Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's 1905 SR.

Post by rhertz
- 1897: Thomson discovered the electron as a particle and proposed a
"plum pudding" model of the atom.
- 1899: Thomson (and others) measured the charge/mass ratio of the
electron (using Lorentz force): 6.33E+17 esu/g
- 1900: Planck calculated the charge of the electron, hence its mass
(using Avogrado): e = 4.69E-10 esu ( g^1/2 cm^3/2 s^-1).
- 1900: Wilhem Wien theorized that the Hydrogen ion contained a
fundamental positive charge (named proton in 1917 by Rutherford), when
experimenting with canal rays. His work was the basis for the discovery
of the proton by Rutherford in 1917, after he came in 1911 with his
"solar system structure" of atoms, mostly composed of void.
- 1913: Millikan measured again the charge of the electron, being
similar to the value calculated by Planck in 1900.
- 1917: Rutherford confirmed the existence of the proton (he named it)
and verified early calculations about being 1,836 times more massive
than the electron.
- 1917-1918: Many scientists estimated the radius of the proton being
1,000 larger than that of the electron, using charge/mass relationships.
The radius of the proton was estimated as being about 10^-13 cm, from
which it was derived that the radius of the electron was about 10^-16
cm. The classic formula R = e^2/E was used AGAIN, where E is the energy
of the electric field. This formula STILL IS VALID TODAY, only that it's
used with MKS units instead of esu units.
- Around 1920: The use of E=mc^2 was introduced to calculate the rest
energy of the electron as being 0.511 MeV. So R = e^2/(mc^2) FORCED
PHYSICISTS TO ADOPT/BELIEVE that the radius of the electron was about
2.8E-13cm, which is now known as the CLASSICAL ELECTRON RADIUS
(normalized by NIST and many other bodies worldwide).
This proposal CONTRADICTED what experiments show (by then and in decades
to come) that the radius of the electron IS AT LEAST about 10^-18 m. The
formula suited well with the radius of the proton being about 10^-15 m,
which was used until early 1960s, when the Standard Model of Elementary
Particles (SMEP) demanded that only the electron was a fundamental
particle. All the data about radius of protons and neutrons WERE
ELIMINATED from databases worldwide. Only the Classical Electron Radius
still remain, but only for some calculations, as it's not proposed as
THE REAL RADIUS.
- 1919-1924: It was widely accepted that the electron rotated itself,
creating a magnetic momentum that explained phenomena like the Zeeman
effect (splitting of spectral lines in a magnetic field). Kronig,
Uhlenbeck, and Goudsmit realized that the classical model of a spinning
electron was UNTENABLE because it implied velocities FASTER THAN LIGHT,
CONTRADICTING RELATIVITY.
- 1924-1925: The physical units of the electron's spin that created the
magnetic momentum WERE DISCARDED by physicists like Heisenberg and
Pauli, because IT WAS AGAINST RELATIVITY. Instead, they proposed that
SPIN was a quantum quantity with no equivalence with classic physics.
Hence, the idea of rotation was dismissed, and fractional values of +1/2
and -1/2 were INVENTED to quantify the magnetic momentum of the
electron. This idea was extended to any other particle in the next
decades.
In 1925, Pauli INVENTED the Exclusion Principle, which states that no
two electrons in an atom can have the same set of quantum numbers. He
received a Nobel Prize for this proposal.
- 1928: Dirac introduced his relativistic theory, by which the electron
spin was incorporated as an intrinsic property, without requiring it to
be a spinning sphere. Hence, the spin describes behaviors in magnetic
fields and interactions, not being a physical motion.
- 1930-1960: QFT and QED adopted the model of the electron being A
POINT-LIKE PARTICLE, with NO PHYSICAL SIZE.
- 1960-2025: The radius of about 10^-18 m for the electron EMERGED AGAIN
by measurements of its electric dipole moment (EDM). An electric dipole
moment (EDM) is a measure of the separation of positive and negative
charges within a particle. If an electron had an EDM, it would imply
that its charge distribution is not perfectly symmetric, meaning it
would have a "shape" that deviates from a perfect sphere.
2025: The current best upper limit for the electron's EDM is on the
order of 10^-29 electron centimeters (e cm), corresponding to A PERFECT
SPHERE with a radius of 10^-18 m. But physicists INSISTS in that this IS
NOT a real radius, and is valid ONLY to explain the EDM measurements.
AS OF TODAY, RADIUS, SHAPE AND SPIN OF ELECTRONS IS UNDETERMINED
(UNKNOWN). Each theory (QM, QFT, QED,...) adopt values that are useful
to validate each theory, but the numbers used ARE IN CONFLICT, when the
different theories are compared.
AS IT CAN BE SEEN FOR THE LAST 130 YEARS, PHYSICS IS MOSTLY A FARCE.

Yep, as proof radio, atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs, transistors,
computers,
COVID 19 could not possibly exist. This just shows that Ancient Aliens
have been advancing our technology in spite of ourselves. They crash a
few of their ships and we take 'em to Area 51 and reverse engineer them.
Just ask Bob Lazar. https://www.unitednuclear.com/

Got element number 115?

rhertz

2025-03-15 21:25:44 UTC

I forgot to add that, as E = e^2/R (esu units), in quantum physics the
Classical Electron Radius of about 10^-15 m is used, IN ORDER TO obtain
0.511 MeV.

Because of the problems of INFINITIES, in applied QFT and QED, this is
the radius used for calculations, EVEN WHEN the theory is based on the
electron being a POINT-LIKE PARTICLE. If R=0 was used, it would give
INFINITY ENERGY.

So, the geniuses since Feynman RENORMALIZED the QED theory by just
PLANTING the 0.511 MeV rest energy in calculations. No sense? But it
works, Feynman said.

SHUT UP AND CALCULATE!

Physics is a farce when dealing with ANY CRAP derived from relativity.

J. J. Lodder

2025-03-16 09:55:29 UTC

Post by rhertz
I forgot to add that, as E = e^2/R (esu units), in quantum physics the
Classical Electron Radius of about 10^-15 m is used, IN ORDER TO obtain
0.511 MeV.

There is no such thing as a radius in QED.
All there is is the experimental electron rest mass,
powers of it, multiplied by various powers of \alpha.

You can attach names to some of those expressions,
but that serves no physical purpose.
The results are what they are,

Jan

Maciej Wozniak

2025-03-15 21:48:20 UTC

Post by rhertz
AS IT CAN BE SEEN FOR THE LAST 130 YEARS, PHYSICS IS MOSTLY A FARCE.

Yep, as proof radio, atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs, transistors,
computers,

Oh, science is working with scientists for centuries.
Its idiotproofness is amazing.

rhertz

2025-03-15 23:21:22 UTC

Just anecdotic, but a sample of idiocy and plagiarism from Lorentz 1904.

Remember the part of the electron in the 1905 paper? A slowly
accelerated charged and perfectly spherical ball that had two masses:
longitudinal and traversal.

Also dismissing the energy employed in moving the electron from absolute
rest.

You can't get a more idiotic plagiarism of the ideas that Lorentz held
for 12 years to explain the fail of the MM experiment.

Relativity is a pseudoscience.

gharnagel

2025-03-16 02:46:54 UTC

Post by rhertz
Just anecdotic, but a sample of idiocy and plagiarism from Lorentz 1904.
Remember the part of the electron in the 1905 paper? A slowly
longitudinal and traversal.
Also dismissing the energy employed in moving the electron from absolute
rest.
You can't get a more idiotic plagiarism of the ideas that Lorentz held
for 12 years to explain the fail of the MM experiment.
Relativity is a pseudoscience.

Nope, it's Ancient Aliens trying to confuse us when we reverse
engineered
their accidental crashes. Now they're intentionally crashing them all
over
the world. The Chinese recovered one of them and reverse-engineered
Corona
virus.

As for Maciej Hertz's rantings, nobody cares.

rhertz

2025-03-16 16:36:19 UTC

Length contraction is the most important pillar of relativity,
originated in the efforts of Lorentz to disprove the MM experiment.

It's, after all, an inseparable outcome of Lorentz transforms, along
with time dilation.

How come this stupid part of Lorentz transforms has been abandoned, yet
the twin formula for time dilation is accepted? Both emerged from a
single mathematical framework in 1904/1905 relativity.

If one of them has been dismissed (never proved), why its associated
formula for time has been accepted?

It's an example of hypocrisy in physics, and also a sample of the
pseudoscience that relativity is.

Consider applying length contraction to an electron moving at 0.99999 c.
It should be perceived as a flat disk. This concept caused that Lorentz
(and Einstein's plagiarism) calculated longitudinal and traversal
masses.

What is the conclusion? That the 1905 SR paper has only 4 pages out of
26 with some perdurable concepts, as time passed? Or better yet: SR is
only ONE of the two Lorentz transforms?

Stupid it is, no matter from which angle you approach to that fucking
paper.

LaurenceClarkCrossen

2025-03-16 21:33:18 UTC

Post by rhertz
Length contraction is the most important pillar of relativity,
originated in the efforts of Lorentz to disprove the MM experiment.
It's, after all, an inseparable outcome of Lorentz transforms, along
with time dilation.
How come this stupid part of Lorentz transforms has been abandoned, yet
the twin formula for time dilation is accepted? Both emerged from a
single mathematical framework in 1904/1905 relativity.
If one of them has been dismissed (never proved), why its associated
formula for time has been accepted?
It's an example of hypocrisy in physics, and also a sample of the
pseudoscience that relativity is.
Consider applying length contraction to an electron moving at 0.99999 c.
It should be perceived as a flat disk. This concept caused that Lorentz
(and Einstein's plagiarism) calculated longitudinal and traversal
masses.
What is the conclusion? That the 1905 SR paper has only 4 pages out of
26 with some perdurable concepts, as time passed? Or better yet: SR is
only ONE of the two Lorentz transforms?
Stupid it is, no matter from which angle you approach to that fucking
paper.

Why does relativity employ length contraction to disprove MMX when it
has no ether? No good reason.

For the two light beams in the MMX, which are both delayed differently
by the ether wind, one needs to add the length contraction to the time
dilation to account for the longitudinal beam. Otherwise, the time
dilation is different for the two beams.

Your discussion would seem to reduce length contraction to reification
fallacy.

Returning to electrons spinning faster than light and ditching
relativity would be better.

"Cracks in the Nuclear Model: Surprising Evidence for Structure"

LaurenceClarkCrossen

2025-03-17 03:18:54 UTC

"I attach special importance to the view of geometry which I have just
set forth, because without it I should have been unable to formulate the
theory of relativity. Without it the following reflection would have
been impossible:- In a system of reference rotating relatively to an
inert system, the laws of disposition of rigid bodies do not correspond
to the rules of Euclidean geometry on account of the Lorentz
contraction; thus if we admit non-inert systems we must abandon
Euclidean geometry. The decisive step in the transition to general
co-variant equations would certainly not have been taken if the above
interpretation had not served as a stepping-stone." - Einstein in
"Geometry & Experience"

Ross Finlayson

2025-03-17 17:51:36 UTC

The space-contraction and it's more FitzGeraldian keeps
the length-contraction and time-dilation together and
furthermore keeps things continuous for Poincare, ...

Einstein <- energy

Fresnel
FitzGerald
Faraday
FinlayFreundlich <- forces/fields

Lorentzians, now again Lagrangians

The "energy equivalency" is a "convenient conceit"
yet it's "sorta stupid".

Ross Finlayson

2025-03-18 16:40:13 UTC

Post by Ross Finlayson

The space-contraction and it's more FitzGeraldian keeps
the length-contraction and time-dilation together and
furthermore keeps things continuous for Poincare, ...
Einstein <- energy
Fresnel
FitzGerald
Faraday
FinlayFreundlich <- forces/fields
Lorentzians, now again Lagrangians
The "energy equivalency" is a "convenient conceit"
yet it's "sorta stupid".

I suppose you could add Fizeau, then that Fizeau is
sort of "weak SR-ians" and Faraday, Fizeau, Freundlich
sort of make for "schizo E&M SR-ians", while FitzGerald
is the bit more "proper GR-ians", though of course each
are sort of proper themselves, that big E is rather mute.

Fermi, I suppose there's Fermi, ....

Of course there's Fatio, for gravity the gravific,
for example as with regards to De Donder.

Ross Finlayson

2025-03-19 01:14:17 UTC

Post by Ross Finlayson

The space-contraction and it's more FitzGeraldian keeps
the length-contraction and time-dilation together and
furthermore keeps things continuous for Poincare, ...
Einstein <- energy
Fresnel
FitzGerald
Faraday
FinlayFreundlich <- forces/fields
Lorentzians, now again Lagrangians
The "energy equivalency" is a "convenient conceit"
yet it's "sorta stupid".

I suppose you could add Fizeau, then that Fizeau is
sort of "weak SR-ians" and Faraday, Fizeau, Freundlich
sort of make for "schizo E&M SR-ians", while FitzGerald
is the bit more "proper GR-ians", though of course each
are sort of proper themselves, that big E is rather mute.
Fermi, I suppose there's Fermi, ....
Of course there's Fatio, for gravity the gravific,
for example as with regards to De Donder.

See, each these has different conditions for the
_spaces_ and _frames_ of the _energy_ its _entelechy_
thus that the _sources_ and _propagations_ of the
emitters for detectors _varies_ yet as well that
they're all one thing overall governed by GR.

... with dynamics.

Schizos, ....

Ross Finlayson

2025-03-30 09:21:54 UTC

Post by Ross Finlayson

The space-contraction and it's more FitzGeraldian keeps
the length-contraction and time-dilation together and
furthermore keeps things continuous for Poincare, ...
Einstein <- energy
Fresnel
FitzGerald
Faraday
FinlayFreundlich <- forces/fields
Lorentzians, now again Lagrangians
The "energy equivalency" is a "convenient conceit"
yet it's "sorta stupid".

I suppose you could add Fizeau, then that Fizeau is
sort of "weak SR-ians" and Faraday, Fizeau, Freundlich
sort of make for "schizo E&M SR-ians", while FitzGerald
is the bit more "proper GR-ians", though of course each
are sort of proper themselves, that big E is rather mute.
Fermi, I suppose there's Fermi, ....
Of course there's Fatio, for gravity the gravific,
for example as with regards to De Donder.

You just planning to ignore this? Congratulations
you're not a physicist.

Paul.B.Andersen

2025-03-17 19:42:04 UTC

Post by rhertz
Length contraction is the most important pillar of relativity,
originated in the efforts of Lorentz to disprove the MM experiment.

"disprove the MM experiment"?
I suppose you mean "explain the MM null result".

According to Lorentz, it is a real contraction of the arm that
is moving longitudinally through the ether. If you rotate
the arm, its real length will change.

But in SR, there is no contraction of the arms.
The arms don't change their lengths when the interferometer
is rotated, and the speed of light is isotropic in the rest
frame of the interferometer. That's all!
Nothing changes when the interferometer is rotated,
so the null result is obvious.

Why do you insist that a contraction of the arms are
necessary to explain the null result?

Post by rhertz
It's, after all, an inseparable outcome of Lorentz transforms, along
with time dilation.

This indicates that you share the most idiotic misconception
of all, namely:
"According to SR, an arbitrary moving observer will make
the length of rods contract and make clocks run slow."

If that had been true, you would never have heard about SR,
because it would have been dead before birth.

All but morons should be able to understand the following:

An observer's speed relative to the observed object can't
affect the properties of the observed object in any way.
But the observer's speed relative to the observed object can affect
the observer's measurements of the properties of the observed object.

Think about it. Obvious, no?

According to the Lorentz transform will an observer _measure_
the length of a moving rod to be shorter than its proper length,
and she will _measure_ the rate of a moving clock to be slower
than its proper rate.

But this does obviously not mean that the moving rod has changed
its proper length, or that the proper rate of the clock has changed.
Due to her speed relative to the observed objects, her measurements
are distorted.

If you study how the measurements are made, it becomes quite obvious.

See:
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

Post by rhertz
How come this stupid part of Lorentz transforms has been abandoned, yet
the twin formula for time dilation is accepted? Both emerged from a
single mathematical framework in 1904/1905 relativity.

What are you talking about? The Lorentz transform is what it always
has been, nothing is "abounded".
"Length contraction" and "time dilation" are two sides of the same coin.
You can't have one without the other.
(In flat spacetime where SR applies.)

The twin paradox is that the proper times of the twins are different.
It is not that each twin will measure the length of the other
twin's spaceship to be shorter than his own.

See:
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
Which "contraction" do you miss in the calculations of
the proper times?

Post by rhertz
If one of them has been dismissed (never proved), why its associated
formula for time has been accepted?
It's an example of hypocrisy in physics, and also a sample of the
pseudoscience that relativity is.

You are babbling. :-D

Nothing in the LT is abounded.

Post by rhertz
Consider applying length contraction to an electron moving at 0.99999 c.
It should be perceived as a flat disk. This concept caused that Lorentz
(and Einstein's plagiarism) calculated longitudinal and traversal
masses.

And you mean SR is nonsense because electrons are
not "perceived" as flat disks in real accelerators? :-D

Post by rhertz
What is the conclusion? That the 1905 SR paper has only 4 pages out of
26 with some perdurable concepts, as time passed? Or better yet: SR is
only ONE of the two Lorentz transforms?

Doesn't the fact that you have to claim that all physicist
who accept SR as the only valid theory within its area of
applicability are:
" members of a MAFFIA, and profit from it. This is
because the different results are COOKED with the help of
statistical manipulations, fraud, cooking and peer complicity"

. . make you wonder if you could be wrong ?

No?
If you had understood the consequence of your claim,
you wouldn't have made it.

Post by rhertz
Stupid it is, no matter from which angle you approach to that fucking
paper.

There!

For a moment I wondered if you were able to write a post with
no profanities.

I didn't have to wonder. You can't.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

rhertz

2025-03-18 01:22:46 UTC

Post by rhertz
Length contraction is the most important pillar of relativity,
originated in the efforts of Lorentz to disprove the MM experiment.

"disprove the MM experiment"?
I suppose you mean "explain the MM null result".
According to Lorentz, it is a real contraction of the arm that
is moving longitudinally through the ether. If you rotate
the arm, its real length will change.
But in SR, there is no contraction of the arms.
The arms don't change their lengths when the interferometer
is rotated, and the speed of light is isotropic in the rest
frame of the interferometer. That's all!
Nothing changes when the interferometer is rotated,
so the null result is obvious.
Why do you insist that a contraction of the arms are
necessary to explain the null result?

Post by rhertz
It's, after all, an inseparable outcome of Lorentz transforms, along
with time dilation.

This indicates that you share the most idiotic misconception
"According to SR, an arbitrary moving observer will make
the length of rods contract and make clocks run slow."
If that had been true, you would never have heard about SR,
because it would have been dead before birth.
An observer's speed relative to the observed object can't
affect the properties of the observed object in any way.
But the observer's speed relative to the observed object can affect
the observer's measurements of the properties of the observed object.
Think about it. Obvious, no?
According to the Lorentz transform will an observer _measure_
the length of a moving rod to be shorter than its proper length,
and she will _measure_ the rate of a moving clock to be slower
than its proper rate.
But this does obviously not mean that the moving rod has changed
its proper length, or that the proper rate of the clock has changed.
Due to her speed relative to the observed objects, her measurements
are distorted.
If you study how the measurements are made, it becomes quite obvious.
https://paulba.no/pdf/Mutual_time_dilation.pdf

What are you talking about? The Lorentz transform is what it always
has been, nothing is "abounded".
"Length contraction" and "time dilation" are two sides of the same coin.
You can't have one without the other.
(In flat spacetime where SR applies.)
The twin paradox is that the proper times of the twins are different.
It is not that each twin will measure the length of the other
twin's spaceship to be shorter than his own.
https://paulba.no/pdf/TwinsByMetric.pdf
Which "contraction" do you miss in the calculations of
the proper times?

You are babbling. :-D
Nothing in the LT is abounded.

And you mean SR is nonsense because electrons are
not "perceived" as flat disks in real accelerators? :-D

Post by rhertz
What is the conclusion? That the 1905 SR paper has only 4 pages out of
26 with some perdurable concepts, as time passed? Or better yet: SR is
only ONE of the two Lorentz transforms?

Doesn't the fact that you have to claim that all physicist
who accept SR as the only valid theory within its area of
" members of a MAFFIA, and profit from it. This is
because the different results are COOKED with the help of
statistical manipulations, fraud, cooking and peer complicity"
.. . make you wonder if you could be wrong ?
No?
If you had understood the consequence of your claim,
you wouldn't have made it.

Post by rhertz
Stupid it is, no matter from which angle you approach to that fucking
paper.

There!
For a moment I wondered if you were able to write a post with
no profanities.
I didn't have to wonder. You can't.

Do you read what you write?
What kind of senile imbecile are you?

I insist in that you have to give up posting here, after 3 decades, and
start doing gardening. Also, invest most of your time watching how
plants grow.

You are too old to keep your narrative of the relativistic cult, and
it's PAINFULLY EMBARRASSING for others to watch how your brain degrades
at an
increasing pace, Paul.

Read this STUPIDITY that I quote from your shitty post:

****************************************************************************
All but morons should be able to understand the following:

An observer's speed relative to the observed object can't
affect the properties of the observed object in any way.
But the observer's speed relative to the observed object can affect
the observer's measurements of the properties of the observed object.

Think about it. Obvious, no?

According to the Lorentz transform will an observer _measure_
the length of a moving rod to be shorter than its proper length,
and she will _measure_ the rate of a moving clock to be slower
than its proper rate.

But this does obviously not mean that the moving rod has changed
its proper length, or that the proper rate of the clock has changed.
Due to her speed relative to the observed objects, her measurements
are distorted.
****************************************************************************

You made a mess with your word's salad. It doesn't make the slightest
sense.

Poor Paul. I sincerely pity you.

Paul.B.Andersen

2025-03-18 13:51:14 UTC

Post by rhertz
Do you read what you write?
What kind of senile imbecile are you?
I insist in that you have to give up posting here, after 3 decades, and
start doing gardening. Also, invest most of your time watching how
plants grow.
You are too old to keep your narrative of the relativistic cult, and
it's PAINFULLY EMBARRASSING for others to watch how your brain degrades
at an
increasing pace, Paul.

Richard, you are making a fool of yourself. Again!

