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?
>
>> And 10229999.9954 is *still* wrong.
>
> No more wrong then if you added a further 50 digits to the number.
> Anyways my calculation used 10229999.99543.The 3 got lost in cut and paste.

You "lost" two more NECESSARY digits in your cut and paste. Most of the
time when I see that many sig figs I smirk how someone doesn't know how
to do calculations to the needed accuracy. But this is definitely an
exception; the precision needed is extreme, about 500 parts per
trillion, and the full value is given in the GPS specifications to the
necessary number of digits. It is 10.2299999954326 MHz. You need all the
digits to get the correct values.

> But this is crybaby stuff from you. Notice pretty well every relativist reference on
> it uses at most 10.229999.99543.

No, in the GPS specs it is explicitly stated to be 10.2299999954326 MHz.
Using fewer digits is simply sloppy and gives you the incorrect answers.

>>> 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
frequency (it is m^2/s^2, frequencies have units of 1/s)
Remember, if the units are incorrect, the answer is AUTOMATICALLY wrong!

>>>>
>>>> [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?

> So for instance in the frequency 8.9875518e+16 hz...

Again, explain how c^2 is a frequency?

You are completely clueless. Word salad GIGO.

On 12/31/2023 4:42 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 9:35:52 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>> On 12/31/2023 10:08 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>
>>> It would have to change from a lower to a higher frequency. Because the speed of light moving from the vacuum of space into the atmosphere changes from 3 x 10e8 m/sec to 2.997x 10e8m/sec it forms compression waves increasing the frequency from 10.2299999954326 Mbps measured by a SI-clock in the satellite to 10.23 Mbps.

>> Word salad gibberish.
>>
>> The speed of light 299,792,458 m/s is the VACUUM speed of light. In a
>> non-vacuum like air, the frequency is unchanged. Only the speed and
>> wavelength change.

>>> No relatovity required or involved whatsoever.

>> Sorry, but the 10.2299999954326 MHz frequency is explicitly derived from
>> 10.23 MHz using GR calculations for the satellite orbit. You're in denial.

> Anderson said it would be 10.2299999954326 at the satellite and 10.23 at the receiver; did he not?

And it's derived from GR using the satellite's altitude and orbital
velocity.

On 12/31/2023 12:50 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 9:35:52 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
>> On 12/31/2023 10:08 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>
>>> It would have to change from a lower to a higher frequency. Because the speed of light moving from the vacuum of space into the atmosphere changes from 3 x 10e8 m/sec to 2.997x 10e8m/sec it forms compression waves increasing the frequency from 10.2299999954326 Mbps measured by a SI-clock in the satellite to 10.23 Mbps.

>> Word salad gibberish.
>>
>> The speed of light 299,792,458 m/s is the VACUUM speed of light. In a
>> non-vacuum like air, the frequency is unchanged. Only the speed and
>> wavelength change.

>>> No relatovity required or involved whatsoever.

>> Sorry, but the 10.2299999954326 MHz frequency is explicitly derived from
>> 10.23 MHz using GR calculations for the satellite orbit. You're in denial.

> The frequency and the wavelength are two sides of the same coin. The only reason the frequency changes in this case is due to the forming of the compression waves.

Is today "Make up a fact day" or something? "Compression waves" is a
bite of word salad.

On Monday 1 January 2024 at 18:02:29 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 12/31/2023 4:42 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 31, 2023 at 9:35:52 AM UTC-8, Volney wrote:
> >> On 12/31/2023 10:08 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> >>
> >>> It would have to change from a lower to a higher frequency. Because the speed of light moving from the vacuum of space into the atmosphere changes from 3 x 10e8 m/sec to 2.997x 10e8m/sec it forms compression waves increasing the frequency from 10.2299999954326 Mbps measured by a SI-clock in the satellite to 10.23 Mbps.
>
> >> Word salad gibberish.
> >>
> >> The speed of light 299,792,458 m/s is the VACUUM speed of light. In a
> >> non-vacuum like air, the frequency is unchanged. Only the speed and
> >> wavelength change.
>
> >>> No relatovity required or involved whatsoever.
>
> >> Sorry, but the 10.2299999954326 MHz frequency is explicitly derived from
> >> 10.23 MHz using GR calculations for the satellite orbit. You're in denial.
>
> > Anderson said it would be 10.2299999954326 at the satellite and 10.23 at the receiver; did he not?
> And it's derived from GR using the satellite's altitude and orbital
> velocity.

And it is denied by the measurement result, giving 10.23. Good bye,
The Shit.

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.

> >
> >> And 10229999.9954 is *still* wrong.
> >
> > No more wrong then if you added a further 50 digits to the number.
> > Anyways my calculation used 10229999.99543.The 3 got lost in cut and paste.
> You "lost" two more NECESSARY digits in your cut and paste. Most of the
> time when I see that many sig figs I smirk how someone doesn't know how
> to do calculations to the needed accuracy. But this is definitely an
> exception; the precision needed is extreme, about 500 parts per
> trillion, and the full value is given in the GPS specifications to the
> necessary number of digits. It is 10.2299999954326 MHz. You need all the
> digits to get the correct values.
> > But this is crybaby stuff from you. Notice pretty well every relativist reference on
> > it uses at most 10.229999.99543.
> No, in the GPS specs it is explicitly stated to be 10.2299999954326 MHz.
> Using fewer digits is simply sloppy and gives you the incorrect answers.

Poor Baby, needs an extra two digits...
First start with total gains for GPS sat of 4.4567113e-10 calculated using
GM/r÷f. Then ...

1.00000000044567113 × 10229999.9954326=10230000
There you go. An extra 2 digits added. Does adding your extra 2
Digits make any difference? No.
Looks like you don’t need any relativity to calculate clock gains
when GM/r ÷f
Anyways it looks like the same total as that cited by relativists who
usually only use 10229999.99543 and seem to get away with it.

> >>> 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. And any number can be a
frequency. And when you divide GM/r into it, it gives the same
total as your preferred relativistic calculation does.
So either we both are right, or we both are wrong.

> 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?
And Paul and other relativists use 1.000000000527 to calculate frequency
gains. In relativity Lala land what units is 1.000000000527 in?
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?

> >>>>
> >>>> [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?

On 12/31/2023 2:04 PM, Lou wrote:
> On Sunday 31 December 2023 at 17:27:44 UTC, Volney wrote:
>> On 12/30/2023 2:40 PM, Lou wrote:

>>> And that it’s NOT preset before launch.

>> As this is where the frequency is specified, it is set by design, and
>> most certainly is set before launch. By Design.
>
> Word salad to cover up the fact that the satelitte broadcasts its
> signal...to the earth receiver...at 10.23Mhz.

Why does the design specification state explicitly the frequency is
10.2299999954326 MHz, not 10.23 MHz?

