On 1/3/2024 10:42 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Wednesday 3 January 2024 at 14:10:32 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 02.01.2024 21:42, skrev Lou:

>>> 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:

It looks like you did an uneducated blind search for 10.23 and 1023,
without interpreting their meanings.
>
> 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.

Nominal on the ground, where it is exactly 10.23 MHz. Not a statement
stating the transmitter is to be set to 10.23 MHz.

>
> 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.

First is the same. The 1023 is a count.
>
> 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.

That's 10230, and it is a count, not a frequency of 10.23 MHz.
>
> Table 3-IIa, Table 3-IIb
> * Short cycled period = 10230 **

Again, a count. See above.
>
> 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.

Again on the ground nominal.
>
> 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.

Again, nominal, no statement of setting the clock to 10.23 MHz.

> 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,

A count of 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,

Another count.
>
> Figure 3-1. , Figure 3-6. Figure 3-1, Figure 3-11, Figure 3-12. ..all Clearly say 10.23

Nominal again.

For you to be correct, you have to find ONE statement stating "The base
frequency is 10.23 MHz." Since there already is one statement stating
"The base frequency is 10.2299999954326 MHz", it cannot happen since
otherwise the spec would contradict itself if it did.

So show us the statement "The base frequency is 10.23 MHz." in the spec.

On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 4:31:47 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> 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.
The time offset can not have been preset before launch because they only found out how much to adjust it after launch. The two-switch story is a fairy tale.

Gravity is not an effect of relativity because a theory does not cause anything. It should explain nature rationally.

Relativity is not about anything since it is not a theory. Relativity only pretends to explain the cause of gravity. Gravity is not even electromagnetism.

I really can't help you with your confusion.

On 1/3/2024 10:27 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 4:31:47 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>> 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.

> The time offset can not have been preset before launch because they only found out how much to adjust it after launch.

And why do you claim that silliness? And do you have any evidence of it?
I didn't think so.

Also first you said it was preset empirically (with no data to set it
to) and now you claim it was not preset at all?

> The two-switch story is a fairy tale.

Again why do you claim that? Evidence? Again, I didn't think so. And why
is the switch right in the paper
>
> Gravity is not an effect of relativity because a theory does not cause anything. It should explain nature rationally.

And general relativity does just that.
>
> Relativity is not about anything since it is not a theory.

Why do you say that? It meets all the requirements of scientific theories.

> Relativity only pretends to explain the cause of gravity.

Why "pretends"? It gives a logical, scientific description and explanation.

> Gravity is not even electromagnetism.

Of course not. Just like GR says it has nothing to do with electromagnetism.
>
> I really can't help you with your confusion.

It is you who is confused, thinking things like GR says gravity is
electromagnetism, strange beliefs about NTS-2, don't understand what a
theory is in science, etc.

On Thursday 4 January 2024 at 01:31:47 UTC+1, Volney wrote:

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

Sure, stupid Mike, no reality could ever exist without
The Shit of our Giant Guru.

On Tuesday 2 January 2024 at 03:47:48 UTC, Volney wrote:
> On 1/1/2024 3:46 PM, Lou wrote:
> > On Monday 1 January 2024 at 16:57:33 UTC, Volney wrote:
> >> On 12/31/2023 2:48 PM, Lou wrote:
> >>> On Sunday 31 December 2023 at 17:19:13 UTC, Volney wrote:
> >>>> On 12/31/2023 5:27 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>>>> On Sunday 31 December 2023 at 03:17:25 UTC, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>> On 12/30/2023 8:07 PM, Lou wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Saturday 30 December 2023 at 23:13:15 UTC, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 12/30/2023 3:01 PM, Lou wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Saturday 30 December 2023 at 15:51:14 UTC, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 12/29/2023 6:11 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday 26 December 2023 at 20:28:04 UTC, Volney wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/26/2023 11:59 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tuesday 26 December 2023 at 16:48:43 UTC+1, Tom Roberts wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/26/23 1:37 AM, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And with the advent of GPS we now know that GR shit
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> has nothing in common with real clocks, real observers
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or real anything.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not true. We just know that Maciej Wozniak knows nothing about GPS, GR,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or clocks.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Spitting and ravings won't help, poor fanatic trash. the
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "improper" clocks of GPS will keep measuring t'=t, just
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> like all serious clocks always did.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> And once again, you got it back asswards. t'≠t is the whole reason why
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the master clock divisor on a GPS satellite is set to 9192631774.1 and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> not 9192631770.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> 4.1? I get 4.2 using Pauls method from his website.
> >>>>>>>>>>> 1.000000000457 × 9192661770= 9192661774.2
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 10.23 MHz (frequency received on ground)
> >>>>>>>>>> 10.2299999954326 MHz (transmitted frequency, from gps.gov website)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 10.23/10.2299999954326 = 1.0000000004464711634446932934426
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> 1.0000000004464711634446932934426 * 9192631770 =
> >>>>>>>>>> 9,192,631,774.1042450014705502072059
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> That's the divisor of a Cs clock to generate an exact 1 pps signal on
> >>>>>>>>>> the ground.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Yes, but let’s try the same calculation using the clock gain of 457 for
> >>>>>>>>> both SR and GR from 10.22999Mhz.
> >>>>>>>>> 1.000000000457x 9192661770= 9192661774.2
> >>>>>>>> Where did you get those numbers from? The second is defined to be
> >>>>>>>> 9192631770 Cs cycles, not 9192661770.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Yes, sorry my typos. It is 9192631770.
> >>>>>> And the calculations based on your incorrect value?
> >>>>>>> But my point is that you say you can calculate total gains of 457 for 10.22999Mhz
> >>>>>>> from the clock gains of another frequency ( that frequency being 8.9875518e+16hz
> >>>>>> That number 8.9875518e+16 is not a frequency. It is c^2.
> >>>>>>> which has a gain of +446 which you then use to calculate the gain
> >>>>>>> of +457 for 10.22999Mhz)
> >>>>>> And you have that value wrong as well.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 47379129.4927 ÷ 10229999.9954= 4.63139095932
> >>>>> If this above calculation and its resulting value is wrong...
> >>
> >>>> What is this 47379129.4927 number?
> >>
> >>> Please note I did start off trying to be polite. But seeing as I’m talking to
> >>> someone from the gutter ( who doesn’t even know what GM/r is....)
> >>> Ever heard of GM/r ? Obviously not. Because that’s what 47379129.4927 is.
> >> You never said so. And when you are coming up with word salad like
> >> calling the numerical value of c^2 a frequency, how am I to guess what
> >> some random number you may have pulled out of your ass is supposed to
> >> mean? I cannot read your mind, even if it is only a few neurons.
> >>> I think you are just upset that you don’t need a byzantine formulae from GR
> >>> to come up with the “clock gains” of 5.27e-10 for 4.12r. A simple GM/r ÷f
> >>> does the job just as well. Considering 5.27e-10 for 4.12r is also what GR
> >>> calculates
> >>> Oh! And by the way. You probably don’t know what 4.12 r is either.
> >>> I’ll give you a hint. It has something to do with the average orbital radius of
> >>> GPS satelittes.
> >> The average orbital radius of GPS satellites is 5.27e-10? In what units?
> >
> > You don’t know the average orbital radius of GPS satelittes? > Try Google.
> The orbital radius of GPS satellites is 26600 km. What units give an
> orbital radius of 5.27e-10? Light years? Not specifying units is very
> sloppy physics.
>
> (just checked, light years is incorrect but not absurdly so)
> >
> > 1.00000000044567113 × 10229999.9954326=10230000
>
> Well yes, the total time dilation times the compensated transmit
> frequency gives the desired receive frequency, that was the whole point
> of compensation. GR is where that number came from. Tell us something new..
> >
> >>>>> also gives the wrong value?
> >>>>> 47379430.8842 ÷ 8.9875518e+16 (GPS) = 5.2716726e-10
> >>
> >>>> GIGO. 8.9875518e+16 is NOT a frequency!
> >>
> >>> Since when can any number not be a frequency!!
> >>> Wow, you don’t realise frequencies can be any number
> >>> Including 8.9875518e+16 hz !!!
>
> >> But c^2 is NOT a frequency! It doesn't have the correct units of
> >
> > But 8.9875518e+16 is just a number.
> No, it is not. It is c^2 which is m^2/s^2, which are not units of frequency.
>
> 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.
> > 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.
>
> [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.
> > 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.
> >
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> [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?
> >
> > 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.

