Explain gravity.
Oh... Y-you can't?
Why does this board even exist if you people have no clue about such an obvious phenomenon save for some very basic observations of its effects.
It's very possible the the human brain has achieved the limits of abstract thought necessary to crack the secrets of gravity. We may be physiologically incapable of grasping these things, just like a dog will never be able to comprehend calculus, no matter how long you train it.
Are the ego maniacs on here willing to admit such a possibility?
Ur a fag
>>7792259
>Explain gravity.
Shit pulls shit.
>>7792264
Shouldn't you be bragging about how good you are at performing trivial shit like differentiation?
Good boy.
>>7792265
Cute.
What is mass? How does one mass interact with another mass? What is the mode of interface?
Kind of pitiful that this stuff remains out of our reach.
So what's the hold-up? Are the mathematics that we use not developed enough to describe this? Are the models wanting?
>>7792259
Maxwell laid out the foundation of an understanding for it, but a bunch of jews paid Heaviside to redirect academic focus away from the previously accepted unified EM view of physics.
>>7792289
How do two masses then effect an attractive force?
An empty space illumined by light, vanishes faster than speed of light. discuss
>>7792316
I don't know the answer to that question yet. Neither does modern theoretical physics, which followed the foolish ideas of Einstein and subsequent jews on a wild goose chase that has ultimately produced nothing and will continue in the same fashion.
I tend to think that gravity is actually the compression force felt from luminiferous aether displaced by massive objects, which was wrongly thrown away by Einstein despite opposition by most of the big names in physics through the early 20th century.
>implying dogs don't do calculus
kys friendo
>>7792320
Have you studied the general theory of relativity?
>>7792320
>Aether
Dude, that's like an 18th century esoteric theory more than science..
>>7792328
Yes I have. Bsc + Msc in physics. General relativity does not explain gravity, and actually doesn't have good empirical support if you are willing to dig into some of the data and risk blaspheming the church of Einstein. For example the data for Eddington's solar eclipse observation is cherry picked to a degree that makes the entire thing garbage.
>>7792334
Aether was the dominant view of physicists even after Einstein published his 1905 papers. The Lorentz transform was literally derived by Hendrik Lorentz as part of his aether model. Einstein's contribution was philosophical, he just said pretend there is no aether.
>>7792259
Explain how your computer works.
Oh... Y-you can't?
Why do you even have a computer if you have no clue about such an obvious phenomenon save for some very basic observations of its effects.
It's very possible the the human brain has achieved the limits of abstract thought necessary to crack the secrets of computers. We may be physiologically incapable of grasping these things, just like a normal person will never be able to comprehend why you shitpost, no matter how long you train it.
Are the ego maniacs on here willing to admit such a possibility?
>>7792338
>Einstein's contribution was philosophical, he just said pretend there is no aether.
Imagine there's not aether...
It's easy if you try...
>>7792349
Until you get to the part where light has to be magic and aware of all observers.
Explain the internet.
Oh... Y-you can't?
Why does this board even exist if you people have no clue about such an obvious phenomenon save for some very basic observations of its effects.
It's very possible the the human brain has achieved the limits of abstract thought necessary to crack the secrets of the internet. We may be physiologically incapable of grasping these things, just like a dog will never be able to comprehend calculus, no matter how long you train it.
Are the ego maniacs on here willing to admit such a possibility?
>>7792343
What a terrible deflection.
The computer is a manifestation of our mastery of quantum mechanical and electronic concepts.
>>7792259
I'm going to ignore the first part of this post.
As for the possibility of something so complex we can't understand it? I bet there is, but I also bet that we will find a way to describe or display it to make it understandable.
>>7792338
>Yes I have. Bsc + Msc in physics.
How embarrassing. You've invested so much time and money into the field and it hasn't even taught you how to describe gravity other than some stuff Newton knew intuitively back in the 17th century?
How does that make you feel?
>>7792382
lol go ahead and explain what gravity is then. Warning, muh curved spacetime is aether by Einstein's own admission.
>>7792338
>relativity
>no empirical data
>believes in magical space foam
>msc in physics
Is your degree refundable?
>>7792282
>Kind of pitiful that this stuff remains out of our reach.
Then you figure it out faggot.
What a fucking gay thread. /sci/ is fucking dead
>>7792380
>I'm going to ignore the first part of this post.
As if you had any other option... What a redundant thing to emphasize..
