📢 The Global Positioning System (GPS) is NOT based on Einsteins General Relativity, time dilation or field equations.
(This post is audio enabled )
 |
| Click below for the audio file |
Claim: The Global Positioning System is Relativistic and therefore confirms Einsteins General Relativity?
 |
| Above: 24 satellite GPS constellation in motion with the earth rotating. In this example USA(39.7469° N, 105.2108° W). (wikipedia) |
- Get a thorough walk through of GPS, from a commercial, nuts and bolts perspective from GEOTAB
- Here is an svg of the orbital details of navigation systems globally
The Global Positioning System (GPS), originally Navstar GPS,[1] is a satellite-based radionavigation system owned by the United States government and operated by the United States Space Force.[2] It is one of the global navigation satellite systems (GNSS) that provides geolocation and time information to a GPS receiver anywhere on or near the Earth where there is an unobstructed line of sight to four or more GPS satellites.[3]
- Beidou – system deployed and operated by the People's Republic of China's, initiating global services in 2019.[195][196]
- Galileo – a global system being developed by the European Union and other partner countries, which began operation in 2016,[197] and is expected to be fully deployed by 2020.
- GLONASS – Russia's global navigation system. Fully operational worldwide.
- NavIC – A regional navigation system developed by the Indian Space Research Organisation.
- Michibiki – A regional navigation system receivable in the Asia-Oceania regions, with a focus on Japan.
A gravitational potential gradient within a plasma atmosphere has absolutely nothing to do with relativity or space curvature. The microsecond adjustments recorded by the only clocks considered accurate enough, Atomic Clocks, can be argued in many ways to be the worst choice rather than the best for such a task.
The electron configuration surrounding cesium atoms is slightly deformed/ prolates from a different altitude within a gravitational potential gradient elongates the electron configuration… effectively acting like a longer pendulum swing which records a longer second compared to another clock without a deformed/ prolated electron configuration. This is known.
And critically, the transient time at the same altitude is also different depending on which direction an airplane travels East to West or West to East.. Which also records a slight difference in tick rates.
Here is more information about the misconception of atomic clocks.
http://
Ron Hatch - GPS co-inventor
https://
 |
| GPS Inventor Ronald Hatch wrote an entire book how Einstein is not evidenced by or used in GPS. |
Since its relevant here too, even Dr. Louis Essen - Inventor of the Atomic Clock, rejects Relativity:
http://
GPS, Relativity and PopScience Mythology:
http://
1.GPS primarily measures location, not time, that is incidental.
What effect can special relativity have on GPS systems?
Nothing. Signals from GPS are not sent back from the receiver on earth to the GPS.
University of London Professor Herbert Dingle showed why Special Relativity will always conflict with logic, no matter when we first learn it. According to the theory, if two observers are equipped with clocks, and one moves in relation to the other, the moving clock runs slower than the non-moving clock. But the Relativity principle itself (an integral part of the theory) makes the claim that if one thing is moving in a straight line, not accelerating, in relation to another object, either one is entitled to be regarded as moving. It follows logically that if there are two clocks, A and B, and one of them is moved, clock A runs slower than B, and yet clock B runs slower than A. I'm sorry but that is absurd.
2.Nothing about gravitational time dilation
In the case of general relativity, we know and no doubt: general relativity is not valid. We know that they did not hesitate to say: “One century after its formulation, Einstein’s general relativity has made remarkable predictions and turned out to be compatible with all experimental tests.”; or said that “special and general theory of relativity are incredibly well tested and very accurate theories.” But, actually, these statement is nonsense.
About testing general relatiity via eclipse experiment using optical telescope; if it was difficult in 1995 , to see details of 1–2 seconds of arc, how much more difficult was it in the in 1919–1973 eclipse experiments? The difficulty of performing precise measurements of optical starlight deflection during an eclipse can be seen from the results of 1919, 1922, 1929, 1947, 1952, 1973 experiments.
Testing general relativity using VLBI (Very-long-baseline interferometry). VLBI is a type of astronomical interferometry used in radio astronomy. In VLBI a signal from an astronomical radio source, such as a quasar, is collected at multiple radio telescopes on Earth. The important things must be note, the purpose of VLBI is collecting signal in the form of invisible light, not to measure the altitude of a star and bending of light in the form of visible light. VLBI can not be use as a sextant in celestial navigation
In fact, for more than 90 years the statement that the Nobel Committee made in the year 1921 should be upheld:
”Without taking into account the value that will be accorded your relativity and gravitation theories after these are confirmed in the future”.
