@metal-brain said
The computers in satellites do not calculate using relativity equations. What is taken into account is the different time. WE already have an approximate time difference estimate from experience. Satellites don't use relativity equations. That is a myth.
http://alternativephysics.org/book/GPSmythology.htm
I wondered where the hell you got that BS idea from!
Your link is a pseudoscientific one that hasn't gone through peer preview and can be easily debunked just by looking up the pretty basic facts which your link has repeatedly got wrong!
For example, Your link says
"...This argument appears quite solid. So what are we overlooking?
What we are overlooking is the phrase ‘time at the receiver’. Problem is, GPS receivers contain no atomic clock because there’s no room to fit one in. Plus it would be very expensive even if possible.
That ‘time at the receiver’ must instead be determined from the satellites’ clocks...."
This above is false! Not only do GPS receivers generally do NOT need atomic clocks (unless the greater accuracy is specifically required), but most if not all those that don't have them have quartz crystal clocks instead that ARE used by the GPS receivers;
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog862/node/1716
"....GPS receivers are usually equipped with quartz crystal clocks, which are relatively inexpensive and compact. They have low power requirements and long life spans
...
It really
isn't necessary for a GPS receiver clock to be wonderful, because we are solving for time. There are four unknowns (x, y, z, and time) and, therefore, four observations to make the solution.
Still we can't get along without an oscillator in the receiver. It is necessary for producing the replica code, for example. The replica code needs to match the incoming signals from the satellites. So, obviously,
a receiver clock is necessary, but it doesn't need to be anything like an atomic standard.
..."
The whole argument of that link's essay is based not only on that false premise but some others that I can list and then debunk each in turn.
The author of that assay obviously didn't know the first thing about how GPS works and instead just made crap up to try and debunk relativity; you can easily find THOUSANDS of loons and morons trying to do just that all over the net (an extremely common problem) and they are all completely wrong and can be easily proven wrong without a single exception.
The computers in satellites do not calculate using relativity equations.
Actually, they don't need to! At least not DIRECTLY! That's because they merely have to have their clocks 'tick' at the different required speed according to the application of the relativity equations (that was calculated by people on the surface of the Earth as opposed to calculated by the sat itself), that is all. So that need for that different 'tick' rate of their clocks still helps to prove relativity and without those sats DIRECTLY calculating using relativity equations.
Satellites don't use relativity equations.
Not DIRECTLY if that's what you mean. But they INdirectly take into account relativity via being designed with clocks 'ticking' at the different required speed. -That's NOT a myth.
Well?