy falls apart when you actually consider the information GPS has.

So, lets rephrase the analogy.

It wasn't really intended as an analogy, it was intended to show that despite a clock ticking too fast or slow we can nevertheless correctly measure intervals with the same accuracy as if the clock ticked at the correct rate - so long as we know the magnitude of the deviation.

And I pointed out, that if you use that analogy, it becomes clear it isn't easy or quick to determine the magnitude of that deviation, and certainly not without taking into account relativistic deviations, which you claim can be ignored.

Reconsider my scenario Ramshutu but this time with one athlete and two stopwatches - one ticks at same rate as GMT the other gains 1 sec/minute.

Each stopwatch is set to zero, you fire the starting gun and start each watch - he runs....

After he's run 10 miles he hits the finish line, you stop the watches.

I can use either watch to announce how long he actually took; the correct watch, I just read the clock face. The fast watch I read the clock face and multiply by 60/61.

No clock offers any accuracy advantage, because we can compensate for the incorrect time interval from the fast clock just by multiplying by a constant.

Much of the confusion I'm seeing here from Dummel

Don't forget the words you wrote to me, Harry. Here they are once again as a friendly reminder:

Here you go again - the descent into insulting anyone who dares to disagree with you, how predictable you're becoming. -Dirty Harry.


and others stems from the failure to grasp the difference between measuring "the time" and measuring an "interval".

Harry.

You'll seek any excuse to avoid answering science questions won't you! What a cry baby you've become.

If, when you say I'm a cry baby, is it because I quoted YOUR words back to you?

Of course I'm going to get exasperated with you man, you claim to understand stuff, I sometimes disagree so I ask a question that goes to the heart of the matter, you realize you're cornered so seek excuses to evade, this poppycock about feeling insulted is simply one more example of this evasion.

Then, you now need to come up with a very good reason as to why you said those words to me, or else you look like a completely foolish hypocrite.

No one is evading anything, I have provided you plenty of information for you to learn something about how GPS works, only to have you create threads like this in which you claim "Relativity can be ignored". Clearly, you have no intention of learning anything.

You'd get some of your credibility back if you answered my questions and demonstrated either honesty or intelligent reasoning by admitting error or asking a related deeper question, you never do though.

No, my credibility has nothing to do with answering your nonsensical questions that were answered had you read any of the material provided for you. That said, I even undertook the adventure of reading the woo woo paper you provided. I do need to admit where none was made. The errors are entirely on your side.


Harry.

There ya go again "providing you with information" (like I need that?) and "nonsensical questions" and "material provided to you" etc - all of this is waffle with traces of you being a retired school teacher perhaps?

If I ask a question I expect an answer not juvenile excuses man, you prefer to blame the questioner for asking the wrong question it seems, next time tell me what questions I'm allowed to ask you so I wont offend you!

Ha !
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,652
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 8:23:37 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/16/2016 8:17:03 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/16/2016 2:12:45 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/16/2016 1:38:05 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/14/2016 9:07:25 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/14/2016 8:24:54 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/14/2016 7:58:55 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/14/2016 7:53:52 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
At 3/13/2016 10:54:02 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
Okay, I was going to reply to yours directly, but this one shows where your error in thinking is.

If you have a stopwatch that you know gains a second every minute, can you use it to measure an athletes speed?

Yes.

If you know how accurate your stop watch is, you know when the athlete started, and when they stopped to a high degree of accuracy you can use that to measure the duration of the race.

However, in terms of GPS, you don't know any of those things; and indeed, I would have thought it would be obvious that this analogy falls apart when you actually consider the information GPS has.

So, lets rephrase the analogy.

It wasn't really intended as an analogy, it was intended to show that despite a clock ticking too fast or slow we can nevertheless correctly measure intervals with the same accuracy as if the clock ticked at the correct rate - so long as we know the magnitude of the deviation.

And I pointed out, that if you use that analogy, it becomes clear it isn't easy or quick to determine the magnitude of that deviation, and certainly not without taking into account relativistic deviations, which you claim can be ignored.

Reconsider my scenario Ramshutu but this time with one athlete and two stopwatches - one ticks at same rate as GMT the other gains 1 sec/minute.

Each stopwatch is set to zero, you fire the starting gun and start each watch - he runs....

After he's run 10 miles he hits the finish line, you stop the watches.

I can use either watch to announce how long he actually took; the correct watch, I just read the clock face. The fast watch I read the clock face and multiply by 60/61.

No clock offers any accuracy advantage, because we can compensate for the incorrect time interval from the fast clock just by multiplying by a constant.

Much of the confusion I'm seeing here from Dummel

Don't forget the words you wrote to me, Harry. Here they are once again as a friendly reminder:

Here you go again - the descent into insulting anyone who dares to disagree with you, how predictable you're becoming. -Dirty Harry.


and others stems from the failure to grasp the difference between measuring "the time" and measuring an "interval".

Harry.

You'll seek any excuse to avoid answering science questions won't you! What a cry baby you've become.

If, when you say I'm a cry baby, is it because I quoted YOUR words back to you?

Of course I'm going to get exasperated with you man, you claim to understand stuff, I sometimes disagree so I ask a question that goes to the heart of the matter, you realize you're cornered so seek excuses to evade, this poppycock about feeling insulted is simply one more example of this evasion.

Then, you now need to come up with a very good reason as to why you said those words to me, or else you look like a completely foolish hypocrite.

No one is evading anything, I have provided you plenty of information for you to learn something about how GPS works, only to have you create threads like this in which you claim "Relativity can be ignored". Clearly, you have no intention of learning anything.

You'd get some of your credibility back if you answered my questions and demonstrated either honesty or intelligent reasoning by admitting error or asking a related deeper question, you never do though.

No, my credibility has nothing to do with answering your nonsensical questions that were answered had you read any of the material provided for you. That said, I even undertook the adventure of reading the woo woo paper you provided. I do need to admit where none was made. The errors are entirely on your side.


Harry.

There ya go again "providing you with information" (like I need that?) and "nonsensical questions" and "material provided to you" etc - all of this is waffle with traces of you being a retired school teacher perhaps?

If I ask a question I expect an answer not juvenile excuses man, you prefer to blame the questioner for asking the wrong question it seems, next time tell me what questions I'm allowed to ask you so I wont offend you!

Your questions were answered, and instead of thanking those who went to the trouble of educating you, you create several threads with several different runs at the same notion, to ignore relativity. Had you simply read the material provided for you, this thread and the others like it would have been unnecessary and you would be educated and happy.

Ha !
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth