Den 02.01.2024 06:25, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> Yes, Ashby's quote clearly proves the effect was learned empirically and not predicted by relativity: “Relativity in the Global Positioning System”
>
> "There is an interesting story about this frequency offset.
> At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977),
> which contained the first Cesium atomic clock to be placed
> in orbit, it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require
> a relativistic correction, but there was uncertainty as to its
> magnitude as well as its sign. Indeed, there were some who doubted
> that relativistic effects were truths that would need to be
> incorporated [5]!"
>

Some may have been uncertain of the sign of the correction, but
that was certainly not the case for those who built NTS-2, as
should be blatantly obvious in the following quotation:

> "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 general relativity, then the synthesizer
> could be turned on, bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary
> for operation. After the Cesium clock was turned on in NTS-2, it was
> operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on
> the synthesizer [11]. The frequency measured during that interval was
> +442.5 parts in 10¹² compared to clocks on the ground, while general
> relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10¹². The difference was well
> within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then
> gave about a 1% verification of the combined second-order Doppler and
> gravitational frequency shift effects for a clock at 4.2 earth radii."

> IF RELATIVITY HAD PREDICTED THAT CLOSELY, IT WOULD HAVE KNOWN WHICH SIGN, SO IT DID NOT!

This is the "interesting story" Ashby was referring to:

INITIAL RESULTS OF THE NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 SATELLITE
https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf

Facts:
The satellite was first run with uncorrected clock for 6.5 days,
see fig 20.
The monitor stations measured the offset between the satellite
clock and the USNO reference clock 11 times between day 198.5
and day 205, 1977. The offset increased more than 200 μs,
equivalent to +443.1E-12 too fast.

"The {T-O) slope gives the frequency offset of +442.5 pp10¹²
with respect to the PMA clock. Inclusion of the PMA frequency
offset of +0.6 PP 10¹² produces an NTS measured value
of +443.1 pp10¹². Comparison of this value to the predicted
value of the relativistic offset of +445.0 pp10¹² gives
a difference of -3.1 pp10¹²."

"On Day 215,1977, the NTS-2 PRO-5 output signal was
offset {Fig. 21) through the use of a frequency synthesizer".

This frequency synthesizer lowered the frequency by -445.0E-12.
After this the frequency offset was +7.9E-13.

So you see, the correction was calculated and built into
the frequency synthesizer before launch, and the correction
proved to be correct within the precision of the clock.

So it is quite stupid to claim that they didn't know the sign
of the correction and that the correction was measured, not calculated.
Don't you agree?

Note that in 1977 relativity was believed to predict +445.0E-12.
Ashby's more precise prediction is +446.47E-12 which is the value
now specified in the interface control document.
The _correction_ is -446.47E-12.
If the correction had been -446.47E-12 in stead of -445.0E-12,
the clock rate error after correction would be -6.8e-13
in stead of +7.9E-13.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Tuesday 2 January 2024 at 18:40:44 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 1/2/2024 8:43 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Tuesday 2 January 2024 at 07:05:40 UTC, Volney wrote:
> >> On 1/2/2024 12:25 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>
> >>> IF RELATIVITY HAD PREDICTED THAT CLOSELY, IT WOULD HAVE KNOWN WHICH SIGN, SO IT DID NOT!
> >> Since the switch had only two positions, they obviously knew the sign.
> >> Anyone who understood GR would know the sign. If they didn't know the
> >> sign they would have needed 3 possible settings, Newton, GR increases
> >> frequency and GR decreases frequency. They didn't have 3 settings, only two.
> >>
> >> My guess was there was a moron anti-relativity manager
> Sorry about the redundant description of the manager.
> >> on the
> >> engineering team (who got there via the Peter Principle) who demanded
> >> the Newtonian setting. The sane engineers demanded GR and finally, as a
> >> compromise to prevent the moron anti-relativist manager from ruining the
> >> whole project, they added the remote control divisor which allowed the
> >> moron manager to save face and wouldn't blow the budget.
> >
> > Very funny. But it wasn’t just the sign that wasn’t known. Neil Ashby
> > himself says it was the * pmagnitude* that also wasn’t known.
> > So how could they have preset a specific magnitude before launch,
> > when they didn’t know what magnitude to expect?
> Umm, GR is quite explicit in its calculations

Wspecially after the fact.

> known as was the sign.

> Again the only choice was whether to use GR or
> not, a two position switch.

Stupid Mike, you're a true idiot to believe that. No
competent engineer would ever do such thing.

On Tuesday 2 January 2024 at 19:07:32 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 02.01.2024 06:25, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > Yes, Ashby's quote clearly proves the effect was learned empirically and not predicted by relativity: “Relativity in the Global Positioning System”
> >
> > "There is an interesting story about this frequency offset.
> > At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977),
> > which contained the first Cesium atomic clock to be placed
> > in orbit, it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require
> > a relativistic correction, but there was uncertainty as to its
> > magnitude as well as its sign. Indeed, there were some who doubted
> > that relativistic effects were truths that would need to be
> > incorporated [5]!"
> >
> Some may have been uncertain of the sign of the correction, but
> that was certainly not the case for those who built NTS-2, as
> should be blatantly obvious in the following quotation:
> > "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 general relativity, then the synthesizer
> > could be turned on, bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary
> > for operation. After the Cesium clock was turned on in NTS-2, it was
> > operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on
> > the synthesizer [11]. The frequency measured during that interval was
> > +442.5 parts in 10¹² compared to clocks on the ground, while general
> > relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10¹². The difference was well
> > within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then
> > gave about a 1% verification of the combined second-order Doppler and
> > gravitational frequency shift effects for a clock at 4.2 earth radii."
>
>
> > IF RELATIVITY HAD PREDICTED THAT CLOSELY, IT WOULD HAVE KNOWN WHICH SIGN, SO IT DID NOT!
> This is the "interesting story" Ashby was referring to:
>
> INITIAL RESULTS OF THE NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 SATELLITE
> https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf
>
> Facts:
> The satellite was first run with uncorrected clock for 6.5 days,
> see fig 20.
> The monitor stations measured the offset between the satellite
> clock and the USNO reference clock 11 times between day 198.5
> and day 205, 1977. The offset increased more than 200 μs,
> equivalent to +443.1E-12 too fast.
>
> "The {T-O) slope gives the frequency offset of +442.5 pp10¹²
> with respect to the PMA clock. Inclusion of the PMA frequency
> offset of +0.6 PP 10¹² produces an NTS measured value
> of +443.1 pp10¹². Comparison of this value to the predicted
> value of the relativistic offset of +445.0 pp10¹² gives
> a difference of -3.1 pp10¹²."
>
>
> "On Day 215,1977, the NTS-2 PRO-5 output signal was
> offset {Fig. 21) through the use of a frequency synthesizer".
>
> This frequency synthesizer lowered the frequency by -445.0E-12.
> After this the frequency offset was +7.9E-13.
>
> So you see, the correction was calculated

Against your Holiest Postulate, your ISO absurd and
against your fellow idiot Tom screaming of the same rate
everywhere.

On Tuesday 2 January 2024 at 18:07:32 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 02.01.2024 06:25, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > Yes, Ashby's quote clearly proves the effect was learned empirically and not predicted by relativity: “Relativity in the Global Positioning System”
> >
> > "There is an interesting story about this frequency offset.
> > At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977),
> > which contained the first Cesium atomic clock to be placed
> > in orbit, it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require
> > a relativistic correction, but there was uncertainty as to its
> > magnitude as well as its sign. Indeed, there were some who doubted
> > that relativistic effects were truths that would need to be
> > incorporated [5]!"
> >
>
> Some may have been uncertain of the sign of the correction, but
> that was certainly not the case for those who built NTS-2, as
> should be blatantly obvious in the following quotation:
>
> > "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 general relativity, then the synthesizer
> > could be turned on, bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary
> > for operation. After the Cesium clock was turned on in NTS-2, it was
> > operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on
> > the synthesizer [11]. The frequency measured during that interval was
> > +442.5 parts in 10¹² compared to clocks on the ground, while general
> > relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10¹². The difference was well
> > within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then
> > gave about a 1% verification of the combined second-order Doppler and
> > gravitational frequency shift effects for a clock at 4.2 earth radii."
>
There is nothing in this quote that says the magnitude 446 was predicted
before launch. Ask any lawyer. Look at the definitive part of the quote you rely
on “ while general relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10¹². “ It does not specify
whether this prediction was pre or post.
That quote is completely consistent with the theorists looking at clock gains...
And then figuring out how to predict something that matches it.
Proof is..Have you a quote from *pre launch* that says Relativity predicts
446ps?
And the second point you ignore is: Yes, you have one vague
quote suggesting it’s preset to 10.229999.89543. But why does the NIST specs
you refer to and all others Ive seen, then clearly specify on at least a dozen other
times in the same paper that the on board sat clock is set to run at 10.23Mhz?

>
> > IF RELATIVITY HAD PREDICTED THAT CLOSELY, IT WOULD HAVE KNOWN WHICH SIGN, SO IT DID NOT!
>
> This is the "interesting story" Ashby was referring to:
>
> INITIAL RESULTS OF THE NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 SATELLITE
> https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf
>
> Facts:
> The satellite was first run with uncorrected clock for 6.5 days,
> see fig 20.
> The monitor stations measured the offset between the satellite
> clock and the USNO reference clock 11 times between day 198.5
> and day 205, 1977. The offset increased more than 200 μs,
> equivalent to +443.1E-12 too fast.
>
You will have to clarify this. Because you yourself in a earlier thread
said very clearly that classical Doppler shifting of signals due to
satelitte orbital speeds relative to ground far outweigh any predicted
effects from relativity. Seeing as all satelittes orbit at different
paths vectors v relative to any single ground observer it would be impossible to
say any relativistic effects are apparent. It would be like saying
we can measure the air flow from your cough from ten feet away
in the middle of a hurricane.