> As is confirmed by pretty well every tech spec from NIST etc.
>

On Monday 1 January 2024 at 22:12:29 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 12/31/2023 2:04 PM, Lou wrote:
> > On Sunday 31 December 2023 at 17:27:44 UTC, Volney wrote:
> >> On 12/30/2023 2:40 PM, Lou wrote:
>
> >>> And that it’s NOT preset before launch.
>
> >> As this is where the frequency is specified, it is set by design, and
> >> most certainly is set before launch. By Design.
> >
> > Word salad to cover up the fact that the satelitte broadcasts its
> > signal...to the earth receiver...at 10.23Mhz.
> Why does the design specification state explicitly the frequency is
> 10.2299999954326 MHz, not 10.23 MHz?

It doesn;t, stupid Mike. It does say that it "would appear"
that it's 10.2299999954326.
Or even if it does - mistakes happen.

On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 12:46:55 PM UTC-8, 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.
> > >
> > >> And 10229999.9954 is *still* wrong.
> > >
> > > No more wrong then if you added a further 50 digits to the number.
> > > Anyways my calculation used 10229999.99543.The 3 got lost in cut and paste.
> > You "lost" two more NECESSARY digits in your cut and paste. Most of the
> > time when I see that many sig figs I smirk how someone doesn't know how
> > to do calculations to the needed accuracy. But this is definitely an
> > exception; the precision needed is extreme, about 500 parts per
> > trillion, and the full value is given in the GPS specifications to the
> > necessary number of digits. It is 10.2299999954326 MHz. You need all the
> > digits to get the correct values.
> > > But this is crybaby stuff from you. Notice pretty well every relativist reference on
> > > it uses at most 10.229999.99543.
> > No, in the GPS specs it is explicitly stated to be 10.2299999954326 MHz..
> > Using fewer digits is simply sloppy and gives you the incorrect answers..
> Poor Baby, needs an extra two digits...
> First start with total gains for GPS sat of 4.4567113e-10 calculated using
> GM/r÷f. Then ...
>
> 1.00000000044567113 × 10229999.9954326=10230000
> There you go. An extra 2 digits added. Does adding your extra 2
> Digits make any difference? No.
> Looks like you don’t need any relativity to calculate clock gains
> when GM/r ÷f
> Anyways it looks like the same total as that cited by relativists who
> usually only use 10229999.99543 and seem to get away with it.
> > >>> 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. And any number can be a
> frequency. And when you divide GM/r into it, it gives the same
> total as your preferred relativistic calculation does.
> So either we both are right, or we both are wrong.
> > 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?
> And Paul and other relativists use 1.000000000527 to calculate frequency
> gains. In relativity Lala land what units is 1.000000000527 in?
> 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?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> [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.
> (Actually the calculator does use 5.2716726e-10. But it shows it as 5.27e-10
> Which I copy and paste into posts.)
Lou, I think this article may nail it: "GPS Satellite Clock Corrections without
Relativity Theory" -Stephan J. G. Gift; Have you read it?

On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 12:46:55 PM UTC-8, 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.
> > >
> > >> And 10229999.9954 is *still* wrong.
> > >
> > > No more wrong then if you added a further 50 digits to the number.
> > > Anyways my calculation used 10229999.99543.The 3 got lost in cut and paste.
> > You "lost" two more NECESSARY digits in your cut and paste. Most of the
> > time when I see that many sig figs I smirk how someone doesn't know how
> > to do calculations to the needed accuracy. But this is definitely an
> > exception; the precision needed is extreme, about 500 parts per
> > trillion, and the full value is given in the GPS specifications to the
> > necessary number of digits. It is 10.2299999954326 MHz. You need all the
> > digits to get the correct values.
> > > But this is crybaby stuff from you. Notice pretty well every relativist reference on
> > > it uses at most 10.229999.99543.
> > No, in the GPS specs it is explicitly stated to be 10.2299999954326 MHz..
> > Using fewer digits is simply sloppy and gives you the incorrect answers..
> Poor Baby, needs an extra two digits...
> First start with total gains for GPS sat of 4.4567113e-10 calculated using
> GM/r÷f. Then ...
>
> 1.00000000044567113 × 10229999.9954326=10230000
> There you go. An extra 2 digits added. Does adding your extra 2
> Digits make any difference? No.
> Looks like you don’t need any relativity to calculate clock gains
> when GM/r ÷f
> Anyways it looks like the same total as that cited by relativists who
> usually only use 10229999.99543 and seem to get away with it.
> > >>> 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. And any number can be a
> frequency. And when you divide GM/r into it, it gives the same
> total as your preferred relativistic calculation does.
> So either we both are right, or we both are wrong.
> > 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?
> And Paul and other relativists use 1.000000000527 to calculate frequency
> gains. In relativity Lala land what units is 1.000000000527 in?
> 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?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> [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.
> (Actually the calculator does use 5.2716726e-10. But it shows it as 5.27e-10
> Which I copy and paste into posts.)
He cites: Pound, R. and Rebka, G. (1960) Apparent Weight of Photons. Physical Review Letters, 4, 337, so I believe he is using the Newtonian effect of gravity on light and not twice Newtonian.

On Monday 1 January 2024 at 21:12:29 UTC, Volney wrote:
> On 12/31/2023 2:04 PM, Lou wrote:
> > On Sunday 31 December 2023 at 17:27:44 UTC, Volney wrote:
> >> On 12/30/2023 2:40 PM, Lou wrote:
>
> >>> And that it’s NOT preset before launch.
>
> >> As this is where the frequency is specified, it is set by design, and
> >> most certainly is set before launch. By Design.
> >
> > Word salad to cover up the fact that the satelitte broadcasts its
> > signal...to the earth receiver...at 10.23Mhz.
> Why does the design specification state explicitly the frequency is
> 10.2299999954326 MHz, not 10.23 MHz?
> > As is confirmed by pretty well every tech spec from NIST etc.
> >

I’ve read the spec paper cited by Paul and yes in one line it says
10.2299Mhz for the sat but... With “appears” in the same sentence.
But in dozens of other places it says the satelitte broadcasts at 10.23Hz.
Not to mention 10.23 being cited as the broadcast f in other tech documents
One of which I cited to Paul in this thread.

Why do NIST and other official aviation reference repeatedly state that
the satelitte broadcasts at 10.23 Mhz and only once, that I can see,
mention 10.2299Mhz . And then abbreviate it with “appears”?
Logic and the official burden of proof dictates that it is 10.23 Mhz.
Can you offer a reasonable explanation as to why dozens of times in that
same NIST article , it confirms 10.23Mhz as the * satellite broadcast* frequency?
The only other times 10.22999Mhz is claimed, is by relativists in online chat rooms.
Not the most reliable source.

Notice I myself have tried to provide calculations supporting a 10.22999Mhz
broadcast frequency. So I’m trying to weigh both sides sceptically..
Unlike yourself.

