Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #672286 > unrolled thread
| Started by | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-08-21 03:14 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-08-22 14:24 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 450 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-21 03:14 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-21 14:04 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-21 15:50 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-21 07:25 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-21 18:51 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-21 22:15 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-21 22:18 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-22 14:12 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-22 21:57 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-23 21:12 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-27 13:33 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-27 15:06 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-27 08:17 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-27 17:22 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-27 08:57 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-27 16:01 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-27 16:07 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-27 16:43 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-27 16:46 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-27 17:14 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-27 22:17 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-27 23:22 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-28 10:20 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-28 11:50 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-28 12:20 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-28 14:54 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-28 15:16 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-28 21:59 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-24 16:08 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-24 23:24 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-25 01:47 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-25 07:56 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-25 22:31 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-25 22:38 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-26 11:02 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-27 14:33 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-27 12:51 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-28 11:41 +0300
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-28 11:24 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-29 11:15 +0300
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-29 14:38 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-28 11:37 +0300
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-28 23:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-08-29 11:19 +0300
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-29 10:30 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-29 13:04 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-30 05:03 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-30 11:43 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-30 12:50 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-08-30 11:49 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-31 07:47 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-31 12:09 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-31 21:44 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-31 22:38 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-31 22:15 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-01 08:27 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-01 11:45 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-01 14:09 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-01 16:44 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-09-01 18:35 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-01 23:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-02 08:34 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-01 23:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-02 09:58 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 09:58 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 10:01 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-02 17:29 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 20:46 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-03 23:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-04 12:17 +0300
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-04 10:25 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-04 21:42 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-04 23:50 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-05 04:46 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-03 21:33 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-04 22:11 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-08 20:53 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-09 02:08 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-09-01 11:02 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-01 23:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2026-09-02 01:08 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 07:21 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-01 21:12 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-01 23:35 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-02 02:34 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-02 21:13 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 21:20 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-04 22:16 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-05 12:00 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-05 18:45 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-06 11:44 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-06 11:09 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-01 20:56 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-01 21:04 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-02 03:21 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 09:43 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 12:15 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 10:25 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 12:52 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 11:00 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 13:49 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 12:03 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 14:17 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 13:59 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 16:07 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 14:24 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 16:55 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 14:57 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 17:09 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 15:23 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 17:34 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 16:34 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 18:44 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 16:49 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 19:15 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 20:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 06:08 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 09:20 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 12:34 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 10:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 13:13 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 11:43 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 14:45 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 14:11 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 16:37 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 14:45 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 17:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 15:53 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 18:03 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 16:08 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 18:21 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 16:36 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 19:07 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 17:08 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 19:16 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-03 17:25 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-03 19:48 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-04 10:22 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-04 12:37 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-04 10:51 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-04 13:01 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-04 11:11 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-03 13:37 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-04 10:23 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox (the infinitary, the smooth, total and absolute differentiation) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-04 08:57 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox (the infinitary, the smooth, total and absolute differentiation) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-04 09:09 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox (the infinitary, the smooth, total and absolute differentiation) HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-05 18:38 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox (the infinitary, the smooth, total and absolute differentiation) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-05 12:41 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox (the infinitary, the smooth, curvature, the un-linear) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-04 08:46 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-02 07:35 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-02 07:54 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-02 07:59 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 16:35 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-02 13:30 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-02 13:54 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-03 20:49 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-04 07:14 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-04 21:02 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-04 21:05 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-04 21:51 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-04 22:07 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-02 18:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-02 20:44 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-05 05:26 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-03 23:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-05 18:18 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-06 22:33 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-07 07:15 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-08 14:38 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-08 19:16 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-09 19:30 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-09 23:28 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-10 20:30 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-10 23:48 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-11 07:47 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-11 20:53 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-12 10:09 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-13 00:50 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-13 08:58 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-13 11:10 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-13 22:30 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-14 01:51 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 15:39 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-14 15:44 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 17:08 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-14 22:12 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 23:26 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-15 05:29 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-15 