>>7792385
Fuck if I know. I'm just a simple geologist trying to scratch out a living.
>>7792259
Ok. So I can't explain gravity. Why does this matter to you?
You can't expect much from strangers of the internet. The egomaniac is the person that gets on the internet to aggressively challenge and contradict everybody.
I too am also disappointed by the amount of time it’s taking to figure out the “grand aspects” of quantum mechanics even while at the smallest level it has had so much success in predicting behaviors not yet observed.
We're going to get there. The scientific community just needs to grow up. Something is fucked about how the public converges on successful institutions and frames everything in the scope of career progression as a researcher. Rather enabling a person to do actual research.
>>7792389
don't divert, that isn't very scientific thinking. There is no empirical evidence for this bullshit.
>>7792380
>I bet there is, but I also bet
there is no wagering at 4chan, Grandpa
>>7792259
Gravity is a wave
>>7792442
Pretty sure you can go on Wikipedia and find huge lists of evidence for it.
>>7792259
>explain gravity
gravity happens because X
>explain X
X happens because Y
>explain Y
we don't know that yet
>haha fag
>>7792289
Go away pol
rofl what a quality thread
i hope everyone here gets their house firebombed tonight
>>7792320
What are your thoughts on this informative site?
http://debunkingrelativity.com
>>7792371
Fucking hell I can't stop laughing at that image.
>>7792371
Our perception of gravity is a manifestation of the laws of nature.
ou explained computers about as well as that
>>7792602
Because people who can won't bother coming in such a trash thread
>>7792259
Look up Alfreb Einstime's theory of relatives's titties. It has to do with large asses being proportional to large titties, and if one of your aunts has large titties that means there is a high probability of finding large titties on your cousin, which means she has a large ass. A large ass creates an attractive force between bodies. That's gravity
Thankfully with 4chan click and the mac click tad (it clicks like a mouse) we don't have to worry
>>7792625
>Because people who can won't bother coming in such a trash board
ftfy
>>7792647
Nope, I can and here I am, and I have seen several people who understand special relativity here before. This is my second and last post in this cancer thread.
>>7792444
Kiddo detected
>>7792647
>Because people who can won't bother cumming in such a trashy broad
Ftfy
Technically I can't explain any of the fundamental forces.
Or why OP is a fag.
Because this is just an argument about definitions and vague trolling rather than actual science.
>>7792807
>Or why OP is a fag
that's a fundamental force too btw
>>7792553
lol if that is your go-to for scientific understanding you won't get much further than fixing vacuum chambers in a low-level prof's lab.
>First time on /sci/
>no knowledge on gravity
could it be that specific electron clouds attract to each other
Yet another you can't no nuffin thread
Oh sci, how I love thee, but thou hast always been a stupid bitch
>>7792259
The human brain is obviously not enough to understand the whole universe. However, 7 billion human brain very well could, that's why scientists work in teams and that science is divided and subdivided into fields and subfields.
>>7792807
Are you comparing some of the fundamental forces which have been attributed to quantum mechanical models to gravity, which has not been attributed to anything, even theoretically?
>M-muh strings
>>7793108
>Electron clouds interact over distances spanning light years
>>7792259
Oh? We dont know what gravity is?
Isnt it the centripetal force from a rotating ball of matter pushing out on the fabric of space-time so making it into a 'well' that things fall into.
(Theres always one idiotic post - this is it)
>>7792606
>http://debunkingrelativity.com
haven't read it, but I will take a look, thanks.
I like Bryan Wallace's thoughts on the matter, and generally side with European anti-relativists from the first half of the 20th century.
>>7792320
>luminiferous aether
>>7794655
>>7792259
> just like a dog will never be able to comprehend calculus, no matter how long you train it.
Many would beg to differ http://www.maa.org/sites/default/files/pdf/mathdl/CMJ/cmj37-1-016-018.pdf
>>7792371
a computer is something that computes, you fucking pleb.
>>7792259
>Explain gravity.
On a macroscopic scale: [math] Ric - \frac{1}{2}gS = \kappa T [/math]
On a quantum scale: Idk, maybe is generated by things interacting with massless spin 2 particles formed as energy excitations of fundamental objects called F-Strings. These particles being irreducible representations of the spacetime symmetry group, probably something like Spin(d-2) where d = spacetime dimension.
