True so: $$(x^2-(x'-vt')^2)/(t^2-t'^2)=c^2$$
You're bad learned algebra at school.
You have to go back to school to learn it again.
Last edited:
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Three Experiments Challenging SRT
- Thread starter Masterov
- Start date
You're bad learned algebra at school.
You have to go back to school to learn it again.
I have no intention to comment on similar to these posts.
Of course you won't, because you simply can't since your source does not exist. A simple google search brings up 1000+ sources that say that gps satellites require relativistic time corrections function which include some of the engineering papers used to build the dam things but you cannot produce one single source to refute it. You are troll plain and simple. Serioulsy people stop arguing with this person he is not really arguing with you or trying to make a point or be educated he is just fucking with you.
All these sources tell about specification, which was posed for a programmers. This technical task was completely implemented the programmers. But all relativism has been removed from the software of GPS satellites when in use debugging later.
Nobody does not say about it, but it does not mean that it is not.
Nobody does not say about the hundreds of experiments (which are similar to experiments of Liangzao FAN) which have been set for the last 50 years.
Anything that contradicts the SRT in the publication does not fall.
In Russia, published a ban for that three times.
Nobody does not say about it, but it does not mean that it is not.
Nobody does not say about the hundreds of experiments (which are similar to experiments of Liangzao FAN) which have been set for the last 50 years.
Anything that contradicts the SRT in the publication does not fall.
In Russia, published a ban for that three times.
I read it, but did not understand.Have you carefully read the link posted by me?
(Google could not translate this tex.)
The meaning of this phrase is not clear to me:
However, in reality the positions are actually not obtained by comparing the time signal received from the satellite with the receiver time, but by observing the difference between the time signals obtained from a number of different satellites (see the Wikipedia GPS article for details (note that I have linked this now to an older version of the article, as the latest version is not as clear in this respect)).
I talked with the experts involved in the implementation of the Russian satellite navigation system GLONASS. Experts say that there is no relativism.
The meaning of this phrase is not clear to me:However, in reality the positions are actually not obtained by comparing the time signal received from the satellite with the receiver time, but by observing the difference between the time signals obtained from a number of different satellites....
The rest of the quote you were having trouble with is just referece to Wiki and a disclaimer. Above is the only significant portion.
Just before the portion above the article includes the statement, "the relativistic corrections (which amount to 38 microseconds/day)". Keeping that in mind all the above quote is saying is that,
The sattelite pistons are not determined by the differences between the sattelite clock and the ground clock. Instead they are triangulated between two or more sattelite clocks.
I did not read through the whole link, but I agree that the way that first part is worded may be awkward, especially when trying to translate to Russian.
One note I would add, is that the sattelite computers do not make any relativistic corrections. There are pre-launch corrections made, and then inflight corrections made, based on computers, clocks and calculations made on the ground. When in these GPS articles they use the word, " receiver" they are referring to a ground based GPS unit.., or sometimes one in a airplane.
I hope the above helps the translation more than confusing it...
I talked with the experts involved in the implementation of the Russian satellite navigation system GLONASS. Experts say that there is no relativism.
Maybe you are having the same translation problem when you talk to them!
While it is true that in the US GPS system, the sattelites carry out no onboard relativistic calculations, the relativistic effects on the various clocks does get corrected, both at the time of launching a sattelite and on an ongoing basis during operation. The drift in time.., or accumulated differences, does get adjusted routinely.
Once the Satelites are in orbit, no one has to run relativistic calculations on an ongoing basis. Once in orbit the error rate or difference between the satellites and ground based clocks is known to within a margin of error. It becomes an issue of just maintaining some level of synchronization and known drift rate.
From the end of the link posted by me:
Now the quoted relativistic correction of 38 microseconds/day corresponds to ε=4.4.10-10. As the satellites are at a distance of around 20000 km (=2.109 cm), the positional error due to relativity should actually only be 4.4.10-10 . 2.109 cm = 0.8 cm! This is even much less than the presently claimed accuracy of the GPS of a few meters, so the Relativity effect should actually not be relevant at all!
We were talking in Russian.Maybe you are having the same translation problem when you talk to them!I talked with the experts involved in the implementation of the Russian satellite navigation system GLONASS. Experts say that there is no relativism.
Russian language for us is their native language.
