- Thank you received: 0
Black holes
20 years 11 months ago #7371
by Rudolf
Replied by Rudolf on topic Reply from Rudolf Henning
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">It happened in his laboratory<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The one thing that is sure is that his laboratory was not in a single location. Could he have gotten the same wrong results at different locations (heights, day, time)?
How does the GPS system 'show' the speed of light if it is generally accepted that lightspeed is constant? Did the GPS system designer and builders not included this assumption in their calculations? If so it might be irrelevant to speak of GPS proofing anything.
I know you (Tom) were involved there so I'm just quessing.
Rudolf
The one thing that is sure is that his laboratory was not in a single location. Could he have gotten the same wrong results at different locations (heights, day, time)?
How does the GPS system 'show' the speed of light if it is generally accepted that lightspeed is constant? Did the GPS system designer and builders not included this assumption in their calculations? If so it might be irrelevant to speak of GPS proofing anything.
I know you (Tom) were involved there so I'm just quessing.
Rudolf
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
20 years 11 months ago #6962
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rudolf</i>
<br />Could he have gotten the same wrong results at different locations (heights, day, time)?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I have my own ideas what went wrong. But does it matter? The GPS result leaves no room for options here.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">How does the GPS system 'show' the speed of light<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The atomic clock on each satellite sends a signal toward Earth every 1.5 seconds. The message with the signal includes the satellite's orbit and location at the time of transmission. (This is checked with traditional optical photographs, and with laser ranging from other ground stations, and with dynamical constraints imposed by the time it takes the satellite to complete one period and return to the same spot.) A ground receiver picks up these signals from as many satellites as it can and figures out the exact distances to each satellite. It then triangulates its own position. With high-precision GPS, this triangulation is successful to within 1 meter. That could not happen consistently unless the legs of the triangles (the distances to the satellites) were of comparable accuracy.
For your purposes, the crucial point is how the ground receiver measures the distances. To simply many unneeded matters, let's assume the receiver is at a Monitor Station which has its own atomic clock and an already known location. (Then we already know the distances; but we can still compare to the GPS measures of distance.) Then the GPS measure of distance from Monitor Station to satellite is simply c(t2-t1), where c is the speed of light in the ECI frame, t1 is the transmission time, and t2 is the reception time. These must be measured to a nanosecond or so, during which time light moves about one foot or so.
See a diagram and formulas at metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-2.asp .
It should then be obvious that, if c is at all variable, this method of getting distances will fail badly, and the system cannot work. But it works very well indeed. The largest possible error in c, under the most pessimistic set of assumptions about systematic errors, is +/- 12 m/s. -|Tom|-
<br />Could he have gotten the same wrong results at different locations (heights, day, time)?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I have my own ideas what went wrong. But does it matter? The GPS result leaves no room for options here.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">How does the GPS system 'show' the speed of light<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The atomic clock on each satellite sends a signal toward Earth every 1.5 seconds. The message with the signal includes the satellite's orbit and location at the time of transmission. (This is checked with traditional optical photographs, and with laser ranging from other ground stations, and with dynamical constraints imposed by the time it takes the satellite to complete one period and return to the same spot.) A ground receiver picks up these signals from as many satellites as it can and figures out the exact distances to each satellite. It then triangulates its own position. With high-precision GPS, this triangulation is successful to within 1 meter. That could not happen consistently unless the legs of the triangles (the distances to the satellites) were of comparable accuracy.
For your purposes, the crucial point is how the ground receiver measures the distances. To simply many unneeded matters, let's assume the receiver is at a Monitor Station which has its own atomic clock and an already known location. (Then we already know the distances; but we can still compare to the GPS measures of distance.) Then the GPS measure of distance from Monitor Station to satellite is simply c(t2-t1), where c is the speed of light in the ECI frame, t1 is the transmission time, and t2 is the reception time. These must be measured to a nanosecond or so, during which time light moves about one foot or so.
See a diagram and formulas at metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-2.asp .
It should then be obvious that, if c is at all variable, this method of getting distances will fail badly, and the system cannot work. But it works very well indeed. The largest possible error in c, under the most pessimistic set of assumptions about systematic errors, is +/- 12 m/s. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 11 months ago #7077
by Rudolf
Replied by Rudolf on topic Reply from Rudolf Henning
I cannot argue with the 'real' numbers but considder this. If the Earth - a body with substatial mass - drags the local elysium medium with it, would'nt transmitters above the 'thicker' layers of the elysium decrease the light travel time at wider angles - as seen from an observer standing on the surface looking up?
Or are all the GPS satellites inside the local 'thicker' elysium?
Rudolf
Or are all the GPS satellites inside the local 'thicker' elysium?
Rudolf
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 11 months ago #7078
by Mac
Replied by Mac on topic Reply from Dan McCoin
Tom,
metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-2.asp .
This link didn't work for me?
"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien
metaresearch.org/solar%20system/gps/absolute-gps-1meter-2.asp .
This link didn't work for me?
"Imagination is more important than Knowledge" -- Albert Einstien
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
20 years 11 months ago #7373
by Rudolf
Replied by Rudolf on topic Reply from Rudolf Henning
I had the same problem. I quess it is because I don't have access to pages like those??
I also did a search around the web site and only found the article about 'What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about Relativity'
Rudolf
I also did a search around the web site and only found the article about 'What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about Relativity'
Rudolf
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- tvanflandern
- Topic Author
- Offline
- Platinum Member
Less
More
- Thank you received: 0
20 years 11 months ago #7015
by tvanflandern
Replied by tvanflandern on topic Reply from Tom Van Flandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Rudolf</i>
<br />If the Earth - a body with substatial mass - drags the local elysium medium with it,...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It does.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">... would'nt transmitters above the 'thicker' layers of the elysium decrease the light travel time at wider angles - as seen from an observer standing on the surface looking up? Or are all the GPS satellites inside the local 'thicker' elysium?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The effect of elysium density changes on the speed of light is of the same order as changes in the gamma factor, or about 10^-10 c, just a few centimeters per second. -|Tom|-
<br />If the Earth - a body with substatial mass - drags the local elysium medium with it,...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It does.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">... would'nt transmitters above the 'thicker' layers of the elysium decrease the light travel time at wider angles - as seen from an observer standing on the surface looking up? Or are all the GPS satellites inside the local 'thicker' elysium?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">The effect of elysium density changes on the speed of light is of the same order as changes in the gamma factor, or about 10^-10 c, just a few centimeters per second. -|Tom|-
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Time to create page: 0.282 seconds