>>7794702
>f-strings
lol lets see some empirical evidence for an f-string bro
>>7794708
> Idk, maybe
>>7792338
>Yes I have. Bsc + Msc in physics.
>General relativity does not explain gravity, and actually doesn't have good empirical support
Hahahahaha!
>>7794743
Great argument, glad you have something substantive to add.
>>7792385
>by Einstein's own admission.
Not really after Einstein published GR Lorentz wrote to him and asked if his spacetime was just another manifestation of the Aether, Einstein wrote back and said that it could be considered that, but it would be forever undetectable and could therefore be removed from any physics.
>>7794748
>forever undetectable
Pure conjecture alone. Nobody is looking because everyone is too busy gargling Einstein's jew balls to question his nonsense.
Protip: try Michelson-Morley with one arm vertical, also work through Sagnac's interferometer and see if it raises any questions for you.
Einstein spoke of GR as a tacit admission of aether many times in the 1920s. It wasn't just the Lorentz letter.
How can mirrors be real if our eyes can't see?
>>7794745
It's hard to argue with someone who won't accept reality.
>>7794758
Not really bothered to go out and try either of your protips right now. What questions are they supposed to raise?
>>7792317
If it's illuminated by light it's not empty is it you fuck.
>What are photons
>>7794760
The best thing you can come up with is an object that is basically unobservable by reasonable standards and requires assumptions about its nature to fit to GR? Nothing we can put our hands on?
>>7794773
Both produce interference patterns contradictory to relativity. Sagnac is often argued to be a result of length contraction, but that is by far the more unnecessarily complicated explanation.
>>7794823
>The best thing you can come up with is an object that is basically unobservable by reasonable standards
You must hate all of modern physics then.
>requires assumptions about its nature to fit to GR?
Such as? All they did was model an orbiting pair of pulsars in the framework of GR, the observation matches the theoretical predictions.
>Nothing we can put our hands on?
>If I can't see it with my own eyes, it don't real.
Kek. Go look at the Hafele–Keating experiment, it's were an atomic clock was put on a plane and one left on the ground. After a trip around the world the two clocks disagreed, however they can be made to agree if you take relativistic effects into account.
>>7792661
>>people who understand special relativity
shigidy, any person who passed Physics 11
>>7794844
>You must hate all of modern physics then.
I really do. It is way overhyped and doesn't really produce much value, but it has stalled a lot of physics research and had profound impacts on the philosophical views of the general public.
>Such as? All they did was model an orbiting pair of pulsars
Think about all of the assumptions necessary to decide what a pulsar is and how its properties impact its predicted behavior. Take an honest minute to think about it.
>Hafele–Keating
They did disagree, but it is disingenuous to say that relativity made them agree if you look at the raw data available on this and similar experiments. The data used was selected for the closest possible agreement, despite the fact that it is effectively impossible to operate this experiment in inertial frames to test the SR component of the offset. Taken as a whole, the data appears to more accurately reflect the error introduced into the disturbed atomic clock system.
>>7792259
>very possible
You know how I can tell you're an idiot?
>>7794859
>I really do
Then we're done here, you're just another delusional /x/tard.
>everything else in this post
You have literally no idea what you're talking about.
>>7794871
So you won't actually bother to entertain any uncomfortable inquiry then, great. Have fun doing lots of math that produces nothing.
>>7794875
Yup, GPS is obviously just a Jewish conspiracy.
>>7794875
>So you won't actually bother to entertain any uncomfortable inquiry then
I already have, you just dismiss anything that contradicts what you believe out of hand, worse still you openly admit you dislike modern physics because the objects under study are hard to "see". You're incredibly close minded, enjoy your ignorance.
>>7794878
lol GPS systems literally just use the difference in timestamps from the satellites, GR is not required and not used in programming any of the systems. Is that the best you can do?
>>7794883
No, you haven't. I am certain you haven't looked at the raw data available in atomic clock experiments like Hafele-Keating. I have spent quite a lot of time working through this after getting out of school when I became dissatisfied with the shaky foundations of modern physics.
This is literally what scientists are supposed to do; test and question. Assuming that consensus or unempirical reasoning reflects physical reality is unscientific to the extreme.
>>7794892
But that's wrong dumbass. GR corrections are completely necessary, otherwise you get inaccurate results. Is lying the best you can do?
>>7794897
>I am certain you haven't looked at the raw data available in atomic clock experiments like Hafele-Keating.