On Thursday 4 January 2024 at 00:45:36 UTC, Volney wrote:
> On 1/3/2024 10:42 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Wednesday 3 January 2024 at 14:10:32 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 02.01.2024 21:42, skrev Lou:
>
> >>> 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:
> It looks like you did an uneducated blind search for 10.23 and 1023,
> without interpreting their meanings.
> >
> > 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.
> Nominal on the ground, where it is exactly 10.23 MHz. Not a statement
> stating the transmitter is to be set to 10.23 MHz.
> >
> > 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.
> First is the same. The 1023 is a count.
> >
> > 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.
> That's 10230, and it is a count, not a frequency of 10.23 MHz.
> >
> > Table 3-IIa, Table 3-IIb
> > * Short cycled period = 10230 **
> Again, a count. See above.
> >
> > 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.
> Again on the ground nominal.
> >
> > 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.
> Again, nominal, no statement of setting the clock to 10.23 MHz.
> > 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,
> A count of 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,
> Another count.
> >
> > Figure 3-1. , Figure 3-6. Figure 3-1, Figure 3-11, Figure 3-12. ..all Clearly say 10.23
> Nominal again.
>
You obviously don’t know what “nominal frequency “ means.
It means the resonant frequency of the sat oscillator. You are using
the legal or financial meaning of nominal.
> For you to be correct, you have to find ONE statement stating "The base
> frequency is 10.23 MHz." Since there already is one statement stating
> "The base frequency is 10.2299999954326 MHz", it cannot happen since
> otherwise the spec would contradict itself if it did.
>
> So show us the statement "The base frequency is 10.23 MHz." in the spec.

Hilarious. The specs are about the GPS satellite. And nominal frequency
in physics means the frequency of the GPS sat oscillator.
What else would nominal and frequency and 10.23 be referring to?
If you think otherwise...show me just one quote of them all saying 10.23
refers to something else specific like for instance ... 10.23 is the size of
Volneys brain in mm.

On Thursday 4 January 2024 at 00:45:36 UTC, Volney wrote:
> On 1/3/2024 10:42 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Wednesday 3 January 2024 at 14:10:32 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 02.01.2024 21:42, skrev Lou:
>
> >>> 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:
> It looks like you did an uneducated blind search for 10.23 and 1023,
> without interpreting their meanings.
> >
> > 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.
> Nominal on the ground, where it is exactly 10.23 MHz. Not a statement
> stating the transmitter is to be set to 10.23 MHz.
> >
> > 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.
> First is the same. The 1023 is a count.
> >
> > 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.
> That's 10230, and it is a count, not a frequency of 10.23 MHz.
> >
> > Table 3-IIa, Table 3-IIb
> > * Short cycled period = 10230 **
> Again, a count. See above.
> >
> > 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.
> Again on the ground nominal.
> >
> > 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.
> Again, nominal, no statement of setting the clock to 10.23 MHz.
> > 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,
> A count of 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,
> Another count.
> >
> > Figure 3-1. , Figure 3-6. Figure 3-1, Figure 3-11, Figure 3-12. ..all Clearly say 10.23
> Nominal again.
>
> For you to be correct, you have to find ONE statement stating "The base
> frequency is 10.23 MHz." Since there already is one statement stating
> "The base frequency is 10.2299999954326 MHz", it cannot happen since
> otherwise the spec would contradict itself if it did.
>
> So show us the statement "The base frequency is 10.23 MHz." in the spec.

Here you go Volney boy. Seeing as you havent learnt how to google
I did it for you
It says clearly at the top that “ Three signals are transmitted at the
moment by GPS “ And then goes on to specify these 3 variations.
One of the three copied below. Additionally it refers to these as SV signals.
SV means GPS satelitte. Ask Paul. He just posted a couple days ago
a comment in which he says that SV means....Sat clock. Savvy?
I don’t see how you can assume this refers to anything but the transmission
signal or clock frequency of the satelitte.

https://gssc.esa.int/navipedia/index.php/GPS_Signal_Plan#:~:text=The%20PRN%20C%2FA%20Code,1023%20chip%20long%20linear%20pattern.

