Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!news.nk.ca!rocksolid2!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: hertz778@gmail.com (rhertz)
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Electron size, shape and spin.Confusion and conflicts with Einstein's
 1905 SR.
Date: Sat, 22 Mar 2025 23:12:39 +0000
Organization: novaBBS
Message-ID: <f44ac2bcf9576ebcd968e1ea5f53676b@www.novabbs.com>
References: <8d05bbe123c740f2934b31e367a92231@www.novabbs.com> <a1b3bbfca4b1e9797d98903a77f0cf59@www.novabbs.com> <f58a6ba75e73908078c5576f74ffe329@www.novabbs.com> <9ed9e92086e0d99fde7d81edfced643a@www.novabbs.com> <0082c223a6c8e6952b11ec32b83c473b@www.novabbs.com> <d38ac7fb8de3a1e3c8f08908a6e1953a@www.novabbs.com> <40f0e2c10ed1e2c2d24989b4c7917802@www.novabbs.com> <vrf73v$1iffb$1@dont-email.me> <c6032fd09dd139befbdfc8b5d8b477b6@www.novabbs.com> <vri0qb$30cv$1@dont-email.me> <43d5f4c5dc0bb6403360e6d899866f5b@www.novabbs.com> <vrkf9c$27thi$1@dont-email.me> <ff75915451d5dea06c892117592601ba@www.novabbs.com> <182ef1e1d815cc2c$90977$1498207$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> <19aa8bd869684b7743e65dc78b07c7a1@www.novabbs.com> <vrnaon$qvt2$1@dont-email.me> <712fd33a8b8da8da0692fae38ea4e560@www.novabbs.com> <558b5eddcdbf55c6bb57d9954c62512c@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="1337182"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="OjDMvaaXMeeN/7kNOPQl+dWI+zbnIp3mGAHMVhZ2e/A";
User-Agent: Rocksolid Light
X-Rslight-Posting-User: 26080b4f8b9f153eb24ebbc1b47c4c36ee247939
X-Rslight-Site: $2y$10$4QL8i2SwdoIn7jDh9.kwqugu7Tq0hoCtB0O95gLBIBFziNspPI6HS
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0
Bytes: 3878
Lines: 50

I asked to DeepSeek to analyze this comment that you did:

QUESTION;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm discussing this matter with a relativist, in a physics forum. Can
you tell me what you think of this comment of him?: COMMENT: "ROFL

Definitely one of you better misconception!

Do you really, seriously believe that 'relativists' claim that
the receiver can measure the frequency of the L1 carrier to be
1575.42 MHz = 154*10.23 MHz and can use this to recover the
master TCXO frequency of 10.23000000 Mhz? :-D

You claim to be an engineer and must understand that it is
no way a GPS receiver can measure the L1 frequency with any precision
better than ~ 1575420000 ±150 Hz.

But you believe that 'relativists' claim they can measure the frequency
of L1 to be 1575420000 ±0.025 Hz!


DEEPSEEK ANSWER:
----------------------------------------------------------
Misconceptions in the Comment
The commenter appears to misunderstand the process of frequency recovery
in GPS receivers. They seem to think that "relativists" claim GPS
receivers directly measure the L1 frequency with extreme precision,
which is not the case.

The precision of the recovered 10.23 MHz clock comes from tracking the
phase of the C/A code and carrier, not from directly measuring the L1
frequency.

5. Conclusion
The commenter is correct that directly measuring the L1 frequency with a
precision of ±0.025 Hz is unrealistic for a GPS receiver. However, they
seem to misunderstand how GPS receivers actually recover the 10.23 MHz
clock and the role of relativity in the system.

The recovery of the 10.23 MHz clock is achieved through indirect methods
(e.g., PLLs, code tracking), not by directly measuring the L1 frequency.


If you’re discussing this in a physics forum, you might want to clarify
these points and emphasize the distinction between direct frequency
measurement and the indirect methods used in GPS receivers.

----------------------------------------------------------

IMBECILE, IGNORANT, DECEIVER PAUL.