On Friday 5 January 2024 at 08:08:58 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> 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!

A lie, of course, it was switched from your ISO/
proper time idiocy to ordinary, galilean time.

Den 05.01.2024 04:36, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 1:06:32 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 03.01.2024 15:45, skrev Lou:
>>
>> 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.

Read this first:

>>> On Wednesday 3 January 2024 at 14:10:32 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>> Here is an explanation of how the time reported from
>>>> the SV 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 Δt_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 Δt_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.

If you have read this, you will know that the SV-clock
isn't corrected while the SV is in service.
And you will know that the clock offset Δt_SV must be less then 1 ms,
or the correction parameter a_f0 would overflow.

If the rate of the SV-clock is exactly (1-4.4647E-10) compared
to an SI_clock, then the clock offset Δt_SV will not change.
(It will stay 0 if the clock initially is perfectly synced)

If the rate of the SI-clock is not corrected at all, then
the rate error is 4.4647E-10 and a_f0 will overflow after 26 days.

If the clock is corrected by (1 - 4.465E-10) then the rate error
is 3E-14 and a_f0 will overflow after 1056 years.

So to answer your questions:

> 1. Below, Lou asks wouldn't that be accumulative proving you wrong?

Yes, with the correction (1 - 4.465E-10) the rate error would
accumulate, so a_f0 will overflow after 1056 years.

Which confirms my statement:
"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."

> 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.

A very peculiar question.

The synthesizer changed the frequency of the SI-clock
by the factor (1 - 4.465E-10).

And you ask what the synthesizer would have done if it
hadn't done what it did! :-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Den 05.01.2024 04:55, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 1:06:32 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>> 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"

So the frequency synthesizer which prior to launch was built
to lower the frequency of the SI-clock by the factor (1-446.5E-12)
which was specified in the System Specification Document,
was changed in flight to lower the frequency by the factor
(1-442.5E-12).

Do I have to explain why I find this hilarious?

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Friday 5 January 2024 at 13:30:46 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 05.01.2024 04:55, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 1:06:32 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>
> >> 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"
> So the frequency synthesizer which prior to launch was built
> to lower the frequency of the SI-clock by the factor (1-446.5E-12)
> which was specified in the System Specification Document,
> was changed in flight to lower the frequency by the factor
> (1-442.5E-12).
>
> Do I have to explain why I find this hilarious?
>
Not as hilarious as you pretend.
You still have a potential problem. However seeing as you are an ex NASA GPS engineer I can be assured that you will be able to clarify the details of the GPS spec you cite and correct any of my following points below:

From my understanding so far, the C-133 master clock generates 9192631770 beats a second.At which point these are then binned into larger 20 millisecond or 1.5 second parcels by a secondary 10.23Mhz oscillator. Which can only mean that a total of 9192631770 beats per second are split into 10230000 pieces. Each piece containing:
9192631770 ÷ 10230000= 898.595480938 beats of the total beats per second of the C-133 clock. At which point these are then binned into larger L1 L2 - 20 millisecond or 1.5 second parcels by a secondary process. In other words the ground reciever gets these parcels of data after being processed further as follows. Please note these finite 1.5 or 20 ms parcels STILL CONTAIN 10.23 chip rates!

At this point the frequency plan quote says these clocks rate parcels are then offset /compressed to 10.22Mhz to account for relativity before being sent to earth.
I can only assume that these offset clock rate parcels are then applied via modulation onto the carrier frequencies to be received at earth ground.

Now I know that ground reciever cannot cannot measure if the carrier frequency has been time dilated. Not least because that’s a 5.26e-10 change in frequency. Too small to measure from the ground. And that it is therefore the clock rate information which is the only data of importance that is recieved at the ground.
But if the chipped 10.23 SV clock is “offset” to 10.22Mhz in the SV before broadcast to ground then the offset that is modulated onto the carrier wave STILL HAS THE 10.23Mhz chip rate data !!
So it doesn’t matter if the carrier wave or chip rate parcels are modulated to a 10.29 frequency because that modulated frequency STILL has the 10.23 caesium clock rate data encoded in the data modulated onto the carrier wave.
So all the ground receiver really gets is a carrier wave with the 10.23 Mhz chip rate data! And
No time dilation occurs because the SV clock is at 10.23Mhz.
And the ground recieves a 10.23 chip rate modulated onto the carrier wave.
Regardless of whether the data is compressed onto a 10.22 signal on the SV.

On 1/4/2024 11:51 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> 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:

>>>> 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?

Again, neither. Try again.

> 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. "

Are you actually quoting that insane fool who has half of his
definitions backwards from what specifications or theory actually state?
Such as his claim of switching the NTS-2 clock from 10.23 MHz to
10229999.9954326 MHz is switching TO Newtonian time? Hahaha!