It is said in this article is that: there is no relativism on the GPS satellites?The rest of the quote you were having trouble with is just referece to Wiki and a disclaimer. Above is the only significant portion.
Just before the portion above the article includes the statement, "the relativistic corrections (which amount to 38 microseconds/day)". Keeping that in mind all the above quote is saying is that,
The sattelite pistons are not determined by the differences between the sattelite clock and the ground clock. Instead they are triangulated between two or more sattelite clocks.
I did not read through the whole link, but I agree that the way that first part is worded may be awkward, especially when trying to translate to Russian.
One note I would add, is that the sattelite computers do not make any relativistic corrections. There are pre-launch corrections made, and then inflight corrections made, based on computers, clocks and calculations made on the ground. When in these GPS articles they use the word, " receiver" they are referring to a ground based GPS unit.., or sometimes one in a airplane.
I hope the above helps the translation more than confusing it...
Firstly, the person who wrote the website you linked to has been on forums, including this one, and is somewhat of a denier of mainstream physics. He did physics at university and tried to get into research but has been rejected time and again, both in terms of submitting papers for publications and in terms of postdoctoral positions at universities. Linking to his work to argue against science is like linking to a creationist website to argue against evolution.
Besides, the thing you quote is clearly flawed reasoning. He acknowledges there is a relativistic clock drift which is per day. Assuming the numbers are all correct then every day, if you ignore relativity, the measurement would go out by 0.8cm. After 100 days that's 8m, enough to be noticed even with the level of accuracy he acknowledges the GPS network has. The network has been up for several decades. If we do a rough thing of 3 years ~ 1000 days = 80m then every 12.5*3 = 37.5 years we get 1km of error.
Furthermore, the GPS network is actually a lot more accurate than theat. The reason a tracker in your phone is only to 2 or 3 metres is because of local variations in topography, gravitational fields and the aforementioned clock drift. Phones don't usually bother to do the extra signal processes but it's possible to get an accuracy of less than 1m just by standing still for long enough to get enough timings. If you go really crazy for accuracy then you can pick up additional radio signals which are broadcast from various places on the Earth which provide local information about the corrections which must be done to account for the aforementioned clock drift, local topography and anomalies. With this you can get accuracy down to O(10cm).
In fact there was a story just this week about how scientists used precisely that level of accuracy to track the motion of a flock of sheep to within 10cm of their true positions over a period of time to study how they move when the flock is threatened by predators. Apparently each sheep tries to put another sheep between it and the threat. Interesting behaviour.... Anyway, I digress. Suffice to say that even with a crude GPS tracker like those in modern phones you would notice such a clock drift in the matter of months, perhaps even weeks. If you're using additional information and military grade signals (the civilian signal has certain restrictions on it that the military signal does not) then you can get down to an accuracy of centimetres. You'd notice a drift in that within a week, thus illustrating the 38 microsecond drift is both testable and verified by the GPS network. Remember, the US built their network (there's now Russian and EU setups too, which can FURTHER increase accuracy when you combine all the signals) so they could do precision strikes. A 'surgical' nuke should be within 100 metres while a bunker buster might have to hit, literally, someone's front door. Missing by 10 metres can be the difference between killing your target and just digging them a new pond in their front car park.
Besides, the thing you quote is clearly flawed reasoning. He acknowledges there is a relativistic clock drift which is per day. Assuming the numbers are all correct then every day, if you ignore relativity, the measurement would go out by 0.8cm. After 100 days that's 8m, enough to be noticed even with the level of accuracy he acknowledges the GPS network has. The network has been up for several decades. If we do a rough thing of 3 years ~ 1000 days = 80m then every 12.5*3 = 37.5 years we get 1km of error.
Furthermore, the GPS network is actually a lot more accurate than theat. The reason a tracker in your phone is only to 2 or 3 metres is because of local variations in topography, gravitational fields and the aforementioned clock drift. Phones don't usually bother to do the extra signal processes but it's possible to get an accuracy of less than 1m just by standing still for long enough to get enough timings. If you go really crazy for accuracy then you can pick up additional radio signals which are broadcast from various places on the Earth which provide local information about the corrections which must be done to account for the aforementioned clock drift, local topography and anomalies. With this you can get accuracy down to O(10cm).