This would concur with all the NIST and other specs which clearly
and on numerous occasions say the sat clock is at set at 10.23Mhz.
And that it is corrected daily. Don’t forget. The engineers don’t really
care about relativity being confirmed. They just want to have a sat
clock that can be adjusted daily. Even the atomic clocks themselves
apparently routinely screw up their timekeeping.
It doesn’t even make sense to worry about a preset clock at 10.22Mhz
If daily gains/losses from Doppler were much larger than any minute
daily gains accrued from relativity were also present.

> "The {T-O) slope gives the frequency offset of +442.5 pp10¹²
> with respect to the PMA clock. Inclusion of the PMA frequency
> offset of +0.6 PP 10¹² produces an NTS measured value
> of +443.1 pp10¹². Comparison of this value to the predicted
> value of the relativistic offset of +445.0 pp10¹² gives
> a difference of -3.1 pp10¹²."
>
>
> "On Day 215,1977, the NTS-2 PRO-5 output signal was
> offset {Fig. 21) through the use of a frequency synthesizer".
>
> This frequency synthesizer lowered the frequency by -445.0E-12.
> After this the frequency offset was +7.9E-13.
>
> So you see, the correction was calculated and built into
> the frequency synthesizer before launch, and the correction
> proved to be correct within the precision of the clock.
>
> So it is quite stupid to claim that they didn't know the sign
> of the correction and that the correction was measured, not calculated.
> Don't you agree?
>
> Note that in 1977 relativity was believed to predict +445.0E-12.

Can you cite a pre launch pre 1977 paper predicting exactly +446 gains
for relativity?

> Ashby's more precise prediction is +446.47E-12 which is the value
> now specified in the interface control document.
> The _correction_ is -446.47E-12.
> If the correction had been -446.47E-12 in stead of -445.0E-12,
> the clock rate error after correction would be -6.8e-13
> in stead of +7.9E-13.
>
>
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 10:07:32 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 02.01.2024 06:25, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > Yes, Ashby's quote clearly proves the effect was learned empirically and not predicted by relativity: “Relativity in the Global Positioning System”
> >
> > "There is an interesting story about this frequency offset.
> > At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977),
> > which contained the first Cesium atomic clock to be placed
> > in orbit, it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require
> > a relativistic correction, but there was uncertainty as to its
> > magnitude as well as its sign. Indeed, there were some who doubted
> > that relativistic effects were truths that would need to be
> > incorporated [5]!"
> >
> Some may have been uncertain of the sign of the correction, but
> that was certainly not the case for those who built NTS-2, as
> should be blatantly obvious in the following quotation:
> > "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 general relativity, then the synthesizer
> > could be turned on, bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary
> > for operation. After the Cesium clock was turned on in NTS-2, it was
> > operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on
> > the synthesizer [11]. The frequency measured during that interval was
> > +442.5 parts in 10¹² compared to clocks on the ground, while general
> > relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10¹². The difference was well
> > within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then
> > gave about a 1% verification of the combined second-order Doppler and
> > gravitational frequency shift effects for a clock at 4.2 earth radii."
>
>
> > IF RELATIVITY HAD PREDICTED THAT CLOSELY, IT WOULD HAVE KNOWN WHICH SIGN, SO IT DID NOT!
> This is the "interesting story" Ashby was referring to:
>
> INITIAL RESULTS OF THE NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 SATELLITE
> https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf
>
> Facts:
> The satellite was first run with uncorrected clock for 6.5 days,
> see fig 20.
> The monitor stations measured the offset between the satellite
> clock and the USNO reference clock 11 times between day 198.5
> and day 205, 1977. The offset increased more than 200 μs,
> equivalent to +443.1E-12 too fast.
>
> "The {T-O) slope gives the frequency offset of +442.5 pp10¹²
> with respect to the PMA clock. Inclusion of the PMA frequency
> offset of +0.6 PP 10¹² produces an NTS measured value
> of +443.1 pp10¹². Comparison of this value to the predicted
> value of the relativistic offset of +445.0 pp10¹² gives
> a difference of -3.1 pp10¹²."
>
>
> "On Day 215,1977, the NTS-2 PRO-5 output signal was
> offset {Fig. 21) through the use of a frequency synthesizer".
>
> This frequency synthesizer lowered the frequency by -445.0E-12.
> After this the frequency offset was +7.9E-13.
>
> So you see, the correction was calculated and built into
> the frequency synthesizer before launch, and the correction
> proved to be correct within the precision of the clock.
>
> So it is quite stupid to claim that they didn't know the sign
> of the correction and that the correction was measured, not calculated.
> Don't you agree?
>
> Note that in 1977 relativity was believed to predict +445.0E-12.
> Ashby's more precise prediction is +446.47E-12 which is the value
> now specified in the interface control document.
> The _correction_ is -446.47E-12.
> If the correction had been -446.47E-12 in stead of -445.0E-12,
> the clock rate error after correction would be -6.8e-13
> in stead of +7.9E-13.
>
>
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/
All right, the sign would even be evident to common sense, knowing that time dilation involves much higher speeds than gravitational effects.

But the Two Switch story is a fairy tale. If the synthesizer had been preset to the relativity amounts, it would, at best, have remained off by the difference between +442.5 and +446.5 ("a difference of -3.1 pp10¹²"). Then the synthesizer must have set the clock to the correct value and not that predicted by relativity. Otherwise, NTS-2 would not have functioned adequately.

You claim, "the correction was calculated and built into
the frequency synthesizer before launch, and the correction
proved to be correct within the precision of the clock."
How can that be true? It clearly is not. The correction
had to come from the empirical evidence only obtained once in orbit.

The prediction came within 1% of the empirical value. What is your source for the predicted value and how was it arrived at? What is your source for the correction value?

On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 12:42:27 PM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> On Tuesday 2 January 2024 at 18:07:32 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > Den 02.01.2024 06:25, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > > Yes, Ashby's quote clearly proves the effect was learned empirically and not predicted by relativity: “Relativity in the Global Positioning System”
> > >
> > > "There is an interesting story about this frequency offset.
> > > At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977),
> > > which contained the first Cesium atomic clock to be placed
> > > in orbit, it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require
> > > a relativistic correction, but there was uncertainty as to its
> > > magnitude as well as its sign. Indeed, there were some who doubted
> > > that relativistic effects were truths that would need to be
> > > incorporated [5]!"
> > >
> >
> > Some may have been uncertain of the sign of the correction, but
> > that was certainly not the case for those who built NTS-2, as
> > should be blatantly obvious in the following quotation:
> >
> > > "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 general relativity, then the synthesizer
> > > could be turned on, bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary
> > > for operation. After the Cesium clock was turned on in NTS-2, it was
> > > operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on
> > > the synthesizer [11]. The frequency measured during that interval was
> > > +442.5 parts in 10¹² compared to clocks on the ground, while general
> > > relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10¹². The difference was well
> > > within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then
> > > gave about a 1% verification of the combined second-order Doppler and
> > > gravitational frequency shift effects for a clock at 4.2 earth radii."
> >
> There is nothing in this quote that says the magnitude 446 was predicted
> before launch. Ask any lawyer. Look at the definitive part of the quote you rely
> on “ while general relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10¹². “ It does not specify
> whether this prediction was pre or post.
> That quote is completely consistent with the theorists looking at clock gains...
> And then figuring out how to predict something that matches it.
> Proof is..Have you a quote from *pre launch* that says Relativity predicts
> 446ps?
> And the second point you ignore is: Yes, you have one vague
> quote suggesting it’s preset to 10.229999.89543. But why does the NIST specs
> you refer to and all others Ive seen, then clearly specify on at least a dozen other
> times in the same paper that the on board sat clock is set to run at 10.23Mhz?
> >
> > > IF RELATIVITY HAD PREDICTED THAT CLOSELY, IT WOULD HAVE KNOWN WHICH SIGN, SO IT DID NOT!
> >
> > This is the "interesting story" Ashby was referring to:
> >
> > INITIAL RESULTS OF THE NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 SATELLITE
> > https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf
> >
> > Facts:
> > The satellite was first run with uncorrected clock for 6.5 days,
> > see fig 20.
> > The monitor stations measured the offset between the satellite
> > clock and the USNO reference clock 11 times between day 198.5
> > and day 205, 1977. The offset increased more than 200 μs,
> > equivalent to +443.1E-12 too fast.
> >
> You will have to clarify this. Because you yourself in a earlier thread
> said very clearly that classical Doppler shifting of signals due to
> satelitte orbital speeds relative to ground far outweigh any predicted
> effects from relativity. Seeing as all satelittes orbit at different
> paths vectors v relative to any single ground observer it would be impossible to
> say any relativistic effects are apparent. It would be like saying
> we can measure the air flow from your cough from ten feet away
> in the middle of a hurricane.
>
> This would concur with all the NIST and other specs which clearly
> and on numerous occasions say the sat clock is at set at 10.23Mhz.
> And that it is corrected daily. Don’t forget. The engineers don’t really
> care about relativity being confirmed. They just want to have a sat
> clock that can be adjusted daily. Even the atomic clocks themselves
> apparently routinely screw up their timekeeping.
> It doesn’t even make sense to worry about a preset clock at 10.22Mhz
> If daily gains/losses from Doppler were much larger than any minute
> daily gains accrued from relativity were also present.
> > "The {T-O) slope gives the frequency offset of +442.5 pp10¹²
> > with respect to the PMA clock. Inclusion of the PMA frequency
> > offset of +0.6 PP 10¹² produces an NTS measured value
> > of +443.1 pp10¹². Comparison of this value to the predicted
> > value of the relativistic offset of +445.0 pp10¹² gives
> > a difference of -3.1 pp10¹²."
> >
> >
> > "On Day 215,1977, the NTS-2 PRO-5 output signal was
> > offset {Fig. 21) through the use of a frequency synthesizer".
> >
> > This frequency synthesizer lowered the frequency by -445.0E-12.
> > After this the frequency offset was +7.9E-13.
> >
> > So you see, the correction was calculated and built into
> > the frequency synthesizer before launch, and the correction
> > proved to be correct within the precision of the clock.
> >
> > So it is quite stupid to claim that they didn't know the sign
> > of the correction and that the correction was measured, not calculated.
> > Don't you agree?
> >
> > Note that in 1977 relativity was believed to predict +445.0E-12.
> Can you cite a pre launch pre 1977 paper predicting exactly +446 gains
> for relativity?
> > Ashby's more precise prediction is +446.47E-12 which is the value
> > now specified in the interface control document.
> > The _correction_ is -446.47E-12.
> > If the correction had been -446.47E-12 in stead of -445.0E-12,
> > the clock rate error after correction would be -6.8e-13
> > in stead of +7.9E-13.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Paul
> >
> > https://paulba.no/
I don't think there is anything to be found under the 10.23 vs 10.2299 issue because it is merely the correct amount the clock frequency must be adjusted to run at the same rate as clocks on Earth while in space.