Nigga, it's 40 years old if there was something substantial to find there someone would have found it, not a retard posting on a Tuvan throat singing appreciation forum. Also a decanting opinion that's coming from a guy who think "What makes a pulsar" is an assumption and not a definition can be safely discarded. As someone else said further up thread, go find out if your degrees are refundable.
>>7794878
This is usually the one thing that Einstein fags trot out to talk about how necessary GR is in the real world today, and its false.
>>7794902
That isn't wrong. Do you understand why S/GR are supposed to be required for GPS, and what effect that would have on the clocks of the satellites?
>>7794904
>Nigga, it's 40 years old if there was something substantial to find there someone would have found it
Scientists must never ask questions or investigate widely accepted truths.
Alright kiddo, explain what a pulsar is to me without making any assumptions.
>>7794907
That is great and all, except GPS systems just use the difference between timestamps for the satellites. None of the relativity calculations matter, nor are they used in the actual devices.
>>7794916
>That is great and all, except GPS systems just use the difference between timestamps for the satellites. None of the relativity calculations matter, nor are they used in the actual devices.
So all those sources are just lying? The conspiracy deepens. Tell me, how far does your tinfoil retardation go?
>>7794910
>explain what a pulsar is to me without making any assumptions.
A dense, quickly rotating body with high intensity electromagnetic radiation being emitted from its poles. You'll note this isn't an assumption, but a definition of what a pulsar is. If you can understand this you're either trolling or a retard.
>>7794916
Prove it or fuck off.
>>7794919
This isn't conspiracy, wikipedia is talking about the clock slowdown which isn't relevant. You understand that GPS doesn't care about the absolute time of the clocks, just the difference, right? Engineers literally do not use this stuff when designing GPS systems.
>>7794920
Great, so is this all of the definition we need to calculate things like the hulse-taylor observations cited earlier?
>>7794927
>Engineers literally do not use this stuff when designing GPS systems.
Are you getting this from Concervapedia? That's the last time I saw such a pants-on-head retarded argument.
>Great, so is this all of the definition we need to calculate things like the hulse-taylor observations cited earlier?
>Describe a pulsar without using and assumptions
>Sure, here
>Great, lemme just shift these goal posts.
But you don't need to make any more assumptions about those pulsars, you'd need some inputs, but they're experimentally observable and not assumptions.
>>7794927
>This isn't conspiracy, wikipedia is talking about the clock slowdown which isn't relevant. You understand that GPS doesn't care about the absolute time of the clocks, just the difference, right?
If the clocks aren't accurate then the difference won't be accurate, unless the error is exactly the same in all of the satellites, which it won't be. Why are you lying about what the article says when it's right there for anyone to read?
>>7794927
>This isn't conspiracy, wikipedia is talking about the clock slowdown which isn't relevant.
"A number of sources of error exist due to relativistic effects[14] that would render the system useless if uncorrected."
I'm pretty sure rendering the system useless if this doesn't get corrected is relevant.
>>7794936
>>7794934
I am not lying about anything, you guys aren't even bothering to think about how GPS works. You just refuse to wrap your head around the fact that the systems only use the differences in timestamps from satellites. Maybe things would be different if GPS receivers had atomic clocks and tried to factor in the local clock to the calculation, but they don't. They rely only on the differences in satellite timestamps.
You want to rely on wikipedia as your source when even the fucking German page on the same thing contradicts you https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Relativistische_Effekte
>inb4 I can't use Google translate
>>7794934
I'm trying to lead you to understanding the assumptions that you don't realize are being made. Follow along or don't, your choice.
>>7794951
>I'm trying to lead you to understanding the assumptions
>I'm just trying to enlighten you, man. My years of using Google has given me insight that you could never have, your education has blinded you to the truth.
Okay how about this: Point out which assumptions in GR are wrong, explain why they're wrong, then present data that backs up your arguments.
>>7794956
We are talking about assumptions regarding the nature of pulsars, not GR. This is to show that pulsars aren't good empirical evidence for GR effects. Please follow along.
>>7794961
>assumptions regarding the nature of pulsars, not GR
Yep you're a retard, I've pointed our repeatedly that there are no assumptions here, what is a pulsar is a definition everything else is observation.
>>7794963
So the definition you gave me is everything required to calculate what was previously discussed? What else is required, if anything?