“ GPS L2 Band
GPS is transmitting in the L2 band (1227.60 MHz) a modernized civil signal known as L2C designed specifically to meet commercial needs as it enables the development of dual-frequency solutions; together with the P(Y) Code and the M-Code. The P(Y) Code and M-Code were already described shortly in the previous chapter and the properties and parameters are thus similar to those in the L1 band. In addition, for Block IIR-M, IIF, and subsequent blocks of SVs, two additional PRN ranging codes are transmitted. They are the L2 Civil Moderate (L2 CM) code and the L2 Civil Long (L2 CL) code. These two signals are time multiplexed so that the resulting chipping rate is double as high as that of each individual signal. We further describe them in the next lines more in detail:
L2 CM Code is transmitted in the IIR-M, IIF, III and subsequent blocks. The PRN L2 CM Code for SV number i is a ranging code, 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 sequence is a linear pattern which is short cycled every count period of ***10,230*** chips by resetting with a particular initial state. “

Does that say 10.23 or 10229999.9954326?

On 1/4/2024 4:57 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Thursday 4 January 2024 at 00:45:36 UTC, Volney wrote:

>> So show us the statement "The base frequency is 10.23 MHz." in the spec.
>
> Hilarious. The specs are about the GPS satellite. And nominal frequency
[bla bla bla]

So you cannot show us the statement "The base frequency is 10.23 MHz."
anywhere in the spec, and this is resolved. The transmitter is preset to
10.2299999954326 MHz, as defined in the spec, and as predicted by GR.

On 1/4/2024 5:20 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Thursday 4 January 2024 at 00:45:36 UTC, Volney wrote:
>> On 1/3/2024 10:42 AM, Lou wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 3 January 2024 at 14:10:32 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>> Den 02.01.2024 21:42, skrev Lou:
>>
>>>>> 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:
>> It looks like you did an uneducated blind search for 10.23 and 1023,
>> without interpreting their meanings.
>>>
>>> 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.
>> Nominal on the ground, where it is exactly 10.23 MHz. Not a statement
>> stating the transmitter is to be set to 10.23 MHz.
>>>
>>> 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.
>> First is the same. The 1023 is a count.
>>>
>>> 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.
>> That's 10230, and it is a count, not a frequency of 10.23 MHz.
>>>
>>> Table 3-IIa, Table 3-IIb
>>> * Short cycled period = 10230 **
>> Again, a count. See above.
>>>
>>> 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.
>> Again on the ground nominal.
>>>
>>> 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.
>> Again, nominal, no statement of setting the clock to 10.23 MHz.
>>> 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,
>> A count of 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,
>> Another count.
>>>
>>> Figure 3-1. , Figure 3-6. Figure 3-1, Figure 3-11, Figure 3-12. ..all Clearly say 10.23
>> Nominal again.
>>
>> For you to be correct, you have to find ONE statement stating "The base
>> frequency is 10.23 MHz." Since there already is one statement stating
>> "The base frequency is 10.2299999954326 MHz", it cannot happen since
>> otherwise the spec would contradict itself if it did.
>>
>> So show us the statement "The base frequency is 10.23 MHz." in the spec.
>
>
> Here you go Volney boy. Seeing as you havent learnt how to google
> I did it for you
> It says clearly at the top that “ Three signals are transmitted at the
> moment by GPS “ And then goes on to specify these 3 variations.
> One of the three copied below. Additionally it refers to these as SV signals.
> SV means GPS satelitte. Ask Paul. He just posted a couple days ago
> a comment in which he says that SV means....Sat clock. Savvy?
> I don’t see how you can assume this refers to anything but the transmission
> signal or clock frequency of the satelitte.
>
> https://gssc.esa.int/navipedia/index.php/GPS_Signal_Plan#:~:text=The%20PRN%20C%2FA%20Code,1023%20chip%20long%20linear%20pattern.
>
>
>
> “ GPS L2 Band
> GPS is transmitting in the L2 band (1227.60 MHz) a modernized civil signal known as L2C designed specifically to meet commercial needs as it enables the development of dual-frequency solutions; together with the P(Y) Code and the M-Code. The P(Y) Code and M-Code were already described shortly in the previous chapter and the properties and parameters are thus similar to those in the L1 band. In addition, for Block IIR-M, IIF, and subsequent blocks of SVs, two additional PRN ranging codes are transmitted. They are the L2 Civil Moderate (L2 CM) code and the L2 Civil Long (L2 CL) code. These two signals are time multiplexed so that the resulting chipping rate is double as high as that of each individual signal. We further describe them in the next lines more in detail:
> L2 CM Code is transmitted in the IIR-M, IIF, III and subsequent blocks. The PRN L2 CM Code for SV number i is a ranging code, 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 sequence is a linear pattern which is short cycled every count period of ***10,230*** chips by resetting with a particular initial state. “
>
>
> Does that say 10.23 or 10229999.9954326?

Neither. It says 10,230, which is a count of chips, not a frequency.
As I stated, you obviously did a simple text search of 10.23 or 1023,
without understanding what you found.

On Thursday 4 January 2024 at 19:04:01 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 1/4/2024 4:57 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Thursday 4 January 2024 at 00:45:36 UTC, Volney wrote:
>
> >> So show us the statement "The base frequency is 10.23 MHz." in the spec.
> >
> > Hilarious. The specs are about the GPS satellite. And nominal frequency
> [bla bla bla]
>
> So you cannot show us the statement "The base frequency is 10.23 MHz."
> anywhere in the spec, and this is resolved. The transmitter is preset to
> 10.2299999954326 MHz,

Can be preset. Afterf getting on the orbit it is 10.23, as measured.
Good bye, The Shit.

On Thursday 4 January 2024 at 18:04:01 UTC, Volney wrote:
> On 1/4/2024 4:57 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Thursday 4 January 2024 at 00:45:36 UTC, Volney wrote:
>
> >> So show us the statement "The base frequency is 10.23 MHz." in the spec.
> >
> > Hilarious. The specs are about the GPS satellite. And nominal frequency
> [bla bla bla]
>
> So you cannot show us the statement "The base frequency is 10.23 MHz."
> anywhere in the spec, and this is resolved. The transmitter is preset to
> 10.2299999954326 MHz, as defined in the spec, and as predicted by GR.