On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 3:51:50 PM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> On Monday 1 January 2024 at 21:12:29 UTC, Volney wrote:
> > On 12/31/2023 2:04 PM, Lou wrote:
> > > On Sunday 31 December 2023 at 17:27:44 UTC, Volney wrote:
> > >> On 12/30/2023 2:40 PM, Lou wrote:
> >
> > >>> And that it’s NOT preset before launch.
> >
> > >> As this is where the frequency is specified, it is set by design, and
> > >> most certainly is set before launch. By Design.
> > >
> > > Word salad to cover up the fact that the satelitte broadcasts its
> > > signal...to the earth receiver...at 10.23Mhz.
> > Why does the design specification state explicitly the frequency is
> > 10.2299999954326 MHz, not 10.23 MHz?
> > > As is confirmed by pretty well every tech spec from NIST etc.
> > >
> I’ve read the spec paper cited by Paul and yes in one line it says
> 10.2299Mhz for the sat but... With “appears” in the same sentence.
> But in dozens of other places it says the satelitte broadcasts at 10.23Hz..
> Not to mention 10.23 being cited as the broadcast f in other tech documents
> One of which I cited to Paul in this thread.
>
> Why do NIST and other official aviation reference repeatedly state that
> the satelitte broadcasts at 10.23 Mhz and only once, that I can see,
> mention 10.2299Mhz . And then abbreviate it with “appears”?
> Logic and the official burden of proof dictates that it is 10.23 Mhz.
> Can you offer a reasonable explanation as to why dozens of times in that
> same NIST article , it confirms 10.23Mhz as the * satellite broadcast* frequency?
> The only other times 10.22999Mhz is claimed, is by relativists in online chat rooms.
> Not the most reliable source.
>
> Notice I myself have tried to provide calculations supporting a 10.22999Mhz
> broadcast frequency. So I’m trying to weigh both sides sceptically.
> Unlike yourself.
The satellites broadcast data to Earth on three GPS frequencies: L1 at 1575..42 MHz, L2 at 1227.60 MHz, and L5 at 1176.45 MHz. "In order to compensate for
the consequent time errors, the clock frequency standard on board each satellite
must be appropriately offset at launch so that the clocks initially run slower than
clocks on Earth [1] [2]. The IS-GPS-705F Interface Specification document [3]
gives this adjusted frequency as 10.22999999543 MHz down from 10.23 MHz.
During operation, the effect of clock retardation and gravitational time dilation
is an increase of the clock frequency from the offset value of 10.22999999543
MHz to 10.23 MHz as seen by a ground observer. " -ibid.

On Monday 1 January 2024 at 21:54:09 UTC, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 12:46:55 PM UTC-8, 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.
> > > >
> > > >> And 10229999.9954 is *still* wrong.
> > > >
> > > > No more wrong then if you added a further 50 digits to the number.
> > > > Anyways my calculation used 10229999.99543.The 3 got lost in cut and paste.
> > > You "lost" two more NECESSARY digits in your cut and paste. Most of the
> > > time when I see that many sig figs I smirk how someone doesn't know how
> > > to do calculations to the needed accuracy. But this is definitely an
> > > exception; the precision needed is extreme, about 500 parts per
> > > trillion, and the full value is given in the GPS specifications to the
> > > necessary number of digits. It is 10.2299999954326 MHz. You need all the
> > > digits to get the correct values.
> > > > But this is crybaby stuff from you. Notice pretty well every relativist reference on
> > > > it uses at most 10.229999.99543.
> > > No, in the GPS specs it is explicitly stated to be 10.2299999954326 MHz.
> > > Using fewer digits is simply sloppy and gives you the incorrect answers.
> > Poor Baby, needs an extra two digits...
> > First start with total gains for GPS sat of 4.4567113e-10 calculated using
> > GM/r÷f. Then ...
> >
> > 1.00000000044567113 × 10229999.9954326=10230000
> > There you go. An extra 2 digits added. Does adding your extra 2
> > Digits make any difference? No.
> > Looks like you don’t need any relativity to calculate clock gains
> > when GM/r ÷f
> > Anyways it looks like the same total as that cited by relativists who
> > usually only use 10229999.99543 and seem to get away with it.
> > > >>> 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. And any number can be a
> > frequency. And when you divide GM/r into it, it gives the same
> > total as your preferred relativistic calculation does.
> > So either we both are right, or we both are wrong.
> > > 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?
> > And Paul and other relativists use 1.000000000527 to calculate frequency
> > gains. In relativity Lala land what units is 1.000000000527 in?
> > 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?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> [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.
> > (Actually the calculator does use 5.2716726e-10. But it shows it as 5.27e-10
> > Which I copy and paste into posts.)
> Lou, I think this article may nail it: "GPS Satellite Clock Corrections without
> Relativity Theory" -Stephan J. G. Gift; Have you read it?

On Tuesday 2 January 2024 at 00:35:37 UTC, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 3:51:50 PM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> > On Monday 1 January 2024 at 21:12:29 UTC, Volney wrote:
> > > On 12/31/2023 2:04 PM, Lou wrote:
> > > > On Sunday 31 December 2023 at 17:27:44 UTC, Volney wrote:
> > > >> On 12/30/2023 2:40 PM, Lou wrote:
> > >
> > > >>> And that it’s NOT preset before launch.
> > >
> > > >> As this is where the frequency is specified, it is set by design, and
> > > >> most certainly is set before launch. By Design.
> > > >
> > > > Word salad to cover up the fact that the satelitte broadcasts its
> > > > signal...to the earth receiver...at 10.23Mhz.
> > > Why does the design specification state explicitly the frequency is
> > > 10.2299999954326 MHz, not 10.23 MHz?
> > > > As is confirmed by pretty well every tech spec from NIST etc.
> > > >
> > I’ve read the spec paper cited by Paul and yes in one line it says
> > 10.2299Mhz for the sat but... With “appears” in the same sentence.
> > But in dozens of other places it says the satelitte broadcasts at 10.23Hz.
> > Not to mention 10.23 being cited as the broadcast f in other tech documents
> > One of which I cited to Paul in this thread.
> >
> > Why do NIST and other official aviation reference repeatedly state that
> > the satelitte broadcasts at 10.23 Mhz and only once, that I can see,
> > mention 10.2299Mhz . And then abbreviate it with “appears”?
> > Logic and the official burden of proof dictates that it is 10.23 Mhz.
> > Can you offer a reasonable explanation as to why dozens of times in that
> > same NIST article , it confirms 10.23Mhz as the * satellite broadcast* frequency?
> > The only other times 10.22999Mhz is claimed, is by relativists in online chat rooms.
> > Not the most reliable source.
> >
> > Notice I myself have tried to provide calculations supporting a 10.22999Mhz
> > broadcast frequency. So I’m trying to weigh both sides sceptically.
> > Unlike yourself.
> The satellites broadcast data to Earth on three GPS frequencies: L1 at 1575.42 MHz, L2 at 1227.60 MHz, and L5 at 1176.45 MHz. "In order to compensate for
> the consequent time errors, the clock frequency standard on board each satellite
> must be appropriately offset at launch so that the clocks initially run slower than
> clocks on Earth [1] [2]. The IS-GPS-705F Interface Specification document [3]
> gives this adjusted frequency as 10.22999999543 MHz down from 10.23 MHz.
> During operation, the effect of clock retardation and gravitational time dilation
> is an increase of the clock frequency from the offset value of 10.22999999543
> MHz to 10.23 MHz as seen by a ground observer. " -ibid.

Yes looks good maybe but then again ...look at these sections below.
Why say 10.22Mhz on one page and then 10.23Mhz for the sat clocks on others?