Post by rhertz
****************************************************************************
An observer's speed relative to the observed object can't
affect the properties of the observed object in any way.
But the observer's speed relative to the observed object can affect
the observer's measurements of the properties of the observed object.
Think about it. Obvious, no?
According to the Lorentz transform will an observer _measure_
the length of a moving rod to be shorter than its proper length,
and she will _measure_ the rate of a moving clock to be slower
than its proper rate.
But this does obviously not mean that the moving rod has changed
its proper length, or that the proper rate of the clock has changed.
Due to her speed relative to the observed objects, her measurements
are distorted.
****************************************************************************

You made a mess with your word's salad. It doesn't make the slightest
sense.
Poor Paul. I sincerely pity you.

I don't believe that you are quite as stupid as you appear.
I think you didn't read what I wrote properly, and assumed that
it was nonsense.

Read this statement:
--------------------
An observer's speed relative to the observed object can't
affect the properties of the observed object in any way.
But the observer's speed relative to the observed object can affect
the observer's measurements of the properties of the observed object.

Are you proclaiming to the world that you don't understand that
the statement above is obviously true?

Let's take a concrete example:
-----------------------------
An oscillator is transmitting a radio signal with frequency f = 1 GHz.
You are moving towards the oscillator.
You measure the frequency of the radio signal to be 1.001 GHz

Have your motion towards the oscillator made the oscillator
change its frequency from 1.000 GHz to 1.001 GHz?

Of course not.
Because:
"An observer's speed relative to the observed object can't
affect the properties of the observed object in any way."

So why are you measuring a frequency 1.001 GHz when the oscillator
still is transmitting 1.000 GHz?
Because:
"the observer's speed relative to the observed object can affect
the observer's measurements of the properties of the observed object."

Same with the length of the rod.
The observer's speed relative to the rod doesn't change
the length of the rod.
Because:
"An observer's speed relative to the observed object can't
affect the properties of the observed object in any way."

The observers speed relative to the rod will according to SR
make the observer measure the rod to be shorter.
Because:
"the observer's speed relative to the observed object can affect
the observer's measurements of the properties of the observed object."

------------

Make my day:
Proclaim to the world that you think what I wrote above doesn't
make the slightest sense to you.
Add some ad hominem and top it with a profanity.

That will make you look very smart!

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

rhertz

2025-03-18 17:04:53 UTC

rhertz

2025-03-18 17:13:45 UTC

LIKE ITS LENGTH, TIME LAPSES, MASS? OF COURSE NOT, IMBECILE. AND THIS IS
WHY
I WROTE THAT YOUR COMMENT IS BEYOND IDIOCY.

Post by rhertz
But the observer's speed relative to the observed object can affect
the observer's measurements of the properties of the observed object.

ANOTHER IDIOTIC COMMENT: YOU CAN'T MEASURE REMOTELY WHAT HAPPENS ON THE
FRAME THAT'S MOVING WRT THE OBSERVER AT RELATIVE REST. IT'S JUST WHAT A
COUPLE OF EQUATIONS TELL YOU THAT YOU MUST PERCEIVE SUCH NON-SENSE.
THAT'S WHY RELATIVITY IS A PSEUDOSCIENCE, DEVELOPED FOR ASSHOLES LIKE
YOU SO YOU CAN PLAY WITH THIS SHIT AS A HOBBY FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS,
ONLINE.

Post by rhertz
Think about it. Obvious, no?

OBVIOUS IN YOUR DEFORMED, INDOCTRINATED MIND. WHICH OTHER
PSEUDOSCIENCE/CULT DO YOU SUPPORT? I BET THAT RELATIVITY IS ONE OF MANY
IN YOUR FRAGILE, GULLIBLE MIND.

Post by rhertz
According to the Lorentz transform will an observer _measure_
the length of a moving rod to be shorter than its proper length,
and she will _measure_ the rate of a moving clock to be slower
than its proper rate.
But this does obviously not mean that the moving rod has changed
its proper length, or that the proper rate of the clock has changed.
Due to her speed relative to the observed objects, her measurements
are distorted.

MORE BULLSHIT NOT WORTHY TO COMMENT.

Post by rhertz
****************************************************************************

gharnagel

2025-03-18 19:31:31 UTC

Post by rhertz
****************************************************************************

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
An observer's speed relative to the observed object can't
affect the properties of the observed object in any way.

LIKE ITS LENGTH, TIME LAPSES, MASS? OF COURSE NOT, IMBECILE. AND THIS IS
WHY I WROTE THAT YOUR COMMENT IS BEYOND IDIOCY.

It made perfect sense to me.

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
But the observer's speed relative to the observed object can

affect

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
the observer's measurements of the properties of the observed

object.
ANOTHER IDIOTIC COMMENT: YOU CAN'T MEASURE REMOTELY WHAT HAPPENS ON THE
FRAME THAT'S MOVING WRT THE OBSERVER AT RELATIVE REST.

Funny, I thought it's being done all the time on drones and space
probes.

Post by rhertz
IT'S JUST WHAT A COUPLE OF EQUATIONS TELL YOU THAT YOU MUST PERCEIVE
SUCH NON-SENSE.

The equations help us to understand what is being measured. And Paul
points out that a 1.000 GHz signal generated by a moving observer is
received at 1.001 GHz. This is explained quite easily by the Doppler
equation (the RELATIVISTIC version if the stationary observer wants a
really, really accurate measurement).

Post by rhertz
THAT'S WHY RELATIVITY IS A PSEUDOSCIENCE, DEVELOPED FOR ASSHOLES LIKE
YOU SO YOU CAN PLAY WITH THIS SHIT AS A HOBBY FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS,
ONLINE.

Paul, you're right. Hertz can't get through a post without profanity
:-)

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Think about it. Obvious, no?

OBVIOUS IN YOUR DEFORMED, INDOCTRINATED MIND. WHICH OTHER
PSEUDOSCIENCE/CULT DO YOU SUPPORT? I BET THAT RELATIVITY IS ONE OF MANY
IN YOUR FRAGILE, GULLIBLE MIND.

Hertz seems to be the one with a deformed self-indoctrinated mind
(that's the worst kind).

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
According to the Lorentz transform will an observer _measure_
the length of a moving rod to be shorter than its proper length,
and she will _measure_ the rate of a moving clock to be slower
than its proper rate.
But this does obviously not mean that the moving rod has changed
its proper length, or that the proper rate of the clock has

changed.

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Due to her speed relative to the observed objects, her

measurements

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
are distorted.

MORE BULLSHIT NOT WORTHY TO COMMENT.

You mean like Paul's explanation of a 1.000 GHz signal sent from a
moving
observer being received at 1.001 GHz? No wonder Hertz wants to forget
about that little gem that destroys his whole diatribe. And with a name
like, HERTZ, too :-)

rhertz

2025-03-18 20:25:49 UTC

Post by rhertz
****************************************************************************

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
An observer's speed relative to the observed object can't
affect the properties of the observed object in any way.

LIKE ITS LENGTH, TIME LAPSES, MASS? OF COURSE NOT, IMBECILE. AND THIS IS
WHY I WROTE THAT YOUR COMMENT IS BEYOND IDIOCY.

It made perfect sense to me.

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
But the observer's speed relative to the observed object can

affect

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
the observer's measurements of the properties of the observed

object.
ANOTHER IDIOTIC COMMENT: YOU CAN'T MEASURE REMOTELY WHAT HAPPENS ON THE
FRAME THAT'S MOVING WRT THE OBSERVER AT RELATIVE REST.

Funny, I thought it's being done all the time on drones and space
probes.

Post by rhertz
IT'S JUST WHAT A COUPLE OF EQUATIONS TELL YOU THAT YOU MUST PERCEIVE
SUCH NON-SENSE.

Post by rhertz
THAT'S WHY RELATIVITY IS A PSEUDOSCIENCE, DEVELOPED FOR ASSHOLES LIKE
YOU SO YOU CAN PLAY WITH THIS SHIT AS A HOBBY FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS,
ONLINE.

Paul, you're right. Hertz can't get through a post without profanity
:-)

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Think about it. Obvious, no?

OBVIOUS IN YOUR DEFORMED, INDOCTRINATED MIND. WHICH OTHER
PSEUDOSCIENCE/CULT DO YOU SUPPORT? I BET THAT RELATIVITY IS ONE OF MANY
IN YOUR FRAGILE, GULLIBLE MIND.

Hertz seems to be the one with a deformed self-indoctrinated mind
(that's the worst kind).

changed.

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Due to her speed relative to the observed objects, her

measurements

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
are distorted.

MORE BULLSHIT NOT WORTHY TO COMMENT.

Of course that you support Paul's shit (profanity here). Also support
the widely published daily delay of (45-7) usec that comes from
Schwarzschild applied to GPS. You HAVE TO, BECAUSE YOUR CULT OBLIGES YOU
AND CRITICIZING THE SHIT IS
PUNISHED WITH "MORTE CIVILE" IN YOUR PAGAN CHURCH.

Not even one fucking single time the change in frequency has been
measured, because it is PERCEPTUAL, and Lorentz transforms force you to
accept a MATHEMATICAL outcome. Not a physical reality, just a
MATHEMATICAL result.

But mathematics is not physics, and this can be shown also within QM.

Read my post above about THE PERCEPTION of what one electron is, because
Schrödinger wrote a beautiful equation making electrons behave as WAVES.

Why don't you study Heisenberg's Matrix Mechanics, where there are no
waves to describe electron orbitals?. Of course you can't, because you
know shit about matrixes, as 99.99% of the physicists of that epoch, who
were more "comfy" with waves.

gharnagel

2025-03-18 21:42:44 UTC

Post by rhertz
LIKE ITS LENGTH, TIME LAPSES, MASS? OF COURSE NOT, IMBECILE. AND

THIS IS

Post by rhertz
WHY I WROTE THAT YOUR COMMENT IS BEYOND IDIOCY.

It made perfect sense to me.

Post by rhertz
ANOTHER IDIOTIC COMMENT: YOU CAN'T MEASURE REMOTELY WHAT HAPPENS ON

THE

Post by rhertz
FRAME THAT'S MOVING WRT THE OBSERVER AT RELATIVE REST.

Funny, I thought it's being done all the time on drones and space
probes.

Post by rhertz
IT'S JUST WHAT A COUPLE OF EQUATIONS TELL YOU THAT YOU MUST PERCEIVE
SUCH NON-SENSE.

Post by rhertz
THAT'S WHY RELATIVITY IS A PSEUDOSCIENCE, DEVELOPED FOR ASSHOLES

Post by rhertz
YOU SO YOU CAN PLAY WITH THIS SHIT AS A HOBBY FOR MORE THAN 30

YEARS,

Post by rhertz
ONLINE.

Paul, you're right. Hertz can't get through a post without profanity
:-)

Post by rhertz
OBVIOUS IN YOUR DEFORMED, INDOCTRINATED MIND. WHICH OTHER
PSEUDOSCIENCE/CULT DO YOU SUPPORT? I BET THAT RELATIVITY IS ONE OF

MANY

Post by rhertz
IN YOUR FRAGILE, GULLIBLE MIND.

Hertz seems to be the one with a deformed self-indoctrinated mind
(that's the worst kind).

Post by rhertz
MORE BULLSHIT NOT WORTHY TO COMMENT.

You mean like Paul's explanation of a 1.000 GHz signal sent from a
moving observer being received at 1.001 GHz? No wonder Hertz wants
to forget about that little gem that destroys his whole diatribe.
And with a name like, HERTZ, too :-)

Of course that you support Paul's shit (profanity here).

I only support what I have determined the way the world actually works.
I do this by studying EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE and adjusting my belief
system to agree with that, rather then having a frozen belief system
like certain people in this "discussion" group.

"Try being informed instead of just opinionated." -- Anon.

Post by rhertz
Also support the widely published daily delay of (45-7) usec that
comes from Schwarzschild applied to GPS. You HAVE TO, BECAUSE YOUR
CULT OBLIGES YOU AND CRITICIZING THE SHIT IS PUNISHED WITH "MORTE
CIVILE" IN YOUR PAGAN CHURCH.

I support it because it has been measured:

"At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977), which
contained the first Cesium clock to be placed in orbit, there were some
who doubted that relativistic effects were real. [Like certain reality-
deniers who frequent this group] A frequency synthesizer was built
into the satellite clock system so that after launch, if in fact the
rate of the clock in its final orbit was that predicted by GR, then the
synthesizer could be turned on bringing the clock to the coordinate
rate necessary for operation. The atomic clock was first operated for
about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on the synthe-
sizer. The frequency measured during that interval was +442.5 parts
in 10^12 faster than clocks on the ground; if left uncorrected this
would have resulted in timing errors of about 38,000 nanoseconds per
day." -- Neil Ashby
http://www.leapsecond.com/history/Ashby-Relativity.htm

Post by rhertz
Not even one fucking single time the change in frequency has been
measured,

Denial of reality is a mental disorder.

Post by rhertz
because it is PERCEPTUAL, and Lorentz transforms force you to
accept a MATHEMATICAL outcome. Not a physical reality, just a
MATHEMATICAL result.

"It is surely harmful to souls to make it a heresy to believe what is

Post by rhertz
proved." -- Galileo Galilei
But mathematics is not physics,

This is true. Mathematics is a tool, not a straitjacket.

Post by rhertz
and this can be shown also within QM.

“It is safe to say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.”
-- Richard Feynman

Post by rhertz
Read my post above about THE PERCEPTION of what one electron is, because
Schrödinger wrote a beautiful equation making electrons behave as WAVES.

You don't seem to understand physics at all, even after having had it
explained to you many times before. There are more than one type of
physicist. One type makes measurements of reality and another makes
models
that agree with reality - at least up to a point. The Schrödinger
equation
is such a model. It explains A LOT, but not everything.

Post by rhertz
Why don't you study Heisenberg's Matrix Mechanics, where there are no
waves to describe electron orbitals?

It's a different model of reality which has been shown to be equivalent
to the wave equation.

Post by rhertz
Of course you can't, because you know shit about matrixes,

You are wrong, young padawan learner. I studied the matrix approach a
bit years ago. It's less intuitive than wave mechanics, but it's
necessary to just "shut up and calculate" with either. Your intuition
is probably wrong, anyway.

“If you are not completely confused by quantum mechanics,
you do not understand it.” -- John Wheeler

Post by rhertz
as 99.99% of the physicists of that epoch, who were more "comfy" with
waves.

Just goes to show that there's always more than one way to skin a cat.
It depends on what you're more comfortable with.

Let's talk about quantum field theory. QFT is based on special
relativity.
There have been several attempts to apply QFT to tachyons, without much
success. The reason for this may well be because the LTEs don't work
with
tachyons. The problem is that the velocity composition equation has a
discontinuity, a singularity, at u' = c^2/v, which places a limit on its
domain of applicability. Really smart physicists have ignored this
point
in their haste to label tachyons as nonexistent. If you REALLY wanted
to
chew on something with substance, you'd sink your teeth into that.

rhertz

2025-03-19 00:58:28 UTC

On Tue, 18 Mar 2025 21:42:44 +0000, gharnagel wrote:

<snip>

Post by gharnagel
I only support what I have determined the way the world actually works.
I do this by studying EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE and adjusting my belief
system to agree with that, rather then having a frozen belief system
like certain people in this "discussion" group.

YOUR "EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE" IS JUST BULLSHIT (Warning: mild profanity
here).

Your belief is trapped in circular and fallacious logic. Here is why:

- The "evidence" is the result of theoretical calculations, not
measurements.

- Suppose that the time of the onboard Cs clock is measured by
accumulating
counts of cycles of the 10.23 Mhz master TCXO clock. This, to
accumulate
pulses with a period of 97.7517 nsec during 86,400 sec, requires an
onboard
digital counter displaying 883,872,000,000 counts (12 digits). Such
data,
at the end of the 24 hours period MUST be sent down to Earth station,
where
a twin Cs clock is also counting pulses in sync with the onboard Cs
clock.
Will a comparison differ in 389 LOST PULSES (38 usec)?
I don't think so and even less that such ONLY SOLUTION to the problem
had
even implemented to prove the fucking (WARNING: severe profanity)
relativity
in 1977. If you think so, you are an imbecile beyond redemption.

- The calculation of the 38 usec/day REQUIRES A THEORETICAL SEPARATION
of GR
and SR effects using Schwarzschild. It's the same crap that in the
Hafele-
Keating 1972 experiment, where data for SR and GR were calculated
theoretically.

- The ALLEGED EFFECT of the 7 us/day due to SR are MISCALCULATED using
Schwarzschild, because this alleged effect MANIFEST in rectilinear
trajectories, NOT IN NON-INERTIAL TRAJECTORIES OF AN ELLIPTIC ORBIT!!!

I left this here because I'm tired of throwing FACTS on the table. You
will rationalize and negate what I wrote.

This is enough for me. Relativity IS A FARCE, A PSEUDOSCIENCE, A CULT.

Post by gharnagel
"Try being informed instead of just opinionated." -- Anon.

"At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977), which
contained the first Cesium clock to be placed in orbit, there were some
who doubted that relativistic effects were real. [Like certain reality-
deniers who frequent this group] A frequency synthesizer was built
into the satellite clock system so that after launch, if in fact the
rate of the clock in its final orbit was that predicted by GR, then the
synthesizer could be turned on bringing the clock to the coordinate
rate necessary for operation. The atomic clock was first operated for
about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on the synthe-
sizer. The frequency measured during that interval was +442.5 parts
in 10^12 faster than clocks on the ground; if left uncorrected this
would have resulted in timing errors of about 38,000 nanoseconds per
day." -- Neil Ashby
http://www.leapsecond.com/history/Ashby-Relativity.htm

Post by rhertz
Not even one fucking single time the change in frequency has been
measured,

Denial of reality is a mental disorder.

<snip>

gharnagel

2025-03-19 15:43:57 UTC

Post by rhertz
<snip>

Post by gharnagel
I only support what I have determined the way the world actually

works.

Post by gharnagel
I do this by studying EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE and adjusting my belief
system to agree with that, rather then having a frozen belief system
like certain people in this "discussion" group.

YOUR "EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE" IS JUST BULLSHIT (Warning: mild profanity
here).

First of all, it's not "my" experimental evidence, it's experiments
performed by scientists, usually MUCH smarter than you or me. That
doesn't mean that they're infallible. They make mistakes and I've
caught them at it. However, dismissing ALL experimental evidence, as
YOU do, is demented nonsense.

Post by rhertz
- The "evidence" is the result of theoretical calculations, not
measurements.

This is total claptrap. "Theoretical calculations" have been refuted
many times by solid experimental measurements. Denial of that is YOUR
mental illness. History is littered with theories have fallen by the
wayside, all due to experimental evidence.

Post by rhertz
- Suppose that the time of the onboard Cs clock is measured by
accumulating counts of cycles of the 10.23 Mhz master TCXO clock.
This, to accumulate pulses with a period of 97.7517 nsec during
86,400 sec, requires an onboard digital counter displaying
883,872,000,000 counts (12 digits). Such data, at the end of the
24 hours period MUST be sent down to Earth station, where a twin
Cs clock is also counting pulses in sync with the onboard Cs
clock.

Why do you say it's "in sync"? That's a canard.

Post by rhertz
Will a comparison differ in 389 LOST PULSES (38 usec)?
I don't think so and even less that such ONLY SOLUTION to the
problem had even implemented to prove the [severe profanity deleted])
relativity.

That is a gross distortion of what really occurred. First you delete
the evidence and then you misrepresent it.

"The atomic clock was first operated for about 20 days to measure
its clock rate before turning on the synthesizer. The frequency
measured during that interval was +442.5 parts in 10^12 faster than
clocks on the ground"

There were no "lost pulses" because the frequency received from the
satellites on the ground was HIGHER than the frequency on the ground,
not lower.

Post by rhertz
in 1977. If you think so, you are an imbecile beyond redemption.

"In order to insult me, I must first value your opinion…
Nice try though." -- Anon.

Post by rhertz
- The calculation of the 38 usec/day REQUIRES A THEORETICAL
SEPARATION of GR and SR effects using Schwarzschild.

You prove once again that you don't understand the physics. The
calculation CAN be separated but it's not necessary to do so. The
Schwarzschild metric includes both the gravitational AND the
velocity effects. You plug the gravitational and the velocity into
the equation and out pops the 38 usec/day. They are separated so
novices can comprehend what's happening. Unfortunately, mentally-
incompetent paranoids jump to crazy conclusions.

Post by rhertz
It's the same crap that in the Hafele-Keating 1972 experiment,
where data for SR and GR were calculated theoretically.

You seem to have an aversion to comparing experimental results with
a theory. That's hypocritical since YOU are denying the results
because they disagree with YOUR theory (Newtonian, I guess).

Post by rhertz
- The ALLEGED EFFECT of the 7 us/day due to SR are MISCALCULATED using
Schwarzschild, because this alleged effect MANIFEST in rectilinear
trajectories, NOT IN NON-INERTIAL TRAJECTORIES OF AN ELLIPTIC ORBIT!!!

"Rectilinear"? You are wrong again because you don't understand
what a spherically-symmetric solution is.

"Non-inertial"? So you are implying that the astronauts in the ISS
are slammed around inside because they're not in a perfectly circular
orbit?

Post by rhertz
I left this here because I'm tired of throwing FACTS on the table.
You will rationalize and negate what I wrote.

You are wrong again. You throw nonsense and BS, as conclusively
proven above. And you've been doing nothing but rationalization.

Post by rhertz
This is enough for me. Relativity IS A FARCE, A PSEUDOSCIENCE, A CULT.

Says the mathematically and scientifically illiterate blow-hard :-)

Post by gharnagel
"Try being informed instead of just opinionated." -- Anon.

Not even one [Asinine behavior deleted] single time the change
in frequency has been measured,

And in his later post he says it has :-))

Post by gharnagel
Denial of reality is a mental disorder.

<snip>

Yep, Hertz's brain seems to have had a few neurons snipped off.

Maciej Wozniak

2025-03-19 16:09:18 UTC

Post by rhertz
<snip>

Post by gharnagel
I only support what I have determined the way the world actually

works.

YOUR "EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE" IS JUST BULLSHIT (Warning: mild profanity
here).

Well, quite oppositely. Only primitive morons,
like yourself, can believe in that mystical crap.

rhertz

2025-03-19 16:16:47 UTC

Post by rhertz
<snip>

Post by gharnagel
I only support what I have determined the way the world actually

works.

YOUR "EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE" IS JUST BULLSHIT (Warning: mild profanity
here).

Post by rhertz
- The "evidence" is the result of theoretical calculations, not
measurements.

Why do you say it's "in sync"? That's a canard.

That is a gross distortion of what really occurred. First you delete
the evidence and then you misrepresent it.
"The atomic clock was first operated for about 20 days to measure
its clock rate before turning on the synthesizer. The frequency
measured during that interval was +442.5 parts in 10^12 faster than
clocks on the ground"
There were no "lost pulses" because the frequency received from the
satellites on the ground was HIGHER than the frequency on the ground,
not lower.