On Friday 5 January 2024 at 16:32:02 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 1/4/2024 11:51 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > 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:
>
> >>>> 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?
> Again, neither. Try again.
> > 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. "
> Are you actually quoting that insane fool who has half of his
> definitions backwards from what specifications or theory actually state?
> Such as his claim of switching the NTS-2 clock from 10.23 MHz to
> 10229999.9954326 MHz is switching TO Newtonian time? Hahaha!

Stupid Mike, face it: even your fellow idiots are not
stupid enough to insist that adjusting clocks to your
9 192 631 770 ISO idiocy is some "Newton mode".
You're alone in your madness.

On 1/5/2024 10:16 AM, Lou wrote:

> From my understanding so far, the C-133 master clock generates 9192631770 beats a second.At which point these are then binned into larger 20 millisecond or 1.5 second parcels by a secondary 10.23Mhz oscillator. Which can only mean that a total of 9192631770 beats per second are split into 10230000 pieces. Each piece containing:

> 9192631770 ÷ 10230000= 898.595480938 beats of the total beats per second of the C-133 clock. At which point these are then binned into larger L1 L2 - 20 millisecond or 1.5 second parcels by a secondary process. In other words the ground reciever gets these parcels of data after being processed further as follows. Please note these finite 1.5 or 20 ms parcels STILL CONTAIN 10.23 chip rates!
>
> At this point the frequency plan quote says these clocks rate parcels are then offset /compressed to 10.22Mhz to account for relativity before being sent to earth.

Boy do you have a screwed up idea how things work. There is no
"offset/compression" stage. The Cs clock "ticks" using a divisor where
there is 9192631774.1 ÷ 10230000 = 898.595481339 Cs cycles, and this
corresponds to a frequency of 10.2299999954326 MHz. Then the secondary
processes take place except there is no "offset /compressed" stage to
10.2299999954326 MHz since the signal is ALREADY at the correct
frequency! Remember everything is based off the 10.2299999954326 MHz
signal because the downward blueshift affects ALL frequencies equally,
so on the ground the first signal is 10.23 MHz, the 20 mS and 1.5 second
"bins" are 20 mS & 1.5 seconds long respectively etc.

> But if the chipped 10.23 SV clock is “offset” to 10.22Mhz in the SV before broadcast to ground then the offset that is modulated onto the carrier wave STILL HAS THE 10.23Mhz chip rate data !!

No, you made an incorrect assumption. The master frequency was decreased
so are all frequencies based off it. The reverse happens during the
blueshift so on earth all frequencies are correct. There is no
"modulation" since the frequencies are correct at the satellite already!

> So all the ground receiver really gets is a carrier wave with the 10.23 Mhz chip rate data!

Because the 10.2299999954326 MHz frequency aboard the SV was blueshifted
to 10.23 MHz chip rate.

> And
> No time dilation occurs because the SV clock is at 10.23Mhz.

No the SV base signal is 10.2299999954326 MHz. The entire point is that
it gets blueshifted to 10.23 MHz on the ground.

> And the ground recieves a 10.23 chip rate modulated onto the carrier wave.

Exactly.

> Regardless of whether the data is compressed onto a 10.22 signal on the SV.

No "compression", the SV signal is 10.2299999954326 MHz.

On 1/4/2024 5:04 PM, Lou wrote:

> 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?
>
That is what's done. All the signals generated from the base clock are
generated from the 10.2299999954326 MHz signal, and there is no
"conversion unit"!

On Friday 5 January 2024 at 17:08:29 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 1/4/2024 5:04 PM, Lou wrote:
>
> > 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?
> >
> That is what's done. All the signals generated from the base clock are
> generated from the 10.2299999954326 MHz signal

Sorry, stupid Mike, the measurement reults are
against the empty assertions of your church.

On Friday 5 January 2024 at 17:04:33 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 1/5/2024 10:16 AM, Lou wrote:
>
> > From my understanding so far, the C-133 master clock generates 9192631770 beats a second.At which point these are then binned into larger 20 millisecond or 1.5 second parcels by a secondary 10.23Mhz oscillator. Which can only mean that a total of 9192631770 beats per second are split into 10230000 pieces. Each piece containing:
>
> > 9192631770 ÷ 10230000= 898.595480938 beats of the total beats per second of the C-133 clock. At which point these are then binned into larger L1 L2 - 20 millisecond or 1.5 second parcels by a secondary process. In other words the ground reciever gets these parcels of data after being processed further as follows. Please note these finite 1.5 or 20 ms parcels STILL CONTAIN 10.23 chip rates!
> >
> > At this point the frequency plan quote says these clocks rate parcels are then offset /compressed to 10.22Mhz to account for relativity before being sent to earth.
> Boy do you have a screwed up idea how things work. There is no
> "offset/compression" stage. The Cs clock "ticks" using a divisor where
> there is 9192631774.1

While The Shit of your idiot gurus is predicting
ticking at 9192631770. Well, good bye, The Shit.