3.3.2 PRN Code Characteristics.
The characteristics of the I5-codes and the Q5-codes are defined below in terms of their structure and the basic method used for generating them. Figures 3-2 and 3-3 depict simplified block diagrams of the scheme for generating the 10.23 Mbps I5i(t)...Etc

3.3.2.2 Code Generation.
Figure 3-3. Modulation of Signals
Each I5i(t) pattern (I5-code) and Q5i(t) pattern (Q5-code) are the modulo-2 sum of two extended patterns clocked at 10.23 Mbps (XA and XBIi or XBQi). XA is an 8190 length code, with an initial condition of all 1s, that is short cycled 1-chip before its natural conclusion and restarted to run over a period of 1 millisecond (synchronized with the L1 frequency C/A-code) for a total of 10,230 chips. The XBIi and XBQi, with initial conditions indicated in Table 3-I, are 8191 length codes that are not short cycled. They are restarted at their natural completion and run over a period of 1 millisecond (synchronized with the XA code) for a total of 10,230 chips. Etc..

Or...Figure 3.3
And further...in Neil Ashby’s paper the following quotes:
“ At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977), which contained the first Cesium atomic clock to be placed in orbit, it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require a relativistic correction, but there was uncertainty as to its magnitude as well as its sign. ”

They (the theorists) didn’t know the magnitude of the expected clock gains before GPS?!
In other words they DIDNT know how much the clock gains could be for GPS
Contrary to claims Albert predicted exactly 5.27e-10 for GR at 4.12 earth radius

And on page 17:
“ Instead, after such clocks are placed in orbit their frequencies are measured and the actual frequency corrections needed are incorporated in the clock correction polynomial that accompanies the navigation message.”
Sounds like any corrections are made after launch.
Although It does refer to rubidium clocks only in this above quote

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.

On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 5:39:10 PM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> On Tuesday 2 January 2024 at 00:35:37 UTC, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 3:51:50 PM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> > > On Monday 1 January 2024 at 21:12:29 UTC, Volney wrote:
> > > > On 12/31/2023 2:04 PM, Lou wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday 31 December 2023 at 17:27:44 UTC, Volney wrote:
> > > > >> On 12/30/2023 2:40 PM, Lou wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >>> And that it’s NOT preset before launch.
> > > >
> > > > >> As this is where the frequency is specified, it is set by design, and
> > > > >> most certainly is set before launch. By Design.
> > > > >
> > > > > Word salad to cover up the fact that the satelitte broadcasts its
> > > > > signal...to the earth receiver...at 10.23Mhz.
> > > > Why does the design specification state explicitly the frequency is
> > > > 10.2299999954326 MHz, not 10.23 MHz?
> > > > > As is confirmed by pretty well every tech spec from NIST etc.
> > > > >
> > > I’ve read the spec paper cited by Paul and yes in one line it says
> > > 10.2299Mhz for the sat but... With “appears” in the same sentence.
> > > But in dozens of other places it says the satelitte broadcasts at 10.23Hz.
> > > Not to mention 10.23 being cited as the broadcast f in other tech documents
> > > One of which I cited to Paul in this thread.
> > >
> > > Why do NIST and other official aviation reference repeatedly state that
> > > the satelitte broadcasts at 10.23 Mhz and only once, that I can see,
> > > mention 10.2299Mhz . And then abbreviate it with “appears”?
> > > Logic and the official burden of proof dictates that it is 10.23 Mhz.
> > > Can you offer a reasonable explanation as to why dozens of times in that
> > > same NIST article , it confirms 10.23Mhz as the * satellite broadcast* frequency?
> > > The only other times 10.22999Mhz is claimed, is by relativists in online chat rooms.
> > > Not the most reliable source.
> > >
> > > Notice I myself have tried to provide calculations supporting a 10.22999Mhz
> > > broadcast frequency. So I’m trying to weigh both sides sceptically.
> > > Unlike yourself.
> > The satellites broadcast data to Earth on three GPS frequencies: L1 at 1575.42 MHz, L2 at 1227.60 MHz, and L5 at 1176.45 MHz. "In order to compensate for
> > the consequent time errors, the clock frequency standard on board each satellite
> > must be appropriately offset at launch so that the clocks initially run slower than
> > clocks on Earth [1] [2]. The IS-GPS-705F Interface Specification document [3]
> > gives this adjusted frequency as 10.22999999543 MHz down from 10.23 MHz..
> > During operation, the effect of clock retardation and gravitational time dilation
> > is an increase of the clock frequency from the offset value of 10.22999999543
> > MHz to 10.23 MHz as seen by a ground observer. " -ibid.
> Yes looks good maybe but then again ...look at these sections below.
> Why say 10.22Mhz on one page and then 10.23Mhz for the sat clocks on others?
>
> 3.3.2 PRN Code Characteristics.
> The characteristics of the I5-codes and the Q5-codes are defined below in terms of their structure and the basic method used for generating them. Figures 3-2 and 3-3 depict simplified block diagrams of the scheme for generating the 10.23 Mbps I5i(t)...Etc
>
>
> 3.3.2.2 Code Generation.
> Figure 3-3. Modulation of Signals
> Each I5i(t) pattern (I5-code) and Q5i(t) pattern (Q5-code) are the modulo-2 sum of two extended patterns clocked at 10.23 Mbps (XA and XBIi or XBQi).. XA is an 8190 length code, with an initial condition of all 1s, that is short cycled 1-chip before its natural conclusion and restarted to run over a period of 1 millisecond (synchronized with the L1 frequency C/A-code) for a total of 10,230 chips. The XBIi and XBQi, with initial conditions indicated in Table 3-I, are 8191 length codes that are not short cycled. They are restarted at their natural completion and run over a period of 1 millisecond (synchronized with the XA code) for a total of 10,230 chips. Etc..
>
> Or...Figure 3.3
> And further...in Neil Ashby’s paper the following quotes:
> “ At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977), which contained the first Cesium atomic clock to be placed in orbit, it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require a relativistic correction, but there was uncertainty as to its magnitude as well as its sign. ”
>
> They (the theorists) didn’t know the magnitude of the expected clock gains before GPS?!
> In other words they DIDNT know how much the clock gains could be for GPS
> Contrary to claims Albert predicted exactly 5.27e-10 for GR at 4.12 earth radius
>
> And on page 17:
> “ Instead, after such clocks are placed in orbit their frequencies are measured and the actual frequency corrections needed are incorporated in the clock correction polynomial that accompanies the navigation message..”
> Sounds like any corrections are made after launch.
> Although It does refer to rubidium clocks only in this above quote
You know much more than I do, but I am sure relativity never predicted the correct amount. I'm sure it was empirically obtained and then rationalized. Gravity would also affect a battery-operated clock, so it would run fast and must be adjusted. Does relativity predict that amount? How do they claim it was predicted? They haven't even given a good reason for the doubling of the deflection of light, contradicting Galileo & Eotvos. They play around with fudge factors. Do they include gamma for the gravity adjustment? Gift accepts gamma for the SR adjustment, but gamma is complete nonsense. Corrections are only made after empirical data gathering and are not predicted by relativity. Sure, the clock is set to 10.22999, so it will run in orbit equivalent to 10.23 like a clock on Earth.