Post by rhertz
in 1977. If you think so, you are an imbecile beyond redemption.

"In order to insult me, I must first value your opinion…
Nice try though." -- Anon.

Post by rhertz
- The calculation of the 38 usec/day REQUIRES A THEORETICAL
SEPARATION of GR and SR effects using Schwarzschild.

Post by rhertz
It's the same crap that in the Hafele-Keating 1972 experiment,
where data for SR and GR were calculated theoretically.

You seem to have an aversion to comparing experimental results with
a theory. That's hypocritical since YOU are denying the results
because they disagree with YOUR theory (Newtonian, I guess).

"Rectilinear"? You are wrong again because you don't understand
what a spherically-symmetric solution is.
"Non-inertial"? So you are implying that the astronauts in the ISS
are slammed around inside because they're not in a perfectly circular
orbit?

Post by rhertz
I left this here because I'm tired of throwing FACTS on the table.
You will rationalize and negate what I wrote.

You are wrong again. You throw nonsense and BS, as conclusively
proven above. And you've been doing nothing but rationalization.

Post by rhertz
This is enough for me. Relativity IS A FARCE, A PSEUDOSCIENCE, A CULT.

Says the mathematically and scientifically illiterate blow-hard :-)

Post by gharnagel
"Try being informed instead of just opinionated." -- Anon.

Not even one [Asinine behavior deleted] single time the change
in frequency has been measured,

And in his later post he says it has :-))

Post by gharnagel
Denial of reality is a mental disorder.

<snip>

Yep, Hertz's brain seems to have had a few neurons snipped off.

I'll not address the entire string of idiotic comments that you added to
my post.

I'll just focus on a couple of things that your "BRAIN" fails to
distinguish.

1) In sync means that both Cs clocks start measuring 1 day (86,400 sec)
by
signaling both with an EM beep (could be through an encoded laser shot,
which moves at c speed, you know?).

2) I, specifically and with details, wrote that each pulse of both
master clocks at 10.23 Mhz HAS TO BE ACCUMULATED IN 12 DIGIT COUNTERS!
Hard to understand for you?.

Once the lapse is finished, the GPS satellite TRANSMIT CODIFIED
INFORMATION OF ITS 12 DIGIT COUNTER, while at the same time the Earth's
counter information is stored for comparison.

THE FREQUENCY OF THE CARRIER THAT TRANSMIT THE DATA IS IRRELEVANT,
BECAUSE ONLY THE TRANSMITTED INFORMATION IS WHAT IS WORTH.

Because of the use of digital information (not any ANALOG MEASUREMENT
INVOLVED), your relativistic CALCULATIONS HAVE NO VALUE. Only the data
with the final count is what is used to DISPROVE your (profanity here)
FUCKING RELATIVITY.

If you want a more GROTESQUE WAY to prove my point, build A GIANT
DISPLAY WITH 12 DIGITS on the GPS satellite, so it can be read with a
telescope from Earth.

Do you understand this, or will keep playing the IDIOT ROLE here?

3) The general Schwarzschild solution (the only one used by retarded
relativists) CAN'T PROVIDE SEPARATE RESULTS FOR SR AND GR. Because of
that,
the result IS SPLIT in two parts (GR delay and SR delay). GR result is a
function ONLY of the average height of the satellite, assuming circular
orbits.

BUT, the SR result IS FALSE/FALLACIOUS, because the motion of the
satellite IS NOT INERTIAL. It contains a component of acceleration due
to its elliptic orbit.

THEREFORE, the 7 usec that result from the SR part are completely FALSE
and don't verify the domain of applicability of the 1905 SR CRAP!

Do you understand now, imbecile? (sorry for the profanity, but it
suits).

I can't explain it better than that for a "human" being. My dog, sitting
by me, is approving the explanation. A fucking (sorry) dog digs it, but
you can't?

Go out to make gardening with Paul. You are way to indoctrinated to
think openly and clearly. YOU ARE A FUCKING (sorry) MENTAL SLAVE OF THE
CULT'S NARRATIVE, like Paul is.

I'm not. I don't give a fuck about EVERYTHING WRITTEN AND PUBLISHED in
the last 100 years. I read, REASON FREELY and then adopt a position
without BIASES OF ANY KIND.

You could try to think freely too.

gharnagel

2025-03-19 18:39:24 UTC

Post by rhertz
I'll just focus on a couple of things that your "BRAIN" fails to
distinguish.
1) In sync means that both Cs clocks start measuring 1 day (86,400 sec)
by signaling both with an EM beep (could be through an encoded laser
shot,
which moves at c speed, you know?).

Oh, how do YOU know they travel at c? The satellites are MOVING, you
know. Why would you believe the signal from the satellite travels at
c?

But given that c were constant, then they would use EINSTEIN
synchronization to synchronize the clocks, but the clocks didn't STAY
in sync, which blows your whole argument down.

Post by rhertz
2) I, specifically and with details, wrote that each pulse of both
master clocks at 10.23 Mhz HAS TO BE ACCUMULATED IN 12 DIGIT COUNTERS!
Hard to understand for you?.

Is it hard for you to understand that the signal from the clock in orbit
was received at 10.23+ MHz, which means that the onboard counters
accumulated MORE counts than the one on the ground? And that all your
detailed gyrations are irrelevant?

Post by rhertz
Once the lapse is finished, the GPS satellite TRANSMIT CODIFIED
INFORMATION OF ITS 12 DIGIT COUNTER, while at the same time the Earth's
counter information is stored for comparison.

And the satellite counter accumulated more counts than the earth
counter.

Post by rhertz
THE FREQUENCY OF THE CARRIER THAT TRANSMIT THE DATA IS IRRELEVANT,
BECAUSE ONLY THE TRANSMITTED INFORMATION IS WHAT IS WORTH.

So how did the satellite counter accumulate more counts than the earth
counter, rocket boy?

Post by rhertz
3) The general Schwarzschild solution (the only one used by retarded
relativists) CAN'T PROVIDE SEPARATE RESULTS FOR SR AND GR. Because of
that,

Look, mathematically-incompetent gasbag:

dTau^2/dt^2 = 1 - 2GM/(Rc^2) - v^2/c^2

where v is the orbital velocity (I've left out radial velocity effects).

There you see the gravitational part and the velocity part all nicely
and neatly packaged in the same equation, easily separated by anyone
to see with a brain not snipped of its neurons.

Post by rhertz
the result IS SPLIT in two parts (GR delay and SR delay). GR result is a
function ONLY of the average height of the satellite, assuming circular
orbits.

Completely demented falsehood.

Post by rhertz
BUT, the SR result IS FALSE/FALLACIOUS, because the motion of the
satellite IS NOT INERTIAL. It contains a component of acceleration due
to its elliptic orbit.

Doubling down on incompetent stupidity, I see.

Post by rhertz
THEREFORE, the 7 usec that result from the SR part are completely FALSE
and don't verify the domain of applicability of the 1905 SR CRAP!

That's a very ignorant assertion. The v is the equation above is
derived from R*dTheta/dt in the Schw. metric, so it's not "recti-
linear at all. This is borne out in accelerator experiments where
radioactive particles traveling around in circles experience time
dilated decays. SR works! So does GR.

Stupid, stupid young padawan learner who refuses to acknowledge the
wisdom of the Jedi.

Post by rhertz
Do you understand now, imbecile? (sorry for the profanity, but it
suits).

Well, that's the suit YOU wear when you double down on your ignorance.

Post by rhertz
I can't explain it better than that for a "human" being. My dog,
sitting by me, is approving the explanation. A fucking (sorry) dog
digs it, but you can't?

If you believe a dog understands how to count 10.3 MHz pulses, then
you're stupider than even I thought.

Post by rhertz
Go out to make gardening with Paul. You are way to indoctrinated to
think openly and clearly. YOU ARE A FUCKING (sorry) MENTAL SLAVE OF THE
CULT'S NARRATIVE, like Paul is.

Pot, kettle, black. You'll never be a physicist at this rate.

Post by rhertz
I'm not. I don't give a fuck about EVERYTHING WRITTEN AND PUBLISHED in
the last 100 years. I read, REASON FREELY and then adopt a position
without BIASES OF ANY KIND.

You're not into self-criticism, are you. So you believe that YOU don't
have biases? You are WAY stupider than I thought.

Post by rhertz
You could try to think freely too.

I do, just ask PCH. But at least I draw the limit at what may be rather
than what is complete fantasy.

“The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its
limits” -- Albert Einstein

Maciej Wozniak

2025-03-19 19:29:25 UTC

Oh, how do YOU know they travel at c? The satellites are MOVING, you
know. Why would you believe the signal from the satellite travels at
c?
But given that c were constant, then they would use EINSTEIN
synchronization to synchronize the clocks,

No, poor halfbrain, they wouldn't.
The Holiest Procedure you're
worshipping is primitive and
worthless.

Paul.B.Andersen

2025-03-19 19:53:36 UTC

Post by rhertz
<snip>

YOUR "EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE" IS JUST BULLSHIT (Warning: mild profanity
here).
- The "evidence" is the result of theoretical calculations, not
measurements.

I suppose you are talking about the GPS.

Below gharnagel has explained that the rate of an uncorrected
was measured for 40 days and found to be fast.
I will add one important thing, though.
It is obviously impossible to measure the frequency of the signal
from the ground, the Doppler shift is many order of magnitude
bigger than the GR correction so that was not what was done..
The SV is transmitting its time, and there are a number of
monitoring stations that can read what time of the SV clock.

https://paulba.no/paper/Ashby.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf

The reading of the SV clock was compared to the master clock.
When the uncorrected clock had run for 6 day's it was 229.4 μs
ahead of the master clock, that's 38.2 μs/day or (1 + 442.5e-12)
too fast.

FACT: The measurements in 1977 _proved_ that the proper time τ₁
of the unadjusted clock in NTS-2 advanced faster than
the proper time τ₀ of the clock on the ground, and the difference
was dτ₁/dτ₀ = (1 + 4.425e-10)

GR predicts dτ₁/dτ₀ = (1 + 4.4647e-10), GR confirmed within less than 1%

Close to 50 years operation of the GPS has confirmed GR to much
better precision.

You have been told this many times, but you seem to believe
that you cam make facts go away by calling them BULLSHIT.

But facts won't go away, so you are only making a fool of yourself
by denying their existence.

Post by rhertz
- Suppose that the time of the onboard Cs clock is measured by
accumulating
counts of cycles of the 10.23 Mhz master TCXO clock. This, to
accumulate
pulses with a period of 97.7517 nsec during 86,400 sec, requires an
onboard
digital counter displaying 883,872,000,000 counts (12 digits). Such
data,
at the end of the 24 hours period MUST be sent down to Earth station,
where
a twin Cs clock is also counting pulses in sync with the onboard Cs
clock.

If the satellite counter is counting the cycles from the 10.23 MHz
oscillator for 86,400 sec measured in the satellite, then:

the satellite counter counts 883872000000 cycles

The ground counter counts 883872000000 cycles.

Post by rhertz
Will a comparison differ in 389 LOST PULSES (38 usec)?

Which pulses do you miss? :-D

I wonder, is it a trick to imply that some pulses should be missing,
or do you really believe that there according to GR should be some?

I understand from where your blunder comes, though.

If the satellite transmitted the 10.23 MHz, then according to GR
883872000394 pulses would hit the ground during one solar day.
Obviously impossible to count.

But you are right about one thing.
If GR had predicted what you think it predicts, GR would be nonsense.
But it doesn't.

Post by rhertz
I don't think so and even less that such ONLY SOLUTION to the problem
had
even implemented to prove the fucking (WARNING: severe profanity)
relativity
in 1977. If you think so, you are an imbecile beyond redemption.
- The calculation of the 38 usec/day REQUIRES A THEORETICAL SEPARATION
of GR
and SR effects using Schwarzschild. It's the same crap that in the
Hafele-
Keating 1972 experiment, where data for SR and GR were calculated
theoretically.
- The ALLEGED EFFECT of the 7 us/day due to SR are MISCALCULATED using
Schwarzschild, because this alleged effect MANIFEST in rectilinear
trajectories, NOT IN NON-INERTIAL TRAJECTORIES OF AN ELLIPTIC ORBIT!!!
I left this here because I'm tired of throwing FACTS on the table. You
will rationalize and negate what I wrote.

You claim to be an engineer.
When an engineer by practical measurement finds that the SV clock
runs too fast by Δf/f = 4.425e-10, wouldn't he correct the problem
by adjusting the clock down by Δf/f = - 4.425e-10 ?

What would the engineer Richard Hertz do?
Claim that the measurements must be wrong because he did't
get the expected result, and give up the GPS project?

Post by gharnagel
"At the time of launch of the first NTS-2 satellite (June 1977), which
contained the first Cesium clock to be placed in orbit, there were some
who doubted that relativistic effects were real. [Like certain reality-
deniers who frequent this group] A frequency synthesizer was built
into the satellite clock system so that after launch, if in fact the
rate of the clock in its final orbit was that predicted by GR, then the
synthesizer could be turned on bringing the clock to the coordinate
rate necessary for operation. The atomic clock was first operated for
about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on the synthe-
sizer. The frequency measured during that interval was +442.5 parts
in 10^12 faster than clocks on the ground; if left uncorrected this
would have resulted in timing errors of about 38,000 nanoseconds per
day." -- Neil Ashby
http://www.leapsecond.com/history/Ashby-Relativity.htm

Post by rhertz
Not even one fucking single time the change in frequency has been
measured,

Denial of reality is a mental disorder.

<snip>

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

rhertz

2025-03-19 21:38:48 UTC

On Wed, 19 Mar 2025 19:53:36 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

<snip all the repeated crap. I left this part as a sample of your
idiocy>

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
You claim to be an engineer.
When an engineer by practical measurement finds that the SV clock
runs too fast by Δf/f = 4.425e-10, wouldn't he correct the problem
by adjusting the clock down by Δf/f = - 4.425e-10 ?
What would the engineer Richard Hertz do?
Claim that the measurements must be wrong because he did't
get the expected result, and give up the GPS project?

<snip>

You are an engineer too.

The other imbecile wrote that BOTH Cs clocks are locally running at
10,230,000.000000 Hz. But THIS IS NOT WHAT RELATIVISTS CLAIM.

They claim that the onboard TCXO master clock was tuned to
10,229,999.995430 Hz,
with a difference of 0.00457 Hz wrt the Earth'c clock.

Clock on Earth station: accumulates 883,872,000,000 pulses in 86400 sec
(1 day).

Clock on GPS SV: accumulates 883,871,999,605 pulses in 86400 sec (1
day).

The difference digital counters would register is of 395 pulses which,
with a
period of 97.7517106549365 ns gives a daily difference of
-38.5970696442754 us, which is what relativists claim as the "error"
between both clocks.

The STUPID CLAIM OF RELATIVISTS is that the frequency L1 (1575.42 Mhz),
which is GENERATED BY MULTIPLYING THE MASTER FREQUENCY OF 10.23 Mhz by
EXACTLY 154 is what ALLOWS THAT SUCH CARRIER REACHES EARTH AS IF IT WAS
GENERATED BY THE ONBOARD Cs CLOCK WORKING AT 10,229,999.995430 Hz,
creating an L1 carrier at the GPS SV of 1,575,419,999.29622 Hz.

When that GPS carrier reaches Earth, it has been shifted (by the
mathemagics of relativity) to EXACTLY 1,575,412 Hz = 10,230,000 Hz x
154.

Dou you understood what I wrote above, imbecile?

Relativists CLAIM FOR 50 YEARS that when they TURNED ON the correction
on the onboard master TCXO, lowering the frequency by 0.00457 Hz, they
COMPENSATED RELATIVISTIC EFFECTS ON THE ORBITING CS clock and associated
higher frequencies.

And that IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE, HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN NOR IN THE '70s
NEITHER IN THE LAST 50 YEARS, BECAUSE IT'S ABSOLUTELY DECEIVING, A
FUCKING LIE.

If it was TRUE, ask them to publicly show the downloaded DIGITAL COUNT
OF PULSES of the orbiting TCXO, to fact-check with the associated count
of the clock at the Earth station.

Now, asshole (sorry for the profanity), PROVE ME WRONG.

gharnagel

2025-03-20 04:03:33 UTC

Post by rhertz
The other imbecile wrote that BOTH Cs clocks are locally running at
10,230,000.000000 Hz. But THIS IS NOT WHAT RELATIVISTS CLAIM.

Yes, it is. Rather, that's what they were running at before the
synthesizer was activated:

"The atomic clock was first operated for about 20 days to measure its
clock rate before turning on the synthesizer. The frequency measured
during that interval was +442.5 parts in 10^12 faster than clocks on
the ground"

Post by rhertz
They claim that the onboard TCXO master clock was tuned to
10,229,999.995430 Hz, with a difference of 0.00457 Hz wrt the
Earth'c clock.

This was AFTER the approximately 20 days that the clock rate was not
adjusted with the synthesizer, as quoted above. You seem to have a
reading comprehension problem.

Post by rhertz
Clock on Earth station: accumulates 883,872,000,000 pulses in 86400 sec
(1 day).
Clock on GPS SV: accumulates 883,871,999,605 pulses in 86400 sec (1
day).

You're still not comprehending the experiment. You are conflating two
different parts of the experiment.

The 20+ days were measured by clocks on the ground. Then the clock in
orbit was interrogated and found to have counted more pulses than the
one on the ground, not fewer as you continue to falsely assert.

AFTER the synthesizer was switched in, the clocks were in sync. This
was because the frequency was slightly reduced to 10.23- MHz so the
clock in orbit read the same as measured on the ground.

Post by rhertz
The difference digital counters would register is of 395 pulses which,
with a
period of 97.7517106549365 ns gives a daily difference of
-38.5970696442754 us, which is what relativists claim as the "error"
between both clocks.

All of your calculations are meaningless. You keep babbling about
86400 seconds, which one week, but the experiment was about 3 weeks
long before the synthesizer was switched in.

Post by rhertz
The STUPID CLAIM OF RELATIVISTS is that the frequency L1 (1575.42 Mhz),
which is GENERATED BY MULTIPLYING THE MASTER FREQUENCY OF 10.23 Mhz by
EXACTLY 154 is what ALLOWS THAT SUCH CARRIER REACHES EARTH AS IF IT WAS
GENERATED BY THE ONBOARD Cs CLOCK WORKING AT 10,229,999.995430 Hz,
creating an L1 carrier at the GPS SV of 1,575,419,999.29622 Hz.

As Paul said, you are spouting nonsense. The carrier has nothing to do
with the difference in clock rates. He also pointed out that Doppler
shift would swamp out the tiny GR error.

Post by rhertz
When that GPS carrier reaches Earth, it has been shifted (by the
mathemagics of relativity) to EXACTLY 1,575,412 Hz = 10,230,000 Hz x
154.
Dou you understood what I wrote above, imbecile?

I understand that only an imbecile could have written what you wrote.

"Try being informed instead of just opinionated." -- Anon.

Post by rhertz
And that IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE, HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN NOR IN THE '70s
NEITHER IN THE LAST 50 YEARS, BECAUSE IT'S ABSOLUTELY DECEIVING, A
FUCKING LIE.

The only lies being told here are by Richard Hertz.

Post by rhertz
If it was TRUE, ask them to publicly show the downloaded DIGITAL COUNT
OF PULSES of the orbiting TCXO, to fact-check with the associated count
of the clock at the Earth station.

Only a demented paranoid would make such a demand.

Post by rhertz
Now, asshole (sorry for the profanity), PROVE ME WRONG.

The birds sent up now go up with the clock frequency offset by the
amount predicted by relativity built in, so you have the proof, you
just refuse to believe scientists when they assert it. That's because
you have a mental illness called paranoia.

Maciej Wozniak

2025-03-20 05:27:16 UTC

Post by rhertz
The other imbecile wrote that BOTH Cs clocks are locally running at
10,230,000.000000 Hz. But THIS IS NOT WHAT RELATIVISTS CLAIM.

Yes, it is. Rather, that's what they were running at before the
"The atomic clock was first operated for about 20 days to measure its
clock rate before turning on the synthesizer.

And during 20 days of disorder the reality matched
the moronic prophecies of your idiot guru; after
20 days common sense switched them off. Of course.

Paul.B.Andersen

2025-03-20 21:24:30 UTC

Post by rhertz
<snip all the repeated crap. I left this part as a sample of your
idiocy>

<snip>
You are an engineer too.
The other imbecile wrote that BOTH Cs clocks are locally running at
10,230,000.000000 Hz. But THIS IS NOT WHAT RELATIVISTS CLAIM.

No, that was what YOU said.
I was responding to your scenario:

Richard Hertz wrote:
|- Suppose that the time of the onboard Cs clock is measured
| by accumulating counts of cycles of the 10.23 Mhz master
| TCXO clock. This, to accumulate pulses with a period of
| 97.7517 nsec during 86,400 sec, requires an onboard
| digital counter displaying 883,872,000,000 counts (12 digits).
| Such data, at the end of the 24 hours period MUST be sent
| down to Earth station, where a twin Cs clock is also counting
| pulses in sync with the onboard Cs clock.
| Will a comparison differ in 389 LOST PULSES (38 usec)?

You say that the reference frequency is 10.23 Mhz, but in
a GPS SV clock the reference frequency is: 10.2299999954326 MHz

So the clock you describe is an ordinary clock running
at the rate defined by SI.
After 86,400 seconds the clock will show 86,400 seconds,
and your counter would have counted 86400*10.23e6 = 883872000000 cycles,
just as you correctly states.

An ordinary SI-clock will obviously always show 86400 seconds
when it has been running for 86400 seconds.
It doesn't matter if the clock is in a satellite, on the ground
or on the moon.

--------------------------

But let us see if we can find your missing pulses.
A "solar day" is defined as the time between each time the sun
passes the same meridian. Let us suppose that we are at one
of the two times of the year when a solar day by a clock
at Earth's geoid is measured to be 86400 seconds.

A normal clock with rate as defined by SI which is in GPS orbit
will according to GR measure a solar day to be
86400*(1+4.4647e-10) s = 86400s + 38.575μs

Note that this means that the SV clock will be 38.575μs
more ahead of the ground clock every day.

The number of pulses from the oscillator counted by your counter
will then be 86400*(1+4.4647e-10)*10.23e6 = 883872000394 pulses.

The counter on the ground will count 86400*10.23e6 = 883872000000
pulses from the local oscillator.
So the counter in the SV will count 394 pulses more.

There are your missing counts.