On 1/2/2024 5:57 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Tuesday 2 January 2024 at 03:47:48 UTC, Volney wrote:
>> On 1/1/2024 3:46 PM, Lou wrote:

>>>
>>> 1.00000000044567113 × 10229999.9954326=10230000
>>
>> Well yes, the total time dilation times the compensated transmit
>> frequency gives the desired receive frequency,
>
> OoH!! not using proper SI units. Your answers must be automatically
> wrong.

I was quoting YOU so that's YOUR mistake.

> Oh but I forgot. You can break your own stupid rules.

Not my rules but several physics teachers have told their classes that
if the units are wrong, the answer is automatically wrong even if
numerically correct.

> Since when can a frequency not be 8.9875518e+16 ?
> Or any number for that matter?
>
>> If you got a frequency 8.9875518e+16 Hz from somewhere else, and it is
>> merely a bizarre coincidence that it just happens to be the value of c^2
>> in SI units, explain where that frequency comes from.
>
> What? Like the way GR uses c^2 as a frequency.

No, GR does not use c^2 as a frequency. The units are wrong, for one.
See above about the professors.

> Even though it breaks
> the SI rules?
>
> I didn’t actually start with 8.9875518e+16 Hz. I started with 9192631770Hz
> seeing as that’s the frequency of a sats caesium clock.
> Found it worked.

Yes, the Cs frequency is a frequency.

> Then tried 10.29 and then looked at the GR formula and realised that
> the c^2 in the GR formula was actually being covertly used as a frequency too.

No, it isn't. Again, the units are wrong.

> Otherwise how did whoever invented that formula fantasise that 5.27e-10 was
> frequency related.?

It is a ratio difference, not a frequency.
>
>>> And any number can be a
>>> frequency.

>> Well, if you want to use the number which just happens to be the value
>> of c^2 in SI units as a frequency, the frequency of WHAT???? Justify
>> your answer as relevant to the GPS.
>>
> And what does your 8.9875518e+16 m^2/s^2 have to do with frequency?
> Cant answer? Thought not.

I see YOU can't answer (frequency of WHAT), much less justify your
nonexistent answer.
>
>> [snip rest of GIGO]
>>>
>>>> frequency (it is m^2/s^2, frequencies have units of 1/s)
>>>> Remember, if the units are incorrect, the answer is AUTOMATICALLY wrong!
>>>
>>> The usual total for relativists GR calculation for clock gains is 5.27e-10
>>> What units is that number in?

>> Unitless.
>
> Ha ha. Oh dear. Just broke your own rules again.

Nope. Getting the units correct does include unitless values, such as
pi, the fine structure constant among others.
>
>>> And Paul and other relativists use 1.000000000527 to calculate frequency
>>> gains. In relativity Lala land what units is 1.000000000527 in?

>> Unitless. It is a ratio, converting one frequency to another for example.

>>> And as you may know, in the relativist formula to calculate clock
>>> gains c^2 is used.
>>> You say that’s OK to do. OK so tell me...
>>> In that context what units is your c^2 in? You just said it
>>> cant be a frequency, nor is m^2/s^2 a unit of speed . What units is it
>>> supposed to be then?

>> Once again m^2/s^2 which is not a common property like speed, length, or
>> area. c is m/s which is a speed. c^2 is part of larger equations, it's
>> not used by itself.
>>
> Thought you couldn’t answer

No, that IS the answer.

> Here try again:
> What SI units is 8.9875518e+16 m^2/s^2 in your formula?
> Cant answer? That’s because you just broke your own silly rules.

No, by itself it's not a secondary unit at all because either no
standalone property uses that or it's one that's extremely obscure and I
don't know it. Anyway, c^2 is always part of a larger equation.
>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [snip rest of GIGO]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You are very, very confused.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not so confused as to realise that all GR does is divide potential (GM/r)
>>>>>>> into frequency to get a clock gain of + 5.2716726e-10
>>>>>
>>>>> Prove 47379430.8842 ÷ 8.9875518e+16 does not equal 5.2716726e-1
>>>>> Cant? Thought not.
>>
>>>> It is actually 5.2716726e-10, but what are 9 orders of magnitude between
>>>> friends?
>
> I told you multiple times it was 5.2716726e-10, Starting on Dec 21.

Sloppy sloppy sloppy. You wrote 5.2716726e-1 and I corrected you.
>
>>>
>>> Thought you couldn’t prove it wrong.

>> What do you mean? 47379430.8842 / 8.9875518e+16 is 5.2716726e-10 not
>> 5.2716726e-1, just as I said.
>
> I told you multiple times it was 5.2716726e-10, Starting on Dec 21. Heres
> my quote from my post to you back on december 31, repeated twice that
> day then again on Jan 1, Etc...
> “47379430.8842 ÷ 8.9875518e+16 (GPS) = 5.2716726e-10 “

Again, sloppy sloppy for writing 5.2716726e-1.
>
> So answer the questions
> What SI units are are 8.9875518e+16m^2/s^2 and 5.27e-10 in your formulas?

Asked and answered.

> Cant answer?

I already did.

> Then your GR formulas answers are, using your own logic,
> also completely wrong.

Since I provided you with the answers, this doesn't apply.

> And incidentally, contrary to your mistaken belief that Hz is not a SI unit...

When did I say that?

> ...the Hz of 8.9875518e+16hz I my formula IS an SI unit.

Again, frequency of WHAT?

> So using it, or any other frequency in the formula GM/r ÷f is correct.

The units of the result of that equation are incorrect (supposed to be
unitless), so that's automatically wrong.

> Unlike your rule breaking m^2/ s^2 which isn’t unless you can answer the
> following question...
> What units is the c^2 in your GR formula?

c^2 is part of a larger formula. For example, the equation E=mc^2 the
right side has units of mass times distance^2 divided by time^2
(c=distance/time). That combination has units of energy (joules in SI)
which is good because the E on the left side represents energy.

On 1/2/2024 8:39 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Tuesday 2 January 2024 at 04:14:26 UTC, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>> On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 5:39:10 PM UTC-8, Lou wrote:

>>> And on page 17:
>>> “ Instead, after such clocks are placed in orbit their frequencies are measured and the actual frequency corrections needed are incorporated in the clock correction polynomial that accompanies the navigation message.”
>>> Sounds like any corrections are made after launch.

No, the correction polynomial is for corrections due to the orbit being
not a perfect circle (sun and moon tug on satellites) or orbital height
being incorrect.

> And accurately modelled using just GM/r ÷ f
> *If the preset before launch was at 10.22999Mhz.*
> The only problem is...is the sat clock preset to 10.22999Mhz?

Definitely not, since the specs state it must be set to 10.2299999954326
MHz.

> Except for that one NIST quote, all the other NIST and other specs say
> it’s not preset before launch. And that the sat clock is preset to
> and runs and broadcasts at 10.23Mhz.

Again, that's because the discussion is what is RECEIVED, which is 10.23
MHZ, or a nominal frequency.

> So that’s a contradiction that only a GPS programmer/ engineer can answer.
> Not any relativist wiki source based on hearsay.

Any engineer type can understand the spec, even if you can't.

> All I can say is I also found a quora quote from a NASA GPS engineer Ortega
> who very explicitly says....the clocks are NOT preset to 10.22999Mhz
> before launch.
>
Of course he'd say that! That's because the clock is set to
10.2299999954326 MHz.

On Wednesday 3 January 2024 at 07:06:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 1/2/2024 8:39 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Tuesday 2 January 2024 at 04:14:26 UTC, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >> On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 5:39:10 PM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
>
> >>> And on page 17:
> >>> “ Instead, after such clocks are placed in orbit their frequencies are measured and the actual frequency corrections needed are incorporated in the clock correction polynomial that accompanies the navigation message.”
> >>> Sounds like any corrections are made after launch.
>
> No, the correction polynomial is for corrections due to the orbit being
> not a perfect circle (sun and moon tug on satellites) or orbital height
> being incorrect.
>
> > And accurately modelled using just GM/r ÷ f
> > *If the preset before launch was at 10.22999Mhz.*
> > The only problem is...is the sat clock preset to 10.22999Mhz?
>
> Definitely not, since the specs state it must be set to 10.2299999954326
> MHz.

> Of course he'd say that! That's because the clock is set to
> 10.2299999954326 MHz.

It may be preset to 10.2299999954326, when on the orbit
it's 10.23 as it is measured. Good bye, The Shit.

Den 02.01.2024 21:42, skrev Lou:
> On Tuesday 2 January 2024 at 18:07:32 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 02.01.2024 06:25, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
>>> Yes, Ashby's quote clearly proves the effect was learned empirically and not predicted by relativity: “Relativity in the Global Positioning System”
>>>
>>> "There is an interesting story about this frequency offset.
>>> At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977),
>>> which contained the first Cesium atomic clock to be placed
>>> in orbit, it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require
>>> a relativistic correction, but there was uncertainty as to its
>>> magnitude as well as its sign. Indeed, there were some who doubted
>>> that relativistic effects were truths that would need to be
>>> incorporated [5]!"
>>>
>>
>> Some may have been uncertain of the sign of the correction, but
>> that was certainly not the case for those who built NTS-2, as
>> should be blatantly obvious in the following quotation:
>>
>>> "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 general relativity, then the synthesizer
>>> could be turned on, bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary
>>> for operation. After the Cesium clock was turned on in NTS-2, it was
>>> operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on
>>> the synthesizer [11]. The frequency measured during that interval was
>>> +442.5 parts in 10¹² compared to clocks on the ground, while general
>>> relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10¹². The difference was well
>>> within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then
>>> gave about a 1% verification of the combined second-order Doppler and
>>> gravitational frequency shift effects for a clock at 4.2 earth radii."