Unlike yourself I am open to the facts if citeable . After all if there is
an apparent time dilation of frequency I already said it can still be modelled
quite accurately without GR by just using the formula: GM/r ÷ f.
(Where f = 9192631770, the resonant f of caesium clock in satellite
And r-4.12r= 47379430.8842:
47379430.8842 ÷ 9192631770 = +0.005154066
Add that increase ..
10229999.9954326 + 0.005154066 = 10230000.0006
Not bad considering GR predicts 10230000.0008.

Even though in truth both formulae are just fiddles and actually have nothing
to do with ratios or frequencies. All they do is split GM/r into billions
of equal size abstract mathematical bits that have nothing to do with
clocks. Which is why I find it hard to believe that the SV signal is 10.22Mhz.
But unlike yourself I’m interested in the truth, not fantasies.

So....You insist above that only a quote that says “The base frequency is 10.23”
will settle the question. How about this compromise:
I’ll accept that the signal frequencies, are neither generated nor broadcast
at 10.23Mhz, if you show me your specific quote from the specs doc that
says “ The base frequency is 10.23 MHz."

https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200N.pdf

On Thursday 4 January 2024 at 18:04:01 UTC, Volney wrote:
> On 1/4/2024 4:57 AM, Lou wrote:
> > On Thursday 4 January 2024 at 00:45:36 UTC, Volney wrote:
>
> >> So show us the statement "The base frequency is 10.23 MHz." in the spec.
> >
> > Hilarious. The specs are about the GPS satellite. And nominal frequency
> [bla bla bla]
>
> So you cannot show us the statement "The base frequency is 10.23 MHz."
> anywhere in the spec, and this is resolved. The transmitter is preset to
> 10.2299999954326 MHz, as defined in the spec, and as predicted by GR.

Unlike yourself I am open to the facts if citeable . After all if there is
an apparent time dilation of frequency I already said it can still be modelled
quite accurately without GR by just using the formula: GM/r ÷ f.
(Where f = 9192631770, the resonant f of caesium clock in satellite
And r-4.12r= 47379430.8842:
47379430.8842 ÷ 9192631770 = +0.005154066
Add that increase ..
10229999.9954326 + 0.005154066 = 10230000.0006
Not bad considering GR predicts 10230000.0008.

Even though in truth both formulae are just fiddles and actually have nothing
to do with ratios or frequencies. All they do is split GM/r into billions
of equal size abstract mathematical bits that have nothing to do with
clocks. Which is why I find it hard to believe that the SV signal is 10.22Mhz.
But unlike yourself I’m interested in the truth, not fantasies.

So....You insist above that only a quote that says
“The base frequency is 10.2299999954326Mhz” will settle the question.
How about this compromise:
I’ll accept that the signal frequencies, are neither generated nor broadcast
at 10.23Mhz, if you show me your desires specific quote from the specs doc that
says “The base frequency is 10.2299999954326 MHz."

https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200N.pdf

Den 03.01.2024 15:45, skrev Lou:
> On Wednesday 3 January 2024 at 14:10:32 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> 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?

What predicted a total gain of 446 picoseconds at 4.12 Earth radius?
Confused, Lou?

> Why does the Neil Ashby paper, copied on your website, saying the magnitude
> was not known pre launch contradict your false assumption it was?

It isn't very smart to lie about something that
is so easy to check:

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

page 16:
"At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977)
. . . general relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10¹²."

The clock was predicted to run fast by +446.5 parts in 10¹²
so the correction is -446.5 parts in 10¹².

page 17:
"When GPS satellites were first deployed, the specified
factory frequency offset was slightly in error because
the important contribution from earth’s centripetal potential
had been inadvertently omitted at one stage of the evaluation.
Although GPS managers were made aware of this error in the early
1980s, eight years passed before system specifications were
changed to reflect the correct calculation'."

Which means that before the first GPS satellite was launched,
the specified frequency offset was -446.5E-12 which
is slightly different from the correct value +446.47E-12.

Since the difference is less than the precision of the clocks,
the error had no serious consequences, so the GPS did work
before 1988 when the correct value was specified in the IS document.

>> 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.

A beautiful demonstration of your utter ignorance
of how the GPS works!

Here is an explanation of how the time reported from
the SV is corrected:

>> 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 the SV clock
>> correct within 1 ms.

You didn't even read this, did you?

> 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.

But not smart enough to understand what you read in said document.

Neither 10.23 MHz nor 10.2299999954326 MHz are broadcasted from the SV!
=======================================================================

The frequencies broadcasted from the satellites are the carrier
frequencies L1 and L2.

Let's quote from the Interface Specification Document again:

https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan
"For Block IIR, IIR-M, and IIF satellites, the requirements
specified in this IS shall pertain to the signal contained
within two 20.46 MHz bands; one centered about the L1 nominal
frequency and the other centered about the L2 nominal frequency
(see Table 3-Vb). The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2
signals shall be coherently derived from a common frequency
source within the SV. The nominal frequency of this source
-- as it appears to an observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz.
The SV carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they would
appear to an observer located in the SV -- are offset to
compensate for relativistic effects. The clock rates are offset
by Δf/f = -4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping
rate of 10.23 MHz offset by a f = -4.5674E-3 Hz. This is equal to
10.2299999954326 MHz.
The nominal carrier frequencies (f0) shall be 1575.42 MHz,
and 1227.6 MHz for L1 and L2, respectively."

------

You are obviously not able to understand what this means,
so let us explain.

READ THIS!
==========
The frequencies broadcasted from the satellites are
the carrier frequencies L1 and L2.
The nominal carrier frequencies are 1575.42 MHz and 1227.6 MHz,
but since "the SV carrier frequency and clock rates are offset
by Δf/f = -4.4647E-10", the actual frequencies broadcasted from
the SV are: L1 = 1575.4200007033778 Mhz and L2 = 1227.6000005480864.

