| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"John David Schmidt" |
| Date: |
10 Aug 2003 08:41:58 PM |
| Object: |
Potential New Idea? True age of the Universe |
This is an outgrowth of an idea that has been bugging me for a while. I am
curious if anyone has heard this theory before or if there is a flaw in it.
Time, as we perceive it, is of course merely a function of our internal
biological clocks. If you slow down time, you would never know because all
yours ways of measuring it would change.
We also all know that time slows down for objects accelerating and for
objects in gravity fields as well (which are different aspects of the same
thing, apparently). That mean the gravity of the Earth, of the Sun, of the
Galaxy and every other object in the Universe! In other words, all objects
in the Universe are subjected to a "universal gravity" (same force that is
opposing the Universe's expansion) and therefore time for all objects in the
Universe must be slowed! (relative to what? Not sure, yet it must be true)
Actually this universal gravity must be changing other constants (like the
mass of a Proton for one) changing many of the physical laws of the
universe.
OK, it turns out that under intense gravitation time can slow dramatically.
For example it is calculated that a black hole never forms a singularity
because time has slow down so far that the particles never quite collapse
(it takes forever, but the event horizon is created).
So, how old is the Universe. Well from our point of view it is 13.5 billion
years old, but it must have taken an infinite amount of time to unfold for
the same reason a black hole never forms a singularity. So the Universe has
always existed, nothing came before and perhaps nothing will come after.
Has anyone ever heard this before?
jd.schmidt@verizon.net
.
|
|
| User: "John David Schmidt" |
|
| Title: Re: Potential New Idea? True age of the Universe |
12 Aug 2003 01:34:54 AM |
|
|
"Uncle Al" <UncleAl0@hate.spam.net> wrote in message
news:3F37AAFB.FA5E6869@hate.spam.net...
John David Schmidt wrote:
This is an outgrowth of an idea that has been bugging me for a while. I
am
curious if anyone has heard this theory before or if there is a flaw in
it.
Time, as we perceive it, is of course merely a function of our internal
biological clocks. If you slow down time, you would never know because
all
yours ways of measuring it would change.
Buy a wristwatch. Do all events scale linearly with time? NO! Pull
a CRC and look at the unit analysis of constants. How does that
impact your statement?
The wristwatch would slow also.
We also all know that time slows down for objects accelerating and for
objects in gravity fields as well (which are different aspects of the
same
thing, apparently).
NO. From the point of view of an inertial observer, clocks with
relative velocity (Special Relativity) or acceleration (absolute
measure, General Relativity; metric theories of gravitation do not
distinguish between inertial and gravitational acceleration as a
postulate, the Equivalence Principle) run slow. If you rotate a
broomstick in sunlight to change the length of its shadow, does the
broomstick change size?
Sorry your confused. Acceleration allows you to go between inertial states,
if you leave an inertial state then later reenter the same state(come back
to where you started and matching your velocity) you will always find that
less time has passed for you than for an object that remained in the same
inertial state. You can't get around that. Now you probably going to try
to say something about all frames of reference being equally valid. Don't
bother, I already know this and it doesn't change the experimental results
or conflict with them. I know Relativity is a tough concept your get your
mind around, but keep trying, you'll get it eventually.
That mean the gravity of the Earth, of the Sun, of the
Galaxy and every other object in the Universe! In other words, all
objects
in the Universe are subjected to a "universal gravity" (same force that
is
opposing the Universe's expansion) and therefore time for all objects in
the
Universe must be slowed!
Idiot.
I was about to say the same thing.
(relative to what? Not sure, yet it must be true)
Twice an idiot.
Again, my thoughts exactly!
[snip horrible crap]
So, how old is the Universe. Well from our point of view it is 13.5
billion
years old, but it must have taken an infinite amount of time to unfold
for
the same reason a black hole never forms a singularity. So the Universe
has
always existed, nothing came before and perhaps nothing will come after.
Has anyone ever heard this before?
Idiot. No information can escape a black hole's event horizon. There
is no paradox. You measure red shift less local velocities (subtract
to get a uniform temp cosmic backgroung radiation, ignoring its
millikelvin ripples) to gauge your local age in the universe vs. other
stuff observed. Calibration is frequencies of atomic transitions in
the lab.
Acceleration is an absolute measure. Why don't you calculate for us
the gravitational blueshift factor for being at the bottom of a 1 gee
field vs. in freefall?
Gravitational acceleration as a function of latitude,
a = (3.380199)(cosine[lat])/sqrt[1-(0.006694380)cosine^2(lat)] cm/sec2
Gravitational frequency shift,
http://www.eftaylor.com/pub/projecta.pdf
I have got an even easier one for you. If you are standing on the surface
of the earth with a clock and watch another clock in space (say in one of
the Lagrange points) would you see the clocks keeping time a the same speed?
Or which would be faster or slower and what would you see at the Lagrange
point?
[snip useless waste space]
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John David Schmidt" |
|
| Title: Re: Potential New Idea? True age of the Universe |
12 Aug 2003 12:44:56 AM |
|
|
Time near a black hole slows when compared to time away from a black hole.
But if you were near a black hole, you wouldn't have trouble moving your
arms because time was running slow. It only makes sense to compare one
clock to another clock. For you, time always runs normally, wherever you
are. If you watch someone jump into a black hole you'll see him slow to a
stop outside the event horizon a he redshifts to invisibility, but the
jumper will cross the event horizon and hit the middle in finite proper
time.
Yes, that is quite correct and exactly what I said. We both agree that from
an outside observers point of view that is seems to take "forever" for the
object to fall into the black hole. I also agree that the observer falling
into a black hole thinks the fall takes a finite amount of time. So
consider this, what does the observer see outside the black hole after
falling into it. Now we know that an observer who falls into a normal
gravity well sees the rest of the Universe speed up slightly, so the
observer from a black hole (who of course couldn't observer at all) would in
theory see the universe speed up without limit. This is of course
impossible, the short explanation often given is that "time and space break
down" inside a black hole. This I agree with also. What I am suggesting is
that these two points view are simply different ways of looking at the same
thing. It takes "forever" to fall into a black hole, yet the particle
inside the black hole, from it's point of view, has a finite amount of time
left after which there is no more time at all.
That is the crux of my idea, that measurements of the Universes age can come
up with a finite number, from our point of view, yet is has existed forever.
So, how old is the Universe. Well from our point of view it is 13.5
billion
years old, but it must have taken an infinite amount of time to unfold
for
the same reason a black hole never forms a singularity. So the Universe
has
always existed, nothing came before and perhaps nothing will come after.
We are in the universe. What are you comparing the universal time to?
To itself really, or rather to a theoretic truly non accelerated frame of
reference. That is the trick, because gravity is everywhere, you can't
really find an actual location that is without gravity. If you just look at
the equations for time dilation under gravity you find that time must have
been slowed down. I am not of course suggesting that the non accelerated
frame of reference has any physical reality, just that you need to apply the
equations of physics to all points in space.
--
"A good plan executed right now is far better than a perfect plan
executed next week."
-Gen. George S. Patton
Does this make more sense now?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Holden" |
|
| Title: Re: Potential New Idea? True age of the Universe |
11 Aug 2003 10:40:39 AM |
|
|
Twice an idiot.