>>
> There is nothing in this quote that says the magnitude 446 was predicted
> before launch. Ask any lawyer. Look at the definitive part of the quote you rely
> on “ while general relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10¹². “ It does not specify
> whether this prediction was pre or post.

Read the quotation again.
The frequency synthesizer was built to lower the frequency
by the amount predicted by GR.
If you don't understand that the prediction must have been made
before the satellite was built, then you have a serious problem.

> That quote is completely consistent with the theorists looking at clock gains...
> And then figuring out how to predict something that matches it.
> Proof is..Have you a quote from *pre launch* that says Relativity predicts
> 446ps?

> And the second point you ignore is: Yes, you have one vague
> quote suggesting it’s preset to 10.229999.89543.

It's not "suggested", it is _specified_
According to the Interface _SPECIFICATION_ document:
https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200N.pdf

"The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to
an observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz."
"The clock rates are offset by Δf/f = -4.4647E-10"
"This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz."

If the satellites were not built according to specification,
they wouldn't work,

> But why does the NIST specs
> you refer to and all others Ive seen, then clearly specify on at least a dozen other
> times in the same paper that the on board sat clock is set to run at 10.23Mhz?

Because the nominal frequency of the frequency standard is 10.23Mhz.
It's always the nominal frequencies that are specified.

>
>
>>
>>> IF RELATIVITY HAD PREDICTED THAT CLOSELY, IT WOULD HAVE KNOWN WHICH SIGN, SO IT DID NOT!
>>
>> This is the "interesting story" Ashby was referring to:
>>
>> INITIAL RESULTS OF THE NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 SATELLITE
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf
>>
>> Facts:
>> The satellite was first run with uncorrected clock for 6.5 days,
>> see fig 20.
>> The monitor stations measured the offset between the satellite
>> clock and the USNO reference clock 11 times between day 198.5
>> and day 205, 1977. The offset increased more than 200 μs,
>> equivalent to +443.1E-12 too fast.

> You will have to clarify this. Because you yourself in a earlier thread
> said very clearly that classical Doppler shifting of signals due to
> satelitte orbital speeds relative to ground far outweigh any predicted
> effects from relativity. Seeing as all satelittes orbit at different
> paths vectors v relative to any single ground observer it would be impossible to
> say any relativistic effects are apparent. It would be like saying
> we can measure the air flow from your cough from ten feet away
> in the middle of a hurricane.

Of course no relativistic phenomena are apparent to the receiver.
Why should it?
The receiver doesn't measure any frequencies.
The receiver receives two modulated carrier signals,
with information about what the SV-time was when
the signal was sent. With this information from four
satellites, the receiver can calculate its time and position.

>
> This would concur with all the NIST and other specs which clearly
> and on numerous occasions say the sat clock is at set at 10.23Mhz.
> And that it is corrected daily. Don’t forget. The engineers don’t really
> care about relativity being confirmed. They just want to have a sat
> clock that can be adjusted daily. Even the atomic clocks themselves
> apparently routinely screw up their timekeeping.
> It doesn’t even make sense to worry about a preset clock at 10.22Mhz
> If daily gains/losses from Doppler were much larger than any minute
> daily gains accrued from relativity were also present.

You are obviously very ignorant of how the GPS work
and how the time is corrected.
https://paulba.no/div/GPS_clock_correction.pdf

t_SV is the time shown by the SV-clock.
t_SV is never corrected while the SV is in service,
and its error Δ
t_SV will typically be several μs.

t_SV is sent from the SV to the receiver together with
a few correctional parameters, the most important of
which is the clock offset a_f0.
The receiver can then calculate the correct system tine t,
that is the time when the signal was sent.
See reference above.

Note that the correctional parameters are measured by
the monitor stations, and uploaded to the SVs when needed,
typically once a day. This is the "daily adjustment" you
mentioned, _but the SV_clock is NOT adjusted_.

Bbecause of the number of bits a_f0 is coded with,
the clock offset must be less that 1 ms, this means
that the SV clock error Δ
t_SV must be less then 1 ms.

If the SV-clock was not corrected by the factor (1-4.4646E-10),
then a_f0 would overflow after less than 26 days, and
the SY wouldn't work.

Bottom line:
The _only_ reason for the GR-correction is to keep th SV clock
correct within 1 ms.

>> "The {T-O) slope gives the frequency offset of +442.5 pp10¹²
>> with respect to the PMA clock. Inclusion of the PMA frequency
>> offset of +0.6 PP 10¹² produces an NTS measured value
>> of +443.1 pp10¹². Comparison of this value to the predicted
>> value of the relativistic offset of +445.0 pp10¹² gives
>> a difference of -3.1 pp10¹²."
>>
>>
>> "On Day 215,1977, the NTS-2 PRO-5 output signal was
>> offset {Fig. 21) through the use of a frequency synthesizer".
>>
>> This frequency synthesizer lowered the frequency by -445.0E-12.
>> After this the frequency offset was +7.9E-13.
>>
>> So you see, the correction was calculated and built into
>> the frequency synthesizer before launch, and the correction
>> proved to be correct within the precision of the clock.
>>
>> So it is quite stupid to claim that they didn't know the sign
>> of the correction and that the correction was measured, not calculated.
>> Don't you agree?

>
> Can you cite a pre launch pre 1977 paper predicting exactly +446 gains
> for relativity?

So you don't agree.
But it IS stupid!

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Snip rest of volney nonsense
>
> > Unlike your rule breaking m^2/ s^2 which isn’t unless you can answer the
> > following question...
> > What units is the c^2 in your GR formula?
>
> c^2 is part of a larger formula. For example, the equation E=mc^2 the
> right side has units of mass times distance^2 divided by time^2
> (c=distance/time). That combination has units of energy (joules in SI)
> which is good because the E on the left side represents energy.

Pure contradiction from Volney. Says I have to use SI units..otherwise
any result I get is automatically incorrect. Even though the result it is exactly
the same as that predicted by GR down to at least e-12 digits.
But then he can’t say what SI units c^2 ( m^2/s^2) is in the GR formulas.
So answer the question.
Which SI unit is c^2 in your preferred formula?
Cant answer again?
According to Volney logic it looks like GRs calculation using the
incorrect SI unit of c^2...is incorrect.

On Wednesday 3 January 2024 at 14:10:32 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 02.01.2024 21:42, skrev Lou:
> > On Tuesday 2 January 2024 at 18:07:32 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 02.01.2024 06:25, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> >>> Yes, Ashby's quote clearly proves the effect was learned empirically and not predicted by relativity: “Relativity in the Global Positioning System”
> >>>
> >>> "There is an interesting story about this frequency offset.
> >>> At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977),
> >>> which contained the first Cesium atomic clock to be placed
> >>> in orbit, it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require
> >>> a relativistic correction, but there was uncertainty as to its
> >>> magnitude as well as its sign. Indeed, there were some who doubted
> >>> that relativistic effects were truths that would need to be
> >>> incorporated [5]!"
> >>>
> >>
> >> Some may have been uncertain of the sign of the correction, but
> >> that was certainly not the case for those who built NTS-2, as
> >> should be blatantly obvious in the following quotation:
> >>
> >>> "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 general relativity, then the synthesizer
> >>> could be turned on, bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary
> >>> for operation. After the Cesium clock was turned on in NTS-2, it was
> >>> operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on
> >>> the synthesizer [11]. The frequency measured during that interval was
> >>> +442.5 parts in 10¹² compared to clocks on the ground, while general
> >>> relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10¹². The difference was well
> >>> within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then
> >>> gave about a 1% verification of the combined second-order Doppler and
> >>> gravitational frequency shift effects for a clock at 4.2 earth radii."
>
> >>
> > There is nothing in this quote that says the magnitude 446 was predicted
> > before launch. Ask any lawyer. Look at the definitive part of the quote you rely
> > on “ while general relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10¹². “ It does not specify
> > whether this prediction was pre or post.
> Read the quotation again.
> The frequency synthesizer was built to lower the frequency
> by the amount predicted by GR.
> If you don't understand that the prediction must have been made
> before the satellite was built, then you have a serious problem.

You have a serious problem when just one quote from your document says
the clock can be adjusted for clock gains due to much larger gains/losses
from dopppler shifting, as you have admitted.
And at least a dozen quotes confirm the sat clock is preset to 10.23Mhz.

> > That quote is completely consistent with the theorists looking at clock gains...
> > And then figuring out how to predict something that matches it.
> > Proof is..Have you a quote from *pre launch* that says Relativity predicts
> > 446ps?
>
>
> > And the second point you ignore is: Yes, you have one vague
> > quote suggesting it’s preset to 10.229999.89543.
> It's not "suggested", it is _specified_
> According to the Interface _SPECIFICATION_ document:
> https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
>
> "The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to
> an observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz."
> "The clock rates are offset by Δf/f = -4.4647E-10"
> "This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz."
>
> If the satellites were not built according to specification,
> they wouldn't work,

Where’s your citation and quote from pre 1977 launch predicting
Total gains of 446ps at 4.12 Earth radius?
Cant find it?
Why does the Neil Ashby paper, copied on your website, saying the magnitude
was not known pre launch contradict your false assumption it was?