-------------------------

Your blunder was that you didn't realise that a "day" measured
by the clock in the SV is 38.575μs longer that a day measured by
a clock on the ground. This is THE central point.

So when you specified that the counter should count the pulses
during 86400 seconds, you missed the pulses sent during the 38.575μs.

That's why I wrote:

"If the satellite counter is counting the cycles from the 10.23 MHz
oscillator for 86,400 sec measured in the satellite, then:
the satellite counter counts 883872000000 cycles"

Post by rhertz
They claim that the onboard TCXO master clock was tuned to
10,229,999.995430 Hz,
with a difference of 0.00457 Hz wrt the Earth'c clock.

Right. But in your scenario you specified an uncorrected clock.

In a real GPS satellite the reference oscillator is adjusted down
by the factor (1-4.4647e-10) so it will measure the number of second
during a solar day to be (86400s + 38.575μs)*(1-4.4647e-10) = 86400s

So it will stay in sync with the ground clock.

Post by rhertz
Clock on Earth station: accumulates 883,872,000,000 pulses in 86400 sec
(1 day).

Right.

Post by rhertz
Clock on GPS SV: accumulates 883,871,999,605 pulses in 86400 sec (1
day).

It accumulates 883872000000 pulses in (86400s + 38.575μs) (1 day)

What are you talking about?
All the frequencies in the SV are derived from the reference
frequency 10.2299999954326 MHz.
There is no "MASTER FREQUENCY OF 10.23 Mhz" in the SV.

From the Interface Specification Document.
------------------------------------------
The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be coherently
derived from a common frequency source within the SV. The nominal
frequency of this source -- as it appears to an observer on the ground
-- is 10.23 MHz. The SV carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they
would appear to an observer located in the SV -- are offset to
compensate for relativistic effects. The clock rates are offset by
Δf/f = -4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping
rate of 10.23 MHz offset by a Δf = -4.5674E-3 Hz. This is equal to
10.2299999954326 MHz.

The "common frequency source within the SV" is 10.2299999954326 MHz.

The main reason for the GR correction is to make the SV clock
run synchronously to UTC.
(Or to the GPS coordinated time which is the same as UTC but for
a known offset)

Post by rhertz
When that GPS carrier reaches Earth, it has been shifted (by the
mathemagics of relativity) to EXACTLY 1,575,412 Hz = 10,230,000 Hz x
154.

When the carrier reaches the receiver it is Doppler shifted
up to Δf/f = ± 1e-7 , up to 200 times the GR correction.

The frequency of the carrier is irrelevant, the receiver
must have bandwidth enough to receive the carriers from
up to 12 satellites. The carriers are all Doppler shifted
differently.

The satellites are not separated by their frequency, but
by their PRN sequence.

The frequency that is important is the shipping rate,
since this frequency is used by the receiver to calculate
the time when the signal was transmitted.

But you don't know how that is done, do you?

Post by rhertz
Dou you understood what I wrote above, imbecile?

I understand that there is nothing you can't misunderstand.

Post by rhertz
Relativists CLAIM FOR 50 YEARS that when they TURNED ON the correction
on the onboard master TCXO, lowering the frequency by 0.00457 Hz, they
COMPENSATED RELATIVISTIC EFFECTS ON THE ORBITING CS clock and associated
higher frequencies.
And that IS ABSOLUTELY FALSE, HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN NOR IN THE '70s
NEITHER IN THE LAST 50 YEARS, BECAUSE IT'S ABSOLUTELY DECEIVING, A
FUCKING LIE.
If it was TRUE, ask them to publicly show the downloaded DIGITAL COUNT
OF PULSES of the orbiting TCXO, to fact-check with the associated count
of the clock at the Earth station.

Don't you know that the SV clock is the digital count of
the common frequency source?
It is transmitted every 12. minutes by all the SVs.
(and you can find the time continuously by counting the chips.)

Post by rhertz
Now, asshole (sorry for the profanity), PROVE ME WRONG.

Well, since the GPS doesn't work it is no point in trying to
make you believe that it does, is it? :-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Python

2025-03-20 23:17:29 UTC

Post by rhertz
<snip all the repeated crap. I left this part as a sample of your
idiocy>

<snip>
You are an engineer too.
The other imbecile wrote that BOTH Cs clocks are locally running at
10,230,000.000000 Hz. But THIS IS NOT WHAT RELATIVISTS CLAIM.

No, that was what YOU said.
|- Suppose that the time of the onboard Cs clock is measured
| by accumulating counts of cycles of the 10.23 Mhz master
| TCXO clock. This, to accumulate pulses with a period of
| 97.7517 nsec during 86,400 sec, requires an onboard
| digital counter displaying 883,872,000,000 counts (12 digits).
| Such data, at the end of the 24 hours period MUST be sent
| down to Earth station, where a twin Cs clock is also counting
| pulses in sync with the onboard Cs clock.
| Will a comparison differ in 389 LOST PULSES (38 usec)?
You say that the reference frequency is 10.23 Mhz, but in
a GPS SV clock the reference frequency is: 10.2299999954326 MHz
So the clock you describe is an ordinary clock running
at the rate defined by SI.
After 86,400 seconds the clock will show 86,400 seconds,
and your counter would have counted 86400*10.23e6 = 883872000000 cycles,
just as you correctly states.
An ordinary SI-clock will obviously always show 86400 seconds
when it has been running for 86400 seconds.
It doesn't matter if the clock is in a satellite, on the ground
or on the moon.
--------------------------
But let us see if we can find your missing pulses.
A "solar day" is defined as the time between each time the sun
passes the same meridian. Let us suppose that we are at one
of the two times of the year when a solar day by a clock
at Earth's geoid is measured to be 86400 seconds.
A normal clock with rate as defined by SI which is in GPS orbit
will according to GR measure a solar day to be
86400*(1+4.4647e-10) s = 86400s + 38.575μs
Note that this means that the SV clock will be 38.575μs
more ahead of the ground clock every day.
The number of pulses from the oscillator counted by your counter
will then be 86400*(1+4.4647e-10)*10.23e6 = 883872000394 pulses.
The counter on the ground will count 86400*10.23e6 = 883872000000
pulses from the local oscillator.
So the counter in the SV will count 394 pulses more.
There are your missing counts.
-------------------------
Your blunder was that you didn't realise that a "day" measured
by the clock in the SV is 38.575μs longer that a day measured by
a clock on the ground. This is THE central point.
So when you specified that the counter should count the pulses
during 86400 seconds, you missed the pulses sent during the 38.575μs.
"If the satellite counter is counting the cycles from the 10.23 MHz
the satellite counter counts 883872000000 cycles"

Post by rhertz
They claim that the onboard TCXO master clock was tuned to
10,229,999.995430 Hz,
with a difference of 0.00457 Hz wrt the Earth'c clock.

Right. But in your scenario you specified an uncorrected clock.
In a real GPS satellite the reference oscillator is adjusted down
by the factor (1-4.4647e-10) so it will measure the number of second
during a solar day to be (86400s + 38.575μs)*(1-4.4647e-10) = 86400s
So it will stay in sync with the ground clock.

Post by rhertz
Clock on Earth station: accumulates 883,872,000,000 pulses in 86400 sec
(1 day).

Right.

Post by rhertz
Clock on GPS SV: accumulates 883,871,999,605 pulses in 86400 sec (1
day).

It accumulates 883872000000 pulses in (86400s + 38.575μs) (1 day)

What are you talking about?
All the frequencies in the SV are derived from the reference
frequency 10.2299999954326 MHz.
There is no "MASTER FREQUENCY OF 10.23 Mhz" in the SV.
From the Interface Specification Document.
------------------------------------------
The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be coherently
derived from a common frequency source within the SV. The nominal
frequency of this source -- as it appears to an observer on the ground
-- is 10.23 MHz. The SV carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they
would appear to an observer located in the SV -- are offset to
compensate for relativistic effects. The clock rates are offset by
Δf/f = -4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping
rate of 10.23 MHz offset by a Δf = -4.5674E-3 Hz. This is equal to
10.2299999954326 MHz.
The "common frequency source within the SV" is 10.2299999954326 MHz.
The main reason for the GR correction is to make the SV clock
run synchronously to UTC.
(Or to the GPS coordinated time which is the same as UTC but for
a known offset)

Post by rhertz
When that GPS carrier reaches Earth, it has been shifted (by the
mathemagics of relativity) to EXACTLY 1,575,412 Hz = 10,230,000 Hz x
154.

When the carrier reaches the receiver it is Doppler shifted
up to Δf/f = ± 1e-7 , up to 200 times the GR correction.
The frequency of the carrier is irrelevant, the receiver
must have bandwidth enough to receive the carriers from
up to 12 satellites. The carriers are all Doppler shifted
differently.
The satellites are not separated by their frequency, but
by their PRN sequence.
The frequency that is important is the shipping rate,
since this frequency is used by the receiver to calculate
the time when the signal was transmitted.
But you don't know how that is done, do you?

Post by rhertz
Dou you understood what I wrote above, imbecile?

I understand that there is nothing you can't misunderstand.

Post by rhertz
Now, asshole (sorry for the profanity), PROVE ME WRONG.

Well, since the GPS doesn't work it is no point in trying to
make you believe that it does, is it? :-D

At 5 a.m. someone in Poland will shit in hist bed because of your post.
How dare you :-) ?

Maciej Wozniak

2025-03-21 06:06:47 UTC

Post by Python

Post by rhertz
<snip all the repeated crap. I left this part as a sample of your
idiocy>

<snip>
You are an engineer too.
The other imbecile wrote that BOTH Cs clocks are locally running at
10,230,000.000000 Hz. But THIS IS NOT WHAT RELATIVISTS CLAIM.

No, that was what YOU said.
|- Suppose that the time of the onboard Cs clock is measured
|   by accumulating counts of cycles of the 10.23 Mhz master
|   TCXO clock. This, to accumulate pulses with a period of
|   97.7517 nsec during 86,400 sec, requires an onboard
|   digital counter displaying 883,872,000,000 counts (12 digits).
|   Such data, at the end of the 24 hours period MUST be sent
|   down to Earth station, where a twin Cs clock is also counting
|   pulses in sync with the onboard Cs clock.
|   Will a comparison differ in 389 LOST PULSES (38 usec)?
You say that the reference frequency is 10.23 Mhz, but in
a GPS SV clock the reference frequency is: 10.2299999954326 MHz
So the clock you describe is an ordinary clock running
at the rate defined by SI.
After 86,400 seconds the clock will show 86,400 seconds,
and your counter would have counted 86400*10.23e6 = 883872000000 cycles,
just as you correctly states.
An ordinary SI-clock will obviously always show 86400 seconds
when it has been running for 86400 seconds.
It doesn't matter if the clock is in a satellite, on the ground
or on the moon.
--------------------------
But let us see if we can find your missing pulses.
A "solar day" is defined as the time between each time the sun
passes the same meridian. Let us suppose that we are at one
of the two times of the year when a solar day by a clock
at Earth's geoid is measured to be 86400 seconds.
A normal clock with rate as defined by SI which is in GPS orbit
will according to GR measure a solar day to be
   86400*(1+4.4647e-10) s = 86400s + 38.575μs
Note that this means that the SV clock will be 38.575μs
more ahead of the ground clock every day.
The number of pulses from the oscillator counted by your counter
will then be 86400*(1+4.4647e-10)*10.23e6 = 883872000394 pulses.
The counter on the ground will count 86400*10.23e6 = 883872000000
pulses from the local oscillator.
So the counter in the SV will count 394 pulses more.
There are your missing counts.
-------------------------
Your blunder was that you didn't realise that a "day" measured
by the clock in the SV is 38.575μs longer that a day measured by
a clock on the ground. This is THE central point.
So when you specified that the counter should count the pulses
during 86400 seconds, you missed the pulses sent during the 38.575μs.
"If the satellite counter is counting the cycles from the 10.23 MHz
the satellite counter counts 883872000000 cycles"

Post by rhertz
They claim that the onboard TCXO master clock was tuned to
10,229,999.995430 Hz,
with a difference of 0.00457 Hz wrt the Earth'c clock.

Right. But in your scenario you specified an uncorrected clock.
In a real GPS satellite the reference oscillator is adjusted down
by the factor (1-4.4647e-10) so it will measure the number of second
during a solar day to be (86400s + 38.575μs)*(1-4.4647e-10) = 86400s
So it will stay in sync with the ground clock.

Post by rhertz
Clock on Earth station: accumulates 883,872,000,000 pulses in 86400 sec
(1 day).

Right.

Post by rhertz
Clock on GPS SV: accumulates 883,871,999,605 pulses in 86400 sec (1
day).

It accumulates 883872000000 pulses in (86400s + 38.575μs) (1 day)

What are you talking about?
All the frequencies in the SV are derived from the reference
frequency 10.2299999954326 MHz.
There is no "MASTER FREQUENCY OF 10.23 Mhz" in the SV.
From the Interface Specification Document.
------------------------------------------
The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be coherently
derived from a common frequency source within the SV. The nominal
frequency of this source -- as it appears to an observer on the ground
-- is 10.23 MHz. The SV carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they
would appear to an observer located in the SV -- are offset to
compensate for relativistic effects. The clock rates are offset by
Δf/f = -4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping
rate of 10.23 MHz offset by a Δf = -4.5674E-3 Hz. This is equal to
10.2299999954326 MHz.
The "common frequency source within the SV" is 10.2299999954326 MHz.
The main reason for the GR correction is to make the SV clock
run synchronously to UTC.
(Or to the GPS coordinated time which is the same as UTC but for
a known offset)

Post by rhertz
When that GPS carrier reaches Earth, it has been shifted (by the
mathemagics of relativity) to EXACTLY 1,575,412 Hz = 10,230,000 Hz x
154.

When the carrier reaches the receiver it is Doppler shifted
up to Δf/f = ± 1e-7 , up to 200 times the GR correction.
The frequency of the carrier is irrelevant, the receiver
must have bandwidth enough to receive the carriers from
up to 12 satellites. The carriers are all Doppler shifted
differently.
The satellites are not separated by their frequency, but
by their PRN sequence.
The frequency that is important is the shipping rate,
since this frequency is used by the receiver to calculate
the time when the signal was transmitted.
But you don't know how that is done, do you?

Post by rhertz
Dou you understood what I wrote above, imbecile?

I understand that there is nothing you can't misunderstand.

Post by rhertz
Now, asshole (sorry for the profanity), PROVE ME WRONG.

Well, since the GPS doesn't work it is no point in trying to
make you believe that it does, is it? :-D

At 5 a.m. someone in Poland will shit in hist bed because of your post.
How dare you :-) ?

No I won't. Some brainwashed fanatic is
slandering again; that's what his absurd
religion is training its doggies for.

rhertz

2025-03-20 23:33:47 UTC

Post by rhertz
<snip all the repeated crap. I left this part as a sample of your
idiocy>

<snip>
You are an engineer too.
The other imbecile wrote that BOTH Cs clocks are locally running at
10,230,000.000000 Hz. But THIS IS NOT WHAT RELATIVISTS CLAIM.

Post by rhertz
They claim that the onboard TCXO master clock was tuned to
10,229,999.995430 Hz,
with a difference of 0.00457 Hz wrt the Earth'c clock.

Right. But in your scenario you specified an uncorrected clock.
In a real GPS satellite the reference oscillator is adjusted down
by the factor (1-4.4647e-10) so it will measure the number of second
during a solar day to be (86400s + 38.575μs)*(1-4.4647e-10) = 86400s
So it will stay in sync with the ground clock.

Post by rhertz
Clock on Earth station: accumulates 883,872,000,000 pulses in 86400 sec
(1 day).

Right.

Post by rhertz
Clock on GPS SV: accumulates 883,871,999,605 pulses in 86400 sec (1
day).

It accumulates 883872000000 pulses in (86400s + 38.575μs) (1 day)

What are you talking about?
All the frequencies in the SV are derived from the reference
frequency 10.2299999954326 MHz.
There is no "MASTER FREQUENCY OF 10.23 Mhz" in the SV.
From the Interface Specification Document.
------------------------------------------
The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be coherently
derived from a common frequency source within the SV. The nominal
frequency of this source -- as it appears to an observer on the ground
-- is 10.23 MHz. The SV carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they
would appear to an observer located in the SV -- are offset to
compensate for relativistic effects. The clock rates are offset by
Δf/f = -4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping
rate of 10.23 MHz offset by a Δf = -4.5674E-3 Hz. This is equal to
10.2299999954326 MHz.
The "common frequency source within the SV" is 10.2299999954326 MHz.
The main reason for the GR correction is to make the SV clock
run synchronously to UTC.
(Or to the GPS coordinated time which is the same as UTC but for
a known offset)

Post by rhertz
When that GPS carrier reaches Earth, it has been shifted (by the
mathemagics of relativity) to EXACTLY 1,575,412 Hz = 10,230,000 Hz x
154.

When the carrier reaches the receiver it is Doppler shifted
up to Δf/f = ± 1e-7 , up to 200 times the GR correction.
The frequency of the carrier is irrelevant, the receiver
must have bandwidth enough to receive the carriers from
up to 12 satellites. The carriers are all Doppler shifted
differently.
The satellites are not separated by their frequency, but
by their PRN sequence.
The frequency that is important is the shipping rate,
since this frequency is used by the receiver to calculate
the time when the signal was transmitted.
But you don't know how that is done, do you?

Post by rhertz
Dou you understood what I wrote above, imbecile?

I understand that there is nothing you can't misunderstand.

Post by rhertz
Now, asshole (sorry for the profanity), PROVE ME WRONG.

Well, since the GPS doesn't work it is no point in trying to
make you believe that it does, is it? :-D

Nice analysis, Paul. Well redacted and with many details.

Only THAT YOU FUCKED IT UP, AS YOU USUALLY DO!

The master TCXO clock on the GPS SV have (according to the narrative of
1977 relativists), TWO OPERATING MODES:

M1: Working at 10,230,000.000000 Hz (as good physics dictates)
M2: Working at 10,229,999.995430 Hz (as relativists claim it to be
necessary)

Your BLUNDER is that working in M2, the onboard counter has LESS COUNTS,
NOT MORE, after the 86,400 sec/day.

So, your count is incorrect.

Clock on Earth station: accumulates 883,872,000,000 pulses in 86400 sec.

Working on M2 mode, clock on the GPS SV accumulates 883,871,999,608
pulses in 86400 sec. as measured IN THE SV. So, the count gives (86400s
- 38.575μs). It's a LOWER LOCAL VALUE within the GPS SV.

What relativists claim, because they are IDIOTS, is that such difference
DISAPPEAR IN THIN AIR when PERCEIVED FROM EARTH (Ground level). And they
celebrate that due to relativistic corrections, the L1 frequency REACHES
EARTH with an increase in frequency of Δf/f = -4.4647E-10.

Such relativistic correction, idiots claim, allow that the L1 carrier
emitted from the SV at 1,575,419,999.29622 Hz COULD REACH EARTH AT
EXACTLY
1,575,420,000.000 Hz = 154 x 10,230,000.000000 Hz.

Is that clear enough? The act of detuning the SV TCXO causes a LOSS OF
38.5 usec
on the orbiting clock. But FROM EARTH, it's perceived AS IF THAT
DIFFERENCE HAS BEEN CANCELLED, because Schwarzschild advised so.

Don't be confused about the values of time and frequency. Two sides of
the same coin.

Which is the truth? Relativity IS FALSE, A FALLACIOUS PSEUDOSCIENCE, AND
THE ORBITING CLOCK WORKS ONLY IN THE M1 MODE.

Or, as Maciej always say, t'=t.

Please, hold on with your butthurt, or try some cream to easy the pain.

gharnagel

2025-03-21 14:05:02 UTC

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Well, since the GPS doesn't work it is no point in trying to
make you believe that it does, is it? :-D

Nice analysis, Paul. Well redacted and with many details.
Only THAT YOU FUCKED IT UP, AS YOU USUALLY DO!

No, he didn't. Hertz doesn't seem to be a conscious entity.

Post by rhertz
The master TCXO clock on the GPS SV have (according to the narrative of
M1: Working at 10,230,000.000000 Hz (as good physics dictates)
M2: Working at 10,229,999.995430 Hz (as relativists claim it to be
necessary)

This was only true for the first ones in orbit. Your M1 scenario hasn't
been implemented for decades.

Post by rhertz
Your BLUNDER is that working in M2, the onboard counter has LESS COUNTS,
NOT MORE, after the 86,400 sec/day.

Hertz's blunder is that he conflates time on board with time on the
ground.
His pseudo-Newtonian mind is incapable of understanding reality. (I say
pseudo-Newtonian because he seems unable to understand even Newtonian
physics).

Hertz's problem is that, once again, he doesn't understand 86400 seconds
on earth is not 86400 seconds in orbit. The onboard clock operates on
signals from the master frequency. If the master frequency has been
lowered, then the clock will run slow, so the master clock will still
receive 86400 per "day." Poor, poor Richard. He is way out of his
depth.

Post by rhertz
as measured IN THE SV. So, the count gives (86400s - 38.575μs). It's
a LOWER LOCAL VALUE within the GPS SV.
What relativists claim, because they are IDIOTS, is that such difference
DISAPPEAR IN THIN AIR when PERCEIVED FROM EARTH (Ground level). And they
celebrate that due to relativistic corrections, the L1 frequency REACHES
EARTH with an increase in frequency of Δf/f = -4.4647E-10.

So an increase is negative? That explains a lot about Hertz's brain.

Post by rhertz
Such relativistic correction, idiots claim, allow that the L1 carrier
emitted from the SV at 1,575,419,999.29622 Hz COULD REACH EARTH AT
EXACTLY 1,575,420,000.000 Hz = 154 x 10,230,000.000000 Hz.

As Paul tirelessly explains, the carrier frequency experiences the
Doppler effect due to the speed of the satellites (sigh!).

Post by rhertz
Is that clear enough? The act of detuning the SV TCXO causes a LOSS
OF 38.5 usec on the orbiting clock.

Hertz is trying to confuse the issue by referring to the on-board clock.
He's no engineer. An engineer would understand that if an oscillator
was adjusted to operate at a lower frequency and a counter received
that signal, he wouldn't be wondering where the "extra pulses" (received
BEFORE the oscillator was detuned) went :-))

Post by rhertz
But FROM EARTH, it's perceived AS IF THAT DIFFERENCE HAS BEEN
CANCELLED, because Schwarzschild advised so.

But the fact is that the slower clock in orbit matches the master
clock on the ground. Not because Schwarzschild "advised so" but
because that is what REALLY happens. We believe we know WHY it
happens because the theory matches experiment.