On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 5:39:10 PM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> On Tuesday 2 January 2024 at 00:35:37 UTC, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 3:51:50 PM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> > > On Monday 1 January 2024 at 21:12:29 UTC, Volney wrote:
> > > > On 12/31/2023 2:04 PM, Lou wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday 31 December 2023 at 17:27:44 UTC, Volney wrote:
> > > > >> On 12/30/2023 2:40 PM, Lou wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >>> And that it’s NOT preset before launch.
> > > >
> > > > >> As this is where the frequency is specified, it is set by design, and
> > > > >> most certainly is set before launch. By Design.
> > > > >
> > > > > Word salad to cover up the fact that the satelitte broadcasts its
> > > > > signal...to the earth receiver...at 10.23Mhz.
> > > > Why does the design specification state explicitly the frequency is
> > > > 10.2299999954326 MHz, not 10.23 MHz?
> > > > > As is confirmed by pretty well every tech spec from NIST etc.
> > > > >
> > > I’ve read the spec paper cited by Paul and yes in one line it says
> > > 10.2299Mhz for the sat but... With “appears” in the same sentence.
> > > But in dozens of other places it says the satelitte broadcasts at 10.23Hz.
> > > Not to mention 10.23 being cited as the broadcast f in other tech documents
> > > One of which I cited to Paul in this thread.
> > >
> > > Why do NIST and other official aviation reference repeatedly state that
> > > the satelitte broadcasts at 10.23 Mhz and only once, that I can see,
> > > mention 10.2299Mhz . And then abbreviate it with “appears”?
> > > Logic and the official burden of proof dictates that it is 10.23 Mhz.
> > > Can you offer a reasonable explanation as to why dozens of times in that
> > > same NIST article , it confirms 10.23Mhz as the * satellite broadcast* frequency?
> > > The only other times 10.22999Mhz is claimed, is by relativists in online chat rooms.
> > > Not the most reliable source.
> > >
> > > Notice I myself have tried to provide calculations supporting a 10.22999Mhz
> > > broadcast frequency. So I’m trying to weigh both sides sceptically.
> > > Unlike yourself.
> > The satellites broadcast data to Earth on three GPS frequencies: L1 at 1575.42 MHz, L2 at 1227.60 MHz, and L5 at 1176.45 MHz. "In order to compensate for
> > the consequent time errors, the clock frequency standard on board each satellite
> > must be appropriately offset at launch so that the clocks initially run slower than
> > clocks on Earth [1] [2]. The IS-GPS-705F Interface Specification document [3]
> > gives this adjusted frequency as 10.22999999543 MHz down from 10.23 MHz..
> > During operation, the effect of clock retardation and gravitational time dilation
> > is an increase of the clock frequency from the offset value of 10.22999999543
> > MHz to 10.23 MHz as seen by a ground observer. " -ibid.
> Yes looks good maybe but then again ...look at these sections below.
> Why say 10.22Mhz on one page and then 10.23Mhz for the sat clocks on others?
>
> 3.3.2 PRN Code Characteristics.
> The characteristics of the I5-codes and the Q5-codes are defined below in terms of their structure and the basic method used for generating them. Figures 3-2 and 3-3 depict simplified block diagrams of the scheme for generating the 10.23 Mbps I5i(t)...Etc
>
>
> 3.3.2.2 Code Generation.
> Figure 3-3. Modulation of Signals
> Each I5i(t) pattern (I5-code) and Q5i(t) pattern (Q5-code) are the modulo-2 sum of two extended patterns clocked at 10.23 Mbps (XA and XBIi or XBQi).. XA is an 8190 length code, with an initial condition of all 1s, that is short cycled 1-chip before its natural conclusion and restarted to run over a period of 1 millisecond (synchronized with the L1 frequency C/A-code) for a total of 10,230 chips. The XBIi and XBQi, with initial conditions indicated in Table 3-I, are 8191 length codes that are not short cycled. They are restarted at their natural completion and run over a period of 1 millisecond (synchronized with the XA code) for a total of 10,230 chips. Etc..
>
> Or...Figure 3.3
> And further...in Neil Ashby’s paper the following quotes:
> “ At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977), which contained the first Cesium atomic clock to be placed in orbit, it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require a relativistic correction, but there was uncertainty as to its magnitude as well as its sign. ”
>
> They (the theorists) didn’t know the magnitude of the expected clock gains before GPS?!
> In other words they DIDNT know how much the clock gains could be for GPS
> Contrary to claims Albert predicted exactly 5.27e-10 for GR at 4.12 earth radius
>
> And on page 17:
> “ Instead, after such clocks are placed in orbit their frequencies are measured and the actual frequency corrections needed are incorporated in the clock correction polynomial that accompanies the navigation message..”
> Sounds like any corrections are made after launch.
> Although It does refer to rubidium clocks only in this above quote
To have been uncertain about the sign means they were completely in the dark because relativity did not predict it.

On Tuesday 2 January 2024 at 04:47:48 UTC+1, 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

No time dilation of GPS, sorry, stupid Mike. Time is what clocks
indicate, the clocks of GPS indicate t'=t, good bye, The Shit,
common sense was warning.