[snip horrible crap]
[snip self-righteous crap]
Ahh the wonders of the arrogant physicist.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Potential New Idea? True age of the Universe |
10 Aug 2003 09:00:37 PM |
|
|
John David Schmidt wrote:
This is an outgrowth of an idea that has been bugging me for a while. I am
curious if anyone has heard this theory before or if there is a flaw in it.
Time, as we perceive it, is of course merely a function of our internal
biological clocks. If you slow down time, you would never know because all
yours ways of measuring it would change.
Out measure of time had derive from the Earth rotation, the lunar period
and the earth-moon orbit about the sun, not biological clocks.
We also all know that time slows down for objects accelerating and for
objects in gravity fields as well (which are different aspects of the same
thing, apparently).
We easily observe these minute effects in the GPS.
That mean the gravity of the Earth, of the Sun, of the
Galaxy and every other object in the Universe! In other words, all objects
in the Universe are subjected to a "universal gravity" (same force that is
opposing the Universe's expansion) and therefore time for all objects in the
Universe must be slowed! (relative to what? Not sure, yet it must be true)
Actually this universal gravity must be changing other constants (like the
mass of a Proton for one) changing many of the physical laws of the
universe.
OK, it turns out that under intense gravitation time can slow dramatically.
For example it is calculated that a black hole never forms a singularity
because time has slow down so far that the particles never quite collapse
(it takes forever, but the event horizon is created).
Your conjecture is unobservable.
So, how old is the Universe. Well from our point of view it is 13.5 billion
years old, but it must have taken an infinite amount of time to unfold for
the same reason a black hole never forms a singularity. So the Universe has
always existed, nothing came before and perhaps nothing will come after.
Bzzzzzt!
Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: Potential New Idea? True age of the Universe |
10 Aug 2003 10:46:22 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3F36F8C1.799605E4@mchsi.com...
John David Schmidt wrote:
This is an outgrowth of an idea that has been bugging me for a while. I
am
curious if anyone has heard this theory before or if there is a flaw in
it.
Time, as we perceive it, is of course merely a function of our internal
biological clocks. If you slow down time, you would never know because
all
yours ways of measuring it would change.
Out measure of time had derive from the Earth rotation, the lunar period
and the earth-moon orbit about the sun, not biological clocks.
We also all know that time slows down for objects accelerating and for
objects in gravity fields as well (which are different aspects of the
same
thing, apparently).
We easily observe these minute effects in the GPS.
Sorry to deviate from the central point of the thread,
but a couple of statements by Mr. Wormley bothers me.
Perhaps he (Or someone) will answer a couple of questions.
1. Does the "earth-moon orbit about the sun",
or does the "earth-moon <interact with> the sun".
In other words, is there something special about the Sun,
that causes things to "orbit", rather than interact with, it?
2. Could someone post ACTUAL DATA about the "minute effects" in GPS
and explain how these "effects" support his assertion.
In other words, don't post some theory,
post actual data, and show how it supports his assertion.
I might point out,
that I have no opinion on what the GPS "effects" are,
but I see a lot of hype about GPS, but no actual data,
that shows the asserted correlations with someone's favorite theory.
It bothers me when people claim that something
correlates with God's work, or with some favorite theory,
and they quote the gospel,
rather than provide sets of data that correlate.
I suspect that many (Most) people hype particular theories
in order to elevate themselves, their race, religion, nation,
or just some guy they strongly identify with,
and that this corrupts their perception of reality,
and adversely affects the perceptions of innocent folks.
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Potential New Idea? True age of the Universe |
19 Aug 2003 04:55:13 PM |
|
|
"Tom Potter" <tdp@hotsheet.com> wrote in message news:<bh73c1$v5149$1@ID-188019.news.uni-berlin.de>...
[snip]
1. Does the "earth-moon orbit about the sun",
or does the "earth-moon <interact with> the sun".
You say toe-may-to. I say keep-that-fucken-mutt-away-from-my-tomatoes.
2. Could someone post ACTUAL DATA about the "minute effects" in GPS
and explain how these "effects" support his assertion.
In other words, don't post some theory,
post actual data, and show how it supports his assertion.
At some point, you could consider reading one or two of Uncle
Al's posts on this. He has posted links to this several hundred
times that I'm aware of.
Socks
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: Potential New Idea? True age of the Universe |
19 Aug 2003 10:09:36 PM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<c7976c46.0308191355.62e3843b@posting.google.com>...
"Tom Potter" <tdp@hotsheet.com> wrote in message news:<bh73c1$v5149$1@ID-188019.news.uni-berlin.de>...
[snip]
1. Does the "earth-moon orbit about the sun",
or does the "earth-moon <interact with> the sun".
You say toe-may-to. I say keep-that-fucken-mutt-away-from-my-tomatoes.
2. Could someone post ACTUAL DATA about the "minute effects" in GPS
and explain how these "effects" support his assertion.
In other words, don't post some theory,
post actual data, and show how it supports his assertion.
At some point, you could consider reading one or two of Uncle
Al's posts on this. He has posted links to this several hundred
times that I'm aware of.
Socks
No one has posted the ACTUAL data,
nor references to the ACTUAL data,
that shows what corrections are being made to the
GPS clocks to keep them in sync.
I have wasted a lot of time going on these
Google inspired wild goose chases.
Why don't you check out a few of the "links"
and get back to the news group, if you find any ACTUAL data?
In other words, you waste your time,
or if you know, post the facts.
--
Tom Potter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Potential New Idea? True age of the Universe |
19 Aug 2003 11:19:00 PM |
|
|
Tom Potter wrote:
No one has posted the ACTUAL data,
nor references to the ACTUAL data,
that shows what corrections are being made to the
GPS clocks to keep them in sync.
I have wasted a lot of time going on these
Google inspired wild goose chases.
Why don't you check out a few of the "links"
and get back to the news group, if you find any ACTUAL data?
In other words, you waste your time,
or if you know, post the facts.
--
Tom Potter
Potter you don't understang how GPS works and you've be screaming,
"show me the ACTUAL data". How silly can you get!
o SR and GTR corrections were part of the GPS design... they
are fixed in the clock frequency offset. See: ICD-GPS-200
o periodic uploads to the satellites are for ephemeris
corrections, clock maintenance, and overall system husbandry.
o Many details of the blue shirt's activities appear in the
PAWG Papers at http://WWW.SCHRIEVER.AF.MIL/GPS/PAWG/pawg.htm
o Relativity at http://www.edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html#Relativity
o GPS literature at http://www.edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: Potential New Idea? True age of the Universe |
20 Aug 2003 10:32:37 AM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3F42F6A8.B3878F27@mchsi.com...
Tom Potter wrote:
No one has posted the ACTUAL data,
nor references to the ACTUAL data,
that shows what corrections are being made to the
GPS clocks to keep them in sync.
I have wasted a lot of time going on these
Google inspired wild goose chases.
Why don't you check out a few of the "links"
and get back to the news group, if you find any ACTUAL data?
In other words, you waste your time,
or if you know, post the facts.