Since L1 and L2 are modulated with the P-code with
the offset shipping rate "equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz",
the actual bandwidth of L1 and L2 is 20.4599999908652 MHz.
(which for all practical purposes is the same as 20.46 MHz)

Shannon's principle, you know? Of course you don't-

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Den 03.01.2024 18:02, skrev Prokaryotic Capase Homolog:
> 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.*

You are obviously right.
But my statement above is still correct.

I am responding to Lou, and even my simple statement
is above his head.

He is completely ignorant of the existence of the Control
segment, and he snipped my statement, probably without reading:

"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_."

>
> 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."

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 8:27:22 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> On 1/3/2024 10:27 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 4:31:47 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> > The time offset can not have been preset before launch because they only found out how much to adjust it after launch.
> And why do you claim that silliness? And do you have any evidence of it?
> I didn't think so.
>
> Also first you said it was preset empirically (with no data to set it
> to) and now you claim it was not preset at all?
> > The two-switch story is a fairy tale.
> Again why do you claim that? Evidence? Again, I didn't think so. And why
> is the switch right in the paper
> >
> > Gravity is not an effect of relativity because a theory does not cause anything. It should explain nature rationally.
> And general relativity does just that.
> >
> > Relativity is not about anything since it is not a theory.
> Why do you say that? It meets all the requirements of scientific theories..
> > Relativity only pretends to explain the cause of gravity.
> Why "pretends"? It gives a logical, scientific description and explanation.
> > Gravity is not even electromagnetism.
> Of course not. Just like GR says it has nothing to do with electromagnetism.
> >
> > I really can't help you with your confusion.
> It is you who is confused, thinking things like GR says gravity is
> electromagnetism, strange beliefs about NTS-2, don't understand what a
> theory is in science, etc.
1. Anderson above (and this: "INITIAL RESULTS OF THE NAVSTAR GPS
NTS-2 SATELLITE) said the prediction was not more than 1% off.
2. Therefore, it was not exact.
3. the clock rate (frequency) must be exact for the GPS to function.
4. Relativity did not predict The exact amount (this is what you haven't gotten).
5. Therefore, the synthesizer must have adjusted it from the relativity prediction to the exact amount.
6. Above are the quotes from Essen saying it is not a scientific theory. You are welcome to read his papers criticizing relativity.
7. According to Essen and thousands of other scientists you have not studied, it doesn't give a logical explanation but a self-contradictory one.

On Thursday 4 January 2024 at 21:06:32 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 03.01.2024 15:45, skrev Lou:
> > On Wednesday 3 January 2024 at 14:10:32 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> 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?
>
> What predicted a total gain of 446 picoseconds at 4.12 Earth radius?
> Confused, Lou?
>
> > Why does the Neil Ashby paper, copied on your website, saying the magnitude
> > was not known pre launch contradict your false assumption it was?
>
> It isn't very smart to lie about something that
> is so easy to check:
>
> https://paulba.no/paper/Ashby.pdf
>
> page 16:
> "At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977)
> . . . general relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10¹²."
>
> The clock was predicted to run fast by +446.5 parts in 10¹²
> so the correction is -446.5 parts in 10¹².
>
> page 17:
> "When GPS satellites were first deployed, the specified
> factory frequency offset was slightly in error because
> the important contribution from earth’s centripetal potential
> had been inadvertently omitted at one stage of the evaluation.
> Although GPS managers were made aware of this error in the early
> 1980s, eight years passed before system specifications were
> changed to reflect the correct calculation'."
>
> Which means that before the first GPS satellite was launched,
> the specified frequency offset was -446.5E-12 which
> is slightly different from the correct value +446.47E-12.
>
> Since the difference is less than the precision of the clocks,
> the error had no serious consequences, so the GPS did work
> before 1988 when the correct value was specified in the IS document.
> >> 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.
>
> A beautiful demonstration of your utter ignorance
> of how the GPS works!
>
> Here is an explanation of how the time reported from
> the SV is corrected:
> >> 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 the SV clock
> >> correct within 1 ms.
>
> You didn't even read this, did you?
>
>
> > 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.
>
> But not smart enough to understand what you read in said document.
>
> Neither 10.23 MHz nor 10.2299999954326 MHz are broadcasted from the SV!
> =======================================================================
>
> The frequencies broadcasted from the satellites are the carrier
> frequencies L1 and L2.
>
> Let's quote from the Interface Specification Document again:
>
> https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
> 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan
> "For Block IIR, IIR-M, and IIF satellites, the requirements
> specified in this IS shall pertain to the signal contained
> within two 20.46 MHz bands; one centered about the L1 nominal
> frequency and the other centered about the L2 nominal frequency
> (see Table 3-Vb). The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2
> signals shall be coherently derived from a common frequency
> source within the SV. The nominal frequency of this source
> -- as it appears to an observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz.
> The SV carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they would
> appear to an observer located in the SV -- are offset to
> compensate for relativistic effects. The clock rates are offset
> by Δf/f = -4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping
> rate of 10.23 MHz offset by a f = -4.5674E-3 Hz. This is equal to
> 10.2299999954326 MHz.
> The nominal carrier frequencies (f0) shall be 1575.42 MHz,
> and 1227.6 MHz for L1 and L2, respectively."
>
> ------
>
> You are obviously not able to understand what this means,
> so let us explain.
>
> READ THIS!
> ==========
> The frequencies broadcasted from the satellites are
> the carrier frequencies L1 and L2.
> The nominal carrier frequencies are 1575.42 MHz and 1227.6 MHz,
> but since "the SV carrier frequency and clock rates are offset
> by Δf/f = -4.4647E-10", the actual frequencies broadcasted from
> the SV are: L1 = 1575.4200007033778 Mhz and L2 = 1227.6000005480864.
>
> Since L1 and L2 are modulated with the P-code with
> the offset shipping rate "equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz",
> the actual bandwidth of L1 and L2 is 20.4599999908652 MHz.
> (which for all practical purposes is the same as 20.46 MHz)
>
> Shannon's principle, you know? Of course you don't-
>

Yes Paul. I’ve read your rants already. And read the spec which says there is a
carrier etc offset to 10.22999 . A supposed offset which incidentally can also
be explained just as well by a classical non relativistic model using GM/r ÷ f
Nonetheless the rest of your spec clearly says the nominal SV signal, frequency, clock
chip rates etc on the sat are set at 10.23. You can’t deny that.
So assuming you are correct as you are a retired GPS engineer and know every
detail of Every schematic and every table in the spec then maybe you could tell me
why all the bother is made to code, chip, and generate a 10.23 Mhz signal
on board the SV...to only then convert it down to a preset 10.22Mhz. Before its
broadcast to the ground receiver?
Why not just have the SV oscillator clock signal or whatever you call it generated at
10.22Mhz instead and save the bother of having to add in a conversion unit from
10.23 to 1022Mhz onboard the GPS sat?