> > But why does the NIST specs
> > you refer to and all others Ive seen, then clearly specify on at least a dozen other
> > times in the same paper that the on board sat clock is set to run at 10..23Mhz?
> Because the nominal frequency of the frequency standard is 10.23Mhz.
> It's always the nominal frequencies that are specified.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>> IF RELATIVITY HAD PREDICTED THAT CLOSELY, IT WOULD HAVE KNOWN WHICH SIGN, SO IT DID NOT!
> >>
> >> This is the "interesting story" Ashby was referring to:
> >>
> >> INITIAL RESULTS OF THE NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 SATELLITE
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf
> >>
> >> Facts:
> >> The satellite was first run with uncorrected clock for 6.5 days,
> >> see fig 20.
> >> The monitor stations measured the offset between the satellite
> >> clock and the USNO reference clock 11 times between day 198.5
> >> and day 205, 1977. The offset increased more than 200 μs,
> >> equivalent to +443.1E-12 too fast.
>
>
> > You will have to clarify this. Because you yourself in a earlier thread
> > said very clearly that classical Doppler shifting of signals due to
> > satelitte orbital speeds relative to ground far outweigh any predicted
> > effects from relativity. Seeing as all satelittes orbit at different
> > paths vectors v relative to any single ground observer it would be impossible to
> > say any relativistic effects are apparent. It would be like saying
> > we can measure the air flow from your cough from ten feet away
> > in the middle of a hurricane.
> Of course no relativistic phenomena are apparent to the receiver.
> Why should it?
> The receiver doesn't measure any frequencies.
> The receiver receives two modulated carrier signals,
> with information about what the SV-time was when
> the signal was sent. With this information from four
> satellites, the receiver can calculate its time and position.

Interesting obfuscation . To start with it is clear the sat clock
is preset to 10.23Mz. You can’t ignore the dozens of times this is
stated even in this one doc.
And..Of course no relativistic phenomena would be apparent to the receiver.
That’s because the sat signal is swamped by much larger classical Doppler
shifting of the signal every day. As you yourself admit elsewhere.
What you also fail to understand is that even if there ARE relativistic clock
gains it would make no difference nor be measureable. Because daily Doppler shifting
and any on board time glitches by the atomic clock would make it impossible
to seperate out any smaller GR and SR effects . That’s why the clock needs to be corrected
daily.
In fact if you think about it, any satelitte engineer designing the GPS
system would have to design in a daily correctable clock to correct all the
above non relativistic clock gains/losses. Even if no
Relativistic gains/losses were ever expected.

> >
> > This would concur with all the NIST and other specs which clearly
> > and on numerous occasions say the sat clock is at set at 10.23Mhz.
> > And that it is corrected daily. Don’t forget. The engineers don’t really
> > care about relativity being confirmed. They just want to have a sat
> > clock that can be adjusted daily. Even the atomic clocks themselves
> > apparently routinely screw up their timekeeping.
> > It doesn’t even make sense to worry about a preset clock at 10.22Mhz
> > If daily gains/losses from Doppler were much larger than any minute
> > daily gains accrued from relativity were also present.
> You are obviously very ignorant of how the GPS work
> and how the time is corrected.
> https://paulba.no/div/GPS_clock_correction.pdf
>
Smart enough to be able to read your NIST specs and see
that it says very clearly numerous times...the sat broadcast f is 10.23Mhz.

On Wednesday 3 January 2024 at 14:10:32 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 02.01.2024 21:42, skrev Lou:
> > On Tuesday 2 January 2024 at 18:07:32 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 02.01.2024 06:25, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> >>> Yes, Ashby's quote clearly proves the effect was learned empirically and not predicted by relativity: “Relativity in the Global Positioning System”
> >>>
> >>> "There is an interesting story about this frequency offset.
> >>> At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977),
> >>> which contained the first Cesium atomic clock to be placed
> >>> in orbit, it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require
> >>> a relativistic correction, but there was uncertainty as to its
> >>> magnitude as well as its sign. Indeed, there were some who doubted
> >>> that relativistic effects were truths that would need to be
> >>> incorporated [5]!"
> >>>
> >>
> >> Some may have been uncertain of the sign of the correction, but
> >> that was certainly not the case for those who built NTS-2, as
> >> should be blatantly obvious in the following quotation:
> >>
> >>> "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 general relativity, then the synthesizer
> >>> could be turned on, bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary
> >>> for operation. After the Cesium clock was turned on in NTS-2, it was
> >>> operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on
> >>> the synthesizer [11]. The frequency measured during that interval was
> >>> +442.5 parts in 10¹² compared to clocks on the ground, while general
> >>> relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10¹². The difference was well
> >>> within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then
> >>> gave about a 1% verification of the combined second-order Doppler and
> >>> gravitational frequency shift effects for a clock at 4.2 earth radii."
>
> >>
> > There is nothing in this quote that says the magnitude 446 was predicted
> > before launch. Ask any lawyer. Look at the definitive part of the quote you rely
> > on “ while general relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10¹². “ It does not specify
> > whether this prediction was pre or post.
> Read the quotation again.
> The frequency synthesizer was built to lower the frequency
> by the amount predicted by GR.
> If you don't understand that the prediction must have been made
> before the satellite was built, then you have a serious problem.
> > That quote is completely consistent with the theorists looking at clock gains...
> > And then figuring out how to predict something that matches it.
> > Proof is..Have you a quote from *pre launch* that says Relativity predicts
> > 446ps?
>
>
> > And the second point you ignore is: Yes, you have one vague
> > quote suggesting it’s preset to 10.229999.89543.
> It's not "suggested", it is _specified_
> According to the Interface _SPECIFICATION_ document:
> https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
>
> "The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to
> an observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz."
> "The clock rates are offset by Δf/f = -4.4647E-10"
> "This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz."
>
> If the satellites were not built according to specification,
> they wouldn't work,
> > But why does the NIST specs
> > you refer to and all others Ive seen, then clearly specify on at least a dozen other
> > times in the same paper that the on board sat clock is set to run at 10..23Mhz?
> Because the nominal frequency of the frequency standard is 10.23Mhz.
> It's always the nominal frequencies that are specified.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>> IF RELATIVITY HAD PREDICTED THAT CLOSELY, IT WOULD HAVE KNOWN WHICH SIGN, SO IT DID NOT!
> >>
> >> This is the "interesting story" Ashby was referring to:
> >>
> >> INITIAL RESULTS OF THE NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 SATELLITE
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf
> >>
> >> Facts:
> >> The satellite was first run with uncorrected clock for 6.5 days,
> >> see fig 20.
> >> The monitor stations measured the offset between the satellite
> >> clock and the USNO reference clock 11 times between day 198.5
> >> and day 205, 1977. The offset increased more than 200 μs,
> >> equivalent to +443.1E-12 too fast.
>
>
> > You will have to clarify this. Because you yourself in a earlier thread
> > said very clearly that classical Doppler shifting of signals due to
> > satelitte orbital speeds relative to ground far outweigh any predicted
> > effects from relativity. Seeing as all satelittes orbit at different
> > paths vectors v relative to any single ground observer it would be impossible to
> > say any relativistic effects are apparent. It would be like saying
> > we can measure the air flow from your cough from ten feet away
> > in the middle of a hurricane.
> Of course no relativistic phenomena are apparent to the receiver.
> Why should it?
> The receiver doesn't measure any frequencies.
> The receiver receives two modulated carrier signals,
> with information about what the SV-time was when
> the signal was sent. With this information from four
> satellites, the receiver can calculate its time and position.
> >
> > This would concur with all the NIST and other specs which clearly
> > and on numerous occasions say the sat clock is at set at 10.23Mhz.
> > And that it is corrected daily. Don’t forget. The engineers don’t really
> > care about relativity being confirmed. They just want to have a sat
> > clock that can be adjusted daily. Even the atomic clocks themselves
> > apparently routinely screw up their timekeeping.
> > It doesn’t even make sense to worry about a preset clock at 10.22Mhz
> > If daily gains/losses from Doppler were much larger than any minute
> > daily gains accrued from relativity were also present.
> You are obviously very ignorant of how the GPS work
> and how the time is corrected.
> https://paulba.no/div/GPS_clock_correction.pdf
>
> t_SV is the time shown by the SV-clock.
> t_SV is never corrected while the SV is in service,
> and its error Δ t_SV will typically be several μs.
>
> t_SV is sent from the SV to the receiver together with
> a few correctional parameters, the most important of
> which is the clock offset a_f0.
> The receiver can then calculate the correct system tine t,
> that is the time when the signal was sent.
> See reference above.
>
> Note that the correctional parameters are measured by
> the monitor stations, and uploaded to the SVs when needed,
> typically once a day. This is the "daily adjustment" you
> mentioned, _but the SV_clock is NOT adjusted_.
>
> Bbecause of the number of bits a_f0 is coded with,
> the clock offset must be less that 1 ms, this means
> that the SV clock error Δ t_SV must be less then 1 ms.
>
> If the SV-clock was not corrected by the factor (1-4.4646E-10),
> then a_f0 would overflow after less than 26 days, and
> the SY wouldn't work.
>
> Bottom line:
> The _only_ reason for the GR-correction is to keep th SV clock
> correct within 1 ms.
> >> "The {T-O) slope gives the frequency offset of +442.5 pp10¹²
> >> with respect to the PMA clock. Inclusion of the PMA frequency
> >> offset of +0.6 PP 10¹² produces an NTS measured value
> >> of +443.1 pp10¹². Comparison of this value to the predicted
> >> value of the relativistic offset of +445.0 pp10¹² gives
> >> a difference of -3.1 pp10¹²."
> >>
> >>
> >> "On Day 215,1977, the NTS-2 PRO-5 output signal was
> >> offset {Fig. 21) through the use of a frequency synthesizer".
> >>
> >> This frequency synthesizer lowered the frequency by -445.0E-12.
> >> After this the frequency offset was +7.9E-13.
> >>
> >> So you see, the correction was calculated and built into
> >> the frequency synthesizer before launch, and the correction
> >> proved to be correct within the precision of the clock.
> >>
> >> So it is quite stupid to claim that they didn't know the sign
> >> of the correction and that the correction was measured, not calculated..
> >> Don't you agree?
>
> >
> > Can you cite a pre launch pre 1977 paper predicting exactly +446 gains
> > for relativity?
> So you don't agree.
> But it IS stupid!