04:59 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-12 21:57 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-12 22:04 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-13 01:31 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-13 01:22 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-13 22:23 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-13 22:49 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-14 21:18 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-14 23:44 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-15 13:36 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-15 13:50 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-15 23:20 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-16 20:36 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-16 20:53 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-16 22:53 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-17 06:30 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-17 05:18 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-17 07:57 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-17 11:18 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-17 11:48 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-17 21:12 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 13:01 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-17 20:04 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 17:58 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-09-18 11:49 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-17 22:33 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-18 11:09 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-18 11:52 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-18 20:30 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-19 14:49 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-09-19 14:34 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-19 22:45 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-19 22:32 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-20 11:17 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-20 11:32 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-20 10:27 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-20 13:43 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-20 15:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-20 19:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-20 19:32 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 09:56 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 12:25 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 10:27 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 12:54 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 11:09 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 13:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 11:27 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 13:32 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 11:40 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 16:00 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 14:36 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 16:47 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 15:25 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 17:35 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 15:46 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 18:01 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 16:14 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 18:28 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 16:30 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 18:41 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 16:42 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 18:55 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 17:20 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-21 19:46 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-21 21:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-21 19:41 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 07:07 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 09:17 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 11:38 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 09:46 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 11:52 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 09:58 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 12:04 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 10:14 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 12:21 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 10:22 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 12:29 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 10:32 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 12:35 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 10:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 12:59 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 11:04 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 13:17 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 11:21 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 13:47 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 11:55 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 14:11 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 13:00 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 15:55 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 14:22 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 17:01 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 15:07 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 17:16 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 15:18 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 17:26 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 15:57 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 18:01 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 16:04 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 18:24 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 16:26 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 18:38 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 16:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 18:53 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 16:55 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 19:04 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 17:06 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 19:12 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 17:15 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 19:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-22 20:50 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-23 07:11 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-22 09:19 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-22 17:51 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-22 21:46 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-22 21:55 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-23 00:38 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-23 17:44 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-24 21:36 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-25 23:22 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-25 19:12 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-26 08:20 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-26 05:39 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-26 12:53 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-26 21:00 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-26 13:45 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-27 00:45 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-27 23:06 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-24 18:59 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-24 19:07 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-24 21:40 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-24 23:47 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-21 19:09 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-21 19:06 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-21 19:43 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-22 17:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-24 18:53 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-24 12:07 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-21 18:56 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-21 21:32 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-21 20:27 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-22 14:02 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-22 17:29 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-23 17:03 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-24 21:52 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-25 01:22 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-24 17:53 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-24 17:56 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-26 23:55 +0000
Deflection of light, gravitational redshift (was: Ralph's Paradox) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-09-27 07:33 +0200
Re: Deflection of light, gravitational redshift Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-27 09:40 -0700
Re: Deflection of light, gravitational redshift The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-09-27 10:19 -0700
Re: Deflection of light, gravitational redshift HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-28 06:01 +0000
Re: Deflection of light, gravitational redshift Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-28 09:30 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-28 05:24 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-21 20:33 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-22 14:02 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Mikko <mikko.levanto@iki.fi> - 2026-09-29 13:11 +0300
Re: Ralph's Paradox ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) - 2026-09-29 10:21 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-22 21:49 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-23 01:07 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-23 20:38 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-23 19:53 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-24 22:28 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-25 09:43 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-26 10:48 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-26 10:11 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-27 23:35 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-28 06:22 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-09-28 19:32 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-28 11:15 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Little Bakadorov <elaloda@laooe.ru> - 2026-09-28 18:41 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-28 12:25 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Mathieu Esipov <uiao@ehemmi.ru> - 2026-09-28 20:27 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-28 14:03 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-28 22:47 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-29 08:27 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-29 15:35 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-29 09:00 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-29 09:05 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-29 09:11 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-29 09:27 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox (forget about it) Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-29 13:02 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-29 08:55 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-29 15:57 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-29 09:04 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Filiberto Bestolov <tr@btrloiit.ru> - 2026-09-27 18:02 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-09-22 15:03 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-17 20:42 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-17 19:44 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-17 22:41 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-09-18 05:29 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-09-18 07:59 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-17 14:07 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 08:54 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 08:56 