--
Tom Potter
Potter you don't understang how GPS works and you've be screaming,
"show me the ACTUAL data". How silly can you get!
o SR and GTR corrections were part of the GPS design... they
are fixed in the clock frequency offset. See: ICD-GPS-200
o periodic uploads to the satellites are for ephemeris
corrections, clock maintenance, and overall system husbandry.
o Many details of the blue shirt's activities appear in the
PAWG Papers at http://WWW.SCHRIEVER.AF.MIL/GPS/PAWG/pawg.htm
o Relativity at
http://www.edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html#Relativity
o GPS literature at http://www.edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html
As I have pointed out to Sam Wormley several times,
designing SR and GTR into the GPS does not mean that
SR and GTR are the best models, or that the corrections
are even in the right direction.
For example, let's assume that you program in an offset of plus 100
microseconds per day to compensate for some anticipated effect,
and then you have to adjust the clocks by minus 120 microseconds
every day to keep the clocks in sync.
Specifications and solutions to equations cannot be used to
determine the usefulness of a model. You need REAL data.
And as I have been asking all along,
provide the ACTUAL data, or quit hyping your theory,
and all you are doing is blowing smoke.
I don't believe or disbelieve in GTR.
I do believe that the best models have the
highest correlation with the ACTUAL data.
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Potential New Idea? True age of the Universe |
20 Aug 2003 11:23:25 AM |
|
|
Tom Potter wrote:
As I have pointed out to Sam Wormley several times,
designing SR and GTR into the GPS does not mean that
SR and GTR are the best models, or that the corrections
are even in the right direction.
The success and accuracy of GPS speaks for itself and is a 24/7
verification of Relativity!
GPS and Relativity
http://www.edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html#Relativity
Crank Information
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Tom+Potter%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: Potential New Idea? True age of the Universe |
20 Aug 2003 07:28:24 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<3F43A073.69F374B5@mchsi.com>...
Tom Potter wrote:
As I have pointed out to Sam Wormley several times,
designing SR and GTR into the GPS does not mean that
SR and GTR are the best models, or that the corrections
are even in the right direction.
The success and accuracy of GPS speaks for itself and is a 24/7
verification of Relativity!
GPS and Relativity
http://www.edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html#Relativity
Crank Information
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Tom+Potter%22+site%3Awww.crank.net
Sambo,
you keep SPAMMING the same useless URLs,
including your favorite reference,
the web site of a computer programmer,
who took some data processing classes
at a second rate California college.
If you think that SR and GTR
are essential to the operation of the GPS system,
post the ACTUAL correction data,
and show how this proves your position.
All you are doing is showing your ignorance
and your propensity to place your ego above truth.
In science ego should not take precedence over the truth.
Sam, I have to say it,
I think you are nuts.
I mean really nuts,
and you need help.
You are locked in what psychologists call an approach-avoidance
situation, and you can't break out. They way to break out
is to confront the problem, or just "leave the scene".
Confronting the problem would be either providing the data,
or admitting that you can't, or won't because it does not
support your position.
Think about it.
--
Tom Potter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Potential New Idea? True age of the Universe |
20 Aug 2003 09:35:45 PM |
|
|
Tom Potter wrote:
Sam, I have to say it,
I think you are nuts.
I mean really nuts,
and you need help.
Interesting... so that's what you think is it?
Sam's just this guy... you know!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: Potential New Idea? True age of the Universe |
21 Aug 2003 11:20:55 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<3F442FF4.427C436C@mchsi.com>...
Tom Potter wrote:
Sam, I have to say it,
I think you are nuts.
I mean really nuts,
and you need help.
Interesting... so that's what you think is it?
Sam's just this guy... you know!
Well, maybe I was a little harsh,
and you really think that you are doing the world
and sci.physics a big favor by,
demeaning folks, and wasting their time.
Maybe you're not nuts.
Maybe you're just brainwashed and intolerant,
and as can be seen,
this is a common, world wide situation.
--
Tom Potter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Potential New Idea? True age of the Universe |
21 Aug 2003 11:32:59 PM |
|
|
Tom Potter wrote:
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<3F442FF4.427C436C@mchsi.com>...
Tom Potter wrote:
Sam, I have to say it,
I think you are nuts.
I mean really nuts,
and you need help.
Interesting... so that's what you think is it?
Sam's just this guy... you know!
Well, maybe I was a little harsh,
and you really think that you are doing the world
and sci.physics a big favor by,
demeaning folks, and wasting their time.
Maybe you're not nuts.
Maybe you're just brainwashed and intolerant,
and as can be seen,
this is a common, world wide situation.
--
Tom Potter
Thanks Tom--A friend of mine says the only real
solution is extinction [of humans] and the rest
of the Earth will be ok.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John David Schmidt" |
|
| Title: Re: Potential New Idea? True age of the Universe |
11 Aug 2003 12:25:04 AM |
|
|
Well, to answer your first question, there is nothing special about the Sun.
It is just a lot bigger so the Earth doesn't perturb it much.
Two answer your second question, you will probably need to go to Google and
search of the following key words. "gps time dilation". It is actually
worth taking a look at.
I am not sure what you mean about the last bit.
"Tom Potter" <tdp@hotsheet.com> wrote in message
news:bh73c1$v5149$1@ID-188019.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3F36F8C1.799605E4@mchsi.com...
John David Schmidt wrote:
This is an outgrowth of an idea that has been bugging me for a while.
I
am
curious if anyone has heard this theory before or if there is a flaw
in
it.
Time, as we perceive it, is of course merely a function of our
internal
biological clocks. If you slow down time, you would never know
because
all
yours ways of measuring it would change.
Out measure of time had derive from the Earth rotation, the lunar period
and the earth-moon orbit about the sun, not biological clocks.
We also all know that time slows down for objects accelerating and for
objects in gravity fields as well (which are different aspects of the
same
thing, apparently).
We easily observe these minute effects in the GPS.
Sorry to deviate from the central point of the thread,
but a couple of statements by Mr. Wormley bothers me.
Perhaps he (Or someone) will answer a couple of questions.
1. Does the "earth-moon orbit about the sun",
or does the "earth-moon <interact with> the sun".
In other words, is there something special about the Sun,
that causes things to "orbit", rather than interact with, it?
2. Could someone post ACTUAL DATA about the "minute effects" in GPS
and explain how these "effects" support his assertion.
In other words, don't post some theory,
post actual data, and show how it supports his assertion.
I might point out,
that I have no opinion on what the GPS "effects" are,
but I see a lot of hype about GPS, but no actual data,
that shows the asserted correlations with someone's favorite theory.
It bothers me when people claim that something
correlates with God's work, or with some favorite theory,
and they quote the gospel,
rather than provide sets of data that correlate.
I suspect that many (Most) people hype particular theories
in order to elevate themselves, their race, religion, nation,
or just some guy they strongly identify with,
and that this corrupts their perception of reality,
and adversely affects the perceptions of innocent folks.
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: Potential New Idea? True age of the Universe |
13 Aug 2003 08:41:41 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<3F3796C0.2B715127@mchsi.com>...
Tom Potter wrote:
1. Are you asserting that the Earth "orbits" the Sun
rather than interacts with it?
