Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency
From: Paul B. Andersen (paul.b.andersen_at_deletethishia.no)
Date: 02/28/05
- Next message: Q-on: "Superluminal deBroglie Pilot Waves & Magnetoelectrism"
- Previous message: John C. Polasek: "Re: 2 Questiosn On Parallel Plates ?"
- Next in thread: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency"
- Maybe reply: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency"
- Maybe reply: Henri Wilson: "Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency"
- Reply: jgreenfield_at_seol.net.au: "Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency"
- Maybe reply: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency"
- Maybe reply: jahn: "Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 15:28:15 +0100
jgreenfield@seol.net.au wrote:
> Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>>Henri Wilson wrote:
>>
>>>On 26 Feb 2005 21:22:35 -0800, "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com"
>>><sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>You don't know what you're talking about. GPS may correct for
>
> phase
>
>>>>>shift of frequency, but it uses time-of-flight of what is
>
> essentially
>
>>>>a
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>time-stamp signal. And it calculates distance from time of flight
>
> and
>
>>>>>speed of signal, which it presumes to be c. Not c+v or c-v. Just
>
> c.
>
>>>>
>>>>It makes little difference which one you use. The satellite moves
>
> only
>
>>>>about
>>>>1cm in that kind of time difference. That's the order of the error
>
> you
>
>>>>will get
>>>>if you use c+v.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>COMMENT:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What? Try again. If your value of c is wrong by 1.5 ppm over a
>>>>distance of 26 million meters, then the flight time you measure
>
> will
>
>>>>give you an incorrect distance by 40 meters. And that's your error
>
> due
>
>>>>to using a value of c-v or c+v when v is 470 m/sec, the maximal
>
> radial
>
>>>>GPS velocity. This has nothing to do with how far the SATELLITE
>
> moves.
>
>>>>The error is due to the difference in how far the SIGNAL moves in
>
> the
>
>>>>given time, if you have the wrong velocity for it.
>>>>
>>>>d1= ct
>>>>d2 = (c+v)t
>>>>
>>>>t is not a variable, it is a known. So you do the math and
>
> subtract d1
>
>>>>from d2 to get your error in d from using the wrong signal
>
> velocity.
>
>>>The orbit is wrongly calculated using c instead of c+v. This
>
> cancels out the
>
>>>40m error.
>>>and if all the orbiting clocks are in close synch, the positioning
>
> error due to
>
>>>the omission of the 'free fall correction' is only 7 cms.
>>
>>Do you really not understand how ridiculous this answer is, Henri?
>
> :-)
>
>>There are five monitoring stations spread all around the Earth.
>>Don't you understand how inconsistent the measurements from
>>these stations would be if the speed of light were c+v, and this
>>was not accounted for?
>
>
> But it IS accounted for!
No, it is not.
> They ALL observe a Doppler signal alteration,
> right?
If you measure the frequency, yes.
But a GPS receiver doesn't.
> And that alteration is due to c = f x u ,where c alters, u remains
> the same, causing f to Doppler. It is seen continuously- but not
> RECOGNIZED/INTERPRETED as to WHY!
The Doppler shift is irrelevant.
Paul
- Next message: Q-on: "Superluminal deBroglie Pilot Waves & Magnetoelectrism"
- Previous message: John C. Polasek: "Re: 2 Questiosn On Parallel Plates ?"
- Next in thread: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency"
- Maybe reply: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency"
- Maybe reply: Henri Wilson: "Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency"
- Reply: jgreenfield_at_seol.net.au: "Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency"
- Maybe reply: Paul B. Andersen: "Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency"
- Maybe reply: jahn: "Re: GPS vs. Source Dependency"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