On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 8:10:32 AM UTC-6, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> If the SV-clock was not corrected by the factor (1-4.4646E-10),
> then a_f0 would overflow after less than 26 days, and
> the SY wouldn't work.

I would somewhat disagree with your wording. I would prefer to
state that if the relativistic correction hadn’t been applied,
*then the entire GPS system would be broken from the start.*

People forget that GPS consists both of a Space Segment and a
Control segment. The Space Segment is the constellation of 24
in-service satellites plus spares.

The control segment comprises the Master Control Station at
Schriever AFB, the Alternate Master Control Station at Vandenberg
AFB, and a worldwide network of tracking and monitoring stations
that check on the health of the satellites, precisely monitor
their positions to within centimeters, make sure that the
satellite clocks are all sync’ed up, see to it that the
satellite ephemerides are uploaded with the latest position
corrections, provide the satellites with the latest ionospheric
weather reports and so forth.

To work effectively as a unified system. the Space Segment clocks
and the Control Segment clocks had to all be running on the same
time. Using 1970s technology, The Control Segment simply could not
possibly be expected to manage the Space Segment effectively if
the Space Segment clocks were running 38.6 microseconds per day
fast. All of the clocks in the GPS system needed to be sync’ed
within nanoseconds of each other whether they are in space or on
the ground.

Using modern technology, it is quite conceivable (although rather
stupid) to have the Space Segment clocks running uncorrected, so
that they continuously run further and further out of sync with
ground clocks. All you would need would be to add a extra bits to
af_0 so that you can run the satellites for several years without
overflow. Indeed, that *may* have been how the Galileo designers
originally intended that Galileo should work.

Using 1970s technology, it was a matter of "don't be absurd."

On Wednesday 3 January 2024 at 15:10:32 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 02.01.2024 21:42, skrev Lou:
> > On Tuesday 2 January 2024 at 18:07:32 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 02.01.2024 06:25, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> >>> Yes, Ashby's quote clearly proves the effect was learned empirically and not predicted by relativity: “Relativity in the Global Positioning System”
> >>>
> >>> "There is an interesting story about this frequency offset.
> >>> At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977),
> >>> which contained the first Cesium atomic clock to be placed
> >>> in orbit, it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require
> >>> a relativistic correction, but there was uncertainty as to its
> >>> magnitude as well as its sign. Indeed, there were some who doubted
> >>> that relativistic effects were truths that would need to be
> >>> incorporated [5]!"
> >>>
> >>
> >> Some may have been uncertain of the sign of the correction, but
> >> that was certainly not the case for those who built NTS-2, as
> >> should be blatantly obvious in the following quotation:
> >>
> >>> "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 general relativity, then the synthesizer
> >>> could be turned on, bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary
> >>> for operation. After the Cesium clock was turned on in NTS-2, it was
> >>> operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on
> >>> the synthesizer [11]. The frequency measured during that interval was
> >>> +442.5 parts in 10¹² compared to clocks on the ground, while general
> >>> relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10¹². The difference was well
> >>> within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then
> >>> gave about a 1% verification of the combined second-order Doppler and
> >>> gravitational frequency shift effects for a clock at 4.2 earth radii."
>
> >>
> > There is nothing in this quote that says the magnitude 446 was predicted
> > before launch. Ask any lawyer. Look at the definitive part of the quote you rely
> > on “ while general relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10¹². “ It does not specify
> > whether this prediction was pre or post.
> Read the quotation again.
> The frequency synthesizer was built to lower the frequency
> by the amount predicted by GR.

A lie, of course, as usual; your insane Shit was predicting
all frequencies the same everywhere.

On Wednesday 3 January 2024 at 18:02:49 UTC+1, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 8:10:32 AM UTC-6, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > If the SV-clock was not corrected by the factor (1-4.4646E-10),
> > then a_f0 would overflow after less than 26 days, and
> > the SY wouldn't work.
> I would somewhat disagree with your wording. I would prefer to
> state that if the relativistic correction hadn’t been applied,

A lie, of course, as expected from a lying piece
of shit, the corrections are no way relativistic,
they're directly forbidden by your Holiest Postulate,
your ISO idiocy and whole of your moronic
religion.

On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 9:02:49 AM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 8:10:32 AM UTC-6, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > If the SV-clock was not corrected by the factor (1-4.4646E-10),
> > then a_f0 would overflow after less than 26 days, and
> > the SY wouldn't work.
> I would somewhat disagree with your wording. I would prefer to
> state that if the relativistic correction hadn’t been applied,
> *then the entire GPS system would be broken from the start.*
>
> People forget that GPS consists both of a Space Segment and a
> Control segment. The Space Segment is the constellation of 24
> in-service satellites plus spares.
>
> The control segment comprises the Master Control Station at
> Schriever AFB, the Alternate Master Control Station at Vandenberg
> AFB, and a worldwide network of tracking and monitoring stations
> that check on the health of the satellites, precisely monitor
> their positions to within centimeters, make sure that the
> satellite clocks are all sync’ed up, see to it that the
> satellite ephemerides are uploaded with the latest position
> corrections, provide the satellites with the latest ionospheric
> weather reports and so forth.
>
> To work effectively as a unified system. the Space Segment clocks
> and the Control Segment clocks had to all be running on the same
> time. Using 1970s technology, The Control Segment simply could not
> possibly be expected to manage the Space Segment effectively if
> the Space Segment clocks were running 38.6 microseconds per day
> fast. All of the clocks in the GPS system needed to be sync’ed
> within nanoseconds of each other whether they are in space or on
> the ground.
>
> Using modern technology, it is quite conceivable (although rather
> stupid) to have the Space Segment clocks running uncorrected, so
> that they continuously run further and further out of sync with
> ground clocks. All you would need would be to add a extra bits to
> af_0 so that you can run the satellites for several years without
> overflow. Indeed, that *may* have been how the Galileo designers
> originally intended that Galileo should work.
>
> Using 1970s technology, it was a matter of "don't be absurd."
The clock adjustment for gravity is not about relativity. Only gravity. It was obtained empirically.