Post by rhertz
Don't be confused about the values of time and frequency. Two sides of
the same coin.
Which is the truth? Relativity IS FALSE, A FALLACIOUS PSEUDOSCIENCE, AND
THE ORBITING CLOCK WORKS ONLY IN THE M1 MODE.

There is no M1 mode on board, and there hasn't been for decades.

Post by rhertz
Or, as Maciej always say, t'=t.

You would quote Malicious Maciej for justification? That fool has been
posting lies for decades also.

Post by rhertz
Please, hold on with your butthurt, or try some cream to easy the pain.

Hertz is the one with buttHertz. Weird Wozniak believes Newtonian
physics
is proved because t' = t, but like ButtHertz, he doesn't define his
terms
correctly, or at all. It's unclear whether ButtHertz is malicious or
just
incredibly stupid.

Maciej Wozniak

2025-03-21 14:36:47 UTC

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Well, since the GPS doesn't work it is no point in trying to
make you believe that it does, is it? :-D

Nice analysis, Paul. Well redacted and with many details.
Only THAT YOU FUCKED IT UP, AS YOU USUALLY DO!

No, he didn't. Hertz doesn't seem to be a conscious entity.

This was only true for the first ones in orbit. Your M1 scenario hasn't
been implemented for decades.

Post by rhertz
Your BLUNDER is that working in M2, the onboard counter has LESS COUNTS,
NOT MORE, after the 86,400 sec/day.

Hertz's problem is that, once again, he doesn't understand 86400 seconds
on earth is not 86400 seconds in orbit.

Harnagel's problem is that, once again, he doesn't
understand mad assertions of a brainwashed fanatic
idiot he is are not necessarily true.

But the fact is that the slower clock in orbit matches the master
clock on the ground. Not because Schwarzschild "advised so" but
because that is what REALLY happens.

No, the fact is that the faster clock in orbit
matches the master clock on the ground. And your
idiot guru has announced they can never match.
Common sense has been warning the idiot.

We believe we know WHY it happens because

Because you're such idiots.

Hertz is the one with buttHertz. Weird Wozniak believes Newtonian
physics
is proved because t' = t

Newtonian physics isn't as idiotic as Einstein's,
but it's still physics.

rhertz

2025-03-21 15:15:11 UTC

TO gharnagel and Paul. I copy here part of gharnagel last post, in
order to avoid a lengthy reply. After that C&P, I'll address its
content.

**************************************************************

Post by rhertz
Only THAT YOU FUCKED IT UP, AS YOU USUALLY DO!

No, he didn't. Hertz doesn't seem to be a conscious entity.

This was only true for the first ones in orbit. Your M1 scenario hasn't
been implemented for decades.

Post by rhertz
Your BLUNDER is that working in M2, the onboard counter has LESS COUNTS,
NOT MORE, after the 86,400 sec/day.

So an increase is negative? That explains a lot about Hertz's brain.

As Paul tirelessly explains, the carrier frequency experiences the
Doppler effect due to the speed of the satellites (sigh!).

Post by rhertz
Is that clear enough? The act of detuning the SV TCXO causes a LOSS
OF 38.5 usec on the orbiting clock.

**************************************************************

gharnagel, with a heavy heart I've to tell you that you are A FUCKING
RETARDED, struggling to fight your COGNITIVE DISSONANCE.

If the master TCXO clock ON THE GPS SV is working in M2 mode,
at 10,229,999.995430 Hz, ALL THE CARRIER FREQUENCIES SYNTHESIZED FROM IT
have a LOWER NOMINAL VALUE than those of the twin TCXO working on Earth.

Your STUPID RELATIVITY SAYS THAT THE PERCEPTION OF FREQUENCIES AT GROUND
LEVEL
are MULTIPLES of the local 10,230,000.000000 Hz frequency. DO YOU ACCEPT
THIS?

So, according to your FUCKING RELATIVITY and Schwarzschild, the proper
frequencies of both clocks are:

M1 frequency at Earth's station.
M2 frequency at GPS SV.

The Δf/f = -4.4647E-10 frequency shift allegedly caused by BLUE
SHIFTING and
SR, which causes the 38.5 usec difference in the daily accumulation of
counts from the SV clock working at M1 frequency DISAPPEAR if the L1
carrier is recovered at ground level and the frequency of
10,230,000.000000 Hz is also recovered, dividing the L1 nominal
frequency by 154 (EXACTLY).

The scenario, in your rotten relativistic brain, is:

The local count in the orbiting GPS SV, for 86400 sec, is
883,871,999,608 pulses, while the daily local count at ground station is
883,872,000,000 pulses.

The clock at the GPS SV is locally counting LESS PULSES (38.5 us) than
the clock at ground station. It's the MATHEMAGICS OF RELATIVITY that
makes this difference disappear while radiating L1 carrier from the GPS
SV to the ground station. So, the CLAIM IS THAT the SV clock HAS TO BE
WORKING AT M2 FREQUENCY.

The difference digital counters would register is of 395 pulses which,
with a period of 97.7517106549365 ns gives a daily difference of
(NEGATIVE)
-38.5970696442754 us, which is what relativists claim as the "error"
between both clocks.

If you have (and you do since the first GPS SV) a second clock
(Rubidium) on the satellite, IT WILL LOCALLY COUNT THE SAME 86,400
SECONDS than the Cs clock on the Earth station.

If you don't understand the above, nothing I can do to fix your deviated
mind.

When the onboard Rubidium clock (used as an arbiter) marks 86,400 sec,
the counter associated with the onboard Cesium clock will register:

(86,400 - 38.5970696442754 X 10^-06) SECONDS.

Are you really that kind of imbecile that CAN'T UNDERSTAND the above,
which was written following the RULES that relativists claim? So much of
an idiot are you?

I'm not going to waste more time with you, gharnagel. I prefer to teach
differential geometry to my dog, which I'm sure it will ace it, instead
of you.

gharnagel

2025-03-21 17:54:44 UTC

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
----------------------------
gharnagel, with a heavy heart I've to tell you that you are A FUCKING
RETARDED, struggling to fight your COGNITIVE DISSONANCE.

Your "heavy heart" is a consequence of your ButtHertz.

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
If the master TCXO clock ON THE GPS SV is working in M2 mode,

Which is the only it can work for that past several decades.

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
at 10,229,999.995430 Hz, ALL THE CARRIER FREQUENCIES SYNTHESIZED FROM IT
have a LOWER NOMINAL VALUE than those of the twin TCXO working on Earth.

Carrier frequencies are irrelevant, as you've been told by Paul.

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Your STUPID RELATIVITY SAYS THAT THE PERCEPTION OF FREQUENCIES AT
GROUND LEVEL are MULTIPLES of the local 10,230,000.000000 Hz
frequency. DO YOU ACCEPT THIS?

I'm not aware of any frequencies generated at ground level except the
10.23 MHz master clock. Why would anyone want any multiples thereof?

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
So, according to your FUCKING RELATIVITY and Schwarzschild, the proper
M1 frequency at Earth's station.
M2 frequency at GPS SV.
The Δf/f = -4.4647E-10 frequency shift allegedly caused by BLUE
SHIFTING and SR,

I've shown you that the so-called "SR" part is actually contained in
the Schwarzschild equation. Are you mathematically-incompetent?

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
which causes the 38.5 usec difference in the daily accumulation of
counts from the SV clock working at M1 frequency DISAPPEAR if the L1
carrier is recovered at ground level and the frequency of
10,230,000.000000 Hz is also recovered, dividing the L1 nominal
frequency by 154 (EXACTLY).

As you have asserted, the signal containing the onboard clock signal
is digital and is transmitted exactly as read from the onboard clock.
THAT is not time dilated or Doppler-shifted. You seem to have an
obsession about the carrier frequency due to some mental disorder.

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
The local count in the orbiting GPS SV, for 86400 sec,

Whose 18640 seconds? The onboard oscillator frequency has been
decreased. Does that frequency drive the clock timing? Do you
believe it doesn't? Can you prove it. You are just making stuff
up out of pure vacuum.

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
883,871,999,608 pulses, while the daily local count at ground
station is 883,872,000,000 pulses.
The clock at the GPS SV is locally counting LESS PULSES (38.5 us) than
the clock at ground station. It's the MATHEMAGICS OF RELATIVITY that
makes this difference disappear while radiating L1 carrier from the GPS
SV to the ground station. So, the CLAIM IS THAT the SV clock HAS TO BE
WORKING AT M2 FREQUENCY.
The difference digital counters would register is of 395 pulses which,
with a period of 97.7517106549365 ns gives a daily difference of
(NEGATIVE)
-38.5970696442754 us, which is what relativists claim as the "error"
between both clocks.
If you have (and you do since the first GPS SV) a second clock
(Rubidium) on the satellite, IT WILL LOCALLY COUNT THE SAME 86,400
SECONDS than the Cs clock on the Earth station.

All onboard atomic clocks work through a synthesizer to generate the
10.299+ MHz M2 signal. But you haven't defined WHICH 186400 seconds
you're talking about.

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
If you don't understand the above, nothing I can do to fix your
deviated mind.

If the butt Hertz, there's nothing I can do about it.

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
When the onboard Rubidium clock (used as an arbiter) marks 86,400 sec,
(86,400 - 38.5970696442754 X 10^-06) SECONDS.
Are you really that kind of imbecile that CAN'T UNDERSTAND the above,
which was written following the RULES that relativists claim? So much
of an idiot are you?

I guess it would take an idiot to believe that ButtHertz can
understand reality.

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
I'm not going to waste more time with you, gharnagel. I prefer
to teach differential geometry to my dog, which I'm sure it will
ace it, instead of you.

I doubt if ButtHertz understands differential geometry. He's all
talk and no comprehension.

A man driving down the road sees a sign in front of a house
that says “$5 for talking dog”

The man is perplexed and decides to pull over to investigate.
After parking he walks up to the porch where a man is sitting
in a rocking chair enjoying the day.

The driver asks “I saw your sign about a talking dog? Where
can I see this dog?”

To which the man rocking simply points to the backyard and
says “in his house along the back fence”

The driver begins to walk to the side of the house, along the
side of the house and into the backyard where he sees a dog laying in
front of a dog house.

The driver asked the dog “are you the talking dog?”

The dog simply replies “yup”

To which the driver replies “that’s amazing how did you learn
to talk”

The dog begins ..” when I was a puppy the CIA picked me up and
brought me in and taught me how to speak several different
languages. One of my languages was Arabic. The Iraq War breaks
out and they decided to send me over to Iraq and collect
information. Who is going to expect that a dog could understand
Arabic, right? Well then the war ends and I win a Bronze Star.
I return to the US and I join the TSA. I sniff out drugs, guns,
explosives and win all sorts of accolades. I eventually retire,
find myself a nice bitch, have some puppies who grow up and
move out and this is where I finally retire too.”

The driver who is absolutely stunned at this point looks at the
dog and says “that’s amazing“ and then swiftly walks back to the
front of the house.

When he gets to the front of the house he confronts the homeowner
and says “$5?! That’s all you want for that talking dog is $5?!

To which the homeowner replies “That dog is a liar, he’s never
done any of that stuff”

Just like ButtHertz, his dog is a liar.

Maciej Wozniak

2025-03-21 18:40:39 UTC

Post by gharnagel
All onboard atomic clocks work through a synthesizer to generate the
10.299+ MHz M2 signal.

An assertion is not any argument, poor trash.
It is 10.23, no matter which [GPS] clock
you're using to measure.

Paul.B.Andersen

2025-03-21 19:43:45 UTC

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
A normal clock with rate as defined by SI which is in GPS orbit
will according to GR measure a solar day to be
86400*(1+4.4647e-10) s = 86400s + 38.575μs

Note this!
A normal clock in GPS orbit will measure the duration of
one solar day to be 86400 s + 38.575 μs
These are seconds as defined by SI.

A clock on the ground will measure the duration of one day
to be 86400 s.
These are seconds as defined by SI.

You must have a serious reading comprehension problem since
you you missed this _very essential_ point!

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Your blunder was that you didn't realise that a "day" measured
by the clock in the SV is 38.575μs longer that a day measured by
a clock on the ground. This is THE central point.

And you repeat the blunder! ROFL

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
In a real GPS satellite the reference oscillator is adjusted down
by the factor (1-4.4647e-10) so it will measure the number of second
during a solar day to be (86400s + 38.575μs)*(1-4.4647e-10) = 86400s
So it will stay in sync with the ground clock.

Post by rhertz
Clock on Earth station: accumulates 883,872,000,000 pulses in 86400 sec
(1 day).

Right.

Post by rhertz
Clock on GPS SV: accumulates 883,871,999,605 pulses in 86400 sec (1
day).

It accumulates 883872000000 pulses in (86400s + 38.575μs) (1 day)

Nice analysis, Paul. Well redacted and with many details.

If you had read it, you wouldn't have made a fool of yourself. Again!

Post by rhertz
Only THAT YOU FUCKED IT UP, AS YOU USUALLY DO!
The master TCXO clock on the GPS SV have (according to the narrative of
M1: Working at 10,230,000.000000 Hz (as good physics dictates)
M2: Working at 10,229,999.995430 Hz (as relativists claim it to be
necessary)
Your BLUNDER is that working in M2, the onboard counter has LESS COUNTS,
NOT MORE, after the 86,400 sec/day.

As I explained it in the posting you now are responding to,
the adjusted clock will tick out 84400 shorted seconds
during one day which is (86400s + 38.575μs).

This means that it will stay in sync with the clock on the ground.

Post by rhertz
So, your count is incorrect.
Clock on Earth station: accumulates 883,872,000,000 pulses in 86400 sec.
Working on M2 mode, clock on the GPS SV accumulates 883,871,999,608
pulses in 86400 sec. as measured IN THE SV. So, the count gives (86400s
- 38.575μs). It's a LOWER LOCAL VALUE within the GPS SV.
What relativists claim, because they are IDIOTS, is that such difference
DISAPPEAR IN THIN AIR when PERCEIVED FROM EARTH (Ground level). And they
celebrate that due to relativistic corrections, the L1 frequency REACHES
EARTH with an increase in frequency of Δf/f = -4.4647E-10.
Such relativistic correction, idiots claim, allow that the L1 carrier
emitted from the SV at 1,575,419,999.29622 Hz COULD REACH EARTH AT
EXACTLY
1,575,420,000.000 Hz = 154 x 10,230,000.000000 Hz.

You still don't get it, do you?

The frequency of the transmitted L1 is 1575.4199992966223 MHz.
During one day, which in the satellite is 86400.000038575 s,
the number of transmitted cycles is:
1575419999.2966223*86400.000038575 = 136116288000000 cycles

These cycles are reaching the ground during one day, which on
the ground is 86400 s. This means that the frequency on the ground
is 136116288000000/86400s = 1575420000.0 Hz = 1575.42 MHz

All the pulses that are emitted during one day, are reaching
the ground during one day. No pulses DISAPPEAR IN THIN AIR.

Post by rhertz
Is that clear enough? The act of detuning the SV TCXO causes a LOSS OF
38.5 usec

In the following an "SI-clock" is a clock which counts seconds as
defined by SI.

Read this:
------------
GR predicts that an SI-clock on the geoid will measure a mean solar day
to last the proper time 86400 s

GR predicts that an SI-clock in GPS orbit will measure a mean solar day
to last the proper time 86400*(1 + 4.4647e-10)s = 86400.000038575 s

If you knew this, then all the mysteries that confuse you so
much will go away. But you will never learn.

You can kick and scream and curse as much as you want, it is a fact
that this is what GR predicts.

As you know was this prediction of GR confirmed for the first time
in 1977, and in the 48 years since then it is confirmed many thousands
times every day, by the simple fact that the GPS works.

Post by rhertz
on the orbiting clock. But FROM EARTH, it's perceived AS IF THAT
DIFFERENCE HAS BEEN CANCELLED, because Schwarzschild advised so.

You don't know what the Schwarzschild metric predicts.

I do: https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf

And you agree with the smart guy Maciej?

You must be right, then. ROFL

Post by rhertz
Please, hold on with your butthurt, or try some cream to easy the pain.

It is not my butt that hurts. It is my stomach.

--
Paul, with stomach pain from ROFL

https://paulba.no/

rhertz

2025-03-21 22:17:38 UTC

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
A normal clock with rate as defined by SI which is in GPS orbit
will according to GR measure a solar day to be
86400*(1+4.4647e-10) s = 86400s + 38.575μs

Note this!
A normal clock in GPS orbit will measure the duration of
one solar day to be 86400 s + 38.575 μs
These are seconds as defined by SI.
A clock on the ground will measure the duration of one day
to be 86400 s.
These are seconds as defined by SI.
You must have a serious reading comprehension problem since
you you missed this _very essential_ point!

And you repeat the blunder! ROFL

Post by rhertz
Clock on Earth station: accumulates 883,872,000,000 pulses in 86400 sec
(1 day).

Right.

Post by rhertz
Clock on GPS SV: accumulates 883,871,999,605 pulses in 86400 sec (1
day).

It accumulates 883872000000 pulses in (86400s + 38.575μs) (1 day)

Nice analysis, Paul. Well redacted and with many details.

If you had read it, you wouldn't have made a fool of yourself. Again!

As I explained it in the posting you now are responding to,
the adjusted clock will tick out 84400 shorted seconds
during one day which is (86400s + 38.575μs).
This means that it will stay in sync with the clock on the ground.

You still don't get it, do you?
The frequency of the transmitted L1 is 1575.4199992966223 MHz.
During one day, which in the satellite is 86400.000038575 s,
1575419999.2966223*86400.000038575 = 136116288000000 cycles
These cycles are reaching the ground during one day, which on
the ground is 86400 s. This means that the frequency on the ground
is 136116288000000/86400s = 1575420000.0 Hz = 1575.42 MHz
All the pulses that are emitted during one day, are reaching
the ground during one day. No pulses DISAPPEAR IN THIN AIR.

Post by rhertz
Is that clear enough? The act of detuning the SV TCXO causes a LOSS OF
38.5 usec

In the following an "SI-clock" is a clock which counts seconds as
defined by SI.
------------
GR predicts that an SI-clock on the geoid will measure a mean solar day
to last the proper time 86400 s
GR predicts that an SI-clock in GPS orbit will measure a mean solar day
to last the proper time 86400*(1 + 4.4647e-10)s = 86400.000038575 s
If you knew this, then all the mysteries that confuse you so
much will go away. But you will never learn.
You can kick and scream and curse as much as you want, it is a fact
that this is what GR predicts.
As you know was this prediction of GR confirmed for the first time
in 1977, and in the 48 years since then it is confirmed many thousands
times every day, by the simple fact that the GPS works.

Post by rhertz
on the orbiting clock. But FROM EARTH, it's perceived AS IF THAT
DIFFERENCE HAS BEEN CANCELLED, because Schwarzschild advised so.

You don't know what the Schwarzschild metric predicts.
I do: https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf

And you agree with the smart guy Maciej?
You must be right, then. ROFL

Post by rhertz
Please, hold on with your butthurt, or try some cream to easy the pain.

It is not my butt that hurts. It is my stomach.

Imbecile, to fulfill the prophecy of your cretin pagan god, the GPS SV
clock has to be switched to the M2 frequency BEING IN ORBIT, in order to
the L1 carrier be BLUESHIFTED when it reaches ground level (on any GPS
receiver). THIS. PLUS the compensation for SR effects (which were never
accounted by any of you two, idiot clones).

If M2 mode is switched ON before launch, the master frequency would be
LOWER than 10.23 Mhz while orbiting (REDSHIFTING). So, when associated
L1 carrier that is generated while in orbit reach ground level, it would
suffer BLUESHIFTING, compensating for your alleged GR correction. It
would INVALIDATE the change to M2 frequency PRIOR TO LAUNCHING. Then,
when is the SV clock switched to M2?

PLUS, how does the SR effect work in non-inertial motion? The orbital
motion has an acceleration component, which doesn't exist under SR. But,
SOMEHOW, the frequency received by the GPS receiver is claimed to be
EXACTLY 1575.42 MHz, which is locally regenerated and divided by 154,
obtaining 10.23 Mhz at ground level (EXACTLY).

Your fucking theory has more holes than matter.

Plus, using a rubidium clock as a reference for 86,400 seconds in the SV
settles any doubt about HOW a fucking day is measured in the SV and at
the Earth's station. No mistakes here, and the orbiting counter REGISTER
38.5 usec LESS, not more.

Imbeciles both of you. Inbreeding too much?

Maciej Wozniak

2025-03-21 22:27:40 UTC

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
A normal clock with rate as defined by SI which is in GPS orbit
will according to GR measure a solar day to be
86400*(1+4.4647e-10) s = 86400s + 38.575μs

Note this!
A normal clock in GPS orbit will measure the duration of
one solar day to be 86400 s + 38.575 μs
These are seconds as defined by SI.
A clock on the ground will measure the duration of one day
to be 86400 s.
These are seconds as defined by SI.
You must have a serious reading comprehension problem since
you you missed this _very essential_ point!

And you repeat the blunder! ROFL

Post by rhertz
Clock on Earth station: accumulates 883,872,000,000 pulses in 86400 sec
(1 day).

Right.

Post by rhertz
Clock on GPS SV: accumulates 883,871,999,605 pulses in 86400 sec (1
day).

It accumulates 883872000000 pulses in (86400s + 38.575μs) (1 day)

Nice analysis, Paul. Well redacted and with many details.

If you had read it, you wouldn't have made a fool of yourself. Again!

As I explained it in the posting you now are responding to,
the adjusted clock will tick out 84400 shorted seconds
during one day which is (86400s + 38.575μs).
This means that it will stay in sync with the clock on the ground.

Post by rhertz
Is that clear enough? The act of detuning the SV TCXO causes a LOSS OF
38.5 usec

Post by rhertz
on the orbiting clock. But FROM EARTH, it's perceived AS IF THAT
DIFFERENCE HAS BEEN CANCELLED, because Schwarzschild advised so.

You don't know what the Schwarzschild metric predicts.
I do: https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf

And you agree with the smart guy Maciej?
You must be right, then. ROFL

Post by rhertz
Please, hold on with your butthurt, or try some cream to easy the pain.

It is not my butt that hurts. It is my stomach.