On Friday 5 January 2024 at 16:04:33 UTC, Volney wrote:
> On 1/5/2024 10:16 AM, Lou wrote:
>
> > From my understanding so far, the C-133 master clock generates 9192631770 beats a second.At which point these are then binned into larger 20 millisecond or 1.5 second parcels by a secondary 10.23Mhz oscillator. Which can only mean that a total of 9192631770 beats per second are split into 10230000 pieces. Each piece containing:
>
> > 9192631770 ÷ 10230000= 898.595480938 beats of the total beats per second of the C-133 clock. At which point these are then binned into larger L1 L2 - 20 millisecond or 1.5 second parcels by a secondary process. In other words the ground reciever gets these parcels of data after being processed further as follows. Please note these finite 1.5 or 20 ms parcels STILL CONTAIN 10.23 chip rates!
> >
> > At this point the frequency plan quote says these clocks rate parcels are then offset /compressed to 10.22Mhz to account for relativity before being sent to earth.
> Boy do you have a screwed up idea how things work.

I need to find out how the SV clocks and signal work. Best way to learn
is try to summarise what I know and ask the experts to clarify or correct.
And it worked. I wouldnt have got your info without asking. And thanks for
that info incidentally.

> There is no
> "offset/compression" stage. The Cs clock "ticks" using a divisor where
> there is 9192631774.1 ÷ 10230000 = 898.595481339 Cs cycles,

I don’t quite understand this bit.
You seem to suggest here that the caesium atoms and a caesium clocks
frequency is at 9192631774.1 That’s not what I read.
*Every source* I read puts the caesium atoms frequency and a caesium clocks
frequency at 9102631770. Heres wiki:
“By definition, radiation produced by the transition between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium (in the absence of external influences such as the Earth's magnetic field) has a frequency, ΔνCs, of exactly 9192631770 Hz.”

So how do they get the atoms frequency to change from 9192631770 to 9102631774.1
before they apply this “divisor” of 10230000?

Anyways, if I understand you correctly the chip rate is never at
10.23. Always at 10.22.
But why then would the spec always refer to it as being 10.23 if it never was?

“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..”

> and this
> corresponds to a frequency of 10.2299999954326 MHz. Then the secondary
> processes take place except there is no "offset /compressed" stage to
> 10.2299999954326 MHz since the signal is ALREADY at the correct
> frequency! Remember everything is based off the 10.2299999954326 MHz
> signal because the downward blueshift affects ALL frequencies equally,
> so on the ground the first signal is 10.23 MHz, the 20 mS and 1.5 second
> "bins" are 20 mS & 1.5 seconds long respectively etc.

If the 10.22 chip rate is binned at 20ms or 1.5 s in the SV before transmission
That doesn’t make sense either. Because if there is a speeding up of the frequency
during transmission those bins would have to change length too. Seeing
as the SV only bins a specific amount of 10.22 chips per bin.
How does that work. I would have thought you would end up with bins
being shorter in time length on arrival to accomadate a higher
frequency offset and thus over even just minutes
one would get a problem where the sat sends x amount of bins in
a set time length And the ground gets x amount of bins in
a shorter amount of time. If this were the case the receiver
would run out of bins to receive because each bins time length
was shorter at receiver then it was at SV before it was transmitted.

> > But if the chipped 10.23 SV clock is “offset” to 10.22Mhz in the SV before broadcast to ground then the offset that is modulated onto the carrier wave STILL HAS THE 10.23Mhz chip rate data !!
> No, you made an incorrect assumption. The master frequency was decreased
> so are all frequencies based off it. The reverse happens during the
> blueshift so on earth all frequencies are correct. There is no
> "modulation" since the frequencies are correct at the satellite already!
> > So all the ground receiver really gets is a carrier wave with the 10.23 Mhz chip rate data!
> Because the 10.2299999954326 MHz frequency aboard the SV was blueshifted
> to 10.23 MHz chip rate.
> > And
> > No time dilation occurs because the SV clock is at 10.23Mhz.
> No the SV base signal is 10.2299999954326 MHz. The entire point is that
> it gets blueshifted to 10.23 MHz on the ground.
> > And the ground recieves a 10.23 chip rate modulated onto the carrier wave.
> Exactly.
> > Regardless of whether the data is compressed onto a 10.22 signal on the SV.
> No "compression", the SV signal is 10.2299999954326 MHz.