On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 5:39:10 PM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> On Tuesday 2 January 2024 at 00:35:37 UTC, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 3:51:50 PM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> > > On Monday 1 January 2024 at 21:12:29 UTC, Volney wrote:
> > > > On 12/31/2023 2:04 PM, Lou wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday 31 December 2023 at 17:27:44 UTC, Volney wrote:
> > > > >> On 12/30/2023 2:40 PM, Lou wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >>> And that it’s NOT preset before launch.
> > > >
> > > > >> As this is where the frequency is specified, it is set by design, and
> > > > >> most certainly is set before launch. By Design.
> > > > >
> > > > > Word salad to cover up the fact that the satelitte broadcasts its
> > > > > signal...to the earth receiver...at 10.23Mhz.
> > > > Why does the design specification state explicitly the frequency is
> > > > 10.2299999954326 MHz, not 10.23 MHz?
> > > > > As is confirmed by pretty well every tech spec from NIST etc.
> > > > >
> > > I’ve read the spec paper cited by Paul and yes in one line it says
> > > 10.2299Mhz for the sat but... With “appears” in the same sentence.
> > > But in dozens of other places it says the satelitte broadcasts at 10.23Hz.
> > > Not to mention 10.23 being cited as the broadcast f in other tech documents
> > > One of which I cited to Paul in this thread.
> > >
> > > Why do NIST and other official aviation reference repeatedly state that
> > > the satelitte broadcasts at 10.23 Mhz and only once, that I can see,
> > > mention 10.2299Mhz . And then abbreviate it with “appears”?
> > > Logic and the official burden of proof dictates that it is 10.23 Mhz.
> > > Can you offer a reasonable explanation as to why dozens of times in that
> > > same NIST article , it confirms 10.23Mhz as the * satellite broadcast* frequency?
> > > The only other times 10.22999Mhz is claimed, is by relativists in online chat rooms.
> > > Not the most reliable source.
> > >
> > > Notice I myself have tried to provide calculations supporting a 10.22999Mhz
> > > broadcast frequency. So I’m trying to weigh both sides sceptically.
> > > Unlike yourself.
> > The satellites broadcast data to Earth on three GPS frequencies: L1 at 1575.42 MHz, L2 at 1227.60 MHz, and L5 at 1176.45 MHz. "In order to compensate for
> > the consequent time errors, the clock frequency standard on board each satellite
> > must be appropriately offset at launch so that the clocks initially run slower than
> > clocks on Earth [1] [2]. The IS-GPS-705F Interface Specification document [3]
> > gives this adjusted frequency as 10.22999999543 MHz down from 10.23 MHz..
> > During operation, the effect of clock retardation and gravitational time dilation
> > is an increase of the clock frequency from the offset value of 10.22999999543
> > MHz to 10.23 MHz as seen by a ground observer. " -ibid.
> Yes looks good maybe but then again ...look at these sections below.
> Why say 10.22Mhz on one page and then 10.23Mhz for the sat clocks on others?
>
> 3.3.2 PRN Code Characteristics.
> The characteristics of the I5-codes and the Q5-codes are defined below in terms of their structure and the basic method used for generating them. Figures 3-2 and 3-3 depict simplified block diagrams of the scheme for generating the 10.23 Mbps I5i(t)...Etc
>
>
> 3.3.2.2 Code Generation.
> Figure 3-3. Modulation of Signals
> Each I5i(t) pattern (I5-code) and Q5i(t) pattern (Q5-code) are the modulo-2 sum of two extended patterns clocked at 10.23 Mbps (XA and XBIi or XBQi).. XA is an 8190 length code, with an initial condition of all 1s, that is short cycled 1-chip before its natural conclusion and restarted to run over a period of 1 millisecond (synchronized with the L1 frequency C/A-code) for a total of 10,230 chips. The XBIi and XBQi, with initial conditions indicated in Table 3-I, are 8191 length codes that are not short cycled. They are restarted at their natural completion and run over a period of 1 millisecond (synchronized with the XA code) for a total of 10,230 chips. Etc..
>
> Or...Figure 3.3
> And further...in Neil Ashby’s paper the following quotes:
> “ At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977), which contained the first Cesium atomic clock to be placed in orbit, it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require a relativistic correction, but there was uncertainty as to its magnitude as well as its sign. ”
>
> They (the theorists) didn’t know the magnitude of the expected clock gains before GPS?!
> In other words they DIDNT know how much the clock gains could be for GPS
> Contrary to claims Albert predicted exactly 5.27e-10 for GR at 4.12 earth radius
>
> And on page 17:
> “ Instead, after such clocks are placed in orbit their frequencies are measured and the actual frequency corrections needed are incorporated in the clock correction polynomial that accompanies the navigation message..”
> Sounds like any corrections are made after launch.
> Although It does refer to rubidium clocks only in this above quote
Yes, Ashby's quote clearly proves the effect was learned empirically and not predicted by relativity: “Relativity in the Global Positioning System” = “There is an interesting story about this frequency offset. At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977), which contained the first Cesium atomic clock to be placed in orbit, it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require a relativistic correction, but there was uncertainty as to its magnitude as well as its sign. Indeed, there were some who doubted that relativistic effects were truths that would need to be incorporated [5]! A frequency synthesizer was built into the satellite clock system so that after launch, if in fact the rate of the clock in its final orbit was that predicted by general relativity, then the synthesizer could be turned on, bringing the clock to the coordinate rate necessary for operation. After the Cesium clock was turned on in NTS-2, it was operated for about 20 days to measure its clock rate before turning on the synthesizer [11]. The frequency measured during that interval was +442.5 parts in 1012 compared to clocks on the ground, while general relativity predicted +446.5 parts in 1012. The difference was well within the
accuracy capabilities of the orbiting clock. This then gave about a 1% verification of the combined
second-order Doppler and gravitational frequency shift effects for a clock at 4.2 earth radii." IF RELATIVITY HAD PREDICTED THAT CLOSELY, IT WOULD HAVE KNOWN WHICH SIGN, SO IT DID NOT!

On 1/2/2024 12:25 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:

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

Since the switch had only two positions, they obviously knew the sign.
Anyone who understood GR would know the sign. If they didn't know the
sign they would have needed 3 possible settings, Newton, GR increases
frequency and GR decreases frequency. They didn't have 3 settings, only two.

My guess was there was a moron anti-relativity manager on the
engineering team (who got there via the Peter Principle) who demanded
the Newtonian setting. The sane engineers demanded GR and finally, as a
compromise to prevent the moron anti-relativist manager from ruining the
whole project, they added the remote control divisor which allowed the
moron manager to save face and wouldn't blow the budget.

On Tuesday 2 January 2024 at 08:05:40 UTC+1, Volney wrote:
> On 1/2/2024 12:25 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> > IF RELATIVITY HAD PREDICTED THAT CLOSELY, IT WOULD HAVE KNOWN WHICH SIGN, SO IT DID NOT!
> Since the switch had only two positions, they obviously knew the sign.
> Anyone who understood GR would know the sign. If they didn't know the
> sign they would have needed 3 possible settings, Newton, GR increases
> frequency and GR decreases frequency. They didn't have 3 settings, only two.
>
> My guess was there was a moron anti-relativity manager on the
> engineering team (who got there via the Peter Principle) who demanded
> the Newtonian setting. The sane engineers demanded GR and finally, as a
> compromise to prevent the moron anti-relativist manager from ruining the
> whole project, they added the remote control divisor which allowed the
> moron manager to save face and wouldn't blow the budget.

And your guess is obviously wrong; rather - there was a moron
brainwashed by The Shit who demanded relativity ISO/proper time
setting. The sane engineers demanded galilean time and finally, as a
compromise to prevent the relativist idiot from ruining the
whole project, they added the remote control divisor which allowed the
relativistic idiot to save face and wouldn't blow the budget.

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.
>
I didn’t say the earths orbital radius was 5.27e-10
You made That one up. As usual for a person who doesn’t know,
Among many other things..what orbital radius GPS sats are at.

> (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,

OoH!! not using proper SI units. Your answers must be automatically
wrong. Oh but I forgot. You can break your own stupid rules.

> that was the whole point
> of compensation. GR is where that number came from. Tell us something new..
> >

And, Not just GR. But a classical formula GM/r ÷ f does as well. Probably better
That something new for a narrow minded neophyte like yourself isnt it?

> >>>>> 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.
>

Nonsense.
Since when can a frequency not be 8.9875518e+16 ?
Or any number for that matter?

> If you got a frequency 8.9875518e+16 Hz from somewhere else, and it is
> merely a bizarre coincidence that it just happens to be the value of c^2
> in SI units, explain where that frequency comes from.

What? Like the way GR uses c^2 as a frequency. Even though it breaks
the SI rules?

I didn’t actually start with 8.9875518e+16 Hz. I started with 9192631770Hz
seeing as that’s the frequency of a sats caesium clock.
Found it worked.
Then tried 10.29 and then looked at the GR formula and realised that
the c^2 in the GR formula was actually being covertly used as a frequency too.
Otherwise how did whoever invented that formula fantasise that 5.27e-10 was
frequency related.?

