zotero-db/storage/78XNJWCD/.zotero-ft-cache

GPS III
History of Relativity in GPS
Note: Relativistic corrections to be implemented Fliegel, H. F. and R. S. DiEsposti (1996). GPS and Relativity: An Engineering Overview. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Precise Time and Time Interval Systems and Applications Meeting. https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA516975.pdf https://adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1997ptti.conf..189F

Note: The classical effect of electromagnetic retardation suddenly require Relativistic corrections when the instrument accuracy is increased. The causal mechanism for electromagnetic retardation in classical mechanics would be due to an energy exchange with a medium. What they're saying is: the exact same effect (em retardation), but to a smaller degree is actually due to divergent time due to relative velocity between observers and gravitational effects
The paper then goes on to show how GR and SR relativity cancel out, but their terms are "included", so their argument is because the equation is there, the effect exist, even though it cancels out and you wouldn't know either way.

Note: After the citations there's a convo with several GPS lads, Carrol Alley mentions the most devastating piece of evidence against Relativity theory. The Principle of Relative Simultaneity not being a factor in GPS completely falsifies the justification to even do a Lorentz transformation in the first place to even suggest to another grown man that time dilates relative to proper time and that distances contract hyperbolically in the direction of motion relative velocity. GPS up until 1996 (at minimum) did not account for
1. The Principle of Simultaneity 2. Equal-gravitational potential effects 3. Time dilation relative to proper time
In fact, the fact that 2) and 3) are inherently missing means that 1) isn't even the cause of any of these effects. The system could not be synchronized to a cohesive timeline (GPS Time) without never ending cascades of transformations to calculate the differences from 2) and 3) relative each person that uses GPS simultaneous to anyone else who uses it. This is actually a full stop meta argument for relativity. If there's no substantiation of the principle of relative simultaneity, then that's game over in and of itself.
GPS Simultaneity vs Relative Simultaneity

Note: Because the Principle of Relative Simultaneity aren't present in GPS corrections, it's already over. People just wont accept it. Think about how fascinating that is. The core tenant of their belief is absent from a relative motion situation that explicitly demands it. Wang purposing an further experiment is an oil branch.
Atomic Clock Synchronization

Note:
Marmet, P. (2000). "The GPS and the Constant Velocity of Light." Acta Scientiarum.
Full Credentials: Paul Marmet, Professor, Physics, Laval University, Québec, Canada 1962-83, Senior Research Officer, National Research Council of Canada 1983-90
Based on Relativity theory, once these clocks are in motion, theoretically as they free-fall around the Earth, the the oscillation rate shouldn't retarded 1:1 to the velocity of the craft. Relativity dictates that c = c in an inertial frame.

Note: Additional info about Marmet A past president of the Canadian Association of Physicists (1981-2), he also served as a member of the executive committee of the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada. Dr. Marmet has been elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and was made an Officer of the Order of Canada. He was awarded the Herzberg prize, the Rutherford prize, the Parizeau medal and a Service Award from the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada. He is the author of over a hundred journal papers, four books and 200 presentations at scientific meetings. https://web.archive.org/web/20210226183310/https://www.mysticmedicine.com/the-divine-for-a-critical-mind-resources/paul-marmet
Note: Ashby, N. (2004). The Sagnac Effect in the Global Positioning System. Neil defining an the free fall orbit of a satellite a "local inertial frame" Special note; Ashby is the lad they brought in to parade the variance in c around like's proof of Relativity theory. Keep in mind the difference between "Sagnac Effect" and "Sagnac Correction" It will be extremely important later when reading Wang's work and AG Kelly.

Note:

Note: Now they're saying here that they're getting the velocity correction to add to the receiver from Doppler shift in the signal with respect to the receiver's velocity.
There is where it gets crazy the Range Measurement Equation derives distance based on the variance of c. What are the odds the variance in c (distance measured with the RME wrt the ECI) magically derives the distance accurate down to the millimeter and that variance is also the same as the Doppler freq.
Obviously they can't say it straight forward that c != c, but they also need to explain how they get the velocity of the receiver. This is how they do it.
In later additions to the ICDs, they show flow chart diagram which will be in the next slide.

Note: 2006 ICD

Note: Range Measurement equation

Note: Ref. from Wang's paper regarding the Range Measurement Equation. Ashby, N. (1994). "Relativity in the Future of Engineering." IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and Measurement 43(4): 505-514. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/310159 PDF Download: https://sci-hub.hkvisa.net/10.1109/19.310159

Note: The equal itself is misleading because it already accounts for a variance in c relative to velocity inherently.

Sagnac CORRECTION vs SAGNAC EFFECT Note: Because the equation already accounts for c +- v, there's no need for any additional Sagnac corrections.

Note: The Sagnac EFFECT in c is a first-order effect in the one-way speed of light. The one-way speed being the signal sent from the Satellite and to a receiver. The signal encodes its time down to the 9.192 billionths of a second. Each signal sent to you in trilateration is a one-way first-order measurement of c. If a GPS receiver is in rotational, translational or uniform motion, that velocity will be reflected in the variance in the one-way measurement in relation to the time sent and time received relative to the assumed constant speed. The measurement is taken in the ECI frame. The ECI is a hypothetical stationary frame wrt to the center of Earth (i.e. not moving). How can the measurement be taken in a hypothetical frame but it instantaneously derives the distance with no transforms or corrections. In my opinion, this can only be explained if all motion is relative to the medium electromagnetic waves propagate in. The mechanism for the variance is the observer's motion relative to the medium. It's the only way c change for the observer. It works just like any other wave. That's why Wang gives the analogy about the Range Measurement Equation and sonar.
A. G. Kelly Exposes Atomic Clock Fraud

Note: Moving atomic clocks around the world did not give agreement with Relativistic prediction. 2 of the 4 clocks gained time when they were supposed to lose time and vice versa with respect to the direction around the Earth, with and against assumed rotation. Kelly, A. G. (1995). Time and the Speed of Light: A New Interpretation, Institution of Engineers of Ireland.
Hafele-Keating Paper (1971):

Note: Hafele's own commentary on the experiment and discrepancy between prediction and result. Hafele, J. and R. Keating (1971). Performance and Results of Portable Clocks in Aircraft, US Naval Observatory.
Hafele-Keating (1972) Relativity prediction:

Corrected data set with no explanation of corrections and now the clocks match Relativity's prediction despite the massive discrepancies that should have invalidated the experiment when the clocks were out of synch at varying amounts, especially in the wrong direction.

Note: Hafele, J. and R. Keating (1972). "Around the World Atomic Clocks: Predicted Relativistic Time Gains." Corrected comparison:
A. G. Kelly Exposes Sagnac Correction a NOT a Relativisitc correction in GPS

Note: At the highest level of raw data, the data is corrected to make c +- v = c in the most egregious way. Mislabeling the Sagnac effect as a second-order Relativistic effect is legit insane. The entire +- v corrections is swept up as"Earth rotation" and that gives the appearance that c = c.