On Thursday 4 January 2024 at 22:22:03 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 03.01.2024 18:02, skrev Prokaryotic Capase Homolog:
> > 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.*
> You are obviously right.

He is obviously a lying piece of shit, just like you.
There is nothing relativistic in these corrections,
they're directly foebidden by your Holiest Postulate,
your ISO idiocy and whole of your moronic religion.

On Thursday 4 January 2024 at 21:31:34 UTC, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 8:27:22 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> > On 1/3/2024 10:27 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, January 3, 2024 at 4:31:47 PM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> > >> 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.
> >
> > > The time offset can not have been preset before launch because they only found out how much to adjust it after launch.
> > And why do you claim that silliness? And do you have any evidence of it?
> > I didn't think so.
> >
> > Also first you said it was preset empirically (with no data to set it
> > to) and now you claim it was not preset at all?
> > > The two-switch story is a fairy tale.
> > Again why do you claim that? Evidence? Again, I didn't think so. And why
> > is the switch right in the paper
> > >
> > > Gravity is not an effect of relativity because a theory does not cause anything. It should explain nature rationally.
> > And general relativity does just that.
> > >
> > > Relativity is not about anything since it is not a theory.
> > Why do you say that? It meets all the requirements of scientific theories.
> > > Relativity only pretends to explain the cause of gravity.
> > Why "pretends"? It gives a logical, scientific description and explanation.
> > > Gravity is not even electromagnetism.
> > Of course not. Just like GR says it has nothing to do with electromagnetism.
> > >
> > > I really can't help you with your confusion.
> > It is you who is confused, thinking things like GR says gravity is
> > electromagnetism, strange beliefs about NTS-2, don't understand what a
> > theory is in science, etc.
> 1. Anderson above (and this: "INITIAL RESULTS OF THE NAVSTAR GPS
> NTS-2 SATELLITE) said the prediction was not more than 1% off.
> 2. Therefore, it was not exact.
> 3. the clock rate (frequency) must be exact for the GPS to function.
> 4. Relativity did not predict The exact amount (this is what you haven't gotten).
> 5. Therefore, the synthesizer must have adjusted it from the relativity prediction to the exact amount.

Yes. 446 predicted vs 442 observed seems small but over a few days I would
have thought it would render the whole system useless anyways.
Even if one accepts gravity can affect tick rates of the caesium clocks
in either relativity or a classical model.
I wonder how it’s corrected. Seeing as according to Paul it’s a fixed pre launch offset
that can’t be changed in situ in orbit. So since 1977 a GPS sat will have turned a
4 microseconds/day loss into a 67160 microseconds error?
I suppose GPS engineers can deal with a .06 second error in GPS timekeeping..

> 6. Above are the quotes from Essen saying it is not a scientific theory. You are welcome to read his papers criticizing relativity.
> 7. According to Essen and thousands of other scientists you have not studied, it doesn't give a logical explanation but a self-contradictory one.

On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 1:06:32 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 03.01.2024 15:45, skrev Lou:
> > On Wednesday 3 January 2024 at 14:10:32 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> 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?
>
> What predicted a total gain of 446 picoseconds at 4.12 Earth radius?
> Confused, Lou?
>
> > Why does the Neil Ashby paper, copied on your website, saying the magnitude
> > was not known pre launch contradict your false assumption it was?
>
> It isn't very smart to lie about something that
> is so easy to check:
>
> https://paulba.no/paper/Ashby.pdf
>
> page 16:
> "At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977)
> . . . general relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10¹²."
>
> The clock was predicted to run fast by +446.5 parts in 10¹²
> so the correction is -446.5 parts in 10¹².
>
> page 17:
> "When GPS satellites were first deployed, the specified
> factory frequency offset was slightly in error because
> the important contribution from earth’s centripetal potential
> had been inadvertently omitted at one stage of the evaluation.
> Although GPS managers were made aware of this error in the early
> 1980s, eight years passed before system specifications were
> changed to reflect the correct calculation'."
>
> Which means that before the first GPS satellite was launched,
> the specified frequency offset was -446.5E-12 which
> is slightly different from the correct value +446.47E-12.
>
> Since the difference is less than the precision of the clocks,
> the error had no serious consequences, so the GPS did work
> before 1988 when the correct value was specified in the IS document.

I hear you saying, as I take your meaning, that the value predicted by relativity was accurate enough not to require correction.
However, two questions;
1. Below, Lou asks wouldn't that be accumulative proving you wrong?
2. I wonder what the synthesizer would have done if it didn't change from either the relativistic prediction to the empirically determined frequency OR from an alleged Newtonian switch.