On 1/5/2024 3:38 PM, Lou wrote:
> On Friday 5 January 2024 at 16:04:33 UTC, Volney wrote:
>> On 1/5/2024 10:16 AM, Lou wrote:
>>
>>> From my understanding so far, the C-133 master clock generates 9192631770 beats a second.At which point these are then binned into larger 20 millisecond or 1.5 second parcels by a secondary 10.23Mhz oscillator. Which can only mean that a total of 9192631770 beats per second are split into 10230000 pieces. Each piece containing:
>>
>>> 9192631770 ÷ 10230000= 898.595480938 beats of the total beats per second of the C-133 clock. At which point these are then binned into larger L1 L2 - 20 millisecond or 1.5 second parcels by a secondary process. In other words the ground reciever gets these parcels of data after being processed further as follows. Please note these finite 1.5 or 20 ms parcels STILL CONTAIN 10.23 chip rates!
>>>
>>> At this point the frequency plan quote says these clocks rate parcels are then offset /compressed to 10.22Mhz to account for relativity before being sent to earth.
>> Boy do you have a screwed up idea how things work.
>
> I need to find out how the SV clocks and signal work. Best way to learn
> is try to summarise what I know and ask the experts to clarify or correct.
> And it worked. I wouldnt have got your info without asking. And thanks for
> that info incidentally.
>
>> There is no
>> "offset/compression" stage. The Cs clock "ticks" using a divisor where
>> there is 9192631774.1 ÷ 10230000 = 898.595481339 Cs cycles,
>
> I don’t quite understand this bit.
> You seem to suggest here that the caesium atoms and a caesium clocks
> frequency is at 9192631774.1 That’s not what I read.
> *Every source* I read puts the caesium atoms frequency and a caesium clocks
> frequency at 9102631770.

Yes it's true that the second, by definition, is 9192631770 times the
cycle of one Cs transition wave. The 9192631774.1 divisor produces a
time pulse which is a tiny bit longer than a second.

More specifically, the master frequency generator uses a divisor equal
to 10,230,000/9192631774.1. Do the math and this actually generates a
frequency of 10.2299999954326 MHz. All the other signals intended for
earth are based off this slightly low frequency.

> Heres wiki:
> “By definition, radiation produced by the transition between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium (in the absence of external influences such as the Earth's magnetic field) has a frequency, ΔνCs, of exactly 9192631770 Hz.”

Yes, and by definition, a 1 pulse per 9192631774.1 Cs transitions is NOT
one pulse per second. Very close but slightly too long,
>
> So how do they get the atoms frequency to change from 9192631770 to 9102631774.1

They don't. The Cs, by its nature, still generates its natural frequency
of 9.192631770 GHz. Locally to the satellite, of course.

> Anyways, if I understand you correctly the chip rate is never at
> 10.23. Always at 10.22.

You shouldn't write it that way because the actual frequency is not
close to 10.22 MHz.

> But why then would the spec always refer to it as being 10.23 if it never was?

It's 10.23 MHz on the ground because of the blueshift that the offset
compensates for. Or, they mean nominal because nobody wants to write
10.2299999954326 MHz all the time so they just write 10.23 nominal
instead. Even you don't want to type all those digits, although writing
it as 10.22 MHz isn't right.
>
> If the 10.22 chip rate is binned at 20ms or 1.5 s in the SV before transmission
> That doesn’t make sense either. Because if there is a speeding up of the frequency
> during transmission those bins would have to change length too.

No, nobody speeds anything up. Those 10ms and 1.5s signals are what's
received on the ground, they get blueshifted just like the master
signal. On the satellite they are derived from the master signal and
local to the satellite, they are slightly too long.

Remember this: All the signals described are intended to be used on the
ground and the frequencies involved included, after the downlink blueshift.

> Seeing
> as the SV only bins a specific amount of 10.22 chips per bin.
> How does that work. I would have thought you would end up with bins
> being shorter in time length on arrival to accomadate a higher
> frequency offset and thus over even just minutes
> one would get a problem where the sat sends x amount of bins in
> a set time length And the ground gets x amount of bins in
> a shorter amount of time. If this were the case the receiver
> would run out of bins to receive because each bins time length
> was shorter at receiver then it was at SV before it was transmitted.

Everything gets sped up so everything gets generated slower.
Consider playing a 33 rpm record at 45 rpm. Not just the notes are at a
higher frequency, but the tempo of the music, the beats per minute,
length of a musical measure etc. are all sped up as well.

On 1/4/2024 4:31 PM, 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.

I do not know the experimental errors that may have been involved, such
as determining the actual orbital elevation eccentricity and so forth.

> 3. the clock rate (frequency) must be exact for the GPS to function.

Specifically, small errors will show errors in location. Errors in
frequency will show a stationary GPS user as apparently moving off in a
certain direction. Specifically, not using the GR predicted offset will
show a stationary GPS user moving about 10 km/day, each and every day.

> 4. Relativity did not predict The exact amount (this is what you haven't gotten).

There was a small error, which would cause a small wandering off. It was
usable since it would remain in range of the GPS's global error offset
for something like 1000 years, while not using the GR correction would
exceed the range of the global error offset in something like 12 days.

> 5. Therefore, the synthesizer must have adjusted it from the relativity prediction to the exact amount.

Yes they do this because of the sun and moon tugging on satellites'
orbits, solar storms, the ionosphere etc. This is the offset that would
run out in about 12 days if GR was ignored.