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 09:06 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-09-17 20:08 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-17 12:02 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-17 20:50 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-17 20:15 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox athel.cb@gmail.com <user12588@newsgrouper.org.invalid> - 2026-09-18 08:51 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-18 20:16 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-18 15:33 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-19 22:23 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-19 17:43 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-20 10:24 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-20 07:34 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-20 16:03 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-20 13:44 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-21 19:15 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-09-21 22:26 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-09-22 17:56 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2026-08-27 13:06 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-21 14:15 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-21 16:48 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-21 16:49 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-21 15:28 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-21 17:37 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-21 09:35 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-21 16:56 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-21 19:17 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-21 12:27 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-21 12:29 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-21 20:17 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-08-21 15:58 -0700
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-21 17:48 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-22 00:03 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-22 06:09 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-22 07:50 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-22 13:57 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-22 16:57 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-24 16:27 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-23 16:42 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 16:49 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-24 17:07 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-21 17:35 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-21 21:04 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-08-21 22:28 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-08-22 22:03 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-22 22:41 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 12:24 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 15:20 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 13:46 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 16:59 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 15:02 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 17:19 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 15:21 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 17:38 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 15:51 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 17:59 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 16:00 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 18:15 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 16:35 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 18:45 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 16:48 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 18:53 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 17:02 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 19:14 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-08-23 17:22 +0000
Re: Ralph's Paradox Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-08-23 19:28 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-08-22 21:43 +0200
Re: Ralph's Paradox "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-08-22 14:24 -0700
Page 16 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 23 Next page →
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-22 17:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d7b6032457f97d$154$2272267$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #673545 |
On Tue, 22 Sep 26 09:17:14 +0000, Python wrote: >> The system was not running yet. > > Irrelevant. > > GPS did not need to be operational for an atomic clock aboard NTS-2 to > tick. > > That's the nice thing about an accusation of experimental fraud: > > eventually you have to explain the fraud. > > So explain it. > > How was an UNCOMPENSATED cesium clock engineered to fake the effect of > the compensation that had deliberately been left OFF? > > One mechanism will do. The rate of the clocks is unimportant. what matters is that they are all in absolute synch with each other. The readings of the ground clocks cancel out in the algorithms. My $80 GPS wristwatch doesn't contain any Cs atoms.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-22 21:46 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <118ult9$15h6d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #673613 |
Den 22.09.2026 19:51, skrev HenryWilson: > On Tue, 22 Sep 26 09:17:14 +0000, Python wrote: > >>> The system was not running yet. >> >> Irrelevant. >> >> GPS did not need to be operational for an atomic clock aboard NTS-2 to >> tick. > >> >> That's the nice thing about an accusation of experimental fraud: >> >> eventually you have to explain the fraud. >> >> So explain it. >> >> How was an UNCOMPENSATED cesium clock engineered to fake the effect of >> the compensation that had deliberately been left OFF? >> >> One mechanism will do. > > The rate of the clocks is unimportant. what matters is that they are all > in absolute synch with each other. The readings of the ground clocks > cancel out in the algorithms. My $80 GPS wristwatch doesn't contain any Cs > atoms. > Your wristwatch is counting seconds correctly, isn't it? Your wristwatch is receiving signals from th SV's, isn't it? Can you please explain the algorithm that can make your wristwatch count seconds with the right frequency, when the SV-clocks have an arbitrary (but equal) frequency? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-22 21:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18d7bcc8a2f1c665$51232$900885$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #673622 |
On 9/22/2026 9:46 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 22.09.2026 19:51, skrev HenryWilson: >> On Tue, 22 Sep 26 09:17:14 +0000, Python wrote: >> >>>> The system was not running yet. >>> >>> Irrelevant. >>> >>> GPS did not need to be operational for an atomic clock aboard NTS-2 to >>> tick. >> >>> >>> That's the nice thing about an accusation of experimental fraud: >>> >>> eventually you have to explain the fraud. >>> >>> So explain it. >>> >>> How was an UNCOMPENSATED cesium clock engineered to fake the effect of >>> the compensation that had deliberately been left OFF? >>> >>> One mechanism will do. >> >> The rate of the clocks is unimportant. what matters is that they are all >> in absolute synch with each other. The readings of the ground clocks >> cancel out in the algorithms. My $80 GPS wristwatch doesn't contain >> any Cs >> atoms. >> > > Your wristwatch is counting seconds correctly, isn't it? It is, but the idiot you're worshiping has a different opinion about that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-23 00:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d7cc3689fc7e1d$687$2272267$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #673622 |
On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 21:46:57 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 22.09.2026 19:51, skrev HenryWilson: >> On Tue, 22 Sep 26 09:17:14 +0000, Python wrote: >> >>>> The system was not running yet. >>> >>> Irrelevant. >>> >>> GPS did not need to be operational for an atomic clock aboard NTS-2 to >>> tick. >> >> >>> That's the nice thing about an accusation of experimental fraud: >>> >>> eventually you have to explain the fraud. >>> >>> So explain it. >>> >>> How was an UNCOMPENSATED cesium clock engineered to fake the effect of >>> the compensation that had deliberately been left OFF? >>> >>> One mechanism will do. >> >> The rate of the clocks is unimportant. what matters is that they are >> all in absolute synch with each other. The readings of the ground >> clocks cancel out in the algorithms. My $80 GPS wristwatch doesn't >> contain any Cs atoms. >> >> > Your wristwatch is counting seconds correctly, isn't it? Your wristwatch > is receiving signals from th SV's, isn't it? > Can you please explain the algorithm that can make your wristwatch count > seconds with the right frequency, when the SV-clocks have an arbitrary > (but equal) frequency? The watch does not need ultra high accuracy. Its instantaneous readings are subtracted from the emission times of four received signals to produce four distances using constant c. The received signals do not arrive simultaneously but as long as the difference in the watch's time and that of the orbiting clocks is accurately monitored, it can be easily corrected out. The main requirement is that the arrival time DIFFERENCES are recorded accurately and, for that, the watch's rate does not need to be highly precise. Get it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-23 17:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1190s28$1teud$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #673634 |
Den 23.09.2026 02:38, skrev HenryWilson: > On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 21:46:57 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> Den 22.09.2026 19:51, skrev HenryWilson: >>> >>> The rate of the clocks is unimportant. what matters is that they are >>> all in absolute synch with each other. The readings of the ground >>> clocks cancel out in the algorithms. My $80 GPS wristwatch doesn't >>> contain any Cs atoms. >>> >>> >> Your wristwatch is counting seconds correctly, isn't it? Your wristwatch >> is receiving signals from th SV's, isn't it? >> Can you please explain the algorithm that can make your wristwatch count >> seconds with the right frequency, when the SV-clocks have an arbitrary >> (but equal) frequency? So you wish to discuss how the GPS works. OK, let's do that. > > The watch does not need ultra high accuracy. Its instantaneous readings > are subtracted from the emission times of four received signals to produce > four distances using constant c. The speed of the signal from the SVs is not constant. The signal passes through the ionosphere which is a plasma. The speed of EM-waves in the L-band are slower in a plasma than it is in vacuum, so there will be a delay of the signal when it passes through the ionosphere. The delay will change with time. To compensate for this there is a 'model' of the ionosphere in the receiver. Eight parameters in this model describes the current delay in the ionosphere. The monitoring stations continuously measure the properties of the ionosphere and calculate the eight parameters and upload them to the SVs, which in turn send them down to the receiver. The varying delay in the ionosphere is the most serious source of error in the GPS, and the precision would be very poor without this correction. > The received signals do not arrive > simultaneously but as long as the difference in the watch's time and that > of the orbiting clocks is accurately monitored, it can be easily corrected > out. The main requirement is that the arrival time DIFFERENCES are > recorded accurately and, for that, the watch's rate does not need to be > highly precise. Get it? Your guesses are wrong. The only data the receiver needs from each SV is the GPS-time when the signal it is receiving NOW was sent. The receiver is tracking the SVs continuously, so at any time it knows when the signal it is receiving NOW was sent from the SV. The receiver knows the precise orbit of each SV. (Nominal orbit + received corrections). So when the receiver knows the GPS-time when the signal was sent, it also knows the SV's position. So the receiver knows (x,y,z,t) for each SV. With these data from four SVs the four unknown (x,y,z,t) of the receiver can be found. How the receiver at any time can know the _exact_ time (within very few ns) when the signal was sent is a rather long story. You can find the whole story here: https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf If you really want to learn how the GPS work, I can help you. But I don't think you want to learn. Or do you? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-24 21:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d85f6f8298818c$7038$2272267$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #673680 |