>>7794927
>This isn't conspiracy, wikipedia is talking about the clock slowdown which isn't relevant. You understand that GPS doesn't care about the absolute time of the clocks, just the difference, right?
What a load of bullshit. The difference is between a clock on the ground and a clock in a satellite. Due to relativistic affects, the clock in the satellite will run slower than the clock on the ground. So of course it affects the difference measured between the clocks. Do you seriously think you are fooling anyone? You know nothing about GPS.
>Maybe things would be different if GPS receivers had atomic clocks and tried to factor in the local clock to the calculation, but they don't.
There are plenty of GPS systems that do. You're argument is that GR is not proven by GPS because some systems don't require it. But the systems that do need it prove it.
>You want to rely on wikipedia as your source when even the fucking German page on the same thing contradicts you https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System#Relativistische_Effekte
But that's wrong, you are taking a small part of the section out of context. It does in fact say that the oscillation frequency of the atomic clock has to be corrected in certain cases.
>>7794974
>difference is between a clock on the ground and clock in a satellite
No it fucking isn't. Go get on Mouser and buy the parts to roll your own GPS receiver, tell me how it goes. You won't need to worry about the local clock. There is literally no reason to worry about it. Four satellites, wham bam done. Why would you ever even think about putting an atomic clock in a GPS receiver? Move that thing 10 feet and the clock is useless.
>>7794971
Okay let's try again, point the assumptions you don't like, explain what's wrong with them, then present data to support your argument.
>hurr durr
Just do it, you retard.
>>7794984
You really don't want to do this do you?
>>7794986
Just explain what you don't like, if you're as learned as you're making out it should be trivial. You'll either do it, and we'll talk or you won't either because you can't or you won't, since you've already said you want people to understand why some assumptions are wrong, then the only conclusion I can reach is that you can't.
>>7794989
quite the lazy position to take. I'll wait.
>>7794993
>Can't
Kek, retard.
>>7792259
>Explain my shit.
>Oh... Y-you can't?
>Why does this board even exist if you people have no clue about such an obvious phenomenon save for some very basic observations of its effects.
>It's very possible the the human brain has achieved the limits of abstract thought necessary to crack the secrets of my shit. We may be physiologically incapable of grasping these things, just like a dog will never be able to comprehend his shit, no matter how long you train it.
>Are the ego maniacs on here willing to admit such a possibility?
>>7794996
I'll be here waiting if you decide to give it a shot. Otherwise, good luck in your scientific endeavors.
>>7795013
>wants to explain stuff
>won't explain stuff
>thinks people can't see through his bullshit
It's sad when people like you think you know more than you do, like the 6 year old that learnt a new word and uses it everywhere. But you see when a 6 year old does it, it's adorable, when an adult does its pathetic, since you know you've got to share a planet with these people. I'd say enjoy you're life anon, but if you've spent part (any part) of you life trolling on the slowest board on 4chan, then it's clear you've not got much of a life to enjoy.
>>7795020
If you believe that refusing to answer a simple question makes you right, you are a fool.
>>7794980
>No it fucking isn't. Go get on Mouser and buy the parts to roll your own GPS receiver, tell me how it goes.
That is a simple, less advanced form of GPS. The most accurate form of GPS is differential GPS, which uses a ground based reference station.
http://www.fs.fed.us/t-d/pubs/pdfpubs/pdf04712307/pdf04712307dpi300.pdf
>You won't need to worry about the local clock. There is literally no reason to worry about it. Why would you ever even think about putting an atomic clock in a GPS receiver? Move that thing 10 feet and the clock is useless.
It makes GPS more accurate. And the reference station doesn't move, you retard.
http://www.esri.com/news/arcuser/0103/differential1of2.html
>>7795753
Why did you take the time to edit out the part about four satellites from your quote? That kind of negates your point.
>>7795753
Holy shit did you even read about how differential GPS works? It uses a fixed base station at a known location, so you can calculate the position error for nearby mobile units. The fixed base station still does not need or use a clock, it just has a known location. Are you retarded?
>>7796258
I don't need to quote everything you say to respond to it. And no, it doesn't negate anything.
>>7796274
The fixed base does use a clock, this is how GPS surveying is done. This is why the wikipedia article talks about it. This is why every manual on GPS error corrections talks about. Why would they talk about relativistic error correction if it's useless? Again, all you have shown is that certain applications of GPS do not require relativistic corrections. The most precise forms of GPS do. It is irrelevant to the argument which forms of GPS require the corrections. The fact that they are required at all proves relativity is used in the real world. Your argument is completely disingenuous.