Imbecile, to fulfill the prophecy of your cretin pagan god, the GPS SV
clock has to be switched to the M2 frequency BEING IN ORBIT,

To fulfill the prophecy of the idiot -
the clock should be left alone, without
any corrections. GPS wouldn't work, but
what a magnificient symmetry we would
have instead.

rhertz

2025-03-21 22:59:53 UTC

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
A normal clock with rate as defined by SI which is in GPS orbit
will according to GR measure a solar day to be
86400*(1+4.4647e-10) s = 86400s + 38.575μs

Note this!
A normal clock in GPS orbit will measure the duration of
one solar day to be 86400 s + 38.575 μs
These are seconds as defined by SI.
A clock on the ground will measure the duration of one day
to be 86400 s.
These are seconds as defined by SI.
You must have a serious reading comprehension problem since
you you missed this _very essential_ point!

And you repeat the blunder! ROFL

Post by rhertz
Clock on Earth station: accumulates 883,872,000,000 pulses in 86400 sec
(1 day).

Right.

Post by rhertz
Clock on GPS SV: accumulates 883,871,999,605 pulses in 86400 sec (1
day).

It accumulates 883872000000 pulses in (86400s + 38.575μs) (1 day)

Nice analysis, Paul. Well redacted and with many details.

If you had read it, you wouldn't have made a fool of yourself. Again!

As I explained it in the posting you now are responding to,
the adjusted clock will tick out 84400 shorted seconds
during one day which is (86400s + 38.575μs).
This means that it will stay in sync with the clock on the ground.

Post by rhertz
Is that clear enough? The act of detuning the SV TCXO causes a LOSS OF
38.5 usec

Post by rhertz
on the orbiting clock. But FROM EARTH, it's perceived AS IF THAT
DIFFERENCE HAS BEEN CANCELLED, because Schwarzschild advised so.

You don't know what the Schwarzschild metric predicts.
I do: https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf

And you agree with the smart guy Maciej?
You must be right, then. ROFL

Post by rhertz
Please, hold on with your butthurt, or try some cream to easy the pain.

It is not my butt that hurts. It is my stomach.

Imbecile, to fulfill the prophecy of your cretin pagan god, the GPS SV
clock has to be switched to the M2 frequency BEING IN ORBIT,

To fulfill the prophecy of the idiot -
the clock should be left alone, without
any corrections. GPS wouldn't work, but
what a magnificient symmetry we would
have instead.

I agree with the comment about that clocks should be left alone. THEY
ARE, and the stupid myth that relativistic corrections are required is
just that, A MYTH.

Plus, another observation: It's claimed by relativists that, thanks to
that correction, the received L1 carrier on any GPS receiver ALLOWS to
recover the
master TCXO frequency of 10.23000000 Mhz, which is used to CORRECT the
frequency of the ordinary crystal oscillator of the GPS receiver, so it
can TIME the arrival of the MARKS.

What is curious is that the MYTH of the 38.5 us compensation (calculated
via Schwarzchild for ONE SATELLITE) is enough to explain WHY
RELATIVISTIC GPS WORKS.

But, in the REAL WORLD, even the cheapest GPS receiver use the L1 signal
OF FOUR SATELLITES, at any given instant. The line of sight RECEIVER-
GPS SV is tilted wrt the tangent of the orbital path, and last only a
short time at a valid angle of +/- 40° with respect to the projection of
the Earth's radius above your head, After that time, the receiver
engages with OTHER GPS SV.

I wonder how the retarded relativists explain the impact of each of the
daily 38.5 usec applied to FOUR SATELLITES, being that the angle of
reception is extremely variable and last only a few minutes.

All what you read is the fucking explanation about ONE SATELLITE and its
effect on the error in alignment, DISMISSING the complex matrix based
math of trilateration.

But, I guess, details are much less important than REPEAT AS A PARROT
the same shit for decades.

Maciej Wozniak

2025-03-22 05:40:32 UTC

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
A normal clock with rate as defined by SI which is in GPS orbit
will according to GR measure a solar day to be
86400*(1+4.4647e-10) s = 86400s + 38.575μs

Note this!
A normal clock in GPS orbit will measure the duration of
one solar day to be 86400 s + 38.575 μs
These are seconds as defined by SI.
A clock on the ground will measure the duration of one day
to be 86400 s.
These are seconds as defined by SI.
You must have a serious reading comprehension problem since
you you missed this _very essential_ point!

And you repeat the blunder! ROFL

Post by rhertz
Clock on Earth station: accumulates 883,872,000,000 pulses in 86400 sec
(1 day).

Right.

Post by rhertz
Clock on GPS SV: accumulates 883,871,999,605 pulses in 86400 sec (1
day).

It accumulates 883872000000 pulses in (86400s + 38.575μs) (1 day)

Nice analysis, Paul. Well redacted and with many details.

If you had read it, you wouldn't have made a fool of yourself. Again!

Post by rhertz
Only THAT YOU FUCKED IT UP, AS YOU USUALLY DO!
The master TCXO clock on the GPS SV have (according to the
narrative of
M1: Working at 10,230,000.000000 Hz (as good physics dictates)
M2: Working at 10,229,999.995430 Hz (as relativists claim it to be
necessary)
Your BLUNDER is that working in M2, the onboard counter has LESS COUNTS,
NOT MORE, after the 86,400 sec/day.

As I explained it in the posting you now are responding to,
the adjusted clock will tick out 84400 shorted seconds
during one day which is (86400s + 38.575μs).
This means that it will stay in sync with the clock on the ground.

Post by rhertz
Is that clear enough? The act of detuning the SV TCXO causes a LOSS OF
38.5 usec

Post by rhertz
on the orbiting clock. But FROM EARTH, it's perceived AS IF THAT
DIFFERENCE HAS BEEN CANCELLED, because Schwarzschild advised so.

You don't know what the Schwarzschild metric predicts.
I do: https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf

Post by rhertz
Don't be confused about the values of time and frequency. Two sides of
the same coin.
Which is the truth? Relativity IS FALSE, A FALLACIOUS
PSEUDOSCIENCE, AND
THE ORBITING CLOCK WORKS ONLY IN THE M1 MODE.
Or, as Maciej always say, t'=t.

And you agree with the smart guy Maciej?
You must be right, then. ROFL

Post by rhertz
Please, hold on with your butthurt, or try some cream to easy the pain.

It is not my butt that hurts. It is my stomach.

Imbecile, to fulfill the prophecy of your cretin pagan god, the GPS SV
clock has to be switched to the M2 frequency BEING IN ORBIT,

To fulfill the prophecy of the idiot -
the clock should be left alone, without
any corrections. GPS wouldn't work, but
what a magnificient symmetry we would
have instead.

I agree with the comment about that clocks should be left alone. THEY
ARE, and the stupid myth that relativistic corrections are required is
just that, A MYTH.

There are no "relativistic" corrections.
Even Paul, well known piece of lying shit,
is admitting - in The Shit clocks always
run the same "proper" rate.
This is the 'discovery" of the idiot:
synchronized clocks are evil, we shoud
abandon our efforts to synchronize them,
GPS wouldn't work but things would be
"proper".

Paul.B.Andersen

2025-03-22 21:45:01 UTC

Post by Maciej Wozniak
To fulfill the prophecy of the idiot -
the clock should be left alone, without
any corrections. GPS wouldn't work, but
what a magnificient symmetry we would
have instead.

I agree with the comment about that clocks should be left alone. THEY
ARE, and the stupid myth that relativistic corrections are required is
just that, A MYTH.

Nice to see that you have found a friend to share your misconceptions
with.

Post by rhertz
Plus, another observation: It's claimed by relativists that, thanks to
that correction, the received L1 carrier on any GPS receiver ALLOWS to
recover the
master TCXO frequency of 10.23000000 Mhz, which is used to CORRECT the
frequency of the ordinary crystal oscillator of the GPS receiver, so it
can TIME the arrival of the MARKS.

ROFL

Definitely one of you better misconception!

Do you really, seriously believe that 'relativists' claim that
the receiver can measure the frequency of the L1 carrier to be
1575.42 MHz = 154*10.23 MHz and can use this to recover the
master TCXO frequency of 10.23000000 Mhz? :-D

You claim to be an engineer and must understand that it is
no way a GPS receiver can measure the L1 frequency with any precision
better than ~ 1575420000 ±150 Hz.

But you believe that 'relativists' claim they can measure the frequency
of L1 to be 1575420000 ±0.025 Hz!

Those 'relativists' of yours are really stupid, aren't they? :-D

Post by rhertz
What is curious is that the MYTH of the 38.5 us compensation (calculated
via Schwarzchild for ONE SATELLITE) is enough to explain WHY
RELATIVISTIC GPS WORKS.
But, in the REAL WORLD, even the cheapest GPS receiver use the L1 signal
OF FOUR SATELLITES, at any given instant. The line of sight RECEIVER-
GPS SV is tilted wrt the tangent of the orbital path, and last only a
short time at a valid angle of +/- 40° with respect to the projection of
the Earth's radius above your head, After that time, the receiver
engages with OTHER GPS SV.
I wonder how the retarded relativists explain the impact of each of the
daily 38.5 usec applied to FOUR SATELLITES, being that the angle of
reception is extremely variable and last only a few minutes.
All what you read is the fucking explanation about ONE SATELLITE and its
effect on the error in alignment, DISMISSING the complex matrix based
math of trilateration.
But, I guess, details are much less important than REPEAT AS A PARROT
the same shit for decades.

Good grief!

You have discussed the GPS for several decades in this forum, and you
have still not the faintest idea of how the GPS works.

Well done to keep your ignorance for so long time, Richard. :-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

rhertz

2025-03-22 22:16:15 UTC

Imbecile Paul: Read and comment my post (above yours) about how ChatGPT
explain to IDIOTS LIKE YOU how a GPS receiver RECOVERS THE 10.23 Mhz
clock from the GPS SV.

Your last post is a sample of THE PIECE OF SHIT THAT YOU ARE, diverting
attention by repeating older posts. You HAVE NOT THE BRAIN NOR THE GUTS
TO ADMIT THAT YOU'RE WRONG.

But what to expect from a FRAUDSTER LIKE YOU, who have been living the
last decades to defend a FALLACY, A PSEUDOSCIENCE, A CULT, A CRAPPY PILE
OF LIES ACCUMULATED BY DECEIVERS IN THE LAST 60 YEARS.

You are like other SCUMS that pollutes forums, lying to protect AN HOAX,
which is Einstenian relativity.

You are less than a human. You're not worthy of the air that you
breathe.

I sincerely pity your family and relatives, that have to suffer you,
unless they are who educated you. The apple doesn't fall far from the
tree.

IMBECILE IGNORANT. YOU ARE A FUCKING PRETENDER, BUT A PARROT WOULD MAKE
A BETTER JOB THAN YOU.

rhertz

2025-03-22 23:02:09 UTC

If there is any doubt, IMBECILE PAUL, this is the answer to the same
question, given by DeepSeek. Notice subtle enhancements to the answer of
ChatGPT.

Don't choke, asshole.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi. Can you tell me how any GPS receiver recovers the
10.23 Mhz TCXO frequency of the GPS satellite from the reception of the
L1 carrier?
Certainly! The process of recovering the 10.23 MHz TCXO (Temperature
Compensated Crystal Oscillator) frequency from the L1 carrier in a GPS
receiver involves several steps. Here's a high-level overview of how
this is typically done:

1. Signal Reception and Downconversion
The GPS receiver first captures the L1 carrier signal, which is
transmitted at 1575.42 MHz.

This signal is then downconverted to an intermediate frequency (IF)
using a local oscillator (LO) in the receiver. The downconversion
process mixes the L1 signal with the LO signal to produce a lower
frequency signal that is easier to process.

2. Carrier Phase Locking
The receiver uses a Phase-Locked Loop (PLL) to lock onto the carrier
frequency of the downconverted signal. The PLL adjusts the frequency of
a Voltage-Controlled Oscillator (VCO) to match the phase and frequency
of the incoming signal.

Once locked, the PLL can track the carrier frequency very precisely,
even in the presence of Doppler shifts caused by the relative motion
between the satellite and the receiver.

3. Extracting the Navigation Message
The L1 carrier is modulated with both the C/A (Coarse/Acquisition) code
and the P (Precise) code, as well as the navigation message.

The receiver demodulates the signal to extract the navigation message,
which contains information about the satellite's orbit, clock
corrections, and other data necessary for positioning.

4. Recovering the 10.23 MHz Clock
The 10.23 MHz frequency is the fundamental clock rate used by the GPS
satellites to generate both the C/A code and the P code.

The receiver knows that the C/A code is generated at a rate of 1.023
MHz, which is exactly 1/10th of the 10.23 MHz clock.

By locking onto the C/A code and measuring its chip rate, the receiver
can infer the 10.23 MHz clock rate. This is because the C/A code's chip
rate is directly derived from the 10.23 MHz clock.

5. Synchronization and Tracking
The receiver uses the recovered 10.23 MHz clock to synchronize its
internal clock with the satellite's clock. This synchronization is
crucial for accurate ranging and positioning.

The receiver continuously tracks the carrier phase and the code phase to
maintain synchronization with the satellite's signal.

6. Doppler Correction
The receiver also compensates for Doppler shifts, which affect both the
carrier frequency and the code rate. The Doppler shift is caused by the
relative motion between the satellite and the receiver.

By accurately tracking the Doppler shift, the receiver can maintain
precise synchronization with the satellite's 10.23 MHz clock.

7. Time Recovery
The receiver uses the recovered 10.23 MHz clock to reconstruct the
precise timing information necessary for calculating the time of flight
of the signal from the satellite to the receiver.

This timing information is essential for determining the receiver's
position.

Summary
In summary, the GPS receiver recovers the 10.23 MHz TCXO frequency by
locking onto the L1 carrier, demodulating the C/A code, and using the
known relationship between the C/A code rate (1.023 MHz) and the 10.23
MHz clock. The receiver then uses this recovered clock to synchronize
its internal timing and accurately determine its position.

This process involves sophisticated signal processing techniques,
including phase locking, code correlation, and Doppler correction, all
of which are implemented in the receiver's hardware and software.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Now go to your church of the pagan cult of relativity to cry, KING OF
ASSHOLES!

rhertz

2025-03-22 23:12:39 UTC

I asked to DeepSeek to analyze this comment that you did:

QUESTION;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm discussing this matter with a relativist, in a physics forum. Can
you tell me what you think of this comment of him?: COMMENT: "ROFL

Definitely one of you better misconception!

Do you really, seriously believe that 'relativists' claim that
the receiver can measure the frequency of the L1 carrier to be
1575.42 MHz = 154*10.23 MHz and can use this to recover the
master TCXO frequency of 10.23000000 Mhz? :-D

You claim to be an engineer and must understand that it is
no way a GPS receiver can measure the L1 frequency with any precision
better than ~ 1575420000 ±150 Hz.

But you believe that 'relativists' claim they can measure the frequency
of L1 to be 1575420000 ±0.025 Hz!

DEEPSEEK ANSWER:
----------------------------------------------------------
Misconceptions in the Comment
The commenter appears to misunderstand the process of frequency recovery
in GPS receivers. They seem to think that "relativists" claim GPS
receivers directly measure the L1 frequency with extreme precision,
which is not the case.

The precision of the recovered 10.23 MHz clock comes from tracking the
phase of the C/A code and carrier, not from directly measuring the L1
frequency.

5. Conclusion
The commenter is correct that directly measuring the L1 frequency with a
precision of ±0.025 Hz is unrealistic for a GPS receiver. However, they
seem to misunderstand how GPS receivers actually recover the 10.23 MHz
clock and the role of relativity in the system.

The recovery of the 10.23 MHz clock is achieved through indirect methods
(e.g., PLLs, code tracking), not by directly measuring the L1 frequency.

If you’re discussing this in a physics forum, you might want to clarify
these points and emphasize the distinction between direct frequency
measurement and the indirect methods used in GPS receivers.

----------------------------------------------------------

IMBECILE, IGNORANT, DECEIVER PAUL.

Paul.B.Andersen

2025-03-24 13:03:34 UTC

Post by rhertz
QUESTION;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm discussing this matter with a relativist, in a physics forum. Can
you tell me what you think of this comment of him?: COMMENT: "ROFL
Definitely one of you better misconception!
Do you really, seriously believe that 'relativists' claim that
the receiver can measure the frequency of the L1 carrier to be
1575.42 MHz = 154*10.23 MHz and can use this to recover the
master TCXO frequency of 10.23000000 Mhz? :-D
You claim to be an engineer and must understand that it is
no way a GPS receiver can measure the L1 frequency with any precision
better than ~ 1575420000 ±150 Hz.
But you believe that 'relativists' claim they can measure the frequency
of L1 to be 1575420000 ±0.025 Hz!
----------------------------------------------------------
5. Conclusion
The commenter is correct that directly measuring the L1 frequency with a
precision of ±0.025 Hz is unrealistic for a GPS receiver.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

rhertz

2025-03-24 15:16:43 UTC

Imbecile, I was working with spread spectrum transmission when you were
learning how did a germanium transistor worked (circa 1980). It evolved,
using digital encoding of data, 20 years later into what was known as 2G
CDMA transmissions for mobile telephony, competing with the European 2G
GSM (based on frequency multiplexing), which won the commercial race in
just 4 years, by 2004.

Every one of the 33+ GPS SV uses THE SAME L1 frequency, which means that
any GPS receiver has to separate the signals of each SV by tracking the
distinctive PRN code of each satellite for coarse demodulation. To do
so, the L1 frequency at the GPS receiver HAS TO BE DETECTED AND
MULTIPLIED BY A LOCAL SIGNAL OF ABOUT 120 x 10.23 Mhz, which is
generated within the receiver from the LOCAL TCXO oscillator of 10.23
Mhz. This heterodyne technique allows each GPS SV L1 signal to be
transported (by analog multiplication) to a suitable IF filter of about
400 Mhz, where each signal is digitized and sent to the DSP to extract
the stream of chirps at 1.023 Mhz, and to start the correlation process
that allows the GPS receiver TO EXTRACT EACH INDIVIDUAL SIGNATURE of the
received GPS SV.

The FOUR RECOVERED SIGNALS WITH THE HIGHER SNR are selected to process
and identify the signature of the four GPS SV, which are locally stored
in the GPS receiver memory.

Then, a sophisticated process of tracking of each of the four baseband
signals start, in order TO CALCULATE the almost exact time of arrival of
each mark.

The next phase, involving RECURSIVE ALGORITHMS for refinement of FOUR
DATA SETS start, which involves matrix operation and feedback. After
three or four steps in the math of trilateration, the EXACT POSITION of
the GPS receiver is obtained (within the error margins for such
operation with only one carrier: L1).

If more precision is required, other carrier frequencies (L2, etc.) are
used, allowing accuracy of cm in the position of the receiver. If more
than 4 SV are used, the mathematics of trilateration become more
complex, but accuracy increases (as well as the COST of the GPS
receiver).

The above explanation is to show your INFANTILE ATTITUDE by conveniently
using ONLY PARTS of my posts. It must be that you're living your second
childhood, as your are approaching senility.

The above PLUS that you're a fucking relativist, which uses the usual
techniques of your people to DECEIVE, DISTORT, LIE, MOCK, CHANGE WHAT
WAS SAID/WRITTEN, ETC., because you all are a disgusting bunch of
FRAUDSTERS, that can't behave in any other way. You're BAD PEOPLE. You
always were.

Codey Stamatelos Kang

2025-03-24 21:27:00 UTC

Post by rhertz
----------------------------------------------------------
5. Conclusion The commenter is correct that directly measuring the L1
frequency with a
precision of ±0.025 Hz is unrealistic for a GPS receiver.

Imbecile, I was working with spread spectrum transmission when you were
The next phase, involving RECURSIVE ALGORITHMS for refinement of FOUR
DATA SETS start, which involves matrix operation and feedback. After
three or four steps in the math of trilateration, the EXACT POSITION of
the GPS receiver is obtained (within the error margins for such
operation with only one carrier: L1).

completely nonsense, you contradict yourself. It's fourangulation, not
triangulation. And you can detect four frequency signals out of a single
signal, something called FFT etc. Here an example, 20 and 21 Hz signal
from the received

%% frequency plot
%% Time specifications:
Fs = 10000; % samples per second
dt = 1/Fs; % seconds per sample
StartTime = 0; % seconds
StopTime = 2; % seconds
t = (StartTime : dt : StopTime-dt)';
N = size(t,1);

%% Sine wave:
FcA = 20; % hertz
sA = cos(2*pi*FcA*t);
FcB = 21; % hertz
sB = cos(2*pi*FcB*t);

fOut('sinus sumation, fft',1);
hSa = subplot(3,1,1);
plot(t,sA,'-b',"linewidth", 2);hold on;
plot(t,sB,'-g',"linewidth", 2),grid;
axis(hSa,[0, 2, -1.1, 1.1]);

sC = sA + sB;
hSb = subplot(3,1,2);
plot(t,sC,'-r',"linewidth", 3),grid;
axis(hSb,[0, 2, -2.2, 2.2]);

%% Fourier Transform:
X = fftshift(fft(sC));
%% Frequency specifications:
dF = Fs/N; % hertz
f = -Fs/2 : dF : Fs/2-dF; % hertz

%% Plot the spectrum:
hS = subplot(3,1,3);
plot(f,abs(X)/N,'linewidth',3),grid;
axis(hS,[-1, 44, -.2, 1]);
xlabel('Frequency (in hertz)');
title('Magnitude Response');

Paul B. Andersen

2025-03-25 13:44:46 UTC

The prime reason why this idea is absolutely idiotic is
that it is no way you can extract the 1575.42 MHz carrier
from the signal sent from the satellites.

Post by rhertz
You claim to be an engineer and must understand that it is
no way a GPS receiver can measure the L1 frequency with any precision
better than ~ 1575420000 ±150 Hz.
But you believe that 'relativists' claim they can measure the frequency
of L1 to be 1575420000 ±0.025 Hz!
----------------------------------------------------------
5. Conclusion
The commenter is correct that directly measuring the L1 frequency with a
precision of ±0.025 Hz is unrealistic for a GPS receiver.

And DEEPSEEK said I was right.

Now when this is settled, we can discuss how the GPS works.

Post by rhertz
Imbecile, I was working with spread spectrum transmission when you were
learning how did a germanium transistor worked (circa 1980).

Since I was in high school in 1980,
you must be much older than me, then.

Post by rhertz
It evolved,
using digital encoding of data, 20 years later into what was known as 2G
CDMA transmissions for mobile telephony, competing with the European 2G
GSM (based on frequency multiplexing), which won the commercial race in
just 4 years, by 2004.

Fine. So you know what spread spectrum is.

You know of course that in spread spectrum communication each
bit is coded with a signal with a wide spectrum, such as a chirp.
Information can only be decoded if you know how the signal (chirp) is.
I think you know that SAW filters are ideal to do the decoding job.
The point is that this type of communication is very robust for
noise. The information can be buried in noise and still be recovered.