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

On Tuesday 2 January 2024 at 05:09:53 UTC, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 5:39:10 PM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> > On Tuesday 2 January 2024 at 00:35:37 UTC, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 3:51:50 PM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> > > > On Monday 1 January 2024 at 21:12:29 UTC, Volney wrote:
> > > > > On 12/31/2023 2:04 PM, Lou wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday 31 December 2023 at 17:27:44 UTC, Volney wrote:
> > > > > >> On 12/30/2023 2:40 PM, Lou wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >>> And that it’s NOT preset before launch.
> > > > >
> > > > > >> As this is where the frequency is specified, it is set by design, and
> > > > > >> most certainly is set before launch. By Design.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Word salad to cover up the fact that the satelitte broadcasts its
> > > > > > signal...to the earth receiver...at 10.23Mhz.
> > > > > Why does the design specification state explicitly the frequency is
> > > > > 10.2299999954326 MHz, not 10.23 MHz?
> > > > > > As is confirmed by pretty well every tech spec from NIST etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > I’ve read the spec paper cited by Paul and yes in one line it says
> > > > 10.2299Mhz for the sat but... With “appears” in the same sentence.
> > > > But in dozens of other places it says the satelitte broadcasts at 10.23Hz.
> > > > Not to mention 10.23 being cited as the broadcast f in other tech documents
> > > > One of which I cited to Paul in this thread.
> > > >
> > > > Why do NIST and other official aviation reference repeatedly state that
> > > > the satelitte broadcasts at 10.23 Mhz and only once, that I can see,
> > > > mention 10.2299Mhz . And then abbreviate it with “appears”?
> > > > Logic and the official burden of proof dictates that it is 10.23 Mhz.
> > > > Can you offer a reasonable explanation as to why dozens of times in that
> > > > same NIST article , it confirms 10.23Mhz as the * satellite broadcast* frequency?
> > > > The only other times 10.22999Mhz is claimed, is by relativists in online chat rooms.
> > > > Not the most reliable source.
> > > >
> > > > Notice I myself have tried to provide calculations supporting a 10.22999Mhz
> > > > broadcast frequency. So I’m trying to weigh both sides sceptically.
> > > > Unlike yourself.
> > > The satellites broadcast data to Earth on three GPS frequencies: L1 at 1575.42 MHz, L2 at 1227.60 MHz, and L5 at 1176.45 MHz. "In order to compensate for
> > > the consequent time errors, the clock frequency standard on board each satellite
> > > must be appropriately offset at launch so that the clocks initially run slower than
> > > clocks on Earth [1] [2]. The IS-GPS-705F Interface Specification document [3]
> > > gives this adjusted frequency as 10.22999999543 MHz down from 10.23 MHz.
> > > During operation, the effect of clock retardation and gravitational time dilation
> > > is an increase of the clock frequency from the offset value of 10.22999999543
> > > MHz to 10.23 MHz as seen by a ground observer. " -ibid.
> > Yes looks good maybe but then again ...look at these sections below.
> > Why say 10.22Mhz on one page and then 10.23Mhz for the sat clocks on others?
> >
> > 3.3.2 PRN Code Characteristics.
> > The characteristics of the I5-codes and the Q5-codes are defined below in terms of their structure and the basic method used for generating them. Figures 3-2 and 3-3 depict simplified block diagrams of the scheme for generating the 10.23 Mbps I5i(t)...Etc
> >
> >
> > 3.3.2.2 Code Generation.
> > Figure 3-3. Modulation of Signals
> > Each I5i(t) pattern (I5-code) and Q5i(t) pattern (Q5-code) are the modulo-2 sum of two extended patterns clocked at 10.23 Mbps (XA and XBIi or XBQi). XA is an 8190 length code, with an initial condition of all 1s, that is short cycled 1-chip before its natural conclusion and restarted to run over a period of 1 millisecond (synchronized with the L1 frequency C/A-code) for a total of 10,230 chips. The XBIi and XBQi, with initial conditions indicated in Table 3-I, are 8191 length codes that are not short cycled. They are restarted at their natural completion and run over a period of 1 millisecond (synchronized with the XA code) for a total of 10,230 chips. Etc..
> >
> > Or...Figure 3.3
> > And further...in Neil Ashby’s paper the following quotes:
> > “ At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977), which contained the first Cesium atomic clock to be placed in orbit, it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require a relativistic correction, but there was uncertainty as to its magnitude as well as its sign. ”
> >
> > They (the theorists) didn’t know the magnitude of the expected clock gains before GPS?!
> > In other words they DIDNT know how much the clock gains could be for GPS
> > Contrary to claims Albert predicted exactly 5.27e-10 for GR at 4.12 earth radius
> >
> > And on page 17:
> > “ Instead, after such clocks are placed in orbit their frequencies are measured and the actual frequency corrections needed are incorporated in the clock correction polynomial that accompanies the navigation message.”
> > Sounds like any corrections are made after launch.
> > Although It does refer to rubidium clocks only in this above quote
> To have been uncertain about the sign means they were completely in the dark because relativity did not predict it.

My understanding from the reference like the above is that it did predict
time dilation. But not the magnitude. At least that’s what Neil Ashby says.
And Paul the relativist cites Neil’s paper so..