> 6. Above are the quotes from Essen saying it is not a scientific theory. You are welcome to read his papers criticizing relativity.

Those arguments don't disqualify anything as a theory. Actually GR is
the theory, GPS is an application of the theory.

> 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.

I saw nothing self-contradictory in any GPS specs. Point one out, if you
can.

On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 4:50:01 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 05.01.2024 04:36, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 1:06:32 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >> Den 03.01.2024 15:45, skrev Lou:
> >>
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Ashby.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">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.
> Read this first:
> >>> On Wednesday 3 January 2024 at 14:10:32 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>>> Here is an explanation of how the time reported from
> >>>> the SV 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 Δt_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 Δt_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.
> If you have read this, you will know that the SV-clock
> isn't corrected while the SV is in service.
> And you will know that the clock offset Δt_SV must be less then 1 ms,
> or the correction parameter a_f0 would overflow.
>
> If the rate of the SV-clock is exactly (1-4.4647E-10) compared
> to an SI_clock, then the clock offset Δt_SV will not change.
> (It will stay 0 if the clock initially is perfectly synced)
>
> If the rate of the SI-clock is not corrected at all, then
> the rate error is 4.4647E-10 and a_f0 will overflow after 26 days.
>
> If the clock is corrected by (1 - 4.465E-10) then the rate error
> is 3E-14 and a_f0 will overflow after 1056 years.
>
> So to answer your questions:
> > 1. Below, Lou asks wouldn't that be accumulative proving you wrong?
> Yes, with the correction (1 - 4.465E-10) the rate error would
> accumulate, so a_f0 will overflow after 1056 years.
>
> Which confirms my statement:
> "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."
> > 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.
> A very peculiar question.
>
> The synthesizer changed the frequency of the SI-clock
> by the factor (1 - 4.465E-10).
>
> And you ask what the synthesizer would have done if it
> hadn't done what it did! :-D
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/
Thank you for your patient explanation. It seems you are saying it changed from the Newtonian mode to the relativistic one? Then, what was the meaning of the Newtonian mode? Was it half relativistic? Newtonian would not be that used on Earth because, according to Newton gravity would affect light and the cesium clock uses six laser beams in the cesium gas.

On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 5:30:46 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 05.01.2024 04:55, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 1:06:32 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Ashby.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">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"
> So the frequency synthesizer which prior to launch was built
> to lower the frequency of the SI-clock by the factor (1-446.5E-12)
> which was specified in the System Specification Document,
> was changed in flight to lower the frequency by the factor
> (1-442.5E-12).
>
> Do I have to explain why I find this hilarious?
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/
No, you think anyone must know all these details about GPS to know that relativity is not science. That is not true. That is why I find you hilarious. Relativity is not necessary to predict the amount the atomic clock must be adjusted in orbit. The adjustment for gravity is not a relativistic adjustment. You have not explained what the Newton mode was that the synthesizer shifted it away from. Was it half the relativity mode? Please see: "GPS Satellite Clock Corrections without Relativity Theory" -Stephan J. G. Gift

On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 5:30:46 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 05.01.2024 04:55, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 1:06:32 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Ashby.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">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"
> So the frequency synthesizer which prior to launch was built
> to lower the frequency of the SI-clock by the factor (1-446.5E-12)
> which was specified in the System Specification Document,
> was changed in flight to lower the frequency by the factor
> (1-442.5E-12).
>
> Do I have to explain why I find this hilarious?
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/
Your conceit has always been abundantly in evidence.

On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 5:30:46 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 05.01.2024 04:55, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 1:06:32 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Ashby.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">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"
> So the frequency synthesizer which prior to launch was built
> to lower the frequency of the SI-clock by the factor (1-446.5E-12)
> which was specified in the System Specification Document,
> was changed in flight to lower the frequency by the factor
> (1-442.5E-12).
>
> Do I have to explain why I find this hilarious?
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/
If you were genuinely knowledgeable about the GPS and relativity you could and would tell me if the relativity prediction which the synthesizer switched the clock to was twice Newtonian or not.

On Friday, January 5, 2024 at 5:30:46 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 05.01.2024 04:55, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:
> > On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 1:06:32 PM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> >>
> >> https://paulba.no/paper/Ashby.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">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"
> So the frequency synthesizer which prior to launch was built
> to lower the frequency of the SI-clock by the factor (1-446.5E-12)
> which was specified in the System Specification Document,
> was changed in flight to lower the frequency by the factor
> (1-442.5E-12).
>
> Do I have to explain why I find this hilarious?
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/
The just so story of the synthesizer prepared to either switch to Newton or relativity mode reminds of Eusebius' story of Constantine seeing a cross in the sky at the Milvan Bridge.