On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:44:19 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 23.09.2026 02:38, skrev HenryWilson: >> On Tue, 22 Sep 2026 21:46:57 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >>> Den 22.09.2026 19:51, skrev HenryWilson: >>>> >>>> The rate of the clocks is unimportant. what matters is that they are >>>> all in absolute synch with each other. The readings of the ground >>>> clocks cancel out in the algorithms. My $80 GPS wristwatch doesn't >>>> contain any Cs atoms. >>>> >>>> >>> Your wristwatch is counting seconds correctly, isn't it? Your >>> wristwatch is receiving signals from th SV's, isn't it? >>> Can you please explain the algorithm that can make your wristwatch >>> count seconds with the right frequency, when the SV-clocks have an >>> arbitrary (but equal) frequency? > > So you wish to discuss how the GPS works. > OK, let's do that. > > >> The watch does not need ultra high accuracy. Its instantaneous readings >> are subtracted from the emission times of four received signals to >> produce four distances using constant c. > > The speed of the signal from the SVs is not constant. > The signal passes through the ionosphere which is a plasma. > The speed of EM-waves in the L-band are slower in a plasma than it is in > vacuum, so there will be a delay of the signal when it passes through > the ionosphere. The delay will change with time. To compensate for this > there is a 'model' of the ionosphere in the receiver. Eight parameters > in this model describes the current delay in the ionosphere. > The monitoring stations continuously measure the properties of the > ionosphere and calculate the eight parameters and upload them to the > SVs, which in turn send them down to the receiver. The varying delay in > the ionosphere is the most serious source of error in the GPS, and the > precision would be very poor without this correction. > >> The received signals do not arrive simultaneously but as long as the >> difference in the watch's time and that of the orbiting clocks is >> accurately monitored, it can be easily corrected out. The main >> requirement is that the arrival time DIFFERENCES are recorded >> accurately and, for that, the watch's rate does not need to be highly >> precise. Get it? > > Your guesses are wrong. > > The only data the receiver needs from each SV is the GPS-time when the > signal it is receiving NOW was sent. > The receiver is tracking the SVs continuously, so at any time it knows > when the signal it is receiving NOW was sent from the SV. Of course, It is written in the signal. But you missed my point. The signals from four clocks do not arrive simultaneously. The receiving clock only has to be suficiently accurate to measure those smal difference. > The receiver knows the precise orbit of each SV. Aha! Actually not exactly. The clocks are not precisely where they are believed to be.. Orbit ephemerides are calculated on a constant c basis. any orbit eccentricity would result in a small error due to c+v. > (Nominal orbit + received corrections). > So when the receiver knows the GPS-time when the signal was sent, it > also knows the SV's position. So the receiver knows (x,y,z,t) for each > SV. With these data from four SVs the four unknown (x,y,z,t) of the > receiver can be found. > > How the receiver at any time can know the _exact_ time (within very few > ns) when the signal was sent is a rather long story. > > You can find the whole story here: > https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf > > If you really want to learn how the GPS work, I can help you. > > But I don't think you want to learn. Or do you? The point I am making is that the accuracy of the ground clock is not important. So all that bullshit about correcting for claimed time dilation and gravity is totally irrelevant. The main criterion is that all orbiting clocks are in absolute synch, or have known deviations. The GPS system would work without any aspect of Einstein's silly theory.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-25 23:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1196ok4$3v5rj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #673741 |
Den 24.09.2026 23:36, skrev HenryWilson: > On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:44:19 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> Den 23.09.2026 02:38, skrev HenryWilson: >> >>> The watch does not need ultra high accuracy. Its instantaneous readings >>> are subtracted from the emission times of four received signals to >>> produce four distances using constant c. Read this again: >> The speed of the signal from the SVs is not constant. >> The signal passes through the ionosphere which is a plasma. >> The speed of EM-waves in the L-band are slower in a plasma than it is in >> vacuum, so there will be a delay of the signal when it passes through >> the ionosphere. The delay will change with time. To compensate for this >> there is a 'model' of the ionosphere in the receiver. Eight parameters >> in this model describes the current delay in the ionosphere. >> The monitoring stations continuously measure the properties of the >> ionosphere and calculate the eight parameters and upload them to the >> SVs, which in turn send them down to the receiver. The varying delay in >> the ionosphere is the most serious source of error in the GPS, and the >> precision would be very poor without this correction. The speed of an EM-wave in the L-band is NOT constant! It is measured by the monitor stations and the delay is corrected for in the receiver. >> >>> The received signals do not arrive simultaneously but as long as the >>> difference in the watch's time and that of the orbiting clocks is >>> accurately monitored, it can be easily corrected out. The main >>> requirement is that the arrival time DIFFERENCES are recorded >>> accurately and, for that, the watch's rate does not need to be highly >>> precise. Get it? >> >> Your guesses are wrong. >> >> The only data the receiver needs from each SV is the GPS-time when the >> signal it is receiving NOW was sent. Read this again: >> The receiver is tracking the SVs continuously, so at any time it knows >> when the signal it is receiving NOW was sent from the SV. Why is this so hard to understand? > > Of course, It is written in the signal. > But you missed my point. The signals from four clocks do not arrive > simultaneously. The receiving clock only has to be suficiently accurate to > measure those smal difference. Either you don't read what I write, or you have a serious reading comprehension problem. At _any time_ the receiver knows the GPS-time of the SV when the signal was sent. That means that the receiver all the time simultaneously is receiving the signal from 4+ SVs. >> The receiver knows the precise orbit of each SV. > Aha! Actually not exactly. The clocks are not precisely where they are > believed to be.. > Orbit ephemerides are calculated on a constant c basis. any orbit > eccentricity would result in a small error due to c+v. Ralph, the GPS is very complicated and it is impossible to _guess_ how it works. You are guessing horribly wrong! The receiver knows the nominal orbit for all the SVs. The monitor stations are tracking the SVs and know their exact orbits. Ephemerides are uploaded to the SVs so that each SV knows its own orbit. Each SV is downloading corrections to its nominal orbit to the receiver. ** The receiver knows the precise orbit of each SV.** That means that when the receiver knows the GPS-time when signal was sent, it also knows the SV's position when the signal was sent. So the receiver will get the information (xₛ,yₛ,zₛ,tₛ) from each SV. Since the speed of an SV is 3870 m/s, 3ns error in tₛ will only give ~11.6 μm error in the position of the SV, but tₛ must be precise by other reasons. See below. > >> (Nominal orbit + received corrections). >> So when the receiver knows the GPS-time when the signal was sent, it >> also knows the SV's position. So the receiver knows (x,y,z,t) for each >> SV. With these data from four SVs the four unknown (x,y,z,t) of the >> receiver can be found. Did you get it? There are four unknowns to be determined in the receiver, (xᵣ,yᵣ,zᵣ,tᵣ). With four SVs, you get four equations to determine these four unknowns. Solving the equations will give four distances to the SVs. The distance will be (tₛ-tᵣ)⋅c' where c' is the average speed of radio signals in the L-band when it is corrected for the ionospheric delay. This correction may (will) be different for the four SVs. If tₛ is 3 ns wrong, then the distance will be wrong by ~1m. So to keep the precision of the position in the metre range, the reported time from the SVs must be in sync with GPS-time within very few ns. Got it? If the receiver didn't receive the signals from the four SVs simultaneously, and the receiver is moving, you would get four different (xᵣ,yᵣ,zᵣ,tᵣ) to determine, that's 16 unknowns. Hard to do with four equations. >> >> How the receiver at any time can know the _exact_ time (within very few >> ns) when the signal was sent is a rather long story. >> >> You can find the whole story here: >> https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf >> >> If you really want to learn how the GPS work, I can help you. >> >> But I don't think you want to learn. Or do you? > > The point I am making is that the accuracy of the ground clock is not > important. So all that bullshit about correcting for claimed time dilation > and gravity is totally irrelevant. The main criterion is that all orbiting > clocks are in absolute synch, or have known deviations. The GPS system > would work without any aspect of Einstein's silly theory. Well, you don't want to learn, but I will teach you anyway. Your claim: "the accuracy of the ground clock is not important." is plain wrong. There are several "ground clocks", one in each monitor station. These clocks are kept in sync with the master clock and GPS-time. It is the monitor stations which are keeping the reported time from the SVs in sync with GPS-time. If the ground clocks were not synchronous, neither would the SV clocks be. Your statement: "The main criterion is that all orbiting clocks are in absolute synch" is almost right. The reported times from the SVs are kept in sync with GPS-time. They are synchronous in the non-rotating ECI-frame. Didn't you wonder how "all orbiting clocks are kept in absolute synch"? Facts: SI-clock = clock counting seconds as defined by SI. The clocks in the SV's are SI-clocks adjusted down by the factor (1-4.4647e-10). These clocks have then the same rate as SI-clocks on the ground. That's how Nature factually works and would have worked even if Einstein was never born. ------ Let's see how the receiver at any time can know the _exact_ time (within very few ns) when the signal was sent from the SV. The clock in the SV is called "SV clock time" t_SV. This clock is normally not corrected while the SV is in service. Since no clock is infinitely precise, t_SV may be several μs off sync. The GPS-system time is called t. So to get the correct t, we must add a correction Δt_SV. The monitor stations are reading the clocks in all the SVs, and are measuring their offset from GPS-time, their rate error, and the change in the rate error. These data are uploaded to the SVs as a correction polynomial. This polynomial is downloaded to the receiver together with t_SV, and the correction is made in the receiver. See: https://paulba.no/div/GPS_clock_correction.pdf From the Interface Control Document: https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf The SV will send the t_SV and the correction polynomial every 6 minutes. That means that the receiver will get the corrected time t every 6. minutes. But the receiver must at any time know the time t. To explain how that is achieved, we must have a closer look at the signal from the SV. Each SV has a unique pseudo random code (PRN code). This is 1023 bits long, and these bits are continuously sent from the SV. The bits are sent with the frequency 1023 kbps, which means that each PRN code lasts 1 ms. The data bits are modulated on top of this continuous stream of PRN code. The receiver gets the corrected time every 6 minutes, and during the 6 minutes the receiver counts the PRN codes and add 1 ms to the time for each code. Thus the receiver at any time knows the time t for 4+ SVs. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-25 19:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lN6cncV9c-xrtCr3nZ2dnZfqnPVg4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #673765 |