On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 7:42:27 AM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> On Wednesday 3 January 2024 at 14:10:32 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > Den 02.01.2024 21:42, skrev Lou:
> > > On Tuesday 2 January 2024 at 18:07:32 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > >> Den 02.01.2024 06:25, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > >>> Yes, Ashby's quote clearly proves the effect was learned empirically and not predicted by relativity: “Relativity in the Global Positioning System”
> > >>>
> > >>> "There is an interesting story about this frequency offset.
> > >>> At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977),
> > >>> which contained the first Cesium atomic clock to be placed
> > >>> in orbit, it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require
> > >>> a relativistic correction, but there was uncertainty as to its
> > >>> magnitude as well as its sign. Indeed, there were some who doubted
> > >>> that relativistic effects were truths that would need to be
> > >>> incorporated [5]!"
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Some may have been uncertain of the sign of the correction, but
> > >> that was certainly not the case for those who built NTS-2, as
> > >> should be blatantly obvious in the following quotation:
> > >>
> > >>> "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 general relativity, then the synthesizer
> > >>> could be turned on, bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary
> > >>> for operation. After the Cesium clock was turned on in NTS-2, it was
> > >>> operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on
> > >>> the synthesizer [11]. The frequency measured during that interval was
> > >>> +442.5 parts in 10¹² compared to clocks on the ground, while general
> > >>> relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10¹². The difference was well
> > >>> within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then
> > >>> gave about a 1% verification of the combined second-order Doppler and
> > >>> gravitational frequency shift effects for a clock at 4.2 earth radii."
> >
> > >>
> > > There is nothing in this quote that says the magnitude 446 was predicted
> > > before launch. Ask any lawyer. Look at the definitive part of the quote you rely
> > > on “ while general relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10¹². “ It does not specify
> > > whether this prediction was pre or post.
> > Read the quotation again.
> > The frequency synthesizer was built to lower the frequency
> > by the amount predicted by GR.
> > If you don't understand that the prediction must have been made
> > before the satellite was built, then you have a serious problem.
> > > That quote is completely consistent with the theorists looking at clock gains...
> > > And then figuring out how to predict something that matches it.
> > > Proof is..Have you a quote from *pre launch* that says Relativity predicts
> > > 446ps?
> >
> >
> > > And the second point you ignore is: Yes, you have one vague
> > > quote suggesting it’s preset to 10.229999.89543.
> > It's not "suggested", it is _specified_
> > According to the Interface _SPECIFICATION_ document:
> > https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
> >
> > "The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to
> > an observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz."
> > "The clock rates are offset by Δf/f = -4.4647E-10"
> > "This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz."
> >
> > If the satellites were not built according to specification,
> > they wouldn't work,
> > > But why does the NIST specs
> > > you refer to and all others Ive seen, then clearly specify on at least a dozen other
> > > times in the same paper that the on board sat clock is set to run at 10.23Mhz?
> > Because the nominal frequency of the frequency standard is 10.23Mhz.
> > It's always the nominal frequencies that are specified.
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >>> IF RELATIVITY HAD PREDICTED THAT CLOSELY, IT WOULD HAVE KNOWN WHICH SIGN, SO IT DID NOT!
> > >>
> > >> This is the "interesting story" Ashby was referring to:
> > >>
> > >> INITIAL RESULTS OF THE NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 SATELLITE
> > >> https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf
> > >>
> > >> Facts:
> > >> The satellite was first run with uncorrected clock for 6.5 days,
> > >> see fig 20.
> > >> The monitor stations measured the offset between the satellite
> > >> clock and the USNO reference clock 11 times between day 198.5
> > >> and day 205, 1977. The offset increased more than 200 μs,
> > >> equivalent to +443.1E-12 too fast.
> >
> >
> > > You will have to clarify this. Because you yourself in a earlier thread
> > > said very clearly that classical Doppler shifting of signals due to
> > > satelitte orbital speeds relative to ground far outweigh any predicted
> > > effects from relativity. Seeing as all satelittes orbit at different
> > > paths vectors v relative to any single ground observer it would be impossible to
> > > say any relativistic effects are apparent. It would be like saying
> > > we can measure the air flow from your cough from ten feet away
> > > in the middle of a hurricane.
> > Of course no relativistic phenomena are apparent to the receiver.
> > Why should it?
> > The receiver doesn't measure any frequencies.
> > The receiver receives two modulated carrier signals,
> > with information about what the SV-time was when
> > the signal was sent. With this information from four
> > satellites, the receiver can calculate its time and position.
> > >
> > > This would concur with all the NIST and other specs which clearly
> > > and on numerous occasions say the sat clock is at set at 10.23Mhz.
> > > And that it is corrected daily. Don’t forget. The engineers don’t really
> > > care about relativity being confirmed. They just want to have a sat
> > > clock that can be adjusted daily. Even the atomic clocks themselves
> > > apparently routinely screw up their timekeeping.
> > > It doesn’t even make sense to worry about a preset clock at 10.22Mhz
> > > If daily gains/losses from Doppler were much larger than any minute
> > > daily gains accrued from relativity were also present.
> > You are obviously very ignorant of how the GPS work
> > and how the time is corrected.
> > https://paulba.no/div/GPS_clock_correction.pdf
> >
> > t_SV is the time shown by the SV-clock.
> > t_SV is never corrected while the SV is in service,
> > and its error Δ t_SV will typically be several μs.
> >
> > t_SV is sent from the SV to the receiver together with
> > a few correctional parameters, the most important of
> > which is the clock offset a_f0.
> > The receiver can then calculate the correct system tine t,
> > that is the time when the signal was sent.
> > See reference above.
> >
> > Note that the correctional parameters are measured by
> > the monitor stations, and uploaded to the SVs when needed,
> > typically once a day. This is the "daily adjustment" you
> > mentioned, _but the SV_clock is NOT adjusted_.
> >
> > Bbecause of the number of bits a_f0 is coded with,
> > the clock offset must be less that 1 ms, this means
> > that the SV clock error Δ t_SV must be less then 1 ms.
> >
> > If the SV-clock was not corrected by the factor (1-4.4646E-10),
> > then a_f0 would overflow after less than 26 days, and
> > the SY wouldn't work.
> >
> > Bottom line:
> > The _only_ reason for the GR-correction is to keep th SV clock
> > correct within 1 ms.
> > >> "The {T-O) slope gives the frequency offset of +442.5 pp10¹²
> > >> with respect to the PMA clock. Inclusion of the PMA frequency
> > >> offset of +0.6 PP 10¹² produces an NTS measured value
> > >> of +443.1 pp10¹². Comparison of this value to the predicted
> > >> value of the relativistic offset of +445.0 pp10¹² gives
> > >> a difference of -3.1 pp10¹²."
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> "On Day 215,1977, the NTS-2 PRO-5 output signal was
> > >> offset {Fig. 21) through the use of a frequency synthesizer".
> > >>
> > >> This frequency synthesizer lowered the frequency by -445.0E-12.
> > >> After this the frequency offset was +7.9E-13.
> > >>
> > >> So you see, the correction was calculated and built into
> > >> the frequency synthesizer before launch, and the correction
> > >> proved to be correct within the precision of the clock.
> > >>
> > >> So it is quite stupid to claim that they didn't know the sign
> > >> of the correction and that the correction was measured, not calculated.
> > >> Don't you agree?
> >
> > >
> > > Can you cite a pre launch pre 1977 paper predicting exactly +446 gains
> > > for relativity?
> > So you don't agree.
> > But it IS stupid!
> It’s not stupid to read multiple quotes from your spec saying presets are 10.23
> Maybe there is a good reason. And you can explain.
> So...Rather than repeatedly telling you the spec you cite contains many
> these references to10.23 and having you ignore these quotes
> I’ve replaced that post and just copied and pasted from your doc specs itself.
> So you can’t dispute it.
> Yes you have one sort of reference to 10.22,...But why then does the spec go on
> to contradict that quote in numerous other places? Here’s some below:
>
> 3.2.1.1 P-Code
> IS-GPS-200N 01-AUG-2022
> The PRN P-code for SV ID number i, for i = 1 to 37, is a ranging code, Pi(t), of 7 days in length at a chipping rate of 10.23 Mbps.
>
> 3.2.1.3 C/A-Code
> The PRN C/A-code for SV ID number i is a Gold code, Gi(t), of 1 millisecond in length at a chipping rate of 1023 kbps. The Gi(t) sequence is a linear pattern generated by the modulo-2 addition of two sub-sequences, G1 and G2i, each of which is a 1023 chip long linear pattern.
>
> 3.2.1.4 L2 CM-Code (IIR-M, IIF, and subsequent blocks)
> The PRN L2 CM-code for SV ID number i is a ranging code, CM,i(t), which is 20 milliseconds in length at a chipping rate of 511.5 kbps. The epochs of the L2 CM-code are synchronized with the X1 epochs of the P-code. The CM,i(t) sequence is a linear pattern which is short cycled every count of 10230 chips by resetting with a specified initial state. Assignment of initial states by GPS PRN signal number is given in Table 3-IIa.
>
> Table 3-IIa, Table 3-IIb
> * Short cycled period = 10230 **
>
> 3.2.3 L1/L2 Signal Structure
> ....The L2 CM-code with the 50 sps symbol stream of DC(t) is time-multiplexed with L2 CL- code at a 1023 kHz rate as described in paragraph 3.2.2.
>
> 3.3.2 PRN Code Characteristics
> IS-GPS-200N 01-AUG-2022
> The characteristics of the P-, L2 CM-, L2 CL-, and the C/A-codes are defined below in terms of their structure and the basic method used for generating them. Figure 3-1 depicts a simplified block diagram of the scheme for generating the 10.23 Mbps Pi(t) and the 1.023 Mbps Gi(t) patterns (referred to as P- and C/A-codes respectively), and for modulo-2 summing these patterns with the LNAV bit train, D(t), which is clocked at 50 bps. The resultant composite bit trains are then used to modulate the signal carriers.
> 3.3.2.1 Code Structure
> For PRN codes 1 through 37, the Pi(t) pattern (P-code) is generated by the modulo-2 summation of two PRN codes, X1(t) and X2(t - iT), where T is the period of one P-code chip and equals (1.023E7)-1 seconds,
>
> 3.3.2.4 L2 CM-/L2 CL-Code Generation
> IS-GPS-200N 01-AUG-2022
> Each CM,i(t) pattern (L2 CM-code) and CL,i(t) pattern (L2 CL-code) are generated using the same code generator polynomial each clocked at 511.5 kbps.. Each pattern is initiated and reset with a specified initial state (defined in Table 3-II). CM,i(t) pattern is reset after 10230 chips resulting in a code period of 20 milliseconds,
>
> Figure 3-1. , Figure 3-6. Figure 3-1, Figure 3-11, Figure 3-12. ..all Clearly say 10.23
>
> 3.3.2.3 C/A-Code Generation
> Each Gi(t) sequence is a 1023-bit Gold-code which is itself the modulo-2 sum of two 1023-bit linear patterns, G1 and G2i. The G2i sequence is formed by effectively delaying the G2 sequence by an integer number of chips. The G1 and G2 sequences are generated by 10-stage shift registers having the following polynomials as referred to in the shift register input (see Figures 3-8 and 3-9).
> G1 = X10 + X3 + 1, and
> G2=X10 +X9 +X8 +X6 +X3 +X2 +1.
> The initialization vector for the G1 and G2 sequences is 1111111111. The G1 and G2 shift registers are initialized at the P-coder X1 epoch. The G1 and G2 registers are clocked at 1.023 MHz derived from the 10.23 MHz P-coder clock. The initialization by the X1 epoch phases the 1.023 MHz clock to insure that the first
I think he answered you here, didn't he?: "But why does the NIST specs
> > you refer to and all others Ive seen, then clearly specify on at least a dozen other
> > times in the same paper that the on board sat clock is set to run at 10..23Mhz?
> Because the nominal frequency of the frequency standard is 10.23Mhz.
> It's always the nominal frequencies that are specified."