On Saturday 6 January 2024 at 00:13:29 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 1/5/2024 3:38 PM, Lou wrote:
> > On Friday 5 January 2024 at 16:04:33 UTC, Volney wrote:
> >> On 1/5/2024 10:16 AM, Lou wrote:
> >>
> >>> From my understanding so far, the C-133 master clock generates 9192631770 beats a second.At which point these are then binned into larger 20 millisecond or 1.5 second parcels by a secondary 10.23Mhz oscillator. Which can only mean that a total of 9192631770 beats per second are split into 10230000 pieces. Each piece containing:
> >>
> >>> 9192631770 ÷ 10230000= 898.595480938 beats of the total beats per second of the C-133 clock. At which point these are then binned into larger L1 L2 - 20 millisecond or 1.5 second parcels by a secondary process. In other words the ground reciever gets these parcels of data after being processed further as follows. Please note these finite 1.5 or 20 ms parcels STILL CONTAIN 10.23 chip rates!
> >>>
> >>> At this point the frequency plan quote says these clocks rate parcels are then offset /compressed to 10.22Mhz to account for relativity before being sent to earth.
> >> Boy do you have a screwed up idea how things work.
> >
> > I need to find out how the SV clocks and signal work. Best way to learn
> > is try to summarise what I know and ask the experts to clarify or correct.
> > And it worked. I wouldnt have got your info without asking. And thanks for
> > that info incidentally.
> >
> >> There is no
> >> "offset/compression" stage. The Cs clock "ticks" using a divisor where
> >> there is 9192631774.1 ÷ 10230000 = 898.595481339 Cs cycles,
> >
> > I don’t quite understand this bit.
> > You seem to suggest here that the caesium atoms and a caesium clocks
> > frequency is at 9192631774.1 That’s not what I read.
> > *Every source* I read puts the caesium atoms frequency and a caesium clocks
> > frequency at 9102631770.
> Yes it's true that the second, by definition, is 9192631770 times the

Even your idiot guru Tom is admitting, that in the context
of GPS "second" means something else.
Everywhere outside your insane church "second" means
something else, and in the time when Giant Guru lived
and mumbled - even in your insane church it meant
something wlse.

> More specifically, the master frequency generator uses a divisor equal
> to 10,230,000/9192631774.1. Do the math and this actually generates a
> frequency of 10.2299999954326 MHz.

Measurement are against your empty assertions, stupid Mike.

All the other signals intended for
> earth are based off this slightly low frequency.
> > Heres wiki:
> > “By definition, radiation produced by the transition between the two hyperfine ground states of caesium (in the absence of external influences such as the Earth's magnetic field) has a frequency, ΔνCs, of exactly 9192631770 Hz.”
> Yes, and by definition, a 1 pulse per 9192631774.1 Cs transitions is NOT
> one pulse per second. Very close but slightly too long,
> >
> > So how do they get the atoms frequency to change from 9192631770 to 9102631774.1
> They don't. The Cs, by its nature, still generates its natural frequency
> of 9.192631770 GHz. Locally to the satellite, of course.

Measurement are against your empty assertions, stupid Mike.

Den 04.01.2024 23:04, skrev Lou:
>
> 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

There is no "classical non relativistic model" which can "explain"
the rate of clocks in a gravitational field.

An approximation of the Schwarzschild metric:

The rate of Schwarzschild coordinate time t is the same
as the rate of a clock at infinity.

The rate of a clock at distance r and speed v in the ECI-frame
relative to Schwarzschild coordinate time is:

dτ/dt = (1 - GM/r⋅c² - v²/2c²) (1)

GM/r is the Newtonian gravitational potential, but that doesn't
make the Schwarzschild metric "non relativistic".

If the clock is in circular orbit then v² = GM/r and (1) can be written:

dτ/dt = (1 - 1.5⋅GM/r⋅c²) (2)

This is the rate of a clock in circular orbit relative to
Schwarzschild coordinate time, but we are more interested in
the rate of the clock relative to Universal Coordinated time (UTC).

We consult Ashby:
https://paulba.no/paper/Ashby.pdf
see equation (18) page 11.

dt_utc/dt = (1 - δutc) where δutc = 6.96927E-10

dτ/dt_utc = (1 - 1.5⋅GM/r⋅c²)/(1 - δutc) ≃ (1 - 1.5⋅GM/r⋅c² + δutc) (3)

Δf/f₀ = (dτ/dt_utc - 1) = - (1.5⋅GM/r⋅c² - δutc) (4)

For the GPS the orbital period p is specified to be half a sidereal day:
p = 43082.04525 s
GM = 3.986004418E14 m³/s²
c = 299792458 m/s
r = GM⋅p²/4π² = 26561763 m

Equation (4) yields; Δf/f₀ = 4.46471409E-10

This means that the clock will run fast relative
to UTC, so to stay in sync with UTC it must be
corrected by Δf/f₀ = - 4.46471409E-10

In the GPS specification the correction is set to
Δf/f₀ = - 4.4647E-10

> 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?