> >> 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.
>
> A beautiful demonstration of your utter ignorance
> of how the GPS works!
>
> Here is an explanation of how the time reported from
> the SV is corrected:
> >> You are obviously very ignorant of how the GPS work
> >> and how the time is corrected.
> >> https://paulba.no/div/GPS_clock_correction.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">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 the SV clock
> >> correct within 1 ms.
>
> You didn't even read this, did you?
>
>
> > 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.
>
> But not smart enough to understand what you read in said document.
>
> Neither 10.23 MHz nor 10.2299999954326 MHz are broadcasted from the SV!
> =======================================================================
>
> The frequencies broadcasted from the satellites are the carrier
> frequencies L1 and L2.
>
> Let's quote from the Interface Specification Document again:
>
> https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
> 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan
> "For Block IIR, IIR-M, and IIF satellites, the requirements
> specified in this IS shall pertain to the signal contained
> within two 20.46 MHz bands; one centered about the L1 nominal
> frequency and the other centered about the L2 nominal frequency
> (see Table 3-Vb). The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2
> signals shall be coherently derived from a common frequency
> source within the SV. The nominal frequency of this source
> -- as it appears to an observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz.
> The SV carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they would
> appear to an observer located in the SV -- are offset to
> compensate for relativistic effects. The clock rates are offset
> by Δf/f = -4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping
> rate of 10.23 MHz offset by a f = -4.5674E-3 Hz. This is equal to
> 10.2299999954326 MHz.
> The nominal carrier frequencies (f0) shall be 1575.42 MHz,
> and 1227.6 MHz for L1 and L2, respectively."
>
> ------
>
> You are obviously not able to understand what this means,
> so let us explain.
>
> READ THIS!
> ==========
> The frequencies broadcasted from the satellites are
> the carrier frequencies L1 and L2.
> The nominal carrier frequencies are 1575.42 MHz and 1227.6 MHz,
> but since "the SV carrier frequency and clock rates are offset
> by Δf/f = -4.4647E-10", the actual frequencies broadcasted from
> the SV are: L1 = 1575.4200007033778 Mhz and L2 = 1227.6000005480864.
>
> Since L1 and L2 are modulated with the P-code with
> the offset shipping rate "equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz",
> the actual bandwidth of L1 and L2 is 20.4599999908652 MHz.
> (which for all practical purposes is the same as 20.46 MHz)
>
> Shannon's principle, you know? Of course you don't-
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 1:06:32 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 03.01.2024 15:45, skrev Lou:
> > On Wednesday 3 January 2024 at 14:10:32 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> 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?
>
> What predicted a total gain of 446 picoseconds at 4.12 Earth radius?
> Confused, Lou?
>
> > Why does the Neil Ashby paper, copied on your website, saying the magnitude
> > was not known pre launch contradict your false assumption it was?
>
> It isn't very smart to lie about something that
> is so easy to check:
>
> https://paulba.no/paper/Ashby.pdf
>
> page 16:
> "At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977)
> . . . general relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 10¹²."
>
> The clock was predicted to run fast by +446.5 parts in 10¹²
> so the correction is -446.5 parts in 10¹².
>
> page 17:
> "When GPS satellites were first deployed, the specified
> factory frequency offset was slightly in error because
> the important contribution from earth’s centripetal potential
> had been inadvertently omitted at one stage of the evaluation.
> Although GPS managers were made aware of this error in the early
> 1980s, eight years passed before system specifications were
> changed to reflect the correct calculation'."
>
> Which means that before the first GPS satellite was launched,
> the specified frequency offset was -446.5E-12 which
> is slightly different from the correct value +446.47E-12.
>
> Since the difference is less than the precision of the clocks,
> the error had no serious consequences, so the GPS did work
> before 1988 when the correct value was specified in the IS document.

In fact it was necessary to correct from the relativistic prediction to the empirically found frequency: "On Day 215,1977, the NTS-2 PRO-5 output signal
was offset {Fig. 21) through the use of a frequency synthesizer {4) ." - "INITIAL RESULTS OF THE NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 SATELLITE"

> >> 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.
>
> A beautiful demonstration of your utter ignorance
> of how the GPS works!
>
> Here is an explanation of how the time reported from
> the SV is corrected:
> >> You are obviously very ignorant of how the GPS work
> >> and how the time is corrected.
> >> https://paulba.no/div/GPS_clock_correction.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">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 the SV clock
> >> correct within 1 ms.
>
> You didn't even read this, did you?
>
>
> > 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.
>
> But not smart enough to understand what you read in said document.
>
> Neither 10.23 MHz nor 10.2299999954326 MHz are broadcasted from the SV!
> =======================================================================
>
> The frequencies broadcasted from the satellites are the carrier
> frequencies L1 and L2.
>
> Let's quote from the Interface Specification Document again:
>
> https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
> 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan
> "For Block IIR, IIR-M, and IIF satellites, the requirements
> specified in this IS shall pertain to the signal contained
> within two 20.46 MHz bands; one centered about the L1 nominal
> frequency and the other centered about the L2 nominal frequency
> (see Table 3-Vb). The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2
> signals shall be coherently derived from a common frequency
> source within the SV. The nominal frequency of this source
> -- as it appears to an observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz.
> The SV carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they would
> appear to an observer located in the SV -- are offset to
> compensate for relativistic effects. The clock rates are offset
> by Δf/f = -4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping
> rate of 10.23 MHz offset by a f = -4.5674E-3 Hz. This is equal to
> 10.2299999954326 MHz.
> The nominal carrier frequencies (f0) shall be 1575.42 MHz,
> and 1227.6 MHz for L1 and L2, respectively."
>
> ------
>
> You are obviously not able to understand what this means,
> so let us explain.
>
> READ THIS!
> ==========
> The frequencies broadcasted from the satellites are
> the carrier frequencies L1 and L2.
> The nominal carrier frequencies are 1575.42 MHz and 1227.6 MHz,
> but since "the SV carrier frequency and clock rates are offset
> by Δf/f = -4.4647E-10", the actual frequencies broadcasted from
> the SV are: L1 = 1575.4200007033778 Mhz and L2 = 1227.6000005480864.
>
> Since L1 and L2 are modulated with the P-code with
> the offset shipping rate "equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz",
> the actual bandwidth of L1 and L2 is 20.4599999908652 MHz.
> (which for all practical purposes is the same as 20.46 MHz)
>
> Shannon's principle, you know? Of course you don't-
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

On 1/4/2024 3:05 PM, Lou wrote:

> So....You insist above that only a quote that says “The base frequency is 10.23”
> will settle the question. How about this compromise:
> I’ll accept that the signal frequencies, are neither generated nor broadcast
> at 10.23Mhz, if you show me your specific quote from the specs doc that
> says “ The base frequency is 10.23 MHz."
>
> https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
>
Since that spec explicitly states the common frequency source is
10.2299999954326 MHz, it won't ever state it is 10.23 MHz. Besides, it's
up to you to prove your point that it's 10.23 MHz, why should I try to
prove your point for you?