Tom, as you know, the Sun and Earth (actually Earth-Moon system)
orbit their common center of gravity (barycenter). Similarly the
Earth and Moon orbit their common center of gravity (barycenter).
See: http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/images/restfig1a.gif
From: http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/restles1.html
2. All I found are articles hyping theories.
Do you know where there is REAL data that can be used
to see how these theories correlate with the actual data?
GPS SPS Signal Specification
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
Interface Control Document ICD-GPS-200C
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
GPS User Equipment Introduction
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
As usual, Sam Wormley sends folks on a wild goose chase.
I challenge Sam to post some of the REAL data at these sites
that can be used to verify various theories.
This debate has been going on for months,
and so far, none of the people who assert that the
GPS clocks correlate with their pet theory, have provided any
REAL data, so that folks can check out the correlations.
They provide all kinds of references to discussions that
support their position, but no REAL data.
I, for one, would like to know the facts,
not constantly hear people hype their favorite theories.
If you have the data, post it.
Otherwise, admit that you are just blowing smoke.
--
Tom Potter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Potential New Idea? True age of the Universe |
13 Aug 2003 08:54:16 AM |
|
|
Tom Potter wrote:
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<3F3796C0.2B715127@mchsi.com>...
Tom Potter wrote:
1. Are you asserting that the Earth "orbits" the Sun
rather than interacts with it?
Tom, as you know, the Sun and Earth (actually Earth-Moon system)
orbit their common center of gravity (barycenter). Similarly the
Earth and Moon orbit their common center of gravity (barycenter).
See: http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/images/restfig1a.gif
From: http://co-ops.nos.noaa.gov/restles1.html
2. All I found are articles hyping theories.
Do you know where there is REAL data that can be used
to see how these theories correlate with the actual data?
GPS SPS Signal Specification
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
Interface Control Document ICD-GPS-200C
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
GPS User Equipment Introduction
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
As usual, Sam Wormley sends folks on a wild goose chase.
I challenge Sam to post some of the REAL data at these sites
that can be used to verify various theories.
This debate has been going on for months,
and so far, none of the people who assert that the
GPS clocks correlate with their pet theory, have provided any
REAL data, so that folks can check out the correlations.
They provide all kinds of references to discussions that
support their position, but no REAL data.
I, for one, would like to know the facts,
not constantly hear people hype their favorite theories.
If you have the data, post it.
Otherwise, admit that you are just blowing smoke.
--
Tom Potter
If Potter would have read the references, he would have all the design
data in the Global Positioning System.... and he can certainly get the
GPS navigation message in real time from many available OEM GPS receivers
and analyze the real time data for himself.
Plots and tables are available in many of the references at
http://www.oc.nps.navy.mil/~jclynch/gpsbtoc.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Potential New Idea? True age of the Universe |
13 Aug 2003 03:08:24 PM |
|
|
Tom Potter wrote:
"John David Schmidt" <jd.schmidt@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<GuNZa.10$wg6.6@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
If anything I was more asserting that the Earth and Moon interact with the
Sun (thus, my statement there is nothing special about the Sun). Saying the
Earth orbits it is just an easy shorthand.
I am sure if you do the search I suggested on Google you will find the on
gravity and time dilation (or look at the articles Sam suggested). I admit
to never having done these myself, but I only got an Bachelors degree in
physics so most of the stuff I learned was out of a textbook. BTW as a
warning the true raw data is a bit hard to read than you think.
"Tom Potter" <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:f76e0bb3.0308110455.e668ee@posting.google.com...
"John David Schmidt" <jd.schmidt@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:<QMFZa.7833$EJ1.1626@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...
Well, to answer your first question, there is nothing special about the
Sun.
It is just a lot bigger so the Earth doesn't perturb it much.
Two answer your second question, you will probably need to go to Google
and
search of the following key words. "gps time dilation". It is actually
worth taking a look at.
I am not sure what you mean about the last bit.
1. Are you asserting that the Earth "orbits" the Sun
rather than interacts with it?
2. All I found are articles hyping theories.
Do you know where there is REAL data that can be used
to see how these theories correlate with the actual data?
Tom Potter
First off,
Sam Wormley did NOT provide URL's where actual data
about the GPS corrections could be found.
As usual, Wormley provides useless URLs
that send folks on a wide goose chase,
and wastes their time.
Sam Wormley either does not comprehend physics,
or he has a serious reading comprehension problem,
or he just enjoys wasting the time of people.
I challenge you to pursue the URL's that Wormley provided
and post some ACTUAL data about the GPS corrections.
Not soultions to some equation, but real world, actual data.
Regarding your comment that the data is hard to read,
is it in Roman numerals or some obscure number system?
--
Tom Potter
GPS SPS Signal Specification
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
Interface Control Document ICD-GPS-200C
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm <== Tom Potter - Read!
GPS User Equipment Introduction
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
If Potter would have read the references, he would have all the design
data in the Global Positioning System.... and he can certainly get the
GPS navigation message in real time from many available OEM GPS receivers
and analyze the real time data for himself.
Plots and tables are available in many of the references at
http://www.oc.nps.navy.mil/~jclynch/gpsbtoc.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: Potential New Idea? True age of the Universe |
14 Aug 2003 07:55:43 AM |
|
|
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<3F3A9AA6.AF1F32AA@mchsi.com>...
Tom Potter wrote:
"John David Schmidt" <jd.schmidt@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<GuNZa.10$wg6.6@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
If anything I was more asserting that the Earth and Moon interact with the
Sun (thus, my statement there is nothing special about the Sun). Saying the
Earth orbits it is just an easy shorthand.
I am sure if you do the search I suggested on Google you will find the on
gravity and time dilation (or look at the articles Sam suggested). I admit
to never having done these myself, but I only got an Bachelors degree in
physics so most of the stuff I learned was out of a textbook. BTW as a
warning the true raw data is a bit hard to read than you think.
"Tom Potter" <tdp@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:f76e0bb3.0308110455.e668ee@posting.google.com...
"John David Schmidt" <jd.schmidt@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:<QMFZa.7833$EJ1.1626@nwrddc03.gnilink.net>...
Well, to answer your first question, there is nothing special about the
Sun.
It is just a lot bigger so the Earth doesn't perturb it much.
Two answer your second question, you will probably need to go to Google
and
search of the following key words. "gps time dilation". It is actually
worth taking a look at.
I am not sure what you mean about the last bit.
1. Are you asserting that the Earth "orbits" the Sun
rather than interacts with it?
2. All I found are articles hyping theories.
Do you know where there is REAL data that can be used
to see how these theories correlate with the actual data?
Tom Potter
First off,
Sam Wormley did NOT provide URL's where actual data
about the GPS corrections could be found.
As usual, Wormley provides useless URLs
that send folks on a wide goose chase,
and wastes their time.
Sam Wormley either does not comprehend physics,
or he has a serious reading comprehension problem,
or he just enjoys wasting the time of people.
I challenge you to pursue the URL's that Wormley provided
and post some ACTUAL data about the GPS corrections.
Not soultions to some equation, but real world, actual data.
Regarding your comment that the data is hard to read,
is it in Roman numerals or some obscure number system?
--
Tom Potter
GPS SPS Signal Specification
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
Interface Control Document ICD-GPS-200C
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm <== Tom Potter - Read!