In fact there was a story just this week about how scientists used precisely that level of accuracy to track the motion of a flock of sheep to within 10cm of their true positions over a period of time to study how they move when the flock is threatened by predators. Apparently each sheep tries to put another sheep between it and the threat. Interesting behaviour.... Anyway, I digress. Suffice to say that even with a crude GPS tracker like those in modern phones you would notice such a clock drift in the matter of months, perhaps even weeks. If you're using additional information and military grade signals (the civilian signal has certain restrictions on it that the military signal does not) then you can get down to an accuracy of centimetres. You'd notice a drift in that within a week, thus illustrating the 38 microsecond drift is both testable and verified by the GPS network. Remember, the US built their network (there's now Russian and EU setups too, which can FURTHER increase accuracy when you combine all the signals) so they could do precision strikes. A 'surgical' nuke should be within 100 metres while a bunker buster might have to hit, literally, someone's front door. Missing by 10 metres can be the difference between killing your target and just digging them a new pond in their front car park.
True so: $$(x^2-(x'-vt')^2)/(t^2-t'^2)=c^2$$
You're bad learned algebra at school.
You have to go back to school to learn it again.
So, what is the error?
Otherwise, prove the equation.
Take your pick.
It is said in this article is that: there is no relativism on the GPS satellites?
I parsed this one sentence at a time to perhaps make translation easier.
No, the sattelites do experience relativistic effects.
The computers on the satellites do not make relativistic corrections.
There are corrections made at the time of launching the sattelites and periodically while they are in orbit.
The relativistic effects were observed and measured in the early sattelites.
After that, a correction at time of launch and periodic or routine synchronizing with the ground based clocks is all that is required.
Once the relativistic effects are known, it is not necessisary to do relativistic calculations all of the time.
The system is designed to continually synchronize the sattelite clocks with the ground.
All the GPS units need to know is that the sattelites are synchronized with the ground.
I do not see a problem?So, what is the error?
Otherwise, prove the equation.
Take your pick.
Yes. This is what I said.The computers on the satellites do not make relativistic corrections.
Clock synchronization occurs at a time when the satellite comes close to Earth (perihelion).
Relativistic effects are not observed.
Yes. This is what I said.
Clock synchronization occurs at a time when the satellite comes close to Earth (perihelion).
Relativistic effects are not observed.
Because the clocks get synchronized to those on the ground, they cannot be used to test the relativistic effects..., true.
However, when the first sattelites were launched the relativistic predictictions for both GR and SR were confirmed.
After that the clocks get synchronized which compensates for the relativistic effects.
It is not necessary to do relativistic calculations when you have already observed them to be true.., and have easier methods to synchronize the clocks.
If there were no relitavistic effects, you would not have to keep synchronizing the clocks.
1. Synchronization is required in any case.If there were no relitavistic effects, you would not have to keep synchronizing the clocks.
2. Some watch was fast, and others - looses.
It can not be explained by relativism.
Except it does, since the network works when it includes the GR corrections. You're now denying reality!It can not be explained by relativism.
It can not be explained by relativism.
... when the first USA sattelites were launched the relativistic predictictions for both GR and SR were confirmed.
USA was added for emphasis this post only
Masterov, this is a fact. Not a theory, a fact. The time difference in the clock on the first sattelite (or few satellites) was found to be in agreement with the relativistic predictions, of GR and SR combined. After that, the affect was known and adjustments could be made to the clocks before launch and synchronized routinely in orbit.
The Russian system never had to do any relativistic calculations.., they were copying the USA GPS road map. You can put a sattelite into a stable orbit using Newtonian mechanics. It is done all of the time... And if you already know how much time the clocks will gain and lose during the launch, you don't need to figure it out, you just set the clocks back and then build a system that allows routine clock synchronization.
Even if the Russian scientists did not have to do the relativistic calculations and all the work the USA did to start up its GPS system, I am pretty sure they could, and you are either just talking with a mechanical engineer or for some other reason just don't understand what is going on.
AlphaNumeric, talks the math pretty damn well and I am sure that the Russian scientists and he would have little difficulty understanding each others math. I am sure your Russian scientists do know the math. If you really have talked with any of them, it sounds to me, like they have had no better luck explaining this stuff to you in Russian, than I am having trying to explain it in plain English. (Granted the subject does not lend itself well to description in lay terms in any language.)