>>7796308
Differential GPS does not use nor require a clock. Neither of the sources you linked even talk about relativistic corrections of the clock of the base station. Just stop unless you have something applicable.
>>7796274
Here are some applications for GPS time measurements
http://ilrs.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/timing/gpsrole.pdf
>>7796313
>Differential GPS does not use nor require a clock.
Are you stupid? How would it measure the time it takes the signal to reach the receiver without a clock?
>Neither of the sources you linked even talk about relativistic corrections of the clock of the base station.
That's because they were replying to your incorrect statements that GPS doesn't use ground reference stations. We've already established that GPS which calculates the amount of time a signal takes to be received on the ground requires relativistic corrections. Read the wikipedia article.
>>7796314
You people aren't reading the sources you are sending over. Everything you guys have dug up still simply relies on the difference in timestamps between satellites, nothing more nothing less.
>>7796342
>You people aren't reading the sources you are sending over. Everything you guys have dug up still simply relies on the difference in timestamps between satellites, nothing more nothing less.
Stop lying.
"SV time. The time of transmission from a particular space vehicle is known as SV time. SV time at
the receiver must then be corrected for the errors in the SV clock with respect to GPS time and for
periodic relativistic effects. The SV clock error is transmitted in each data frame by a set of
polynomial coefficients. The relativistic correction is computed from the SV orbital parameters
normally used for SV position determination. The true GPS time of transmission is the result"
>>7796339
>your incorrect statements that GPS doesn't use ground reference stations
See >>7794980
>You won't need to worry about the local clock. There is literally no reason to worry about it.
We have always been and still are talking about local clocks, either in a fixed base station or a mobile receiver. Differential GPS does not use a local clock in the base station, it still relies only on the difference in timestamps between satellites. This is not hard.
>Are you stupid? How would it measure the time it takes the signal to reach the receiver without a clock?
Apparently you are the stupid one if you can't figure out how GPS works. Four satellites, no local clock needed. I hope you aren't in school for any kind of science with problem solving skills like that.
Explain gravity? Easy
Anything with mass has to displace something, whether that be air or space. Things like stars and planets displace the space around them (dark matter) or what ever you want to call it. This dragging everything closer to it.
Imagine having a bucket of water with some sawdust floating on the surface bow slowly place a steel ball in the middle of it. as the water is displaced the dust moves towards the ball. Same concept for space itself or the "dark matter" pushing everything into the object that is displacing it
This probably didn't make any sense as I'm high as fuck right now
>>7796349
>SV orbital parameters
>thinking this is anything more than the satellite's local timestamp and coordinates
Did you just ctrl+f relativity and paste that paragraph here without reading or understanding it?
>>7796357
>See >>7794980
See my reply.
>We have always been and still are talking about local clocks, either in a fixed base station or a mobile receiver. Differential GPS does not use a local clock in the base station, it still relies only on the difference in timestamps between satellites. This is not hard.
Again, the time for a signal to be received by the receiver on the ground is calculated from the difference between the time stamp sent by the signal, which is from the SV clock, and the clock at the receiver. Since the SV clock suffers from relativistic effects, the difference in time between these two clocks does not reflect the actual amount of time the signal took to be received. Therefore relativistic corrections are added. You are either delusional or trolling if you continue to deny clear, well documented reality.
>Apparently you are the stupid one if you can't figure out how GPS works. Four satellites, no local clock needed.
Except when a ground station is used and a clock is used, dumbass.
>>7796371
Great, none of the references you posted are about systems with clocks in the receiver, so you are just knocking them out of the park so far.
>>7796369
>thinking this is anything more than the satellite's local timestamp and coordinates
Yes, and SV time is used to determine the time it takes for the signal to reach the receiver. This is used to determine the satellite's exact distance from the receiver. Either you know this and are deliberately lying in order to fool people, or you are lying about knowing anything about how GPS works. Which is it?
>>7796383
>Yes, and SV time is used to determine the time it takes for the signal to reach the receiver.
In the nasa doc you linked, SV time is corrected to calculate GPS time at the receiver. The whole point of the system is to calculate local GPS time at a known location, not to compare clocks or figure out how long it takes for the signal to reach the receiver. You didn't even read the paper you linked and it is showing. 8 pages is easy, go read it and then lets talk.