General relativity predicts the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground. Actually, this prediction can be explained in yet another way, not just the distortion arcs in the caesium atoms without Einstein’s theory.
Clocks at higher altitude tick faster than clocks on Earth’s surface. It is not caused by gravit curving "spacetime" but by other factors including the Van Allan radiation belts and air density of atmosphere. Closer to the Earth surface, the air is denser compared to the density of the air layer above it. The density is getting looser or weaker as it gets higher. Actually that particular effect is the same for most ordinary clocks or atomic clocks. Moreover, atomic clocks are sensitive to the temperature changes and pressure in their orbit.
Claims on Global Positioning System (GPS)
A prediction of General Relativity is that clocks closer to a massive object will seem to tick more slowly than those located further away. As such, when viewed from the surface of the Earth, the clocks on the satellites appear to be ticking faster than identical clocks on the ground. A calculation using general relativity predicts that the clocks in each GPS satellite should get ahead of ground-based clocks by 45 microseconds per day.
The above claims are incorrect, firstly, because general relativity is not supported by real evidence, nothing about gravitational time dilation anyway. Secondly, the GPS engineers had realized that clocks of various types in anycase (even if not atomic clocks)at higher altitude tick faster than clocks on Earth’s surface, and it is not caused by gravity, but caused by air density of atmosphere. That’s another reason why the GPS engineers reset the clock rates, slowing them down before launch, and then proceed at the same rate as ground clocks, and the system works.
3.There are no official statements
How accurate is GPS? It depends. GPS satellites broadcast their signals in space with a certain accuracy, but what you receive depends on additional factors, including satellite geometry, signal blockage, atmospheric conditions, and receiver design features/quality.
For example, GPS-enabled smartphones are typically accurate to within a 4.9 m (16 ft.) radius under open sky. However, their accuracy worsens near buildings, bridges, and trees.
From the above website dedicated by the USA government to the GPS, we know that GPS does not put forward anything about Einstein’s relativity. In other words, there are no official statements.
4. Explanation of GPS’s special consultant.
In the 1990’s, Tom Van Flandern worked as a special consultant to the Global Positioning System (GPS), a set of satellites whose atomic clocks allow ground observers to determine their position to within about a foot.
Van Flandern goes on to discuss GPS clocks, which are often cited as being proof positive of Einstein’s relativity but the GPS system doesn’t actually use Einstein’s field equations.
In fact, this paper by the U.S. Naval Observatory tells us one way the myth may have started. This is so because it was mentioned that, while incorporating Einstein’s equations into the system, it may slightly improve accuracy compared to if the atomic clocks caesium issue is not factored in. IE depending on the scenario and luck. But even a broken clock is right twice a day. If it doesn't always work, it doesn't work.
To quote the opening line of the paper, “The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would require.”
At high altitude, where the GPS clocks orbit the Earth, it is known that the clocks run roughly 46,000 nanoseconds (one-billionth of a second) a day faster than at ground level, because the gravitational field is thinner 20,000 kilometers above the Earth. The orbiting clocks also pass through that field at a rate of three kilometers per second — their orbital speed. For that reason, they tick 7,000 nanoseconds a day slower than stationary clocks.
To offset these two effects, the GPS engineers reset the clock rates, slowing them down before launch by 39,000 nanoseconds a day. They then proceed to tick in orbit at the same rate as ground clocks, and the system “works.” Ground observers can indeed pin-point their position to a high degree of precision. In (Einstein) theory, however, it was expected that because the orbiting clocks all move rapidly and with varying speeds relative to any ground observer (who may be anywhere on the Earth’s surface), and since in Einstein’s theory the relevant speed is always speed relative to the observer, it was expected that continuously varying relativistic corrections would have to be made to clock rates. This in turn would have introduced an unworkable complexity into the GPS. But these corrections were not made. Yet “the system manages to work, even though they use no relativistic corrections after launch,” Van Flandern said. “They have basically blown off Einstein"
Physicists must know that GPS was not actually designed to test Einstein’s theory of relativity, so cannot provide a validation of relativity as lazily some do.
In any case, the presence of Special and General Relativity effects has no consistent bearing on the accuracy of GPS operation. In summary, it wouldn’t matter whether clocks aboard GPS satellites ran faster or slower than Earth’s clocks or even changed their speed each day. Just so long as the satellites clocks all remained synchronised with each other and the time difference relative Earth’s clocks didn’t become too large, GPS receivers would continue to calculate their correct position.
The GPS is certainly an excellent navigational aid. But from an operational viewpoint at least, it doesn’t serve as a test for Relativity. Scientists should stop calling it that.(GPS, Relativity, and pop-Science Mythology).
