Yeah I understand the problem with any rare truth, there's so many people who know the wrong thing that anyone who has found rare truth just looks wrong. (how d

Yeah I understand the problem with any rare truth, there's so many people who know the wrong thing that anyone who has found rare truth just looks wrong. (how do you separate crackpots from explorers?) The only way you can resolve that issue is to study the docs yourself. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to believe me unless you can see how all the different mechanisms I've explained fit together well and even then you've really got a responsibility to learn for yourself if the consensus is just folk-knowledge or the truth. The specifications are available online but they are tedious. As for them saying "We don't need it" Actually it's so complex that they've never said something so broad and sweeping. It's almost like asking a molecular biologist to comment on the collective function we call the "mind". Sometimes it's easier to comment on trees than the whole forest. I am however, looking to in to asking someone in particular to make those generalizations because I think he can, I just haven't been able to reach him directly yet. The author of this paper: https://www.ion.org/publications/abstract.cfm?articleID=1604 https://www.ion.org/publications/abstract.cfm?articleID=1604 The use of ECI vs ECEF puts things in a different light that would take a while to explain. This whole question has so many moving parts that you really need an expert authority to generalize. (I'm trying to get that) It relates to questions of theory that have only been resolved in the past ten years as well. For instance, it was widely held, until the past decade, that the Sagnac effect could only be described in terms of general relativity because of the way it seems to controvert Special relativity. After the experiments of Ruyong Wang, however, the consensus explanation has been to simply explain its workings in a very classical fashion without any regard to the seeming violation of light speed constancy that it was designed to show. It doesn't help that all weapons guidance systems rely upon these principles so research brings you into DoD territory and information on working principles for RLGs iFOGs etc (which prove the workings of the sagnac effect), becomes slim or inaccessible... I got someone at Honeywell in pretty big trouble once just for asking the wrong questions and him giving me too much information. Really all you can do personally is try to understand the workings of all these system, but sometimes you just have to accept believing in folk-knowledge because consensus is just more reliable if you can't personally do the footwork. You can find the specs here: http://www.gps.gov/ http://www.gps.gov/ Best of luck! PS: Let me reiterate that I'm not saying the time rate difference created by clocks orbital motion and placement in a gravitational field are insignificant. I'm saying that the difference between newtonian expectation and relativistic is insignificant. (newtonian effect for gravity is half, and for motion effects is arguably gamma^2)