@metal-brain saidI never said/implied/thought that GPS "needs GR equations" to function properly in the specific sense YOU mean that.
You also fell for the myth that GPS needs GR equations to function properly.
That is your old straw man yet again and is based purely on stupidly arguing the toss over semantics rather than on anything really relevant.
As I already explained to you MANY times, their clock tick rate is set BEFORE launch and their required clock tick rate is calculated (by humans, not the satellite, although ground computers usually assist in that) before launch via both GR and SR equations but once the satellite is launched the satellite doesn't need to then use GR equations itself (your old straw man) because the required tick rate has ALREADY been calculated from equations and set for its target orbit although ground control sometimes then makes some further adjustments, again using relatively equations, but, again, the satellite still doesn't itself use those relatively equations because that's up to ground control. GPS, not directly like you mean, but, and on condition that relativity theory is correct (else this wouldn't be so), indirectly (via above) needs GR equations to function properly and ONLY in that narrow sense.
And, before you have a chance to drag up your OTHER old straw man yet again, as I also explained MANY times before, if relatively was hypothetically wrong then those equations simply wouldn't be used and the GPS would still function just fine and I never said/implied anything to the contrary to that. But relatively isn't wrong thus, because of that, relativity needs to be taken into account for the setup (setting of tick rate BEFORE launch) of GPS for that GPS to then function properly. If relativity was simply wrong about time dilation then, since relativity IS taken into account, we would observe various serious problems with the GPS clock times BECAUSE relativity IS taken into account; we don't; thus that's indirect evidence that relativity isn't simply wrong about time dilation.
To date, there has only been real evidence that supports relativity and there hasn't been a shred of real evidence against relativity.
29 Feb 20
@humy saidYou are lying again.
I never said/implied/thought that GPS "needs GR equations" to function properly in the specific sense YOU mean that.
That is your old straw man yet again and is based purely on stupidly arguing the toss over semantics rather than on anything really relevant.
As I already explained to you MANY times, their clock tick rate is set BEFORE launch and their required clock tick rate ...[text shortened]... evidence that supports relativity and there hasn't been a shred of real evidence against relativity.
29 Feb 20
@metal-brain saidAbout what exactly? And your refusal to prove I am lying (about whatever) only tells us its you who is lying.
You are lying again.
01 Mar 20
@humy saidPage 3 on this thread, 5th post you said this:
About what exactly? And your refusal to prove I am lying (about whatever) only tells us its you who is lying.
"if SR was wrong nuclear power stations would work and GPS would be incorrectly adjusted causing planes to crush into the ground via navigational error etc etc."
There, I proved you lied again.
@metal-brain saidFirstly, in my very next post, I corrected my edit mistake there by posting;
Page 3 on this thread, 5th post you said this:
"if SR was wrong nuclear power stations would work and GPS would be incorrectly adjusted causing planes to crush into the ground via navigational error etc etc."
"My above misedit
"..if SR was wrong nuclear power stations would work..."
should be
"..if SR was wrong, nuclear power stations wouldn't work..."
Secondly, exactly which part of that after the above edit correction did I say incorrectly or contradicts anything I said before or since? Answer, no part. So it is you who is lying. So you haven't just "proved" I am lying and you never have done.
02 Mar 20
@humy said"and GPS would be incorrectly adjusted causing planes to crush into the ground via navigational error etc etc."
Firstly, in my very next post, I corrected my edit mistake there by posting;
"My above misedit
"..if SR was wrong nuclear power stations would work..."
should be
"..if SR was wrong, nuclear power stations wouldn't work..."
Secondly, exactly which part of that after the above edit correction did I say incorrectly or contradicts anything I said before or since? Answer, no part. So it is you who is lying. So you haven't just "proved" I am lying and you never have done.
That is false! Also, it is GR, not SR. You could not even get that right.
@metal-brain saidNo, that is correct and it's an undisputed fact that it is correct and I never said/implied anything to the contrary.
"and GPS would be incorrectly adjusted causing planes to crush into the ground via navigational error etc etc."
That is false!.
Also, it is GR, not SR.
NO, as we ALREADY pointed out to you before, it is BOTH. BOTH GR and SR apply for the resulting time dilation in the satellite's orbit and thus BOTH GR and SR are taken into account when calculating the required tick rate of the satellite's clock PRIOR (preempting your other usual stupid straw man) to its launch.
Here is that YET AGAIN for you;
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
" To achieve this level of precision, the clock ticks from the GPS satellites must be known to an accuracy of 20-30 nanoseconds. However, because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account to achieve the desired 20-30 nanosecond accuracy.
Because an observer on the ground sees the satellites in motion relative to them, Special Relativity predicts that we should see their clocks ticking more slowly (see the Special Relativity lecture). Special Relativity predicts that the on-board atomic clocks on the satellites should fall behind clocks on the ground by about 7 microseconds per day because of the slower ticking rate due to the time dilation effect of their relative motion "
Exactly which part of that you constantly fail to understand?
Is it the above word "and" where it loses you?
Do you now FINALLY understand it is BOTH?
So yet again you are proven to be totally wrong.
03 Mar 20
@humy saidI already proved you wrong long ago. You are a liar.
No, that is correct and it's an undisputed fact that it is correct and I never said/implied anything to the contrary.Also, it is GR, not SR.
NO, as we ALREADY pointed out to you before, it is BOTH. BOTH GR and SR apply for the resulting time dilation in the satellite's orbit and thus BOTH GR and SR are taken into account when calculating the required tick ...[text shortened]... you?