On 09/25/2026 02:22 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 24.09.2026 23:36, skrev HenryWilson: >> On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:44:19 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >>> Den 23.09.2026 02:38, skrev HenryWilson: >>> >>>> The watch does not need ultra high accuracy. Its instantaneous readings >>>> are subtracted from the emission times of four received signals to >>>> produce four distances using constant c. > > Read this again: > >>> The speed of the signal from the SVs is not constant. >>> The signal passes through the ionosphere which is a plasma. >>> The speed of EM-waves in the L-band are slower in a plasma than it is in >>> vacuum, so there will be a delay of the signal when it passes through >>> the ionosphere. The delay will change with time. To compensate for this >>> there is a 'model' of the ionosphere in the receiver. Eight parameters >>> in this model describes the current delay in the ionosphere. >>> The monitoring stations continuously measure the properties of the >>> ionosphere and calculate the eight parameters and upload them to the >>> SVs, which in turn send them down to the receiver. The varying delay in >>> the ionosphere is the most serious source of error in the GPS, and the >>> precision would be very poor without this correction. > > The speed of an EM-wave in the L-band is NOT constant! > It is measured by the monitor stations and the delay is > corrected for in the receiver. > >>> >>>> The received signals do not arrive simultaneously but as long as the >>>> difference in the watch's time and that of the orbiting clocks is >>>> accurately monitored, it can be easily corrected out. The main >>>> requirement is that the arrival time DIFFERENCES are recorded >>>> accurately and, for that, the watch's rate does not need to be highly >>>> precise. Get it? >>> >>> Your guesses are wrong. >>> >>> The only data the receiver needs from each SV is the GPS-time when the >>> signal it is receiving NOW was sent. > > Read this again: > >>> The receiver is tracking the SVs continuously, so at any time it knows >>> when the signal it is receiving NOW was sent from the SV. > > Why is this so hard to understand? > >> >> Of course, It is written in the signal. >> But you missed my point. The signals from four clocks do not arrive >> simultaneously. The receiving clock only has to be suficiently >> accurate to >> measure those smal difference. > > Either you don't read what I write, or you have a serious reading > comprehension problem. > > At _any time_ the receiver knows the GPS-time of the SV when > the signal was sent. > That means that the receiver all the time simultaneously is > receiving the signal from 4+ SVs. > >>> The receiver knows the precise orbit of each SV. > >> Aha! Actually not exactly. The clocks are not precisely where they are >> believed to be.. >> Orbit ephemerides are calculated on a constant c basis. any orbit >> eccentricity would result in a small error due to c+v. > > Ralph, the GPS is very complicated and it is impossible > to _guess_ how it works. You are guessing horribly wrong! > > The receiver knows the nominal orbit for all the SVs. > The monitor stations are tracking the SVs and know their > exact orbits. Ephemerides are uploaded to the SVs so that > each SV knows its own orbit. Each SV is downloading corrections > to its nominal orbit to the receiver. > > ** The receiver knows the precise orbit of each SV.** > > That means that when the receiver knows the GPS-time when signal > was sent, it also knows the SV's position when the signal was sent. > > So the receiver will get the information (xₛ,yₛ,zₛ,tₛ) from each SV. > > Since the speed of an SV is 3870 m/s, 3ns error in tₛ will only > give ~11.6 μm error in the position of the SV, but tₛ must be precise > by other reasons. See below. > >> >>> (Nominal orbit + received corrections). >>> So when the receiver knows the GPS-time when the signal was sent, it >>> also knows the SV's position. So the receiver knows (x,y,z,t) for each >>> SV. With these data from four SVs the four unknown (x,y,z,t) of the >>> receiver can be found. > > Did you get it? > > There are four unknowns to be determined in the receiver, > (xᵣ,yᵣ,zᵣ,tᵣ). With four SVs, you get four equations to determine > these four unknowns. > Solving the equations will give four distances to the SVs. > The distance will be (tₛ-tᵣ)⋅c' where c' is the average speed > of radio signals in the L-band when it is corrected for the > ionospheric delay. > This correction may (will) be different for the four SVs. > If tₛ is 3 ns wrong, then the distance will be wrong by ~1m. > > So to keep the precision of the position in the metre range, > the reported time from the SVs must be in sync with GPS-time > within very few ns. > > Got it? > > If the receiver didn't receive the signals from the four SVs > simultaneously, and the receiver is moving, you would get four > different (xᵣ,yᵣ,zᵣ,tᵣ) to determine, that's 16 unknowns. > Hard to do with four equations. > >>> >>> How the receiver at any time can know the _exact_ time (within very few >>> ns) when the signal was sent is a rather long story. >>> >>> You can find the whole story here: >>> https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf >>> >>> If you really want to learn how the GPS work, I can help you. >>> >>> But I don't think you want to learn. Or do you? > >> >> The point I am making is that the accuracy of the ground clock is not >> important. So all that bullshit about correcting for claimed time >> dilation >> and gravity is totally irrelevant. The main criterion is that all >> orbiting >> clocks are in absolute synch, or have known deviations. The GPS system >> would work without any aspect of Einstein's silly theory. > > Well, you don't want to learn, but I will teach you anyway. > > Your claim: "the accuracy of the ground clock is not important." > is plain wrong. > There are several "ground clocks", one in each monitor station. > These clocks are kept in sync with the master clock and GPS-time. > It is the monitor stations which are keeping the reported time > from the SVs in sync with GPS-time. If the ground clocks were > not synchronous, neither would the SV clocks be. > > Your statement: > "The main criterion is that all orbiting clocks are in absolute synch" > is almost right. The reported times from the SVs are kept in sync with > GPS-time. They are synchronous in the non-rotating ECI-frame. > > Didn't you wonder how "all orbiting clocks are kept in absolute synch"? > > Facts: > SI-clock = clock counting seconds as defined by SI. > The clocks in the SV's are SI-clocks adjusted down by > the factor (1-4.4647e-10). > These clocks have then the same rate as SI-clocks on the ground. > > That's how Nature factually works and would have worked even > if Einstein was never born. > > ------ > > Let's see how the receiver at any time can know the _exact_ > time (within very few ns) when the signal was sent from the SV. > > The clock in the SV is called "SV clock time" t_SV. > This clock is normally not corrected while the SV is in service. > Since no clock is infinitely precise, t_SV may be several μs > off sync. The GPS-system time is called t. > So to get the correct t, we must add a correction Δt_SV. > > The monitor stations are reading the clocks in all the SVs, and > are measuring their offset from GPS-time, their rate error, and > the change in the rate error. These data are uploaded to the SVs > as a correction polynomial. This polynomial is downloaded to > the receiver together with t_SV, and the correction is made in > the receiver. > > See: https://paulba.no/div/GPS_clock_correction.pdf > From the Interface Control Document: > https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf > > The SV will send the t_SV and the correction polynomial every > 6 minutes. That means that the receiver will get the corrected > time t every 6. minutes. > > But the receiver must at any time know the time t. > To explain how that is achieved, we must have a closer look > at the signal from the SV. > > Each SV has a unique pseudo random code (PRN code). This > is 1023 bits long, and these bits are continuously sent > from the SV. The bits are sent with the frequency 1023 kbps, > which means that each PRN code lasts 1 ms. > The data bits are modulated on top of this continuous stream > of PRN code. The receiver gets the corrected time every > 6 minutes, and during the 6 minutes the receiver counts > the PRN codes and add 1 ms to the time for each code. > > Thus the receiver at any time knows the time t for 4+ SVs. > There's a book called "Planetary Electrodynamics" from about four or five decades ago that helps explain the ionosphere and so on. That said, "eight factors" is basically zero fixed parameters. What this means is that satellites are constantly being updated since it's not essentially reliable the otherwise simplistic account of what arrives at the $3 receivers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-26 08:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18d8ca984ab8cdf3$88236$867271$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #673765 |
On 9/25/2026 11:22 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > There are four unknowns to be determined in the receiver, > (xᵣ,yᵣ,zᵣ,tᵣ). With four SVs, you get four equations to determine > these four unknowns. > Solving the equations will give four distances to the SVs. Some idiot has asserted these distances depend on the speed of the receiver, but why would anyone treat the idiot seriously.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-26 05:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <05-dnbYGatCdICr3nZ2dnZfqnPidnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #673771 |
On 09/25/2026 11:20 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > On 9/25/2026 11:22 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> There are four unknowns to be determined in the receiver, >> (xᵣ,yᵣ,zᵣ,tᵣ). With four SVs, you get four equations to determine >> these four unknowns. >> Solving the equations will give four distances to the SVs. > > > Some idiot has asserted these distances > depend on the speed of the receiver, but > why would anyone treat the idiot seriously. > "Accelerations", usually, rather. I don't recall a "Rabbidge", I think it's a ret-con.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-26 12:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <cGxM7vxQsV3JSG73_4tJiCBoJh4@jntp> |
| In reply to | #673771 |
Maciej,
> Some idiot has asserted these distances
> depend on the speed of the receiver
If by "some idiot" you mean special relativity, then
please state the claim correctly.
SR does NOT say:
"The GPS receiver moves faster,
therefore its measured pseudoranges shrink."
It says that spatial distance between separated objects
is frame-dependent because "distance at the same time"
requires a definition of simultaneity.
Suppose the receiver and satellite have some separation
in the Earth-centered frame.
Now ask:
What is their spatial separation at the same time
in the receiver's inertial frame?
You have changed frames.
Therefore you have changed simultaneity.
Therefore the satellite event paired with the receiver
event is generally a DIFFERENT satellite event.
The resulting spatial separation can therefore be different.
That's what length contraction is about.
It is NOT a claim that changing the receiver's velocity
magically changes the distance between a fixed pair of
events.
And it is NOT how an ordinary GPS receiver computes
a pseudorange either.
In GPS we have something quite different:
satellite emits at t_s
receiver receives at t_r
and during the propagation time both the geometry and
the relevant positions evolve.
So before calling somebody an idiot, tell us exactly
which quantity you mean by "these distances":
Earth-frame coordinate distance?
Receiver-frame simultaneous distance?
Satellite-frame simultaneous distance?
Light-travel distance?
GPS pseudorange?