In a GPS the signal is not a chirp. But a 1023 bit long
pseudo random noise (PRN). This is unique for each SV, and identifies
the SV.

So to the GPS L1 signal:

The PRN (Pseudo Random Noise Code) is a 1023 long bit pattern with
chipping rate 1023 kbps, The start and end of the PRN bit stream is
marked with a special pattern so the receiver can know where it starts
and ends. The duration of the PRN code is 1 ms and it is repeated over
and over continuously. Data bits with 50 bps are modulated on
top of this. One data bit lasts 20 ms so the PRN codes will be repeated
20 times in each data bit.

In a GPS SV the 1575.42 MHz L1 carrier is modulated with the bit train
above, so the phase is inverted every time the bit train changes.
The point is to widen the spectrum of the signal.
The resulting bandwidth is 15.345 MHz.

A GPS receiver will typically receive the signal from ~15 SVs, all
differently Doppler shifted. And in addition there will always be
signals from other sources within the bandwidth, and noise of course.
The result is a signal which will seem like noise.
There is impossible to extract any information from this mess
without knowing the shape of the signals buried in the noise.
These signals are the PRN codes. There are ~15 different PRN codes
buried in the signal from the 15 SVs.

Post by rhertz
Every one of the 33+ GPS SV uses THE SAME L1 frequency, which means that
any GPS receiver has to separate the signals of each SV by tracking the
distinctive PRN code of each satellite for coarse demodulation.

Right.

Post by rhertz
To do
so, the L1 frequency at the GPS receiver HAS TO BE DETECTED AND
MULTIPLIED BY A LOCAL SIGNAL OF ABOUT 120 x 10.23 Mhz,

No, there is absolutely impossible to detect the L1 frequency
from this noisy signal. But we know what it is, so it doesn't matter.

Post by rhertz
which is
generated within the receiver from the LOCAL TCXO oscillator of 10.23
Mhz.
This heterodyne technique allows each GPS SV L1 signal to be
transported (by analog multiplication) to a suitable IF filter of about
400 Mhz,

The signal can obviously be heterodyned down to 400 MHz.
It isn't a multiplication, but let's not quibble about this.

Post by rhertz
where each signal is digitized and sent to the DSP to extract
the stream of chirps at 1.023 Mhz, and to start the correlation process
that allows the GPS receiver TO EXTRACT EACH INDIVIDUAL SIGNATURE of the
received GPS SV.

What you call "chirps" are the PRNs, but never mind that.

What we have is a very noisy signal where ~15 different PRN
codes are buried. To detect the buried PRN codes,
the signal has to be cross correlated with the know PRN codes.
This is done in a phase locked loop, when a match is found,
the phase locked loop will lock to the PRN-code.
The data bits are extracted in the phase locked loop, and
the output from it is a stream of data bits.

A modern GPS receiver has typically 12 such phase locked loops
and can track up to 12 SVs at the same time.
But the number of "usable SVs" will in most cases
be much lower than 12, but it must be 4 or more.

These phase locked loops are very complex, and I will not
pretend to know the details in how they work.
But they do work.

The data from the each SV contain a lot of correctional data.
There are corrections for time (time correction polynomial),
SV orbits (ephemeris), parameters for calculating the delay
in the ionosphere etc. These data are saved for each satellite.

Post by rhertz
The FOUR RECOVERED SIGNALS WITH THE HIGHER SNR are selected to process
and identify the signature of the four GPS SV, which are locally stored
in the GPS receiver memory.
Then, a sophisticated process of tracking of each of the four baseband
signals start, in order TO CALCULATE the almost exact time of arrival of
each mark.

Right.

This is a _very_ important point, and this is how it is done:

The time is sent from the satellite every 48 second.
Between each time the time is sent, the receiver will count
the chips in the PRN code, and since the length of the chips
at the SV are precisely known:

======================================================
The receiver will at any time know exactly when the signal
it is receiving NOW was sent from the SV.
=======================================================

Post by rhertz
The next phase, involving RECURSIVE ALGORITHMS for refinement of FOUR
DATA SETS start, which involves matrix operation and feedback. After
three or four steps in the math of trilateration, the EXACT POSITION of
the GPS receiver is obtained (within the error margins for such
operation with only one carrier: L1).

The receiver will know exactly the orbit of the SV,
and the position of the SV at any time.
(Because it has received the correctional data from the SV)

That means that the receiver knows the position of
the SV when the signal it is receiving NOW was sent.

So when the receiver knows this for four satellites,
the position and time (t,x,y,z) of the receiver can in principle
be found by solving the four equations: (one for each SV)

√((xₛ−x)² + (yₛ−y)² + (zₛ−z)²) = c(tₛ−t)

where (tₛ,xₛ,yₛ,zₛ) is the known time and position of the SV when
the signal was sent, and (t,x,y,z) is the unknown time and
position of the receiver at the time of reception.
Note that no clock in the receiver is used.

Note that the term: c(tₛ−t) must be corrected for
the delay in the ionosphere.

However, the positions above are with Cartesian coordinates in
the ECI-frame, but the receiver will know the orbit of the SV
in polar coordinates in the Earth-fix rotating frame.
So due to coordinate transformation, the algorithm becomes more complex.
The "Sagnac correction" is due to this coordinate transformation.

But the time and position of the receiver can be found as described
above.

The successive approximation method is more way of solving
the equations. Guess at a time, put it into the equation and see.
Make a better guess and try again.

Post by rhertz
If more precision is required, other carrier frequencies (L2, etc.) are
used, allowing accuracy of cm in the position of the receiver. If more
than 4 SV are used, the mathematics of trilateration become more
complex, but accuracy increases (as well as the COST of the GPS
receiver).

Right.

Post by rhertz
The above explanation is to show your INFANTILE ATTITUDE by conveniently
using ONLY PARTS of my posts.

How bad!
I am not like you, who never snip anything, and read and respond to
everything in my posts!

Post by rhertz
It must be that you're living your second
childhood, as your are approaching senility.

Sure! But what about you, who are much older than me?

BTW, can you specify what I have said which is wrong?
No?
I must have been right, then.

Post by rhertz
The above PLUS that you're a fucking relativist, which uses the usual
techniques of your people to DECEIVE, DISTORT, LIE, MOCK, CHANGE WHAT
WAS SAID/WRITTEN, ETC., because you all are a disgusting bunch of
FRAUDSTERS, that can't behave in any other way. You're BAD PEOPLE. You
always were.

Very well said, Richard! I am indeed fucking now and then.

I am even a member of a MAFFIA!
(And I profit from it!)

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Paul.B.Andersen

2025-03-22 20:07:51 UTC

On Thu, 20 Mar 2025 21:24:30 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:>>>

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
A normal clock with rate as defined by SI which is in GPS orbit
will according to GR measure a solar day to be
86400*(1+4.4647e-10) s = 86400s + 38.575μs

Richard hasn't got it.

Note this!
A normal clock in GPS orbit will measure the duration of
one solar day to be 86400 s + 38.575 μs
These are seconds as defined by SI.
A clock on the ground will measure the duration of one day
to be 86400 s.
These are seconds as defined by SI.
You must have a serious reading comprehension problem since
you you missed this _very essential_ point!

Richard has still not got it.

As I explained it in the posting you now are responding to,
the adjusted clock will tick out 84400 shorted seconds
during one day which is (86400s + 38.575μs).
This means that it will stay in sync with the clock on the ground.

Richard has still not got it.

In a real GPS satellite the reference oscillator is adjusted down
by the factor (1-4.4647e-10) so it will measure the number of second
during a solar day to be (86400s + 38.575μs)*(1-4.4647e-10) = 86400s
So it will stay in sync with the ground clock.

Richard hasn't got it.

RICHARD, READ This carefully.

Richard has still not got it.

=================================================================

Now I have repeated the same thing over and over.
So for the last time, let me sum it up:

Below is an "SI-clock" a clock which is calibrated according to SI.
That means that it per definition advances one second per second.

GR predicts that an SI-clock on the geoid will measure a mean solar day
to last the proper time 86400 s
GR predicts that an SI-clock in GPS orbit will measure a mean solar day
to last the proper time 86400*(1 + 4.4647e-10)s = 86400.000038575 s

The obvious consequence of this is that the clock in the GPS SV
will advance 38.575 μs more per day than the clock on the geoid.
This is cumulative, so after a year the difference between
the SV clock and the ground clock would be ~14 ms.

To make the clocks run synchronously, the rate of the clock in
the SV is adjusted down by the factor (1-4.4669e-10) compared to
an SI clock. Then then SV clock will advance 86400 seconds per day,
and will stay in sync with the clock on the geoid.

The rate adjustment is made to make the SV clock be in sync to UTC.
==================================================================

Since all frequencies in the SV are derived from the same frequency
standard which is adjusted down by ((1-4.4669e-1), this has
the secondary effect that the L1 carrier is emitted as
1575.4199992966223 MHz, and will be 1575.42 MHz measured by UTC.

When the carrier reaches the receiver it is Doppler shifted
up to Δf/f = ± 1e-7 , up to 200 times the GR correction.

The frequency of the carrier is irrelevant, the receiver
must have bandwidth enough to receive the carriers from
up to 12 satellites. The carriers are all Doppler shifted
differently.

The satellites are not separated by their frequency, but
by their PRN sequence.

------------------------------

I won't bother to comment your confused babble below.
I will laugh at it though!

Post by rhertz
Imbecile, to fulfill the prophecy of your cretin pagan god, the GPS SV
clock has to be switched to the M2 frequency BEING IN ORBIT, in order to
the L1 carrier be BLUESHIFTED when it reaches ground level (on any GPS
receiver). THIS. PLUS the compensation for SR effects (which were never
accounted by any of you two, idiot clones).

There are no "SR effects."
https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf

Post by rhertz
If M2 mode is switched ON before launch, the master frequency would be
LOWER than 10.23 Mhz while orbiting (REDSHIFTING). So, when associated
L1 carrier that is generated while in orbit reach ground level, it would
suffer BLUESHIFTING, compensating for your alleged GR correction. It
would INVALIDATE the change to M2 frequency PRIOR TO LAUNCHING. Then,
when is the SV clock switched to M2?
PLUS, how does the SR effect work in non-inertial motion? The orbital
motion has an acceleration component, which doesn't exist under SR. But,
SOMEHOW, the frequency received by the GPS receiver is claimed to be
EXACTLY 1575.42 MHz, which is locally regenerated and divided by 154,
obtaining 10.23 Mhz at ground level (EXACTLY).

Your fucking theory has more holes than matter.

Plus, using a rubidium clock as a reference for 86,400 seconds in the SV
settles any doubt about HOW a fucking day is measured in the SV and at
the Earth's station. No mistakes here, and the orbiting counter REGISTER
38.5 usec LESS, not more.

ROFL

Post by rhertz
Imbeciles both of you. Inbreeding too much?

I will say this for you, Richard.
Your ability to stay ignorant no matter what you are told
is really impressing.

Well done, Richard. :-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Maciej Wozniak

2025-03-22 20:37:12 UTC

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Below is an "SI-clock" a clock which is calibrated according to SI.
That means that it per definition advances one second per second.

No. This means that it's a worthless and unusable
ideological nonsense. And the definition of second
used by sane people (including GPS technician) is
different.

rhertz

2025-03-22 21:10:01 UTC

Dear FULLY RETARDED Paul. I've extracted this part from your last post,
as A SAMPLE OF YOUR COMPLETE IGNORANCE, IDIOCY AND INDOCTRINATION.

I told you that the GPS 10.23 Mhz is REGENERATED from the L1 received
carrier IN ANY GPS RECEIVER, which has a CHEAPER TCXO oscillator. This
recovery, made through PLL and filtering, is ESSENTIAL for the receiver
TO TIME THE ARRIVAL OF MARKS EMBEDDED IN THE L1 CARRIER.

As you are A COMPLETE ASSHOLE, 100% IMBECILE AND LIVE WITH AN
INCREASINGLY FOSSILIZED BRAIN, I let that ChatGPT speak for me.

Quoting Paul:
**********************************************************************
The rate adjustment is made to make the SV clock be in sync to UTC.

Since all frequencies in the SV are derived from the same frequency
standard which is adjusted down by ((1-4.4669e-1), this has
the secondary effect that the L1 carrier is emitted as
1575.4199992966223 MHz, and will be 1575.42 MHz measured by UTC.

When the carrier reaches the receiver it is Doppler shifted
up to Δf/f = ± 1e-7 , up to 200 times the GR correction.

The frequency of the carrier is irrelevant, the receiver
must have bandwidth enough to receive the carriers from
up to 12 satellites. The carriers are all Doppler shifted
differently.

The satellites are not separated by their frequency, but
by their PRN sequence.

I won't bother to comment your confused babble below.
I will laugh at it though!

**********************************************************************
Learn something, fucking asshole:

Question to ChatGPT: Can you tell me how any GPS receiver recovers the
10.23 Mhz TCXO frequency of the GPS satellite from the reception of the
L1 carrier?

Answer from ChatGPT:

--------------------------------------------------------

Sure! To explain how a GPS receiver recovers the 10.23 MHz TCXO
frequency from the reception of the L1 carrier, let's break it down into
a few steps:

1. The L1 Carrier and GPS Signal Structure

- The GPS L1 carrier is transmitted at a frequency of 1575.42 MHz, which
is a radio frequency.

- This carrier is modulated by two primary signals:

- C/A code (Coarse/Acquisition code), a pseudo-random noise (PRN) code
used for civilian GPS.

- Navigation message that includes time and ephemeris data.

2. The 10.23 MHz TCXO in GPS Receivers

- The 10.23 MHz signal is typically the frequency generated by the
Temperature Compensated Crystal Oscillator (TCXO) inside the GPS
receiver.

- This frequency is crucial because it provides a stable timing
reference for the receiver's operations, especially for demodulating and
synchronizing with the GPS signals.

- The 10.23 MHz is closely tied to the GPS signal because it is the
frequency used in the C/A code modulation scheme.

3. How the Receiver Synchronizes with the L1 Carrier

- The GPS receiver uses the L1 carrier to perform a process called
"carrier tracking". The key part of this process is recovering the exact
phase of the L1 signal in order to demodulate the C/A code.

- The C/A code has a 1.023 MHz rate (this is the frequency of the chip
rate, not the L1 carrier), which is derived from dividing the 10.23 MHz
reference clock of the GPS receiver by 10. This rate is what the
receiver uses to decode the C/A code.

4. Phase-Locked Loop (PLL) or Frequency Locking

- The GPS receiver uses a Phase-Locked Loop (PLL) or other
synchronization techniques to lock onto the L1 carrier frequency.

- The receiver’s TCXO at 10.23 MHz plays a critical role in maintaining
synchronization. When the L1 carrier is received, the receiver needs to
extract the modulated signal, which is often done by mixing the L1
carrier with a local oscillator in the receiver that is a multiple or a
fraction of the 10.23 MHz TCXO.

- By adjusting the local oscillator to match the frequency and phase of
the incoming L1 signal, the receiver effectively recovers the 1.023 MHz
rate of the C/A code from the L1 carrier, which corresponds to the 10.23
MHz clock that the receiver is using.

5. Recovering the 10.23 MHz from L1

- The GPS receiver’s local oscillator (which is based on the 10.23 MHz
TCXO) is usually a multiple of this frequency, so the receiver can
generate the correct frequency to mix with the L1 signal.

- The frequency of the 1.023 MHz C/A code is recovered by the receiver,
and once the C/A code is decoded, it effectively locks onto the 10.23
MHz TCXO frequency used to modulate the GPS signal.

In summary, a GPS receiver recovers the 10.23 MHz TCXO frequency from
the L1 carrier through a process of carrier tracking, using a PLL to
synchronize the receiver’s internal clock with the phase and frequency
of the incoming L1 signal. This allows the receiver to demodulate the
C/A code and, indirectly, maintain the stable 10.23 MHz reference clock
for time and position calculations.
----------------------------------------------------------------

CAN YOU LEARN FROM THE ABOVE EXPLANATION, RETARDED PAUL?

Paul.B.Andersen

2025-03-23 22:45:08 UTC

Post by rhertz
Dear FULLY RETARDED Paul. I've extracted this part from your last post,
as A SAMPLE OF YOUR COMPLETE IGNORANCE, IDIOCY AND INDOCTRINATION.
I told you that the GPS 10.23 Mhz is REGENERATED from the L1 received
carrier IN ANY GPS RECEIVER, which has a CHEAPER TCXO oscillator. This
recovery, made through PLL and filtering, is ESSENTIAL for the receiver
TO TIME THE ARRIVAL OF MARKS EMBEDDED IN THE L1 CARRIER.
As you are A COMPLETE ASSHOLE, 100% IMBECILE AND LIVE WITH AN
INCREASINGLY FOSSILIZED BRAIN, I let that ChatGPT speak for me.
**********************************************************************
The rate adjustment is made to make the SV clock be in sync to UTC.
Since all frequencies in the SV are derived from the same frequency
standard which is adjusted down by ((1-4.4669e-1), this has
the secondary effect that the L1 carrier is emitted as
1575.4199992966223 MHz, and will be 1575.42 MHz measured by UTC.
When the carrier reaches the receiver it is Doppler shifted
up to Δf/f = ± 1e-7 , up to 200 times the GR correction.
The frequency of the carrier is irrelevant, the receiver
must have bandwidth enough to receive the carriers from
up to 12 satellites. The carriers are all Doppler shifted
differently. > The satellites are not separated by their frequency, but
by their PRN sequence.
**********************************************************************

Can you point out why the above is wrong?

Post by rhertz
If there is any doubt, IMBECILE PAUL, this is the answer to the same
question, given by DeepSeek. Notice subtle enhancements to the answer of
ChatGPT.
Don't choke, asshole.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi. Can you tell me how any GPS receiver recovers the
10.23 Mhz TCXO frequency of the GPS satellite from the reception of the
L1 carrier?

Note that you ask as if it is a fact that the receiver recovers the
10.23 MHz TCXO frequency of the GPS satellite from the reception of the
L1 carrier.

But there is no Temperature Compensated Crystal Oscillator in the
GPS SV. It is a VCXO (Voltage Controlled Crystal Oscillator)
in the phase locked loop in the frequency synthesiser, and the
frequency of this is 10.2299999954326 MHz.

Post by rhertz
Certainly! The process of recovering the 10.23 MHz TCXO (Temperature
Compensated Crystal Oscillator) frequency from the L1 carrier in a GPS
receiver involves several steps. Here's a high-level overview of how

See? DEEPSEEK buy that the very precise oscillator in the SV
is a Temperature Compensated Crystal Oscillator! :-D

Post by rhertz
1. Signal Reception and Downconversion
The GPS receiver first captures the L1 carrier signal, which is
transmitted at 1575.42 MHz.

The L1 carrier is modulated by a 10.23 MHZ (nominal) square signal.
The phase of the carrier is inverted every 97.75 ns
On top of that is data and PRN code modulated with frequency 1.023 MHz.
The result is a signal with bandwidth 15.345 MHz.
All SVs are transmitting at the same frequency, so the receiver will
receive up to 12 L1 carriers, all differently Doppler shifted.

Post by rhertz
This signal is then downconverted to an intermediate frequency (IF)
using a local oscillator (LO) in the receiver. The downconversion
process mixes the L1 signal with the LO signal to produce a lower
frequency signal that is easier to process.
2. Carrier Phase Locking
The receiver uses a Phase-Locked Loop (PLL) to lock onto the carrier
frequency of the downconverted signal. The PLL adjusts the frequency of
a Voltage-Controlled Oscillator (VCO) to match the phase and frequency
of the incoming signal.

Lock to which carrier? There are several, all with bandwidth 15.345 Mhz
and slightly different center frequency.

Post by rhertz
Once locked, the PLL can track the carrier frequency very precisely,
even in the presence of Doppler shifts caused by the relative motion
between the satellite and the receiver.

It locks to the 1.023 MHz PRN code!

Remember that a satellite is identified by its PRN code.

There is one phase locked loop for each satellite.
The phase locked loop will work as a kind of matched filter.
The input signal is compared to the PRN code, and when
the PRN code buried in the very noise-like signal matches
the PRN code, the phase lock loop will lock to it.

Of course the PRN code for the different satellites
will be slightly different due to Doppler shift.
But the difference is so small that the PRN codes will match.

Post by rhertz
3. Extracting the Navigation Message
The L1 carrier is modulated with both the C/A (Coarse/Acquisition) code
and the P (Precise) code, as well as the navigation message.
The receiver demodulates the signal to extract the navigation message,
which contains information about the satellite's orbit, clock
corrections, and other data necessary for positioning.
4. Recovering the 10.23 MHz Clock
The 10.23 MHz frequency is the fundamental clock rate used by the GPS
satellites to generate both the C/A code and the P code.
The receiver knows that the C/A code is generated at a rate of 1.023
MHz, which is exactly 1/10th of the 10.23 MHz clock.
By locking onto the C/A code and measuring its chip rate, the receiver
can infer the 10.23 MHz clock rate. This is because the C/A code's chip
rate is directly derived from the 10.23 MHz clock.

Each satellite is now locked to the PRN and thus to the C/A code
and data for that particular SV can be extracted.

Post by rhertz
5. Synchronization and Tracking
The receiver uses the recovered 10.23 MHz clock to synchronize its
internal clock with the satellite's clock. This synchronization is
crucial for accurate ranging and positioning.

A 10.23 MHz oscillator for Each satellite?

Of course the satellite must have an oscillator with
the frequency 1.023 MHz to generate the PRN codes for the SVs.
The phase locked loop work at this frequency.

A TCXO will do the job.

Post by rhertz
The receiver continuously tracks the carrier phase and the code phase to
maintain synchronization with the satellite's signal.

Post by rhertz
6. Doppler Correction
The receiver also compensates for Doppler shifts, which affect both the
carrier frequency and the code rate. The Doppler shift is caused by the
relative motion between the satellite and the receiver.
By accurately tracking the Doppler shift, the receiver can maintain
precise synchronization with the satellite's 10.23 MHz clock.
7. Time Recovery
The receiver uses the recovered 10.23 MHz clock to reconstruct the
precise timing information necessary for calculating the time of flight
of the signal from the satellite to the receiver.

To find the time during the 6 minutes between the time signal is
transmitted, the receiver count the chips. The shipping frequency
as sent from the SV is precisely known, and it is the time at
the SV when the signal is sent that must be known.
So it doesn't really matter what the exact chipping frequency
is at the receiver.