Of course that's what is done.

The frequency of the common frequency source is simply
f₀ = 10.2299999954326 MHz, as measured by a local SI-clock.
It is not 'converted' from anything else.

The frequencies of the carriers are derived from f₀:
L1 = 154⋅f₀ = 1575.4200007033778 Mhz
L2 = 120⋅f₀ = 1227.6000005480864 Mhz
as measured by a local SI-clock.

Measured by local UTC-clocks the frequencies are:
f₀ = 10.23 MHz,
L1 = 154⋅f₀ = 1575.42 MHz and L2 = 120⋅f₀ = 1227.6 MHz.

Chew on that! :-D

SI-clock = a clock with time unit seconds as defined by SI.
UTC-clock = a clock showing UTC

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Saturday 6 January 2024 at 15:24:23 UTC+1, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 04.01.2024 23:04, skrev Lou:
> >
> > 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
>
> There is no "classical non relativistic model" which can "explain"
> the rate of clocks in a gravitational field.
>
> An approximation of the Schwarzschild metric:
>
> The rate of Schwarzschild coordinate time t is the same
> as the rate of a clock at infinity.
>
> The rate of a clock at distance r and speed v in the ECI-frame
> relative to Schwarzschild coordinate time is:
>
> dτ/dt = (1 - GM/r⋅c² - v²/2c²) (1)
>
> GM/r is the Newtonian gravitational potential, but that doesn't
> make the Schwarzschild metric "non relativistic".
>
> If the clock is in circular orbit then v² = GM/r and (1) can be written:
>
> dτ/dt = (1 - 1.5⋅GM/r⋅c²) (2)
>
> This is the rate of a clock in circular orbit relative to
> Schwarzschild coordinate time, but we are more interested in
> the rate of the clock relative to Universal Coordinated time (UTC).
>
> We consult Ashby:
> https://paulba.no/paper/Ashby.pdf
> see equation (18) page 11.
>
> dt_utc/dt = (1 - δutc) where δutc = 6.96927E-10
>
> dτ/dt_utc = (1 - 1.5⋅GM/r⋅c²)/(1 - δutc) ≃ (1 - 1.5⋅GM/r⋅c² + δutc) (3)
>
> Δf/f₀ = (dτ/dt_utc - 1) = - (1.5⋅GM/r⋅c² - δutc) (4)
>
> For the GPS the orbital period p is specified to be half a sidereal day:
> p = 43082.04525 s
> GM = 3.986004418E14 m³/s²
> c = 299792458 m/s
> r = GM⋅p²/4π² = 26561763 m
>
> Equation (4) yields; Δf/f₀ = 4.46471409E-10
>
> This means that the clock will run fast relative
> to UTC, so to stay in sync with UTC it must be
> corrected by Δf/f₀ = - 4.46471409E-10
>
> In the GPS specification the correction is set to
> Δf/f₀ = - 4.4647E-10
>
>
> > 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?
> Of course that's what is done.
>
> The frequency of the common frequency source is simply
> f₀ = 10.2299999954326 MHz, as measured by a local SI-clock.
> It is not 'converted' from anything else.

Local clocks there are not SI clocks. You know it very well,
but being a fanatic piece of shit you're not going to ever
admit: the real measurement measurred for real by real
clocks is 10.23.
You can only gedanke/fabricate the results matching your
insane visions.

On 1/5/2024 10:32 AM, Volney wrote:
> On 1/4/2024 11:51 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 2:20:28 AM UTC-8, Lou wrote:

>>> Does that say 10.23 or 10229999.9954326?
>
> Again, neither. Try again.
>
>> 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. "
>
> Are you actually quoting that insane fool who has half of his
> definitions backwards from what specifications or theory actually state?
> Such as his claim of switching the NTS-2 clock from 10.23 MHz to
> 10229999.9954326 MHz is switching TO Newtonian time? Hahaha!

That (clock measuring 10229999.9954326 MHz on earth but 10.23 MHz in
space) is actually a fine example of Wozniak getting things backwards.
The satellite in space (as measured by a comoving Cs clock) generates a
signal at 10229999.9954326 MHz in space as set up before launch, but is
measured at 10.23 MHz on the ground. Not the other way around.

On Saturday 6 January 2024 at 16:55:41 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 1/5/2024 10:32 AM, Volney wrote:
> > On 1/4/2024 11:51 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >> On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 2:20:28 AM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
>
> >>> Does that say 10.23 or 10229999.9954326?
> >
> > Again, neither. Try again.
> >
> >> 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. "
> >
> > Are you actually quoting that insane fool who has half of his
> > definitions backwards from what specifications or theory actually state?
> > Such as his claim of switching the NTS-2 clock from 10.23 MHz to
> > 10229999.9954326 MHz is switching TO Newtonian time? Hahaha!
> That (clock measuring 10229999.9954326 MHz on earth but 10.23 MHz in
> space) is actually a fine example of Wozniak getting things backwards.
> The satellite in space (as measured by a comoving Cs clock) generates a
> signal at 10229999.9954326 MHz in space as set up before launch,

A fine example of Volney (and his fellow idiots) gedanking/fabricating
things and take them for the reality. Bullshit, the measurement -
direct comparing to comoving clock - gives 10.23M. The clocks
showing 10229999.9954326 only exist in the gedanken delusions
of relativistic morons.