GPS User Equipment Introduction
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
If Potter would have read the references, he would have all the design
data in the Global Positioning System.... and he can certainly get the
GPS navigation message in real time from many available OEM GPS receivers
and analyze the real time data for himself.
Plots and tables are available in many of the references at
http://www.oc.nps.navy.mil/~jclynch/gpsbtoc.html
Note that as usual, Sam Wormley provides useless information
and dodges the basic issue, which is the Nth request for him to
provide ACTUAL data on GPS clock adjustments, or a VALID URL
that has the ACTUAL data.
if Sambo thinks that ACTUAL data is available on these
web sites, that show what corrections are applied
to the GPS clocks to keep them in sync,
I challenge him to post some of the data.
Maybe Sambo doesn't comprehend that
"Signal Specifications" and solutions to formulas
are data that can be used to see what is happening
to the GPS clocks.
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Potential New Idea? True age of the Universe |
14 Aug 2003 08:15:28 AM |
|
|
Tom Potter wrote:
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<3F3A9AA6.AF1F32AA@mchsi.com>...
GPS SPS Signal Specification
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
Interface Control Document ICD-GPS-200C
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm <== Tom Potter - Read!
GPS User Equipment Introduction
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
If Potter would have read the references, he would have all the design
data in the Global Positioning System.... and he can certainly get the
GPS navigation message in real time from many available OEM GPS receivers
and analyze the real time data for himself.
Plots and tables are available in many of the references at
http://www.oc.nps.navy.mil/~jclynch/gpsbtoc.html
Note that as usual, Sam Wormley provides useless information
and dodges the basic issue, which is the Nth request for him to
provide ACTUAL data on GPS clock adjustments, or a VALID URL
that has the ACTUAL data.
if Sambo thinks that ACTUAL data is available on these
web sites, that show what corrections are applied
to the GPS clocks to keep them in sync,
I challenge him to post some of the data.
Maybe Sambo doesn't comprehend that
"Signal Specifications" and solutions to formulas
are data that can be used to see what is happening
to the GPS clocks.
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
Poor Sod--Unable to read documentmentation.
The velocity of a GPS satellite is approximately 3.9 km/s
So v/c is aproximately 1.3 x 10^-5
Leaving the fractional correction in rate for time dilation
approximately v^2/2c^2 or 0.84 x 10^-10
Potter should also note that the fractional correction in rate
or the gravitational potential is GM/Rc^2 or 1.6 x 10^-10.
Now if Potter goes back to Interface Control Document ICD-GPS-200C
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
and read it this time, perhaps he might get it.
Sigh!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: Potential New Idea? True age of the Universe |
16 Aug 2003 10:31:36 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3F3E2FF8.5028CC92@mchsi.com...
Tom Potter wrote:
Just as I suspected,
Sambo doesn't comprehend the difference between
"Signal Specifications", solutions to formulas
and data ,easurements.
I must point out to him,
that the numbers obtained from
"Signal Specifications", solutions to formulas
cannot be used to verify a theory.
ASlthough Sambo has been spouting off about GPS
for years, and pretending to be an expert on it,
he has yet to provide ANY actual data that can be
used to verify ANY theory.
I am not for, nor against, ANY theory,
but I am not convinced by numbers obtained from
"Signal Specifications", and solutions to formulas.
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
Specifically, what kind of GPS data are you looking for Tom?
As I have made clear in many posts,
data that shows the actual periodic corrections to the GPS clocks.
"Signal Specifications", and solutions to formulas
are not data that can be used to verify any theory.
In other words,
let's suppose that I have a theory
that a clock at 100,000 feet above the surface of the Earth
will vary daily by plus 100 microseconds from a clock on the Earth's
surface,
and I build a GPS system that takes my theory into account,
but I find that I have to make daily correction of minus 100 microseconds,
there goes my theory.
"Signal Specifications", and solutions to formulas
don't prove anything.
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Potential New Idea? True age of the Universe |
17 Aug 2003 08:57:49 AM |
|
|
Tom Potter wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
Specifically, what kind of GPS data are you looking for Tom?
As I have made clear in many posts,
data that shows the actual periodic corrections to the GPS clocks.
The individual drifts and glitches of each atomic clocks on
NAVSTAR GPS satellites are modeled and clocks sometimes "steered"
when necessary. For information about those activities see:
http://WWW.SCHRIEVER.AF.MIL/GPS/PAWG/pawg.htm
The relativistic corrections in the form of clock frequency offsets
are "continuous" in that they were part of the design of the Global
Positioning System. The calculation are found in books on relativity.
I posted estimates for two relativistic corrections earlier in the
thread:
The velocity of a GPS satellite is approximately 3.9 km/s
So v/c is approximately 1.3 x 10^-5
Leaving the fractional correction in rate for time dilation
approximately v^2/2c^2 or 0.84 x 10^-10
Also the fractional correction in rate or the gravitational
potential is GM/Rc^2 or 1.6 x 10^-10.
Basically, Tom the relativistic corrections are designed into the
system and uploads to the satellites deal with corrections to the
satellite orbit ephemerides, individual clock drift modeling.
Again look at the PAWG papers for some insight.
http://WWW.SCHRIEVER.AF.MIL/GPS/PAWG/pawg.htm
Almanacs (daily data)
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/almanacs.htm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: Potential New Idea? True age of the Universe |
17 Aug 2003 09:31:31 PM |
|
|
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<3F3F89D1.4C967443@mchsi.com>...
Tom Potter wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
Specifically, what kind of GPS data are you looking for Tom?
As I have made clear in many posts,
data that shows the actual periodic corrections to the GPS clocks.
The individual drifts and glitches of each atomic clocks on
NAVSTAR GPS satellites are modeled and clocks sometimes "steered"
when necessary. For information about those activities see:
http://WWW.SCHRIEVER.AF.MIL/GPS/PAWG/pawg.htm
The relativistic corrections in the form of clock frequency offsets
are "continuous" in that they were part of the design of the Global
Positioning System. The calculation are found in books on relativity.
I posted estimates for two relativistic corrections earlier in the
thread:
The velocity of a GPS satellite is approximately 3.9 km/s
So v/c is approximately 1.3 x 10^-5
Leaving the fractional correction in rate for time dilation
approximately v^2/2c^2 or 0.84 x 10^-10
Also the fractional correction in rate or the gravitational
potential is GM/Rc^2 or 1.6 x 10^-10.
Basically, Tom the relativistic corrections are designed into the
system and uploads to the satellites deal with corrections to the
satellite orbit ephemerides, individual clock drift modeling.
Again look at the PAWG papers for some insight.
http://WWW.SCHRIEVER.AF.MIL/GPS/PAWG/pawg.htm
Almanacs (daily data)
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/almanacs.htm
Sam, Sam
you are still bobing and weaving, and equivocating,
and sending folks on wild goose chases.
NONE of these sites have information on the
regular adjustments that are made to the GPS clocks
to keep them in sync.
For example, here is some of your "almanac" data,
which tells you about the orbits,
NOT about what is happening to the clocks.