Post by rhertz
This timing information is essential for determining the receiver's
position.
Summary
In summary, the GPS receiver recovers the 10.23 MHz TCXO frequency by
locking onto the L1 carrier, demodulating the C/A code, and using the
known relationship between the C/A code rate (1.023 MHz) and the 10.23
MHz clock. The receiver then uses this recovered clock to synchronize
its internal timing and accurately determine its position.

It seems like DEEPSEEK believes that there is but one satellite
that is sending a carrier to the the receiver.

Post by rhertz
This process involves sophisticated signal processing techniques,
including phase locking, code correlation, and Doppler correction, all
of which are implemented in the receiver's hardware and software.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Now go to your church of the pagan cult of relativity to cry, KING OF
ASSHOLES!

What was wrong in my statement you quoted at the top?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

rhertz

2025-03-24 00:06:35 UTC

Instead of copying the entirety of your post, I quote one part that is
the most relevant in order TO PROVE THAT YOU'RE A FUCKING IGNORANT.

I QUOTE THIS PART:

--------------------------------------------------------------------
A 10.23 MHz oscillator for Each satellite?

Of course the satellite must have an oscillator with
the frequency 1.023 MHz to generate the PRN codes for the SVs.
The phase locked loop work at this frequency.

A TCXO will do the job.

Post by rhertz
The receiver continuously tracks the carrier phase and the code phase to
maintain synchronization with the satellite's signal.

How do you track the phase of 12 carriers on top of each other
where each carrier has a bandwidth 15.345 MHz and slightly different
center frequency?

The SVs are locked to their PRN code, and thus are tracked.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

YES, FUCKING IMBECILE AND IGNORANT.

The timing of the arrival of each MARK of each GPS SV is derived from
SOFTWARE REPLICAS of the single TCXO 10.23 Mhz clock on EACH FUCKING GPS
RECEIVER.

One single physical clock and AS MANY AS REQUIRED SOFTWARE REPLICAS,
each one ADJUSTED TO THE PHASE OF EACH DIFFERENT RECEIVED C/A CODE.

I let DeepSeek to clarify this for you, but consider that such AI engine
is 10,000 times smarter than you, with access to infinite information.

***************************************************************

QUESTION: This is a question about ordinary GPS receivers, based on the
reception of the L1 carrier. To provide a location at Earth, at least 4
GPS signals have to be received. To use trilateration techniquw,
Satellite Pseudorange in meters (from C/A code <epoch> in milliseconds)
has be calculated for each one of the 4 GPS satellites. The local TCXO
clock at the receivers has to be locked to the 1.023 Mhz chirp rate of
each satellite. My doubt is: Are there FOUR clocks in the receiver, each
one synchronized to the signal embedded in the L1 carrier of each
satellite? I understand that, using digital signal processing in the
receiver, it's possible to simulate those 4 receiver clocks (by
software), so each one is adjusted to the 10.23 Mhz master clock of each
of the locked GPS satellites. Can you clarify this reception process for
me, considering that the calculation of the time that each signal takes
to reach the receiver from each satellite is different, and essential
for trilateration?

DEEPSEEK ANSWER:

Your question touches on a fundamental aspect of how GPS receivers work,
particularly in terms of clock synchronization and signal processing.
Let me clarify the process for you:

Key Points:

Single Clock in the Receiver: A GPS receiver typically uses a single
local clock, often a Temperature-Compensated Crystal Oscillator (TCXO),
to manage timing. This clock is not physically duplicated for each
satellite signal. Instead, the receiver uses digital signal processing
to simulate multiple "clocks" in software, each aligned to the timing of
the signals from the individual satellites.

Synchronization to Satellite Clocks: Each GPS satellite transmits its
signal based on its own highly accurate atomic clock. The receiver must
synchronize its local clock to the timing of each satellite's signal.
This is done by adjusting the phase and frequency of the local clock in
software to match the incoming signals.

Pseudorange Calculation: The receiver calculates the pseudorange (the
apparent distance to each satellite) by measuring the time delay between
the transmission of the signal from the satellite and its reception at
the receiver. This requires precise alignment of the receiver's local
clock with the satellite's clock. Since the receiver's local clock is
not perfectly synchronized with the satellite clocks, this introduces a
common clock bias, which is resolved as part of the positioning
solution.

Digital Signal Processing (DSP): The receiver uses DSP techniques to
track the signals from multiple satellites simultaneously. For each
satellite, the receiver generates a replica of the satellite's C/A code
and adjusts its phase and frequency to match the incoming signal. This
process effectively simulates multiple "clocks" in software, each
synchronized to a different satellite's signal.

Trilateration and Clock Bias: The receiver uses the pseudoranges from at
least four satellites to solve for its position (latitude, longitude,
altitude) and the clock bias. The clock bias is the difference between
the receiver's local clock and the GPS system time. By solving for this
bias, the receiver can correct its timing and improve the accuracy of
the position calculation.

Detailed Process:
Signal Acquisition: The receiver searches for signals from visible
satellites by correlating the incoming signal with locally generated
replicas of the C/A code.

Tracking: Once a signal is acquired, the receiver enters a tracking
phase, where it continuously adjusts the phase and frequency of the
local replica to stay locked onto the satellite's signal. This is done
using feedback loops like the Phase-Locked Loop (PLL) and Delay-Locked
Loop (DLL).

Pseudorange Measurement: The receiver measures the time delay between
the received signal and the local replica, which corresponds to the
pseudorange.

Position Calculation: Using the pseudoranges from at least four
satellites, the receiver solves a system of equations to determine its
position and clock bias.

Summary:
There is only one physical clock in the receiver, but the receiver uses
digital signal processing to simulate multiple "clocks" in software,
each synchronized to the signal from a different satellite. This allows
the receiver to calculate the pseudoranges and perform trilateration,
while also accounting for the clock bias inherent in the local clock.
The use of DSP makes it possible to handle multiple satellite signals
simultaneously and achieve accurate positioning.

--------------------------------------------------

SO LONG, IDIOT!

Maciej Wozniak

2025-03-24 05:39:54 UTC

Can you point out why the above is wrong?

Note that you ask as if it is a fact that the receiver recovers the
10.23 MHz TCXO frequency of the GPS satellite from the reception of the
L1 carrier.
But there is no Temperature Compensated Crystal Oscillator in the
GPS SV. It is a VCXO (Voltage Controlled Crystal Oscillator)
in the phase locked loop in the frequency synthesiser, and the
frequency of this is 10.2299999954326 MHz.

No it is not. The Shit and is fantics
are asserting that, but the frequency
is 10.23, no matter which clock you're
using to measure.

Maciej Wozniak

2025-03-21 06:04:26 UTC

Post by rhertz
<snip all the repeated crap. I left this part as a sample of your
idiocy>

<snip>
You are an engineer too.
The other imbecile wrote that BOTH Cs clocks are locally running at
10,230,000.000000 Hz. But THIS IS NOT WHAT RELATIVISTS CLAIM.

No, that was what YOU said.
|- Suppose that the time of the onboard Cs clock is measured
|   by accumulating counts of cycles of the 10.23 Mhz master
|   TCXO clock. This, to accumulate pulses with a period of
|   97.7517 nsec during 86,400 sec, requires an onboard
|   digital counter displaying 883,872,000,000 counts (12 digits).
|   Such data, at the end of the 24 hours period MUST be sent
|   down to Earth station, where a twin Cs clock is also counting
|   pulses in sync with the onboard Cs clock.
|   Will a comparison differ in 389 LOST PULSES (38 usec)?
You say that the reference frequency is 10.23 Mhz, but in
a GPS SV clock the reference frequency is: 10.2299999954326 MHz
So the clock you describe is an ordinary clock running
at the rate defined by SI.
After 86,400 seconds the clock will show 86,400 seconds,
and your counter would have counted 86400*10.23e6 = 883872000000 cycles,
just as you correctly states.
An ordinary SI-clock will obviously always show 86400 seconds
when it has been running for 86400 seconds.
It doesn't matter if the clock is in a satellite, on the ground
or on the moon.
--------------------------
But let us see if we can find your missing pulses.
A "solar day" is defined as the time between each time the sun
passes the same meridian. Let us suppose that we are at one
of the two times of the year when a solar day by a clock
at Earth's geoid is measured to be 86400 seconds.
A normal clock with rate as defined by SI which is in GPS orbit
will according to GR measure a solar day to be
86400*(1+4.4647e-10) s = 86400s + 38.575μs
Note that this means that the SV clock will be 38.575μs
more ahead of the ground clock every day.
The number of pulses from the oscillator counted by your counter
will then be 86400*(1+4.4647e-10)*10.23e6 = 883872000394 pulses.
The counter on the ground will count 86400*10.23e6 = 883872000000
pulses from the local oscillator.
So the counter in the SV will count 394 pulses more.
There are your missing counts.
-------------------------
Your blunder was that you didn't realise that a "day" measured
by the clock in the SV is 38.575μs longer that a day measured by
a clock on the ground. This is THE central point.
So when you specified that the counter should count the pulses
during 86400 seconds, you missed the pulses sent during the 38.575μs.
"If the satellite counter is counting the cycles from the 10.23 MHz
the satellite counter counts 883872000000 cycles"

Post by rhertz
They claim that the onboard TCXO master clock was tuned to
10,229,999.995430 Hz,
with a difference of 0.00457 Hz wrt the Earth'c clock.

Right. But in your scenario you specified an uncorrected clock.
In a real GPS satellite the reference oscillator is adjusted down
by the factor (1-4.4647e-10) so it will measure the number of second
during a solar day to be (86400s + 38.575μs)*(1-4.4647e-10) = 86400s
So it will stay in sync with the ground clock.

Post by rhertz
Clock on Earth station: accumulates 883,872,000,000 pulses in 86400 sec
(1 day).

Right.

Post by rhertz
Clock on GPS SV: accumulates 883,871,999,605 pulses in 86400 sec (1
day).

It accumulates 883872000000 pulses in (86400s + 38.575μs) (1 day)

What are you talking about?
All the frequencies in the SV are derived from the reference
frequency 10.2299999954326 MHz.
There is no "MASTER FREQUENCY OF 10.23 Mhz" in the SV.
From the Interface Specification Document.
------------------------------------------
The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be coherently
derived from a common frequency source within the SV. The nominal
frequency of this source -- as it appears to an observer on the ground
-- is 10.23 MHz. The SV carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they
would appear to an observer located in the SV -- are offset to
compensate for relativistic effects. The clock rates are offset by
Δf/f = -4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping
rate of 10.23 MHz offset by a Δf = -4.5674E-3 Hz. This is equal to
10.2299999954326 MHz.

A fanatic idiot is asserting; the measurement
(comparing the rate to a local clock) says
otherwise.

Maciej Wozniak

2025-03-19 21:44:47 UTC

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
FACT: The measurements in 1977 _proved_ that the proper time τ₁
of the unadjusted clock in NTS-2 advanced faster than

While some unadjusted clocks can advance
faster or slower - nothing surprising
in that - insisting that there is something
"proper" in them is just a wild assertion
of a brainwashed idiot you are.

J. J. Lodder

2025-03-20 09:52:07 UTC

Post by rhertz
<snip>

YOUR "EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE" IS JUST BULLSHIT (Warning: mild profanity
here).
- The "evidence" is the result of theoretical calculations, not
measurements.

I suppose you are talking about the GPS.
Below gharnagel has explained that the rate of an uncorrected
was measured for 40 days and found to be fast.
I will add one important thing, though.
It is obviously impossible to measure the frequency of the signal
from the ground, the Doppler shift is many order of magnitude
bigger than the GR correction so that was not what was done..
The SV is transmitting its time, and there are a number of
monitoring stations that can read what time of the SV clock.
https://paulba.no/paper/Ashby.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf
The reading of the SV clock was compared to the master clock.
When the uncorrected clock had run for 6 day's it was 229.4 ?s
ahead of the master clock, that's 38.2 ?s/day or (1 + 442.5e-12)
too fast.
FACT: The measurements in 1977 _proved_ that the proper time ??
of the unadjusted clock in NTS-2 advanced faster than
the proper time ?? of the clock on the ground, and the difference
was d??/d?? = (1 + 4.425e-10)
GR predicts d??/d?? = (1 + 4.4647e-10), GR confirmed within less than 1%
Close to 50 years operation of the GPS has confirmed GR to much
better precision.
You have been told this many times, but you seem to believe
that you cam make facts go away by calling them BULLSHIT.
But facts won't go away, so you are only making a fool of yourself
by denying their existence.

Post by rhertz
- Suppose that the time of the onboard Cs clock is measured by
accumulating
counts of cycles of the 10.23 Mhz master TCXO clock. This, to
accumulate
pulses with a period of 97.7517 nsec during 86,400 sec, requires an
onboard
digital counter displaying 883,872,000,000 counts (12 digits). Such
data,
at the end of the 24 hours period MUST be sent down to Earth station,
where
a twin Cs clock is also counting pulses in sync with the onboard Cs
clock.

If the satellite counter is counting the cycles from the 10.23 MHz
the satellite counter counts 883872000000 cycles
The ground counter counts 883872000000 cycles.

Post by rhertz
Will a comparison differ in 389 LOST PULSES (38 usec)?

Which pulses do you miss? :-D
I wonder, is it a trick to imply that some pulses should be missing,
or do you really believe that there according to GR should be some?
I understand from where your blunder comes, though.
If the satellite transmitted the 10.23 MHz, then according to GR
883872000394 pulses would hit the ground during one solar day.
Obviously impossible to count.
But you are right about one thing.
If GR had predicted what you think it predicts, GR would be nonsense.
But it doesn't.

Wonderful image: suppose RH has a grandfather clock
that runs one second per day slow.
I imagine RH watching it intently for a day and a night
to catch it in the act of losing that one swing of the pendulum.

You claim to be an engineer.
When an engineer by practical measurement finds that the SV clock
runs too fast by ?f/f = 4.425e-10, wouldn't he correct the problem
by adjusting the clock down by ?f/f = - 4.425e-10 ?
What would the engineer Richard Hertz do?
Claim that the measurements must be wrong because he did't
get the expected result, and give up the GPS project?

Supposing relativity (and Lorentz aether theory)
had never been thought of, that is just what engineers would have done:
apply an empirical correction for some mysterious non-understood effect.
Of course someone would have invented the correct theory to go with it,
after which it would no longer be mysterious.

Becoming engineering is what happens eventually
to all obviously correct scientific theories,
like general relativity: they are routinely applied,
to make things that -just work-.
These days all of astronomy and satellite navigation
has reached that stage,

Jan

Maciej Wozniak

2025-03-20 09:58:51 UTC

Post by J. J. Lodder
Supposing relativity (and Lorentz aether theory)
apply an empirical correction for some mysterious non-understood effect.
Of course someone would have invented the correct theory to go with it,
after which it would no longer be mysterious.
Becoming engineering is what happens eventually
to all obviously correct scientific theories,
like general relativity: they are routinely applied,
to make things that -just work-.

JJ, poor trash, according to your GR shit
"clocks should run always at [the same]
proper rate". NO CORRECTIONS.
GPS works, because noone (even the most mad
relativistic fanatics, like yourself or Paul,
not even talking of sane engineers) is
treating The Shit seriously.

Paul.B.Andersen

2025-03-19 20:25:14 UTC

Post by rhertz
- The calculation of the 38 usec/day REQUIRES A THEORETICAL SEPARATION
of GR
and SR effects using Schwarzschild. It's the same crap that in the
Hafele-
Keating 1972 experiment, where data for SR and GR were calculated
theoretically.
- The ALLEGED EFFECT of the 7 us/day due to SR are MISCALCULATED using
Schwarzschild, because this alleged effect MANIFEST in rectilinear
trajectories, NOT IN NON-INERTIAL TRAJECTORIES OF AN ELLIPTIC ORBIT!!!

Richard, you are babbling.
SR isn't applicable in the curved spacetime near the Earth.

It's all GR.

See:
https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf

This is what GR predicts, and your opinion is worthless,
because you are completely ignorant of spacetime physics.

-------------------

BTW:
"NON-INERTIAL TRAJECTORIES OF AN ELLIPTIC ORBIT!!!"

ROFL

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Maciej Wozniak

2025-03-19 21:48:43 UTC

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
It's all GR.
https://paulba.no/pdf/Clock_rate.pdf
This is what GR predicts, and your opinion is worthless,

So are your lies, and sometimes you even
admit that you're lying and that according
to your GR shit the clock rate should be
the same everywhere.
It may be the same in your gedanken delusions.
In the real GPS the rates differ, and The Shit,
instead the reality, describes your delusional
gedankenland.

Maciej Wozniak

2025-03-19 06:47:26 UTC

Post by rhertz
LIKE ITS LENGTH, TIME LAPSES, MASS? OF COURSE NOT, IMBECILE. AND

THIS IS

Post by rhertz
WHY I WROTE THAT YOUR COMMENT IS BEYOND IDIOCY.

It made perfect sense to me.

Post by rhertz
ANOTHER IDIOTIC COMMENT: YOU CAN'T MEASURE REMOTELY WHAT HAPPENS ON

THE

Post by rhertz
FRAME THAT'S MOVING WRT THE OBSERVER AT RELATIVE REST.

Funny, I thought it's being done all the time on drones and space
probes.

Post by rhertz
IT'S JUST WHAT A COUPLE OF EQUATIONS TELL YOU THAT YOU MUST PERCEIVE
SUCH NON-SENSE.

Post by rhertz
THAT'S WHY RELATIVITY IS A PSEUDOSCIENCE, DEVELOPED FOR ASSHOLES

Post by rhertz
YOU SO YOU CAN PLAY WITH THIS SHIT AS A HOBBY FOR MORE THAN 30

YEARS,

Post by rhertz
ONLINE.

Paul, you're right. Hertz can't get through a post without profanity
:-)

Post by rhertz
OBVIOUS IN YOUR DEFORMED, INDOCTRINATED MIND. WHICH OTHER
PSEUDOSCIENCE/CULT DO YOU SUPPORT? I BET THAT RELATIVITY IS ONE OF

MANY

Post by rhertz
IN YOUR FRAGILE, GULLIBLE MIND.

Hertz seems to be the one with a deformed self-indoctrinated mind
(that's the worst kind).

Post by rhertz
MORE BULLSHIT NOT WORTHY TO COMMENT.

You mean like Paul's explanation of a 1.000 GHz signal sent from a
moving observer being received at 1.001 GHz? No wonder Hertz wants
to forget about that little gem that destroys his whole diatribe.
And with a name like, HERTZ, too :-)

Of course that you support Paul's shit (profanity here).

I only support what I have determined the way the world actually works.
I do this by studying EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE and adjusting my belief
system to agree with that, rather then having a frozen belief system
like certain people in this "discussion" group.
"Try being informed instead of just opinionated." -- Anon.

Harrie, poor trash, what happened during
the initial disorder can't be counted as
a valid measurement result.
Anyone can check now, with GPS fully
calibrated: the measurement result
is t'=t. Common sense has been warning
your idiot guru.

Paul.B.Andersen

2025-03-18 21:15:03 UTC

LIKE ITS LENGTH, TIME LAPSES, MASS? OF COURSE NOT, IMBECILE. AND THIS IS
WHY
I WROTE THAT YOUR COMMENT IS BEYOND IDIOCY.

So you call my statement "BEYOND IDIOCY" because you are
not a moron and have realised that it is obviously true. :-D

Post by rhertz
But the observer's speed relative to the observed object can affect
the observer's measurements of the properties of the observed object.

You know of course that this statement is equally true in NM and SR.

Remember this?
An oscillator is transmitting a radio signal with frequency f = 1 GHz.
You are moving towards the oscillator.
With your frequency counter you measure the frequency 1.001 GHz.

Post by rhertz
ANOTHER IDIOTIC COMMENT: YOU CAN'T MEASURE REMOTELY WHAT HAPPENS ON THE
FRAME THAT'S MOVING WRT THE OBSERVER AT RELATIVE REST. IT'S JUST WHAT A
COUPLE OF EQUATIONS TELL YOU THAT YOU MUST PERCEIVE SUCH NON-SENSE.
THAT'S WHY RELATIVITY IS A PSEUDOSCIENCE, DEVELOPED FOR ASSHOLES LIKE
YOU SO YOU CAN PLAY WITH THIS SHIT AS A HOBBY FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS,
ONLINE.

What are you talking about? It's very simple:

With your frequency counter you measure the frequency 1.001 GHz.
Because:
"the observer's speed relative to the observed object can affect
the observer's measurements of the properties of the observed object."

My comment is obviously true, and that's why you have to call it
"ANOTHER IDIOTIC COMMENT". :-D

Post by rhertz
Think about it. Obvious, no?

OBVIOUS IN YOUR DEFORMED, INDOCTRINATED MIND. WHICH OTHER
PSEUDOSCIENCE/CULT DO YOU SUPPORT? I BET THAT RELATIVITY IS ONE OF MANY
IN YOUR FRAGILE, GULLIBLE MIND.

Now you have realised that both my statements are true,
and MUST be true in NM as well as SR.

Does that mean that your mind is another DEFORMED, INDOCTRINATED MIND?

It is a fact that SR predicts this.
And it is possible because:
"the observer's speed relative to the observed object can affect
the observer's measurements of the properties of the observed object."

Post by rhertz
But this does obviously not mean that the moving rod has changed
its proper length, or that the proper rate of the clock has changed.

This is true because:
"An observer's speed relative to the observed object can't
affect the properties of the observed object in any way."

Post by rhertz
MORE BULLSHIT NOT WORTHY TO COMMENT.

And it is BULLSHIT because SR do not predict that moving
rods will be contracted as you thought the LT predict
they would?

"Length contraction is .. after all, an inseparable outcome of
Lorentz transforms,"

Remember? :-D

Post by rhertz
****************************************************************************

This is one of your more hilarious posts, Richard. :-D

Since you are not a moron you have realised that both of my
quoted statements are obviously and trivially true.

But since you previously called my statements STUPIDITY which
"doesn't make the slightest sense." , you now have to call my
statements "BEYOND IDIOCY" and "IDIOTIC COMMENTS" _because_
they are obviously and trivially true.

Nobody can admit that they are wrong with such a well
formulated elegance as you can.

Well done, Richard! :-D

--
Paul, still laughing

https://paulba.no/

Maciej Wozniak

2025-03-19 06:39:38 UTC

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
--------------------
An observer's speed relative to the observed object can't
affect the properties of the observed object in any way.
But the observer's speed relative to the observed object can affect
the observer's measurements of the properties of the observed object.

Paul, poor idiot, how does your moronic
physics establish the propertties of
an observed object?
Isn't it, accidentally - by measuring
them?

rhertz

2025-03-17 17:15:10 UTC