On Saturday, January 6, 2024 at 6:24:23 AM UTC-8, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 04.01.2024 23:04, skrev Lou:
> >
> > 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
>
> There is no "classical non relativistic model" which can "explain"
> the rate of clocks in a gravitational field.
Then, there was no Newtonian prediction for the GPS clock. How does gravity affect the rate of an atomic clock? If gravity affects it, then Newtonian would have an exlanation. How does the relativistic explanation compare?

>
> An approximation of the Schwarzschild metric:
>
> The rate of Schwarzschild coordinate time t is the same
> as the rate of a clock at infinity.
>
> The rate of a clock at distance r and speed v in the ECI-frame
> relative to Schwarzschild coordinate time is:
>
> dτ/dt = (1 - GM/r⋅c² - v²/2c²) (1)
>
> GM/r is the Newtonian gravitational potential, but that doesn't
> make the Schwarzschild metric "non relativistic".
>
> If the clock is in circular orbit then v² = GM/r and (1) can be written:
>
> dτ/dt = (1 - 1.5⋅GM/r⋅c²) (2)
>
> This is the rate of a clock in circular orbit relative to
> Schwarzschild coordinate time, but we are more interested in
> the rate of the clock relative to Universal Coordinated time (UTC).
>
> We consult Ashby:
> https://paulba.no/paper/Ashby.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/paper/Ashby.pdf
> see equation (18) page 11.
>
> dt_utc/dt = (1 - δutc) where δutc = 6.96927E-10
>
> dτ/dt_utc = (1 - 1.5⋅GM/r⋅c²)/(1 - δutc) ≃ (1 - 1.5⋅GM/r⋅c² + δutc) (3)
>
> Δf/f₀ = (dτ/dt_utc - 1) = - (1.5⋅GM/r⋅c² - δutc) (4)
>
> For the GPS the orbital period p is specified to be half a sidereal day:
> p = 43082.04525 s
> GM = 3.986004418E14 m³/s²
> c = 299792458 m/s
> r = GM⋅p²/4π² = 26561763 m
>
> Equation (4) yields; Δf/f₀ = 4.46471409E-10
>
> This means that the clock will run fast relative
> to UTC, so to stay in sync with UTC it must be
> corrected by Δf/f₀ = - 4.46471409E-10
>
> In the GPS specification the correction is set to
> Δf/f₀ = - 4.4647E-10
>
>
> > 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?
> Of course that's what is done.
>
> The frequency of the common frequency source is simply
> f₀ = 10.2299999954326 MHz, as measured by a local SI-clock.
> It is not 'converted' from anything else.
>
> The frequencies of the carriers are derived from f₀:
> L1 = 154⋅f₀ = 1575.4200007033778 Mhz
> L2 = 120⋅f₀ = 1227.6000005480864 Mhz
> as measured by a local SI-clock.
>
> Measured by local UTC-clocks the frequencies are:
> f₀ = 10.23 MHz,
> L1 = 154⋅f₀ = 1575.42 MHz and L2 = 120⋅f₀ = 1227.6 MHz.
>
> Chew on that! :-D
>
> SI-clock = a clock with time unit seconds as defined by SI.
> UTC-clock = a clock showing UTC
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

On Saturday, January 6, 2024 at 7:55:41 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> On 1/5/2024 10:32 AM, Volney wrote:
> > On 1/4/2024 11:51 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >> On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 2:20:28 AM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
>
> >>> Does that say 10.23 or 10229999.9954326?
> >
> > Again, neither. Try again.
> >
> >> 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. "
> >
> > Are you actually quoting that insane fool who has half of his
> > definitions backwards from what specifications or theory actually state?
> > Such as his claim of switching the NTS-2 clock from 10.23 MHz to
> > 10229999.9954326 MHz is switching TO Newtonian time? Hahaha!
> That (clock measuring 10229999.9954326 MHz on earth but 10.23 MHz in
> space) is actually a fine example of Wozniak getting things backwards.
> The satellite in space (as measured by a comoving Cs clock) generates a
> signal at 10229999.9954326 MHz in space as set up before launch, but is
> measured at 10.23 MHz on the ground. Not the other way around.
Thank you for your opinion, but I haven't managed to understand it that way.. It runs faster in space, so the frequency of the clock before launch would have to be set slower on Earth. Otherwise, you would have to be referring to a result of the transmission, but that is not the transmission frequency.