On Tuesday 2 January 2024 at 04:14:26 UTC, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 5:39:10 PM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> > On Tuesday 2 January 2024 at 00:35:37 UTC, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 1, 2024 at 3:51:50 PM UTC-8, Lou wrote:
> > > > On Monday 1 January 2024 at 21:12:29 UTC, Volney wrote:
> > > > > On 12/31/2023 2:04 PM, Lou wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday 31 December 2023 at 17:27:44 UTC, Volney wrote:
> > > > > >> On 12/30/2023 2:40 PM, Lou wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >>> And that it’s NOT preset before launch.
> > > > >
> > > > > >> As this is where the frequency is specified, it is set by design, and
> > > > > >> most certainly is set before launch. By Design.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Word salad to cover up the fact that the satelitte broadcasts its
> > > > > > signal...to the earth receiver...at 10.23Mhz.
> > > > > Why does the design specification state explicitly the frequency is
> > > > > 10.2299999954326 MHz, not 10.23 MHz?
> > > > > > As is confirmed by pretty well every tech spec from NIST etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > I’ve read the spec paper cited by Paul and yes in one line it says
> > > > 10.2299Mhz for the sat but... With “appears” in the same sentence.
> > > > But in dozens of other places it says the satelitte broadcasts at 10.23Hz.
> > > > Not to mention 10.23 being cited as the broadcast f in other tech documents
> > > > One of which I cited to Paul in this thread.
> > > >
> > > > Why do NIST and other official aviation reference repeatedly state that
> > > > the satelitte broadcasts at 10.23 Mhz and only once, that I can see,
> > > > mention 10.2299Mhz . And then abbreviate it with “appears”?
> > > > Logic and the official burden of proof dictates that it is 10.23 Mhz.
> > > > Can you offer a reasonable explanation as to why dozens of times in that
> > > > same NIST article , it confirms 10.23Mhz as the * satellite broadcast* frequency?
> > > > The only other times 10.22999Mhz is claimed, is by relativists in online chat rooms.
> > > > Not the most reliable source.
> > > >
> > > > Notice I myself have tried to provide calculations supporting a 10.22999Mhz
> > > > broadcast frequency. So I’m trying to weigh both sides sceptically.
> > > > Unlike yourself.
> > > The satellites broadcast data to Earth on three GPS frequencies: L1 at 1575.42 MHz, L2 at 1227.60 MHz, and L5 at 1176.45 MHz. "In order to compensate for
> > > the consequent time errors, the clock frequency standard on board each satellite
> > > must be appropriately offset at launch so that the clocks initially run slower than
> > > clocks on Earth [1] [2]. The IS-GPS-705F Interface Specification document [3]
> > > gives this adjusted frequency as 10.22999999543 MHz down from 10.23 MHz.
> > > During operation, the effect of clock retardation and gravitational time dilation
> > > is an increase of the clock frequency from the offset value of 10.22999999543
> > > MHz to 10.23 MHz as seen by a ground observer. " -ibid.
> > Yes looks good maybe but then again ...look at these sections below.
> > Why say 10.22Mhz on one page and then 10.23Mhz for the sat clocks on others?
> >
> > 3.3.2 PRN Code Characteristics.
> > The characteristics of the I5-codes and the Q5-codes are defined below in terms of their structure and the basic method used for generating them. Figures 3-2 and 3-3 depict simplified block diagrams of the scheme for generating the 10.23 Mbps I5i(t)...Etc
> >
> >
> > 3.3.2.2 Code Generation.
> > Figure 3-3. Modulation of Signals
> > Each I5i(t) pattern (I5-code) and Q5i(t) pattern (Q5-code) are the modulo-2 sum of two extended patterns clocked at 10.23 Mbps (XA and XBIi or XBQi). XA is an 8190 length code, with an initial condition of all 1s, that is short cycled 1-chip before its natural conclusion and restarted to run over a period of 1 millisecond (synchronized with the L1 frequency C/A-code) for a total of 10,230 chips. The XBIi and XBQi, with initial conditions indicated in Table 3-I, are 8191 length codes that are not short cycled. They are restarted at their natural completion and run over a period of 1 millisecond (synchronized with the XA code) for a total of 10,230 chips. Etc..
> >
> > Or...Figure 3.3
> > And further...in Neil Ashby’s paper the following quotes:
> > “ At the time of launch of the NTS-2 satellite (23 June 1977), which contained the first Cesium atomic clock to be placed in orbit, it was recognized that orbiting clocks would require a relativistic correction, but there was uncertainty as to its magnitude as well as its sign. ”
> >
> > They (the theorists) didn’t know the magnitude of the expected clock gains before GPS?!
> > In other words they DIDNT know how much the clock gains could be for GPS
> > Contrary to claims Albert predicted exactly 5.27e-10 for GR at 4.12 earth radius
> >
> > And on page 17:
> > “ Instead, after such clocks are placed in orbit their frequencies are measured and the actual frequency corrections needed are incorporated in the clock correction polynomial that accompanies the navigation message.”
> > Sounds like any corrections are made after launch.
> > Although It does refer to rubidium clocks only in this above quote
> You know much more than I do,

I’m sure you are much better acquainted with GR and SR than that.

> but I am sure relativity never predicted the correct amount. I'm sure it was empirically obtained and then rationalized. Gravity would also affect a battery-operated clock, so it would run fast and must be adjusted. Does relativity predict that amount? How do they claim it was predicted? They haven't even given a good reason for the doubling of the deflection of light, contradicting Galileo & Eotvos. They play around with fudge factors. Do they include gamma for the gravity adjustment? Gift accepts gamma for the SR adjustment, but gamma is complete nonsense. Corrections are only made after empirical data gathering and are not predicted by relativity. Sure, the clock is set to 10.22999, so it will run in orbit equivalent to 10.23 like a clock on Earth.

Yes that’s one possibilty to consider. And atomic resonance at
different potentials could easily explain this. Resonating systems
Natural frequencies will respond to less force by vibrating faster.
And accurately modelled using just GM/r ÷ f
*If the preset before launch was at 10.22999Mhz.*
The only problem is...is the sat clock preset to 10.22999Mhz?
Except for that one NIST quote, all the other NIST and other specs say
it’s not preset before launch. And that the sat clock is preset to
and runs and broadcasts at 10.23Mhz.
So that’s a contradiction that only a GPS programmer/ engineer can answer.
Not any relativist wiki source based on hearsay.
All I can say is I also found a quora quote from a NASA GPS engineer Ortega
who very explicitly says....the clocks are NOT preset to 10.22999Mhz
before launch.

On Tuesday 2 January 2024 at 07:05:40 UTC, Volney wrote:
> On 1/2/2024 12:25 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>
> > IF RELATIVITY HAD PREDICTED THAT CLOSELY, IT WOULD HAVE KNOWN WHICH SIGN, SO IT DID NOT!
> Since the switch had only two positions, they obviously knew the sign.
> Anyone who understood GR would know the sign. If they didn't know the
> sign they would have needed 3 possible settings, Newton, GR increases
> frequency and GR decreases frequency. They didn't have 3 settings, only two.
>
> My guess was there was a moron anti-relativity manager on the
> engineering team (who got there via the Peter Principle) who demanded
> the Newtonian setting. The sane engineers demanded GR and finally, as a
> compromise to prevent the moron anti-relativist manager from ruining the
> whole project, they added the remote control divisor which allowed the
> moron manager to save face and wouldn't blow the budget.

Very funny. But it wasn’t just the sign that wasn’t known. Neil Ashby
himself says it was the * pmagnitude* that also wasn’t known.
So how could they have preset a specific magnitude before launch,
when they didn’t know what magnitude to expect?

On 1/2/2024 8:43 AM, Lou wrote:
> On Tuesday 2 January 2024 at 07:05:40 UTC, Volney wrote:
>> On 1/2/2024 12:25 AM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
>>
>>> IF RELATIVITY HAD PREDICTED THAT CLOSELY, IT WOULD HAVE KNOWN WHICH SIGN, SO IT DID NOT!
>> Since the switch had only two positions, they obviously knew the sign.
>> Anyone who understood GR would know the sign. If they didn't know the
>> sign they would have needed 3 possible settings, Newton, GR increases
>> frequency and GR decreases frequency. They didn't have 3 settings, only two.
>>
>> My guess was there was a moron anti-relativity manager

Sorry about the redundant description of the manager.

>> on the
>> engineering team (who got there via the Peter Principle) who demanded
>> the Newtonian setting. The sane engineers demanded GR and finally, as a
>> compromise to prevent the moron anti-relativist manager from ruining the
>> whole project, they added the remote control divisor which allowed the
>> moron manager to save face and wouldn't blow the budget.
>
> Very funny. But it wasn’t just the sign that wasn’t known. Neil Ashby
> himself says it was the * pmagnitude* that also wasn’t known.
> So how could they have preset a specific magnitude before launch,
> when they didn’t know what magnitude to expect?

Umm, GR is quite explicit in its calculations, the magnitude was clearly
known as was the sign. Again the only choice was whether to use GR or
not, a two position switch.