====================
******** Week 175 almanac for PRN-01 ********
ID: 01
Health: 000
Eccentricity: 0.5404472351E-002
Time of Applicability(s): 589824.0000
Orbital Inclination(rad): 0.9723724451
Rate of Right Ascen(r/s): -0.7931758961E-008
SQRT(A) (m 1/2): 5153.727539
Right Ascen at Week(rad): -0.4069756641E+000
Argument of Perigee(rad): -1.719371504
Mean Anom(rad): 0.6687658141E+000
Af0(s): 0.2651214600E-003
Af1(s/s): 0.0000000000E+000
week: 175
===============
It is obvious that Sam Wormley,
who has pretended to be an expert on GPS for many years,
has no idea what kind of data
is needed to show what is happening to the GPS clocks.
He is a good parrot
(Parrots URLs and data he gets from the net and books.)
but like all parrots, he is not too good at
recognizing essentials, which in this case
(Which has been going on for months.)
is what are the GPS clocks doing???
Are they drfting up, down, sideways, randomly,
staying rock solid, varying with altitude,
varying with location, varying with temperature, etc.
What are these clocks doing???
It's clear that Sam doesn't know.
Does anyone else know,
and have the data to prove it????
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Potential New Idea? True age of the Universe |
17 Aug 2003 10:18:52 PM |
|
|
Tom Potter wrote:
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<3F3F89D1.4C967443@mchsi.com>...
The individual drifts and glitches of each atomic clocks on
NAVSTAR GPS satellites are modeled and clocks sometimes "steered"
when necessary. For information about those activities see:
http://WWW.SCHRIEVER.AF.MIL/GPS/PAWG/pawg.htm
The relativistic corrections in the form of clock frequency offsets
are "continuous" in that they were part of the design of the Global
Positioning System. The calculation are found in books on relativity.
I posted estimates for two relativistic corrections earlier in the
thread:
The velocity of a GPS satellite is approximately 3.9 km/s
So v/c is approximately 1.3 x 10^-5
Leaving the fractional correction in rate for time dilation
approximately v^2/2c^2 or 0.84 x 10^-10
Also the fractional correction in rate or the gravitational
potential is GM/Rc^2 or 1.6 x 10^-10.
Basically, Tom the relativistic corrections are designed into the
system and uploads to the satellites deal with corrections to the
satellite orbit ephemerides, individual clock drift modeling.
Again look at the PAWG papers for some insight.
http://WWW.SCHRIEVER.AF.MIL/GPS/PAWG/pawg.htm
Almanacs (daily data)
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/almanacs.htm
Sam, Sam
you are still bobing and weaving, and equivocating,
and sending folks on wild goose chases.
NONE of these sites have information on the
regular adjustments that are made to the GPS clocks
to keep them in sync.
What "regular adjustments that are made to the GPS clocks to keep
them in sync" are you referring to Tom?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: Potential New Idea? True age of the Universe |
17 Aug 2003 11:58:54 PM |
|
|
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3F404590.E1396D2F@mchsi.com...
Tom Potter wrote:
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:<3F3F89D1.4C967443@mchsi.com>...
The individual drifts and glitches of each atomic clocks on
NAVSTAR GPS satellites are modeled and clocks sometimes "steered"
when necessary. For information about those activities see:
http://WWW.SCHRIEVER.AF.MIL/GPS/PAWG/pawg.htm
The relativistic corrections in the form of clock frequency offsets
are "continuous" in that they were part of the design of the Global
Positioning System. The calculation are found in books on relativity.
I posted estimates for two relativistic corrections earlier in the
thread:
The velocity of a GPS satellite is approximately 3.9 km/s
So v/c is approximately 1.3 x 10^-5
Leaving the fractional correction in rate for time dilation
approximately v^2/2c^2 or 0.84 x 10^-10
Also the fractional correction in rate or the gravitational
potential is GM/Rc^2 or 1.6 x 10^-10.
Basically, Tom the relativistic corrections are designed into the
system and uploads to the satellites deal with corrections to the
satellite orbit ephemerides, individual clock drift modeling.
Again look at the PAWG papers for some insight.
http://WWW.SCHRIEVER.AF.MIL/GPS/PAWG/pawg.htm
Almanacs (daily data)
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/almanacs.htm
Sam, Sam
you are still bobing and weaving, and equivocating,
and sending folks on wild goose chases.
NONE of these sites have information on the
regular adjustments that are made to the GPS clocks
to keep them in sync.
What "regular adjustments that are made to the GPS clocks to keep
them in sync" are you referring to Tom?
All clocks drift with respect to one another.
One clock is used as the standard,
against which all other clocks are compared.
When a clock is compared to the standard clock,
and found to differ, if one wants to be in sync with the
standard clock, and the other clocks which are synced to it,
one must adjust that clock.
The GPS clocks must be synchronized
in order for the GPS system to work correctly.
I have seen, but not been able to verify that
the clocks are adjusted daily.
I would like to know how often they are adjusted,
and what the actual adjustments are.
In addition, it would be helpful to know what the
"fixed" settings are in each clock.
That is, how does the time division in each clock
differ from the Earth standard clock, and from each other.
In other words, divider circuits are used to
reduce the high frequency "ticks" to some useable
and standard level. In many portable instruments
this level used to be 1MHz or 100KHz.
Binary divider circuits with feedback
(To allow division other than just powers of 2.)
are used to reduce the "tick" frequency.
I trust this is clear.
If it is not, please let me know.
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
that
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Potential New Idea? True age of the Universe |
18 Aug 2003 08:17:34 AM |
|
|
Tom Potter wrote:
"Sam Wormley" <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:3F404590.E1396D2F@mchsi.com...
Tom Potter wrote:
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:<3F3F89D1.4C967443@mchsi.com>...
The individual drifts and glitches of each atomic clocks on
NAVSTAR GPS satellites are modeled and clocks sometimes "steered"
when necessary. For information about those activities see:
http://WWW.SCHRIEVER.AF.MIL/GPS/PAWG/pawg.htm
The relativistic corrections in the form of clock frequency offsets
are "continuous" in that they were part of the design of the Global
Positioning System. The calculation are found in books on relativity.
I posted estimates for two relativistic corrections earlier in the
thread:
The velocity of a GPS satellite is approximately 3.9 km/s
So v/c is approximately 1.3 x 10^-5
Leaving the fractional correction in rate for time dilation
approximately v^2/2c^2 or 0.84 x 10^-10
Also the fractional correction in rate or the gravitational
potential is GM/Rc^2 or 1.6 x 10^-10.
Basically, Tom the relativistic corrections are designed into the
system and uploads to the satellites deal with corrections to the
satellite orbit ephemerides, individual clock drift modeling.
Again look at the PAWG papers for some insight.
http://WWW.SCHRIEVER.AF.MIL/GPS/PAWG/pawg.htm
Almanacs (daily data)
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/almanacs.htm
Sam, Sam
you are still bobing and weaving, and equivocating,
and sending folks on wild goose chases.
NONE of these sites have information on the
regular adjustments that are made to the GPS clocks
to keep them in sync.
What "regular adjustments that are made to the GPS clocks to keep
them in sync" are you referring to Tom?
All clocks drift with respect to one another.
One clock is used as the standard,
against which all other clocks are compared.