Those are not interchangeable quantities.
And there is also an amusing quantitative problem if
you're talking about ordinary SR length contraction.
GPS velocities are tiny compared with c.
Take generously:
v ~ 4 km/s.
Then:
v/c ~ 1.3 x 10^-5
and:
gamma - 1 ~ (1/2)(v/c)^2
~ 9 x 10^-11.
Even if you NAIVELY applied that Lorentz contraction to
a distance of 20,000 km, the effect would be only about:
20,000 km x 9 x 10^-11
~ 2 millimetres.
Now compare that with the ordinary motion occurring while
the signal is travelling.
Light takes roughly:
20,000 km / c ~ 67 milliseconds
to cover 20,000 km.
During 67 ms, something moving at 4 km/s travels about:
4,000 m/s x 0.067 s
~ 270 metres.
So we have two completely different orders of magnitude:
motion during signal propagation: ~ hundreds of metres
naive Lorentz contraction: ~ millimetres
The first is basically an emission/reception geometry issue.
The second is of order v²/c² and concerns comparison of
spatial separations between inertial frames.
They are not the same phenomenon.
So:
"Some idiot asserted these distances depend
on the speed of the receiver"
isn't sufficiently defined to be either right or wrong.
Distance between WHAT EVENTS?
Measured HOW?
In WHAT frame?
If you mean GPS pseudorange, say GPS pseudorange.
If you mean Lorentz contraction, say Lorentz contraction.
And if you claim that SR predicts some particular
speed-dependent correction to the four distances Paul
was discussing, give us the equation.
Because otherwise you have merely called an unspecified
person an idiot for making an unspecified statement about
an unspecified distance.
One of the best logicians Humanity ever had should probably
specify the nouns before refuting the equation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-26 21:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18d8f415189b18f6$58581$900885$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #673792 |
On 9/26/2026 2:53 PM, Python wrote: > Maciej, > >> Some idiot has asserted these distances >> depend on the speed of the receiver > > If by "some idiot" you mean special relativity, I mean your idiot guru, of course. then > please state the claim correctly. > > SR does NOT say: > > "The GPS receiver moves faster, > therefore its measured pseudoranges shrink." The Shit is mad, but it's not introducing any "pseudoranges", sure. Nobody disputes that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-26 13:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1198b8l$1226v$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #673765 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 24.09.2026 23:36, skrev HenryWilson: >> On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:44:19 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> The speed of the signal from the SVs is not constant. >>> The signal passes through the ionosphere which is a plasma. >>> The speed of EM-waves in the L-band are slower in a plasma than it is in >>> vacuum, so there will be a delay of the signal when it passes through >>> the ionosphere. The delay will change with time. To compensate for this >>> there is a 'model' of the ionosphere in the receiver. Eight parameters >>> in this model describes the current delay in the ionosphere. >>> The monitoring stations continuously measure the properties of the >>> ionosphere and calculate the eight parameters and upload them to the >>> SVs, which in turn send them down to the receiver. The varying delay in >>> the ionosphere is the most serious source of error in the GPS, and the >>> precision would be very poor without this correction. > > The speed of an EM-wave in the L-band is NOT constant! > It is measured by the monitor stations and the delay is > corrected for in the receiver. This is also used to determine the water vapor content and profile of the terrestrial atmosphere for more precise weather forecasts. BTST. <https://www.earthscope.org/what-is/gps/gps-and-water-vapor/> -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-27 00:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d906e7f93e50e3$600$2366380$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #673765 |
On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 23:22:26 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Den 24.09.2026 23:36, skrev HenryWilson: >> On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:44:19 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >>> Den 23.09.2026 02:38, skrev HenryWilson: >>> >>>> The watch does not need ultra high accuracy. Its instantaneous >>>> readings are subtracted from the emission times of four received >>>> signals to produce four distances using constant c. > > Read this again: > >>> The speed of the signal from the SVs is not constant. >>> The signal passes through the ionosphere which is a plasma. >>> The speed of EM-waves in the L-band are slower in a plasma than it is >>> in vacuum, so there will be a delay of the signal when it passes >>> through the ionosphere. The delay will change with time. To compensate >>> for this there is a 'model' of the ionosphere in the receiver. Eight >>> parameters in this model describes the current delay in the >>> ionosphere. >>> The monitoring stations continuously measure the properties of the >>> ionosphere and calculate the eight parameters and upload them to the >>> SVs, which in turn send them down to the receiver. The varying delay >>> in the ionosphere is the most serious source of error in the GPS, and >>> the precision would be very poor without this correction. > > The speed of an EM-wave in the L-band is NOT constant! > It is measured by the monitor stations and the delay is corrected for in > the receiver. That's a different matter...although it is probably a neat way to compensate for c+v without telling anyone. > >>>> The received signals do not arrive simultaneously but as long as the >>>> difference in the watch's time and that of the orbiting clocks is >>>> accurately monitored, it can be easily corrected out. The main >>>> requirement is that the arrival time DIFFERENCES are recorded >>>> accurately and, for that, the watch's rate does not need to be highly >>>> precise. Get it? >>> >>> Your guesses are wrong. >>> >>> The only data the receiver needs from each SV is the GPS-time when the >>> signal it is receiving NOW was sent. > > Read this again: > >>> The receiver is tracking the SVs continuously, so at any time it knows >>> when the signal it is receiving NOW was sent from the SV. What do you mean by 'tracking? It doesn't 'track' the clock. The signal emission time is written into the signal..and the receiving clock needs to be accurate to only about e-9, which crystal oscillators do easily. > Why is this so hard to understand? Why is it so had for you to understand that I do understand and am quite correct in stating that the inclusion of anything Einstein said into the GPS system is totally unnecesary > >> Of course, It is written in the signal. >> But you missed my point. The signals from four clocks do not arrive >> simultaneously. The receiving clock only has to be suficiently accurate >> to measure those smal difference. > > Either you don't read what I write, or you have a serious reading > comprehension problem. > > At _any time_ the receiver knows the GPS-time of the SV when the signal > was sent. > That means that the receiver all the time simultaneously is receiving > the signal from 4+ SVs. > >>> The receiver knows the precise orbit of each SV. > >> Aha! Actually not exactly. The clocks are not precisely where they are >> believed to be.. >> Orbit ephemerides are calculated on a constant c basis. any orbit >> eccentricity would result in a small error due to c+v. > > Ralph, the GPS is very complicated and it is impossible to _guess_ how > it works. You are guessing horribly wrong! The constant c error is correct out by the application of 'relativistic corrections'. > The receiver knows the nominal orbit for all the SVs. It knows where the SV is when it sent the signal, because its position can be determined from that time. Not the estimated time based on the ground clock's reading. That does not have to be excessively accurate. What does have to be precisely known is the relationship between the readings of all the SVs at any absolute instant. > The monitor stations are tracking the SVs and know their exact orbits. > Ephemerides are uploaded to the SVs so that each SV knows its own orbit. > Each SV is downloading corrections to its nominal orbit to the receiver. > > ** The receiver knows the precise orbit of each SV.