On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 10:07:32 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 02.01.2024 06:25, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > Yes, Ashby's quote clearly proves the effect was learned empirically and not predicted by relativity: “Relativity in the Global Positioning System”
> >
> > "There is an interesting story about this frequency offset.
> > At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977),
> > which contained the first Cesium atomic clock to be placed
> > in orbit, it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require
> > a relativistic correction, but there was uncertainty as to its
> > magnitude as well as its sign. Indeed, there were some who doubted
> > that relativistic effects were truths that would need to be
> > incorporated [5]!"
> >
>
> Some may have been uncertain of the sign of the correction, but
> that was certainly not the case for those who built NTS-2, as
> should be blatantly obvious in the following quotation:
>
> > "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 general relativity, then the synthesizer
> > could be turned on, bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary
> > for operation. After the Cesium clock was turned on in NTS-2, it was
> > operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on
> > the synthesizer [11]. The frequency measured during that interval was
> > +442.5 parts in 10¹² compared to clocks on the ground, while general
> > relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10¹². The difference was well
> > within the accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then
> > gave about a 1% verification of the combined second-order Doppler and
> > gravitational frequency shift effects for a clock at 4.2 earth radii."
>
>
> > IF RELATIVITY HAD PREDICTED THAT CLOSELY, IT WOULD HAVE KNOWN WHICH SIGN, SO IT DID NOT!
>
> This is the "interesting story" Ashby was referring to:
>
> INITIAL RESULTS OF THE NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 SATELLITE
> https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf
>
> Facts:
> The satellite was first run with uncorrected clock for 6.5 days,
> see fig 20.
> The monitor stations measured the offset between the satellite
> clock and the USNO reference clock 11 times between day 198.5
> and day 205, 1977. The offset increased more than 200 μs,
> equivalent to +443.1E-12 too fast.
>
> "The {T-O) slope gives the frequency offset of +442.5 pp10¹²
> with respect to the PMA clock. Inclusion of the PMA frequency
> offset of +0.6 PP 10¹² produces an NTS measured value
> of +443.1 pp10¹². Comparison of this value to the predicted
> value of the relativistic offset of +445.0 pp10¹² gives
> a difference of -3.1 pp10¹²."
>
>
> "On Day 215,1977, the NTS-2 PRO-5 output signal was
> offset {Fig. 21) through the use of a frequency synthesizer".
>
> This frequency synthesizer lowered the frequency by -445.0E-12.
> After this the frequency offset was +7.9E-13.
>
> So you see, the correction was calculated and built into
> the frequency synthesizer before launch, and the correction
> proved to be correct within the precision of the clock.
>
> So it is quite stupid to claim that they didn't know the sign
> of the correction and that the correction was measured, not calculated.
> Don't you agree?
>
> Note that in 1977 relativity was believed to predict +445.0E-12.
> Ashby's more precise prediction is +446.47E-12 which is the value
> now specified in the interface control document.
> The _correction_ is -446.47E-12.
> If the correction had been -446.47E-12 in stead of -445.0E-12,
> the clock rate error after correction would be -6.8e-13
> in stead of +7.9E-13.
>
>
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/
To be clear: You said the relativity prediction came within 1%, so the synthesizer had to have adjusted it that much more, and that was not predicted.
Also, Is the correction to the GPS clocks twice Newtonian?

Lou's question is a good one: "Can you cite a pre launch pre 1977 paper predicting exactly +446 gains
for relativity?"

On Wednesday 3 January 2024 at 19:00:35 UTC, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 7:42:27 AM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> > On Wednesday 3 January 2024 at 14:10:32 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

> > The initialization vector for the G1 and G2 sequences is 1111111111. The G1 and G2 shift registers are initialized at the P-coder X1 epoch. The G1 and G2 registers are clocked at 1.023 MHz derived from the 10.23 MHz P-coder clock. The initialization by the X1 epoch phases the 1.023 MHz clock to insure that the first
> I think he answered you here, didn't he?: "But why does the NIST specs

Yes, I think you are right. But it still doesn’t quite add up when both
he and NIST say the nominal on board frequency is preset to 10.23Mhz.
But then say seperately that the on board frequency is offset to 10.22999Mhz ?
Does that make sense to you?
Anyways as I agree with you that gravity (resonance)could just as easily explain
any observed offset if there was one.. After all I noticed you don’t neccesarily
need the relativistic correction to accurately model clock gains/losses.
Because although the GR correction formula does predict 5.27e-10.
So does the much simpler classical formula GM/r ÷ c^2 , for
any radius above and including r at earths surface.
Which also gives 5.27e-10.
One can then easily calculate the SR contribution from that if you wish
and deduct it from 5.27 to get 446ps total.

Although quite why the arbitrary number 8.9875518e+16 used in both
formula (calculated from c^2 and in an unspecified unit of m^2/s^2) gives the correct
offset is a mystery to me. Because 5.27e-10, regardless of which formula, has nothing
to do with frequency or time. It’s just the force of gravity, potential if you insist,
calculated for any radius, and split into 89875518000000000 equal sized amounts
of 5.27e-10 of the total.
So dividing GM/ r into any amount will give a different “offset”
GM/r ÷ 1/2(8.9875518e+16 )= 1.05522118e-9 offset.
That’s double the offset for 1/2 of 8.9875518e+16 .
Coincidentally the same as the inverse frequency - wavelength relationship

On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 1:16:43 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> To be clear: You said the relativity prediction came within 1%,
> so the synthesizer had to have adjusted it that much more, and
> that was not predicted.

GPS satellites do not orbit at precisely nominal altitude, and
their orbits are affected by solar wind, the pressure of sunlight,
irregularities in the distribution of Earth's mass, etc. So what?

> Also, Is the correction to the GPS clocks twice Newtonian?

Newton predicts zero need for any clock corrections.

> Lou's question is a good one: "Can you cite a pre launch pre 1977
> paper predicting exactly +446 gains for relativity?"

The formulas are published. It's a trivial computation.

On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 12:29:00 PM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> On Wednesday 3 January 2024 at 19:00:35 UTC, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 7:42:27 AM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 3 January 2024 at 14:10:32 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
> > > The initialization vector for the G1 and G2 sequences is 1111111111. The G1 and G2 shift registers are initialized at the P-coder X1 epoch. The G1 and G2 registers are clocked at 1.023 MHz derived from the 10.23 MHz P-coder clock. The initialization by the X1 epoch phases the 1.023 MHz clock to insure that the first
> > I think he answered you here, didn't he?: "But why does the NIST specs
> Yes, I think you are right. But it still doesn’t quite add up when both
> he and NIST say the nominal on board frequency is preset to 10.23Mhz.
> But then say seperately that the on board frequency is offset to 10.22999Mhz ?
> Does that make sense to you?

I think the idea is that "nominally" is 10.23 because it runs effectively at 10.23, having been set to 10.229.
> Anyways as I agree with you that gravity (resonance)could just as easily explain
> any observed offset if there was one.. After all I noticed you don’t neccesarily
> need the relativistic correction to accurately model clock gains/losses.
> Because although the GR correction formula does predict 5.27e-10.
> So does the much simpler classical formula GM/r ÷ c^2 , for
> any radius above and including r at earths surface.
> Which also gives 5.27e-10.
> One can then easily calculate the SR contribution from that if you wish
> and deduct it from 5.27 to get 446ps total.
>
> Although quite why the arbitrary number 8.9875518e+16 used in both
> formula (calculated from c^2 and in an unspecified unit of m^2/s^2) gives the correct
> offset is a mystery to me. Because 5.27e-10, regardless of which formula, has nothing
> to do with frequency or time. It’s just the force of gravity, potential if you insist,
> calculated for any radius, and split into 89875518000000000 equal sized amounts
> of 5.27e-10 of the total.
> So dividing GM/ r into any amount will give a different “offset”
> GM/r ÷ 1/2(8.9875518e+16 )= 1.05522118e-9 offset.
> That’s double the offset for 1/2 of 8.9875518e+16 .
> Coincidentally the same as the inverse frequency - wavelength relationship
I do not understand, but perhaps you can tell me if the relativistic adjustment of the atomic clocks is twice Newtonian?

On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 12:36:23 PM UTC-8, Prokaryotic Capase Homolog wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 1:16:43 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> > To be clear: You said the relativity prediction came within 1%,
> > so the synthesizer had to have adjusted it that much more, and
> > that was not predicted.
> GPS satellites do not orbit at precisely nominal altitude, and
> their orbits are affected by solar wind, the pressure of sunlight,
> irregularities in the distribution of Earth's mass, etc. So what?
> > Also, Is the correction to the GPS clocks twice Newtonian?
> Newton predicts zero need for any clock corrections.
> > Lou's question is a good one: "Can you cite a pre launch pre 1977
> > paper predicting exactly +446 gains for relativity?"
> The formulas are published. It's a trivial computation.
The prediction was not about any of those things. It was about the clock rate. You are claiming that relativity got it exactly, and those other factors were the only difference, and that is not so.

Newton predicts as much as relativity for clock corrections because gravity is what causes the different clock rates.

Where are they published, and how do they predict it?

Louis Essen, inventor of the atomic clock, does not believe relativity has anything to do with the GPS: "'My criticisms were, of course, purely destructive, but I think the demolition
job was fairly complete. I concluded that the theory is not a theory at all, but simply a number of contradictory assumptions together with actual mistakes...... Einstein had no idea of the units and disciplines of measurement.'.... The effects are on the border line of what can be measured..... The authors tend to get the result required by the manipulation and selection of results." That is, lengths don't contract nor does time dilate.

On 1/3/2024 9:27 AM, Lou wrote:
> Snip rest of volney nonsense
>>
>>> Unlike your rule breaking m^2/ s^2 which isn’t unless you can answer the
>>> following question...
>>> What units is the c^2 in your GR formula?
>>
>> c^2 is part of a larger formula. For example, the equation E=mc^2 the
>> right side has units of mass times distance^2 divided by time^2
>> (c=distance/time). That combination has units of energy (joules in SI)
>> which is good because the E on the left side represents energy.
>
> Pure contradiction from Volney. Says I have to use SI units..otherwise
> any result I get is automatically incorrect.

Quit making up crap and attributing it to me. I only mention SI units as
what energy is measured in (joules).

Having the correct units means having the correct fundamental units
(length, mass, time) correct. All this means is you can't measure the
size of a farm field in seconds as area is length^2. Nor can you measure
time in kilograms* etc. Nor measure the square of a velocity, such as
the speed of light, in hertz (1/second).

Even though the result it is exactly
> the same as that predicted by GR down to at least e-12 digits.
> But then he can’t say what SI units c^2 ( m^2/s^2) is in the GR formulas.
> So answer the question.
> Which SI unit is c^2 in your preferred formula?
> Cant answer again?

Once again, square meters/square seconds. It should be blazingly obvious
since speed is meters/second and c is squared.

> According to Volney logic it looks like GRs calculation using the
> incorrect SI unit of c^2...is incorrect.

Nope. For E=mc^2, E is energy, m is mass, c is length/time, so the right
side is mass*length^2/time^2, which are the dimensions of energy. Both
sides have dimensions of energy so it passes the "automatically wrong" test.

On 1/3/2024 1:59 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> The clock adjustment for gravity is not about relativity. Only gravity. It was obtained empirically.

How the hell could it have been set empirically since the time offset
was preset BEFORE the launch? NTS-2 was the first satellite EVER to be
launched with Cs clocks so there was no other source of empirical data,
either.

And your statement "gravity is not about relativity" is contradictory as
gravity is an effect of general relativity.