As I've pointed out, Tom, the individual drifts and glitches of each
atomic clocks on NAVSTAR GPS satellites are modeled and clocks sometimes
"steered" when necessary. For information about those activities see:
http://WWW.SCHRIEVER.AF.MIL/GPS/PAWG/pawg.htm
The GPS clocks are set to run at 10.22999999543 MHz as compared to 10.23 MHz
This value takes into account the relativistic effects that the clocks
experience in orbit about the Earth.
See: http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/default.htm
Ref: http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gpstt.html
GPS time is given by its Composite Clock (CC). The CC or "paper" clock
consists of all Monitor Station and satellite operational frequency
standards. The system was previously referenced to one of the Monitor
Station's operational frequency standards and switched from one station
to another as needed. The GPS epoch is 0000 UT (midnight) on January 6,
1980. GPS time is not adjusted and therefore is offset from UTC by an
integer number of seconds, due to the insertion of leap seconds. The
number remains constant until the next leap second occurs. This offset
is also given in the navigation (NAV) message and your receiver should
apply the correction automatically. As of January 1, 1999, GPS time is
ahead of UTC by thirteen (13) seconds.
In addition to the leap seconds, there are additional corrections given
in the NAV message. The system time, in turn, is referenced to the
Master Clock (MC) at the USNO and steered to UTC(USNO) from which
system time will not deviate by more than one microsecond (PPS
requirement). The exact difference is contained in the NAV message in
the form of two constants, A0 and A1, giving the time difference and
rate of system time against UTC(USNO,MC). UTC(USNO) itself is kept very
close to the international benchmark UTC(BIPM). A direct reference to
UTC(USNO,MC) can be made automatically by most timing receivers. These
receivers can be commanded to take the two constants, A0 and A1, from
the NAV message for a linear extrapolation to the USNO MC. These
constants are updated with the uploads on the basis of USNO PPS monitor
information. By means of the information given in the NAV message, and
stated in the 1996 Federal Radionavigation Plan (FRP), the SPS user can
obtain a time transfer accuracy to UTC(USNO) within 340 nanoseconds
(ns) (95 percent) and the PPS user can obtain a time transfer accuracy
to UTC(USNO) within 200 ns (95 percent). Decisions to change
operational modes of GPS to include degrading GPS accuracy to civil
users will be made by the National Command Authorities (NCA).
Tom, suggest you check out the references at the following URL.
-Sam Wormley
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/time.html
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Potential New Idea? True age of the Universe |
18 Aug 2003 12:35:27 AM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Mon, 18 Aug 2003 03:18:52 GMT
<3F404590.E1396D2F@mchsi.com>:
Tom Potter wrote:
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<3F3F89D1.4C967443@mchsi.com>...
The individual drifts and glitches of each atomic clocks on
NAVSTAR GPS satellites are modeled and clocks sometimes "steered"
when necessary. For information about those activities see:
http://WWW.SCHRIEVER.AF.MIL/GPS/PAWG/pawg.htm
The relativistic corrections in the form of clock frequency offsets
are "continuous" in that they were part of the design of the Global
Positioning System. The calculation are found in books on relativity.
I posted estimates for two relativistic corrections earlier in the
thread:
The velocity of a GPS satellite is approximately 3.9 km/s
So v/c is approximately 1.3 x 10^-5
Leaving the fractional correction in rate for time dilation
approximately v^2/2c^2 or 0.84 x 10^-10
Also the fractional correction in rate or the gravitational
potential is GM/Rc^2 or 1.6 x 10^-10.
Basically, Tom the relativistic corrections are designed into the
system and uploads to the satellites deal with corrections to the
satellite orbit ephemerides, individual clock drift modeling.
Again look at the PAWG papers for some insight.
http://WWW.SCHRIEVER.AF.MIL/GPS/PAWG/pawg.htm
Almanacs (daily data)
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/almanacs.htm
Sam, Sam
you are still bobing and weaving, and equivocating,
and sending folks on wild goose chases.
NONE of these sites have information on the
regular adjustments that are made to the GPS clocks
to keep them in sync.
What "regular adjustments that are made to the GPS clocks to keep
them in sync" are you referring to Tom?
Spaceman had a similar complaint; apparently the fine
points of the design parameters required in the clocks
to reduce the amount of synchronization (the deliberate
detuning) was lost on him.
Of course were the satellite clocks set at exactly 1575.45
Mhz (the high frequency carrier) or 10 Mhz (apparently the
low frequency one) they'd require very regular resynch.
In fact, they'd probably be useless as positioning
satellites. :-)
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: Potential New Idea? True age of the Universe |
18 Aug 2003 04:12:38 AM |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<ms4611-94c.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...
In sci.physics, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Mon, 18 Aug 2003 03:18:52 GMT
<3F404590.E1396D2F@mchsi.com>:
Tom Potter wrote:
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<3F3F89D1.4C967443@mchsi.com>...
The individual drifts and glitches of each atomic clocks on
NAVSTAR GPS satellites are modeled and clocks sometimes "steered"
when necessary. For information about those activities see:
http://WWW.SCHRIEVER.AF.MIL/GPS/PAWG/pawg.htm
The relativistic corrections in the form of clock frequency offsets
are "continuous" in that they were part of the design of the Global
Positioning System. The calculation are found in books on relativity.
I posted estimates for two relativistic corrections earlier in the
thread:
The velocity of a GPS satellite is approximately 3.9 km/s
So v/c is approximately 1.3 x 10^-5
Leaving the fractional correction in rate for time dilation
approximately v^2/2c^2 or 0.84 x 10^-10
Also the fractional correction in rate or the gravitational
potential is GM/Rc^2 or 1.6 x 10^-10.
Basically, Tom the relativistic corrections are designed into the
system and uploads to the satellites deal with corrections to the
satellite orbit ephemerides, individual clock drift modeling.
Again look at the PAWG papers for some insight.
http://WWW.SCHRIEVER.AF.MIL/GPS/PAWG/pawg.htm
Almanacs (daily data)
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/almanacs.htm
Sam, Sam
you are still bobing and weaving, and equivocating,
and sending folks on wild goose chases.
NONE of these sites have information on the
regular adjustments that are made to the GPS clocks
to keep them in sync.
What "regular adjustments that are made to the GPS clocks to keep
them in sync" are you referring to Tom?
Spaceman had a similar complaint; apparently the fine
points of the design parameters required in the clocks
to reduce the amount of synchronization (the deliberate
detuning) was lost on him.
Of course were the satellite clocks set at exactly 1575.45
Mhz (the high frequency carrier) or 10 Mhz (apparently the
low frequency one) they'd require very regular resynch.
In fact, they'd probably be useless as positioning
satellites. :-)
I am pleased to see that
"The Ghost In The Machine" agrees that
expecting theories to be confirmed by ACTUAL data is a "complaint".
No rational, logical, intelligent person would
accept anyone's model, theory, opinion, etc.
if they cannot back it up with hard facts.
Hopefully someone who has a favorite theory
about what affects clocks, will put the data
where their mouth is, and show how the ACTUAL data correlates
with their model.
So far, all I have seen is talk,
and the hyping of favorite theories.