On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 2:20:28 AM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> On Thursday 4 January 2024 at 00:45:36 UTC, Volney wrote:
> > On 1/3/2024 10:42 AM, Lou wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 3 January 2024 at 14:10:32 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > >> Den 02.01.2024 21:42, skrev Lou:
> >
> > >>> 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:
> > It looks like you did an uneducated blind search for 10.23 and 1023,
> > without interpreting their meanings.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > Nominal on the ground, where it is exactly 10.23 MHz. Not a statement
> > stating the transmitter is to be set to 10.23 MHz.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > First is the same. The 1023 is a count.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > That's 10230, and it is a count, not a frequency of 10.23 MHz.
> > >
> > > Table 3-IIa, Table 3-IIb
> > > * Short cycled period = 10230 **
> > Again, a count. See above.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > Again on the ground nominal.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > Again, nominal, no statement of setting the clock to 10.23 MHz.
> > > 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,
> > A count of 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,
> > Another count.
> > >
> > > Figure 3-1. , Figure 3-6. Figure 3-1, Figure 3-11, Figure 3-12. ..all Clearly say 10.23
> > Nominal again.
> >
> > For you to be correct, you have to find ONE statement stating "The base
> > frequency is 10.23 MHz." Since there already is one statement stating
> > "The base frequency is 10.2299999954326 MHz", it cannot happen since
> > otherwise the spec would contradict itself if it did.
> >
> > So show us the statement "The base frequency is 10.23 MHz." in the spec..
> Here you go Volney boy. Seeing as you havent learnt how to google
> I did it for you
> It says clearly at the top that “ Three signals are transmitted at the
> moment by GPS “ And then goes on to specify these 3 variations.
> One of the three copied below. Additionally it refers to these as SV signals.
> SV means GPS satelitte. Ask Paul. He just posted a couple days ago
> a comment in which he says that SV means....Sat clock. Savvy?
> I don’t see how you can assume this refers to anything but the transmission
> signal or clock frequency of the satelitte.
>
> https://gssc.esa.int/navipedia/index.php/GPS_Signal_Plan#:~:text=The%20PRN%20C%2FA%20Code,1023%20chip%20long%20linear%20pattern.
>
>
>
> “ GPS L2 Band
> GPS is transmitting in the L2 band (1227.60 MHz) a modernized civil signal known as L2C designed specifically to meet commercial needs as it enables the development of dual-frequency solutions; together with the P(Y) Code and the M-Code. The P(Y) Code and M-Code were already described shortly in the previous chapter and the properties and parameters are thus similar to those in the L1 band. In addition, for Block IIR-M, IIF, and subsequent blocks of SVs, two additional PRN ranging codes are transmitted. They are the L2 Civil Moderate (L2 CM) code and the L2 Civil Long (L2 CL) code. These two signals are time multiplexed so that the resulting chipping rate is double as high as that of each individual signal. We further describe them in the next lines more in detail:
> L2 CM Code is transmitted in the IIR-M, IIF, III and subsequent blocks. The PRN L2 CM Code for SV number i is a ranging code, 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 sequence is a linear pattern which is short cycled every count period of ***10,230*** chips by resetting with a particular initial state. “
>
>
> Does that say 10.23 or 10229999.9954326?
I think that it just means the frequency would be 10.2299 on Earth but is 10.23 in space. Wozniak says, "Can be preset. Afterf getting on the orbit it is 10.23, as measured.
Good bye, The Shit. "

On 1/3/2024 3:28 PM, Lou wrote:

> 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.

Aha! You managed to stumble across the Schwarzschild metric, an
important part of general relativity discovered by Karl Schwarzschild in
1915. It is an exact solution to the Einstein field equations that
describes the gravitational field outside a spherical mass. Its formula
is GM/rc^2, which is unitless. It is like a measure of the curvature of
spacetime, and when very small the "weak gravity" approximation can be
used. In the case of the earth its value is 5.27E-10, assuming your
numbers are correct, and it is small. The Newtonian world works as if
the Schwarzschild Metric is 0, meaning flat space.

I guess this goes to show that even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once
in a while.

Oh as a part of GR, GM/rc^2 isn't "classical" unless you consider 100+
year old general relativity as "classical" and only newer stuff like QFT
as modern.

> 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.

Look at Karl Schwarzschild's 1915 GR paper.

> Because 5.27e-10, regardless of which formula, has nothing
> to do with frequency or time.

Correct, it is unitless.

> It’s just the force of gravity, potential if you insist,

The curvature of spacetime in GR. GM/r is the gravitational potential.

> So dividing GM/ r

Which is the gravitational potential (not the gravitational force, nor
the acceleration)

> into any amount will give a different “offset”
> GM/r ÷ 1/2(8.9875518e+16 )= 1.05522118e-9 offset.

And you found the general relativity link between the gravitational
potential and the Schwarzschild Metric. Good job, blind squirrel, you
found two acorns!

On Friday 5 January 2024 at 05:22:29 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 1/4/2024 3:05 PM, Lou wrote:
>
> > So....You insist above that only a quote that says “The base frequency is 10.23”
> > will settle the question. How about this compromise:
> > I’ll accept that the signal frequencies, are neither generated nor broadcast
> > at 10.23Mhz, if you show me your specific quote from the specs doc that
> > says “ The base frequency is 10.23 MHz."
> >
> > https://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
> >
> Since that spec explicitly states the common frequency source is
> 10.2299999954326 MHz

It deesn't stupid Mike, it says something different.
You're fabricating and lying, as expected from you.

> it won't ever state it is 10.23 MHz.

Why not? Some things are inconsistent, and if they're
involved in supporting your moronic ideology some
inconsistency is very hard to avoid.

On 1/4/2024 10:55 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

> In fact it was necessary to correct from the relativistic prediction to the empirically found frequency: "On Day 215,1977, the NTS-2 PRO-5 output signal
> was offset {Fig. 21) through the use of a frequency synthesizer {4) ." - "INITIAL RESULTS OF THE NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 SATELLITE"

Idjit.

That was when the satellite was switched from the Newtonian setting (0
clock offset) TO the relativistic prediction! Again, it was impossible
to switch to an empirically found frequency because there was no such
empirical data, this was the FIRST TIME a satellite was launched with Cs
clocks!