Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

GPS - Closure

Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 8:07:17 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
I've today reached out to a Prof. of Mathematics who's written about GPS mathematics in professional journals.

I've asked him what I've been asking in this forum, namely can a receiver reliably determine its geographic position if the orbiting satellites rely on uncompensated clocks - clock that gain 38 uS/day as observed from earth.

I'll let you know what answer I get whether I'm right or wrong and share his response and details providing he's OK with me doing that.

Stay tuned...
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 8:23:20 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 8:07:17 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I've today reached out to a Prof. of Mathematics who's written about GPS mathematics in professional journals.

I've asked him what I've been asking in this forum, namely can a receiver reliably determine its geographic position if the orbiting satellites rely on uncompensated clocks - clock that gain 38 uS/day as observed from earth.

I'll let you know what answer I get whether I'm right or wrong and share his response and details providing he's OK with me doing that.

Stay tuned...

1.) you stated initially that you don't think you need to account for relativity.
2.) you've stated that you do need to account for relativity, just it doesn't matter where.
3.) you've stated that you don't need to account for relativity, because the impact of it is minimal.
4.) you've stated that you don't need to account for relativity, because you can synchronize clocks without it thus measure distance without adjusting the clocks.
5.) you're now asking whether you have to account for relativity in the satellites, returning to point 3.

Harry, you've happily danced between each of these positions, starting a new thread each time, and pretending as if they're all the same, and ignoring pretty much every relevant fact drawn to your attention, flitting between positions when it seems to allow you to avoid acknowledging error in your thinking.

Far be it from me to interrupt your intellectual masturbation here, but considering you've started 5 threads with 4 different positions you're pretending are all the same, whilst ignoring pretty much everything anyone's said; and incoherently jumping around, I would recommend this "content" is best suited to your a blogging site where you can happily listen to your own voice without polluting the forums here.

Though I still would like to know how you don't call down more.
Dirty.Harry
Posts: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2016 8:54:36 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 8:23:20 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 3/15/2016 8:07:17 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I've today reached out to a Prof. of Mathematics who's written about GPS mathematics in professional journals.

I've asked him what I've been asking in this forum, namely can a receiver reliably determine its geographic position if the orbiting satellites rely on uncompensated clocks - clock that gain 38 uS/day as observed from earth.

I'll let you know what answer I get whether I'm right or wrong and share his response and details providing he's OK with me doing that.

Stay tuned...

1.) you stated initially that you don't think you need to account for relativity.
2.) you've stated that you do need to account for relativity, just it doesn't matter where.
3.) you've stated that you don't need to account for relativity, because the impact of it is minimal.
4.) you've stated that you don't need to account for relativity, because you can synchronize clocks without it thus measure distance without adjusting the clocks.
5.) you're now asking whether you have to account for relativity in the satellites, returning to point 3.


Harry, you've happily danced between each of these positions, starting a new thread each time, and pretending as if they're all the same, and ignoring pretty much every relevant fact drawn to your attention, flitting between positions when it seems to allow you to avoid acknowledging error in your thinking.

Far be it from me to interrupt your intellectual masturbation here, but considering you've started 5 threads with 4 different positions you're pretending are all the same, whilst ignoring pretty much everything anyone's said; and incoherently jumping around, I would recommend this "content" is best suited to your a blogging site where you can happily listen to your own voice without polluting the forums here.

Though I still would like to know how you don't call down more.

You've overlooked the context for each of these, let me help you:

1.) - If we're endeavoring to determine ONLY our position.
2.) - If we want to cater for the miniscule 0.8 mm error in satellite distance this leads to.
3.) - True, it does impact distance measurement but only by 0.8 mm so lets ignore it.
4.) - True.
5.) - False, I've sought an outside expert opinion and will accept his answer.

As for my persistence, yes I am when I'm right I'm damned persistent my friend and won't just go away because you or anyone else thinks they know everything.

Harry.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2016 2:17:18 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 8:07:17 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I've today reached out to a Prof. of Mathematics who's written about GPS mathematics in professional journals.

I've asked him what I've been asking in this forum, namely can a receiver reliably determine its geographic position if the orbiting satellites rely on uncompensated clocks - clock that gain 38 uS/day as observed from earth.

I'll let you know what answer I get whether I'm right or wrong and share his response and details providing he's OK with me doing that.

Stay tuned...

LOL. Classic stuff Harry. Closure. HAHA.
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
slo1
Posts: 4,346
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2016 2:24:13 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 8:07:17 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I've today reached out to a Prof. of Mathematics who's written about GPS mathematics in professional journals.

I've asked him what I've been asking in this forum, namely can a receiver reliably determine its geographic position if the orbiting satellites rely on uncompensated clocks - clock that gain 38 uS/day as observed from earth.

I'll let you know what answer I get whether I'm right or wrong and share his response and details providing he's OK with me doing that.

Stay tuned...

Make sure that you add the caveat that the receiver could be ground based or travelling at 500 mph at an altitude of 37,000 ft.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 5:04:41 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/15/2016 8:07:17 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I've today reached out to a Prof. of Mathematics who's written about GPS mathematics in professional journals.

I've asked him what I've been asking in this forum, namely can a receiver reliably determine its geographic position if the orbiting satellites rely on uncompensated clocks - clock that gain 38 uS/day as observed from earth.

I'll let you know what answer I get whether I'm right or wrong and share his response and details providing he's OK with me doing that.

Stay tuned...

Staying tuned here, Harry. What's the verdict? Do you have closure?
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: 1,585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2016 6:15:35 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 3/19/2016 5:04:41 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 3/15/2016 8:07:17 PM, Dirty.Harry wrote:
I've today reached out to a Prof. of Mathematics who's written about GPS mathematics in professional journals.

I've asked him what I've been asking in this forum, namely can a receiver reliably determine its geographic position if the orbiting satellites rely on uncompensated clocks - clock that gain 38 uS/day as observed from earth.

I'll let you know what answer I get whether I'm right or wrong and share his response and details providing he's OK with me doing that.

Stay tuned...

Staying tuned here, Harry. What's the verdict? Do you have closure?

I was hoping for a detailed analysis, but alas no, here's the reply I got a few days ago:

"Harry,

This is an interesting idea. Your reasoning sounds correct, but I am no authority on this part of GPS.

Good luck with the question,
XXX"

I'll try to dig out someone else who may care to try and answer.

Harry.