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Ghost In The Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Potential New Idea? True age of the Universe |
18 Aug 2003 02:31:46 PM |
|
|
In sci.physics, Tom Potter
<tdp@earthlink.net>
wrote
on 18 Aug 2003 02:12:38 -0700
<f76e0bb3.0308180112.2de5a375@posting.google.com>:
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<ms4611-94c.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...
In sci.physics, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Mon, 18 Aug 2003 03:18:52 GMT
<3F404590.E1396D2F@mchsi.com>:
Tom Potter wrote:
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<3F3F89D1.4C967443@mchsi.com>...
The individual drifts and glitches of each atomic clocks on
NAVSTAR GPS satellites are modeled and clocks sometimes "steered"
when necessary. For information about those activities see:
http://WWW.SCHRIEVER.AF.MIL/GPS/PAWG/pawg.htm
The relativistic corrections in the form of clock frequency offsets
are "continuous" in that they were part of the design of the Global
Positioning System. The calculation are found in books on relativity.
I posted estimates for two relativistic corrections earlier in the
thread:
The velocity of a GPS satellite is approximately 3.9 km/s
So v/c is approximately 1.3 x 10^-5
Leaving the fractional correction in rate for time dilation
approximately v^2/2c^2 or 0.84 x 10^-10
Also the fractional correction in rate or the gravitational
potential is GM/Rc^2 or 1.6 x 10^-10.
Basically, Tom the relativistic corrections are designed into the
system and uploads to the satellites deal with corrections to the
satellite orbit ephemerides, individual clock drift modeling.
Again look at the PAWG papers for some insight.
http://WWW.SCHRIEVER.AF.MIL/GPS/PAWG/pawg.htm
Almanacs (daily data)
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/almanacs.htm
Sam, Sam
you are still bobing and weaving, and equivocating,
and sending folks on wild goose chases.
NONE of these sites have information on the
regular adjustments that are made to the GPS clocks
to keep them in sync.
What "regular adjustments that are made to the GPS clocks to keep
them in sync" are you referring to Tom?
Spaceman had a similar complaint; apparently the fine
points of the design parameters required in the clocks
to reduce the amount of synchronization (the deliberate
detuning) was lost on him.
Of course were the satellite clocks set at exactly 1575.45
Mhz (the high frequency carrier) or 10 Mhz (apparently the
low frequency one) they'd require very regular resynch.
In fact, they'd probably be useless as positioning
satellites. :-)
I am pleased to see that
"The Ghost In The Machine" agrees that
expecting theories to be confirmed by ACTUAL data is a "complaint".
The clocks were *engineered* this way.
But yes, that was based on theory and data.
Some of both may be seen here:
http://home.attbi.com/~tomyee3/forum/HafeleKeating.htm
The data therefrom was a bit sketchy, but far more data
is now available because of the GPS launch. (I would hope
that the Feds have clock tracking logs.)
No rational, logical, intelligent person would
accept anyone's model, theory, opinion, etc.
if they cannot back it up with hard facts.
Hopefully someone who has a favorite theory
about what affects clocks, will put the data
where their mouth is, and show how the ACTUAL data correlates
with their model.
So far, all I have seen is talk,
and the hyping of favorite theories.
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom Potter" |
|
| Title: Re: Potential New Idea? True age of the Universe |
18 Aug 2003 10:24:33 PM |
|
|
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<v91711-0d.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...
In sci.physics, Tom Potter
<tdp@earthlink.net>
wrote
on 18 Aug 2003 02:12:38 -0700
<f76e0bb3.0308180112.2de5a375@posting.google.com>:
The Ghost In The Machine <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in message news:<ms4611-94c.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net>...
In sci.physics, Sam Wormley
<swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote
on Mon, 18 Aug 2003 03:18:52 GMT
<3F404590.E1396D2F@mchsi.com>:
Tom Potter wrote:
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote in message news:<3F3F89D1.4C967443@mchsi.com>...
The individual drifts and glitches of each atomic clocks on
NAVSTAR GPS satellites are modeled and clocks sometimes "steered"
when necessary. For information about those activities see:
http://WWW.SCHRIEVER.AF.MIL/GPS/PAWG/pawg.htm
The relativistic corrections in the form of clock frequency offsets
are "continuous" in that they were part of the design of the Global
Positioning System. The calculation are found in books on relativity.
I posted estimates for two relativistic corrections earlier in the
thread:
The velocity of a GPS satellite is approximately 3.9 km/s
So v/c is approximately 1.3 x 10^-5
Leaving the fractional correction in rate for time dilation
approximately v^2/2c^2 or 0.84 x 10^-10
Also the fractional correction in rate or the gravitational
potential is GM/Rc^2 or 1.6 x 10^-10.
Basically, Tom the relativistic corrections are designed into the
system and uploads to the satellites deal with corrections to the
satellite orbit ephemerides, individual clock drift modeling.
Again look at the PAWG papers for some insight.
http://WWW.SCHRIEVER.AF.MIL/GPS/PAWG/pawg.htm
Almanacs (daily data)
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/almanacs.htm
Sam, Sam
you are still bobing and weaving, and equivocating,
and sending folks on wild goose chases.
NONE of these sites have information on the
regular adjustments that are made to the GPS clocks
to keep them in sync.
What "regular adjustments that are made to the GPS clocks to keep
them in sync" are you referring to Tom?
Spaceman had a similar complaint; apparently the fine
points of the design parameters required in the clocks
to reduce the amount of synchronization (the deliberate
detuning) was lost on him.
Of course were the satellite clocks set at exactly 1575.45
Mhz (the high frequency carrier) or 10 Mhz (apparently the
low frequency one) they'd require very regular resynch.
In fact, they'd probably be useless as positioning
satellites. :-)
I am pleased to see that
"The Ghost In The Machine" agrees that
expecting theories to be confirmed by ACTUAL data is a "complaint".
The clocks were *engineered* this way.
But yes, that was based on theory and data.
Some of both may be seen here:
http://home.attbi.com/~tomyee3/forum/HafeleKeating.htm
The data therefrom was a bit sketchy, but far more data
is now available because of the GPS launch. (I would hope
that the Feds have clock tracking logs.)
No rational, logical, intelligent person would
accept anyone's model, theory, opinion, etc.
if they cannot back it up with hard facts.
Hopefully someone who has a favorite theory
about what affects clocks, will put the data
where their mouth is, and show how the ACTUAL data correlates
with their model.
I am going to clue "The Ghost In The Machine"
and "Sam Wormley" in on a fact
that they do not seem to comprehend.
If you design a system to compensate for some
assumed effect, and also incorporate feedback
into the system in order to compensate for this and
ANY OTHER effects on some aspect of the system,
and then you apply feedback on a regular basis,
you have to know what the feedback is,
and how it correlates with the "assumed effect"
in order to know if you are actually adjusting for
the effect.
The fcat of the matter is, that you can assume an effect
that is 180 degress wrong, and correct for your mistake
with appropriate feedback.
As I have said all along.
Where is the data?
Specifications and solutions to theories
cannot be used to verify a theory.
You need data the correlates with the theory.
So far, all I have seen is talk,
and the hyping of favorite theories.
(And mostly equivocation, obfuscation,
and useless URLs and references.)
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