Do you now FINALLY understand it is BOTH?
So yet again you are proven to be totally wrong.
@metal-brain saidYour perpetual lying convinces nobody here.
I already proved you wrong long ago. You are a liar.
The link I just provided above, along with other links that can be provided that explain the same facts, proved you are wrong; Just as that link says, the GPS clocks are adjusted for BOTH GR and SR, not just GR as you claimed. You fool nobody here.
This is your quote again about that;
"it is GR, not SR. You could not even get that right." (your quote)
And here is the quote from that link again that proves it is YOU who "could not even get that right.", NOT US! :
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
" because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account".
Let me make you finally stop unconvincingly and stupidly pretending not to have read the part that contradicts your assertions;
--> ...Special and General theories of Relativity... <--
So its YOU that is wrong here, NOT us science experts here.
@humy said"Just as that link says, the GPS clocks are adjusted for BOTH GR and SR, not just GR as you claimed."
Your perpetual lying convinces nobody here.
The link I just provided above, along with other links that can be provided that explain the same facts, proved you are wrong; Just as that link says, the GPS clocks are adjusted for BOTH GR and SR, not just GR as you claimed. You fool nobody here.
This is your quote again about that;
"it is GR, not SR. You could not even get that ...[text shortened]... ral theories of Relativity...[/b] <--
So its YOU that is wrong here, NOT us science experts here.
That is false. Receivers are adjusted to match the time from atomic clocks in the satellites by resetting the receivers to eliminate the time difference from time to time. Neither GR or SR equations are used. GPS doesn't need them.
Everybody here that has been following all my posts on this thread know you are wrong. I proved you wrong a long time ago.
BTW, you are no science expert. That is laughable.
@metal-brain said
"Just as that link says, the GPS clocks are adjusted for BOTH GR and SR, not just GR as you claimed."
That is false. Receivers are adjusted to match the time from atomic clocks in the satellites by resetting the receivers to eliminate the time difference from time to time. Neither GR or SR equations are used. GPS doesn't need them.
Everybody here that has been follo ...[text shortened]... are wrong. I proved you wrong a long time ago.
BTW, you are no science expert. That is laughable.
"Just as that link says, the GPS clocks are adjusted for BOTH GR and SR, not just GR as you claimed."
That is false.
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
" because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into account".
--> ...Special and General theories of Relativity... <--
You fool nobody here.
Receivers are adjusted to match the time from atomic clocks in the satellites by resetting the receivers to eliminate the time difference from time to time.Some time difference eventually occurs because of slight wobbles and occasion distortions in the orbit etc and so further adjustments need to occasionally be made after launch. GR or SR equations are used mainly before launch to calculate the required clock tick rate preset. So what? What's your point here?
Neither GR or SR equations are used.No, BOTH are used.
--> ...Special and General theories of Relativity... <--
Everybody here that has been following all my posts on this thread know you are wrong.
TO ALL READERS HERE:
Lets put this to the vote:
How many of you say agree with his above assertion?
MetalBrain:
You will find NOBODY will agree with you here thus proving you are just shouting out BS. Its not "Everybody" but "No one" and its YOU who they think is wrong.
Have you noticed your posts keep getting only the thumbs down from other posters here while the only thumbs down our posts keep getting here is from you and you alone? Why do you think that is?
05 Mar 20
@humy said"No, BOTH are used.""Just as that link says, the GPS clocks are adjusted for BOTH GR and SR, not just GR as you claimed."
That is false.
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/gps.html
" because the satellites are constantly moving relative to observers on the Earth, effects predicted by the Special and General theories of Relativity must be taken into accoun ...[text shortened]... he only thumbs down our posts keep getting here is from you and you alone? Why do you think that is?
That is false. No equations are used because there is no need to use them. You have been misinformed and I proved you lied again because you claimed you never asserted this. You did and you are at it again.
You are both a liar and wrong.
05 Mar 20
@metal-brain said--> ...Special and General theories of Relativity... <--
"No, BOTH are used."
That is false. No equations are used because there is no need to use them.
The link proves you are wrong.
05 Mar 20
@humy
I think what is going on is a work around by ground clocks syncing to orbital clocks so they don't have to use equations of SR or GR. I imagine those equations may still be needed for corrections since the time flow of the orbiters are variable and they couldn't blanket compensate forever I would think but for the most part they get around the need for constant GR and SR calculations. They just use the orbital clocks as the standard and everyone is happy. For a while anyway. Sync or not, they have to establish nano second accuracy, every nanosecond of inaccuracy they are off by a foot since the speed of light is about 1 nanosecond per foot or about 3 ns per meter give or take. When I was in radar, it was 6 microseconds per mile but now we need accuracies of a meter or less so we need nanosecond accuracy in the total system.
06 Mar 20
@sonhouse saidI was aware of that but I was mainly talking about their use of those equations (both SR and GR time dilation ones) before the launch of the satellite to calculate the required 'tick' rate of their clocks for the satellite's target orbit. For that those equations must be used. After launch, just as you said, there is that possible workaround to avoid the further use of those equations. But the fact remains they were used before launch and thus both SR and GR equations are both taken into account for GPS (not that I am implying you were implying the contrary because I know you weren't).
@humy
I think what is going on is a work around by ground clocks syncing to orbital clocks so they don't have to use equations of SR or GR.