** It doesn't 'know it'. The time stamp on the arriving signal tells the ground clock where the SV was, relative to the Earth's coordinates. By subtracting the latter from the former the clock can calculate it distance from four clocks and calculate where it is. Again, the main point is, the actual SV clock rate doesn't matter one iota. Including the 'relativivistic correction' is nothing but yet another devious ploy to make Einstein's theory appear to work. > That means that when the receiver knows the GPS-time when signal was > sent, it also knows the SV's position when the signal was sent. > > So the receiver will get the information (xₛ,yₛ,zₛ,tₛ) from each SV. > > Since the speed of an SV is 3870 m/s, 3ns error in tₛ will only give > ~11.6 μm error in the position of the SV, but tₛ must be precise by > other reasons. See below. > > >>> (Nominal orbit + received corrections). >>> So when the receiver knows the GPS-time when the signal was sent, it >>> also knows the SV's position. So the receiver knows (x,y,z,t) for each >>> SV. With these data from four SVs the four unknown (x,y,z,t) of the >>> receiver can be found. > > Did you get it? > > There are four unknowns to be determined in the receiver, (xᵣ,yᵣ,zᵣ,tᵣ). > With four SVs, you get four equations to determine these four unknowns. > Solving the equations will give four distances to the SVs. > The distance will be (tₛ-tᵣ)⋅c' where c' is the average speed of radio > signals in the L-band when it is corrected for the ionospheric delay. > This correction may (will) be different for the four SVs. > If tₛ is 3 ns wrong, then the distance will be wrong by ~1m. > > So to keep the precision of the position in the metre range, > the reported time from the SVs must be in sync with GPS-time within very > few ns. > > Got it? Of course. That's how they maintain absolute synch between all SVs, which is the fundamental requirement. .but my GPS golf wristwatch only has to be roughly accurate because its reading cancels out in the calculations. It locates with accuracy of about a half metre. > If the receiver didn't receive the signals from the four SVs > simultaneously, and the receiver is moving, you would get four different > (xᵣ,yᵣ,zᵣ,tᵣ) to determine, that's 16 unknowns. > Hard to do with four equations. > > >>> How the receiver at any time can know the _exact_ time (within very >>> few ns) when the signal was sent is a rather long story. >>> >>> You can find the whole story here: >>> https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf >>> >>> If you really want to learn how the GPS work, I can help you. >>> >>> But I don't think you want to learn. Or do you? > > >> The point I am making is that the accuracy of the ground clock is not >> important. So all that bullshit about correcting for claimed time >> dilation and gravity is totally irrelevant. The main criterion is that >> all orbiting clocks are in absolute synch, or have known deviations. >> The GPS system would work without any aspect of Einstein's silly >> theory. > > Well, you don't want to learn, but I will teach you anyway. > > Your claim: "the accuracy of the ground clock is not important." > is plain wrong. > There are several "ground clocks", one in each monitor station. > These clocks are kept in sync with the master clock and GPS-time. > It is the monitor stations which are keeping the reported time from the > SVs in sync with GPS-time. If the ground clocks were not synchronous, > neither would the SV clocks be. > > Your statement: > "The main criterion is that all orbiting clocks are in absolute synch" > is almost right. The reported times from the SVs are kept in sync with > GPS-time. They are synchronous in the non-rotating ECI-frame. > > Didn't you wonder how "all orbiting clocks are kept in absolute synch"? I did . I particularly noticed that all signalling is assumed to occur at constant speed. That's how I discovered why the relativistic corrections are necessary. They compensate for that wrong assumption. As pointed out in my book (which every physics student should read), we can live with a constant c universe, along with its incredibly complicated 'relativistic corrections' or a straightforward, easy to understand, variable light speed universe. Only an idiot would chose the former. > Facts: > SI-clock = clock counting seconds as defined by SI. > The clocks in the SV's are SI-clocks adjusted down by the factor > (1-4.4647e-10). > These clocks have then the same rate as SI-clocks on the ground. > > That's how Nature factually works and would have worked even if Einstein > was never born. > > ------ > > Let's see how the receiver at any time can know the _exact_ > time (within very few ns) when the signal was sent from the SV. > > The clock in the SV is called "SV clock time" t_SV. > This clock is normally not corrected while the SV is in service. > Since no clock is infinitely precise, t_SV may be several μs off sync. > The GPS-system time is called t. > So to get the correct t, we must add a correction Δt_SV. > > The monitor stations are reading the clocks in all the SVs, and are > measuring their offset from GPS-time, their rate error, and the change > in the rate error. These data are uploaded to the SVs as a correction > polynomial. This polynomial is downloaded to the receiver together with > t_SV, and the correction is made in the receiver. > > See: https://paulba.no/div/GPS_clock_correction.pdf > From the Interface Control Document: > https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf > > The SV will send the t_SV and the correction polynomial every 6 minutes. > That means that the receiver will get the corrected time t every 6. > minutes. > > But the receiver must at any time know the time t. > To explain how that is achieved, we must have a closer look at the > signal from the SV. > > Each SV has a unique pseudo random code (PRN code). This is 1023 bits > long, and these bits are continuously sent from the SV. The bits are > sent with the frequency 1023 kbps, > which means that each PRN code lasts 1 ms. > The data bits are modulated on top of this continuous stream of PRN > code. The receiver gets the corrected time every 6 minutes, and during > the 6 minutes the receiver counts the PRN codes and add 1 ms to the time > for each code. > > Thus the receiver at any time knows the time t for 4+ SVs.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-27 23:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <119c0dr$1oah4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #673803 |
Den 27.09.2026 02:45, skrev HenryWilson: > On Fri, 25 Sep 2026 23:22:26 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> Den 24.09.2026 23:36, skrev HenryWilson: >>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:44:19 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>> >>>> Den 23.09.2026 02:38, skrev HenryWilson: >>>> >>>>> The watch does not need ultra high accuracy. Its instantaneous >>>>> readings are subtracted from the emission times of four received >>>>> signals to produce four distances using constant c. >> >> Read this again: >> >>>> The speed of the signal from the SVs is not constant. >>>> The signal passes through the ionosphere which is a plasma. >>>> The speed of EM-waves in the L-band are slower in a plasma than it is >>>> in vacuum, so there will be a delay of the signal when it passes >>>> through the ionosphere. The delay will change with time. To compensate >>>> for this there is a 'model' of the ionosphere in the receiver. Eight >>>> parameters in this model describes the current delay in the >>>> ionosphere. >>>> The monitoring stations continuously measure the properties of the >>>> ionosphere and calculate the eight parameters and upload them to the >>>> SVs, which in turn send them down to the receiver. The varying delay >>>> in the ionosphere is the most serious source of error in the GPS, and >>>> the precision would be very poor without this correction. >> >> The speed of an EM-wave in the L-band is NOT constant! >> It is measured by the monitor stations and the delay is corrected for in >> the receiver. > > That's a different matter...although it is probably a neat way to > compensate for c+v without telling anyone. So you didn't read it? **The speed of the signal from the SVs is not constant.