>>7796379
How exactly do you suppose these systems measure the amount of time it takes for the signal to reach the receiver if it does not know local time? It either knows local time from an internal clock or from a clock network. Just admit you lost, you're grasping at straws.
>>7796394
What do you think these GPS systems are doing? Do you not understand that all of the data needed to operate any of these GPS systems comes by examining the difference of timestamps arriving during any given sampling window? Why would you possibly need a local clock to compare 4 sets of data arriving at a receiver?
Are you about to tell me you think the GPS on your phone depends on a clock inside of it too?
>>7796388
>In the nasa doc you linked, SV time is corrected to calculate GPS time at the receiver.
Another lie. Let's read it again.
"The time of transmission from a particular space vehicle is known as SV time. SV time at
the receiver must then be corrected for the errors in the SV clock with respect to GPS time and for
periodic relativistic effects. The SV clock error is transmitted in each data frame by a set of
polynomial coefficients. The relativistic correction is computed from the SV orbital parameters
normally used for SV position determination. The true GPS time of transmission is the result."
It is not calculating GPS time at the receiver. It says it is correcting WITH RESPECT to GPS time at the reciever. It is calculating the GPS time of transmission.
>>7796400
>What do you think these GPS systems are doing? Do you not understand that all of the data needed to operate any of these GPS systems comes by examining the difference of timestamps arriving during any given sampling window? Why would you possibly need a local clock to compare 4 sets of data arriving at a receiver?
Because the system we are talking about is measuring the time between the transmission leaving the satellite and the time it is received. You already know this, you fucking scum.
>>7796403
You don't even understand the point of this paper. It is about how GPS time is kept by receivers at known locations. What the fuck do you think they are describing, how to check and see if the clock on the satellite is working? This is literally a paper about a global clock system zeroed at 00:00 January 5, 1980 UTC that ticks forward based on satellite data received at local base stations.
>>7796414
>You don't even understand the point of this paper.
That's ironic coming from someone who just lied about what the paper says.
>It is about how GPS time is kept by receivers at known locations.
I already know that, dumbass. Did you read what I wrote when I posted it? The reason I posted it was to show applications of GPS time measurements. This shows, yet again, that relativistic effects are used in the real world.
>>7796428
>lied about what the paper says
I lied at no point. You, however, keep insisting that it talks about signal travel time.
>The reason I posted it was to show applications of GPS time measurements.
Great, but none of these measurements actually require relativistic corrections. They only use the difference in timestamps between four satellite signals arriving simultaneously.
>>7796432
>I lied at no point. You, however, keep insisting that it talks about signal travel time.
THAT IS WHAT TIME OF TRANSMISSION IS.
>Great, but none of these measurements actually require relativistic corrections.
Then why does the document specifically describe a system using SV time corrected by relativistic effects? Again, you're arguing that a single kind of GPS does not require relativistic corrections. This is irrelevant and disingenuous. I have already shown through multiple sources that relativistic corrections are used in the real world. So you lose. Your response to this will be to repeat more disingenuous arguments in order to distract from this fact. Enjoy the thread, scum. I'm out.
>>7796443
>I'm out.
Boo hoo. Make sure you go tell the Principal what a big liar and bully that guy was.
>>7796443
Well run along then, come back when you can find something relevant to talk about.
>THAT IS WHAT TIME OF TRANSMISSION IS.
Then you are just arguing semantics without understanding that time of transmission does not depend on the local clock or relativistic effects. Four satellite transmissions is all that is needed to find the time of transmission.
>Then why does the document specifically describe a system using SV time corrected by relativistic effects?
It does say that relativistic effects are corrected for, but it doesn't specify how. In engineering a GPS system, all correction is done by using the difference between timestamps, which is completely agnostic on the subject of relativity in practice.
>>7796446
Is it really a troll thread anymore if you stick around for 2 days yelling
"It's very possible the the human brain has achieved the limits of abstract thought necessary to crack the secrets of gravity."
Are you implying humans didn't eveolve and simply "appeared".
We may not " be able to explain it or understand it perfectly " but one thing is sure we will maybe not now but soon enough we will. You can't teach a dog to do calculus but you will be able to do so if you keep teaching the same thing to said dog and thousands of his generations they just might understand and do it. We were apes at first yet we do calculus now.
TL;dr i took the bait
>What is a model
>>7792606
Why anon? Why do you do this?