** The ionospheric delay varies from a few ns in the night, and to 100ns to 300ns in the day. In extreme geomagnetic storms the delay may be 300ns. If the delay was not compensated for, the distance to satellite would be to long by ~1m in the night and 30m to 100m in the day. If the speed of light was c+v, then the speed of light from a satellite short after it has got above the horizon will be c + v where v = ~1.5 km/s. The distance to the satellite is d = ~25e6 metres, so the extra time to reach the receiver is Δt = d/(c+v) - d/v = -393 ns. This means that c+v would give the distance to the satellite 100m+ shorter than if the speed of light was c. If the speed of light is c+v, then the speed of light from a satellite short before it get below the horizon will be c - v where v = ~1.5 km/s. The distance to the satellite is d = ~25e6 metres, so the extra time to reach the receiver is Δt = d/(c+v) - d/v = +393 ns. This means that c+v would give the distance to the satellite 100m+ longer than if the speed of light was c. Do you not understand what would happen if you have some satellites moving away from you, and some moving towards you? Thanks for demonstrating that the GPS falsifies the emission theory. > >> >>>>> The received signals do not arrive simultaneously but as long as the >>>>> difference in the watch's time and that of the orbiting clocks is >>>>> accurately monitored, it can be easily corrected out. The main >>>>> requirement is that the arrival time DIFFERENCES are recorded >>>>> accurately and, for that, the watch's rate does not need to be highly >>>>> precise. Get it? >>>> >>>> Your guesses are wrong. >>>> >>>> The only data the receiver needs from each SV is the GPS-time when the >>>> signal it is receiving NOW was sent. >> >> Read this again: >> >>>> The receiver is tracking the SVs continuously, so at any time it knows >>>> when the signal it is receiving NOW was sent from the SV. > > What do you mean by 'tracking? It doesn't 'track' the clock. The signal > emission time is written into the signal..and the receiving clock needs to > be accurate to only about e-9, which crystal oscillators do easily. > >> Why is this so hard to understand? > Why is it so had for you to understand that I do understand and am quite > correct in stating that the inclusion of anything Einstein said into the > GPS system is totally unnecesary > >> >>> Of course, It is written in the signal. >>> But you missed my point. The signals from four clocks do not arrive >>> simultaneously. The receiving clock only has to be suficiently accurate >>> to measure those smal difference. >> >> Either you don't read what I write, or you have a serious reading >> comprehension problem. Read this again: >> At _any time_ the receiver knows the GPS-time of the SV when the signal >> was sent. >> That means that the receiver all the time simultaneously is receiving >> the signal from 4+ SVs. >> >>>> The receiver knows the precise orbit of each SV. >> >>> Aha! Actually not exactly. The clocks are not precisely where they are >>> believed to be.. >>> Orbit ephemerides are calculated on a constant c basis. any orbit >>> eccentricity would result in a small error due to c+v. >> >> Ralph, the GPS is very complicated and it is impossible to _guess_ how >> it works. You are guessing horribly wrong! > > The constant c error is correct out by the application of 'relativistic > corrections'. :-D > >> The receiver knows the nominal orbit for all the SVs. > > It knows where the SV is when it sent the signal, because its position can > be determined from that time. Not the estimated time based on the ground > clock's reading. That does not have to be excessively accurate. What does > have to be precisely known is the relationship between the readings of all > the SVs at any absolute instant. > >> The monitor stations are tracking the SVs and know their exact orbits. >> Ephemerides are uploaded to the SVs so that each SV knows its own orbit. >> Each SV is downloading corrections to its nominal orbit to the receiver. >> >> ** The receiver knows the precise orbit of each SV.** > > It doesn't 'know it'. The time stamp on the arriving signal tells the > ground clock where the SV was, relative to the Earth's coordinates. By > subtracting the latter from the former the clock can calculate it distance > from four clocks and calculate where it is. Again, the main point is, the > actual SV clock rate doesn't matter one iota. Including the > 'relativivistic correction' is nothing but yet another devious ploy to > make Einstein's theory appear to work. :-D > >> That means that when the receiver knows the GPS-time when signal was >> sent, it also knows the SV's position when the signal was sent. >> >> So the receiver will get the information (xₛ,yₛ,zₛ,tₛ) from each SV. >> >> Since the speed of an SV is 3870 m/s, 3ns error in tₛ will only give >> ~11.6 μm error in the position of the SV, but tₛ must be precise by >> other reasons. See below. >> >> >>>> (Nominal orbit + received corrections). >>>> So when the receiver knows the GPS-time when the signal was sent, it >>>> also knows the SV's position. So the receiver knows (x,y,z,t) for each >>>> SV. With these data from four SVs the four unknown (x,y,z,t) of the >>>> receiver can be found. >> >> Did you get it? >> >> There are four unknowns to be determined in the receiver, (xᵣ,yᵣ,zᵣ,tᵣ). >> With four SVs, you get four equations to determine these four unknowns. >> Solving the equations will give four distances to the SVs. >> The distance will be (tₛ-tᵣ)⋅c' where c' is the average speed of radio >> signals in the L-band when it is corrected for the ionospheric delay. >> This correction may (will) be different for the four SVs. >> If tₛ is 3 ns wrong, then the distance will be wrong by ~1m. >> >> So to keep the precision of the position in the metre range, >> the reported time from the SVs must be in sync with GPS-time within very >> few ns. >> >> Got it? > > Of course. That's how they maintain absolute synch between all SVs, which > is the fundamental requirement. .but my GPS golf wristwatch only has to be > roughly accurate because its reading cancels out in the calculations. It > locates with accuracy of about a half metre. > >> If the receiver didn't receive the signals from the four SVs >> simultaneously, and the receiver is moving, you would get four different >> (xᵣ,yᵣ,zᵣ,tᵣ) to determine, that's 16 unknowns. >> Hard to do with four equations. >> >> >>>> How the receiver at any time can know the _exact_ time (within very >>>> few ns) when the signal was sent is a rather long story. >>>> >>>> You can find the whole story here: >>>> https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf >>>> >>>> If you really want to learn how the GPS work, I can help you. >>>> >>>> But I don't think you want to learn. Or do you? >> >> >>> The point I am making is that the accuracy of the ground clock is not >>> important. So all that bullshit about correcting for claimed time >>> dilation and gravity is totally irrelevant. The main criterion is that >>> all orbiting clocks are in absolute synch, or have known deviations. >>> The GPS system would work without any aspect of Einstein's silly >>> theory. >> >> Well, you don't want to learn, but I will teach you anyway. >> >> Your claim: "the accuracy of the ground clock is not important." >> is plain wrong. >> There are several "ground clocks", one in each monitor station. >> These clocks are kept in sync with the master clock and GPS-time. >> It is the monitor stations which are keeping the reported time from the >> SVs in sync with GPS-time. If the ground clocks were not synchronous, >> neither would the SV clocks be. >> >> Your statement: >> "The main criterion is that all orbiting clocks are in absolute synch" >> is almost right. The reported times from the SVs are kept in sync with >> GPS-time. They are synchronous in the non-rotating ECI-frame. >> >> Didn't you wonder how "all orbiting clocks are kept in absolute synch"? > > I did . I particularly noticed that all signalling is assumed to occur at > constant speed. :-D > That's how I discovered why the relativistic corrections > are necessary. They compensate for that wrong assumption. As pointed out > in my book (which every physics student should read), we can live with a > constant c universe, along with its incredibly complicated 'relativistic > corrections' or a straightforward, easy to understand, variable light > speed universe. Only an idiot would chose the former. :-D > >> Facts: >> SI-clock = clock counting seconds as defined by SI. >> The clocks in the SV's are SI-clocks adjusted down by the factor >> (1-4.4647e-10). >> These clocks have then the same rate as SI-clocks on the ground. >> >> That's how Nature factually works and would have worked even if Einstein >> was never born. >> >> ------ >> >> Let's see how the receiver at any time can know the _exact_ >> time (within very few ns) when the signal was sent from the SV. >> >> The clock in the SV is called "SV clock time" t_SV. >> This clock is normally not corrected while the SV is in service. >> Since no clock is infinitely precise, t_SV may be several μs off sync. >> The GPS-system time is called t. >> So to get the correct t, we must add a correction Δt_SV. >> >> The monitor stations are reading the clocks in all the SVs, and are >> measuring their offset from GPS-time, their rate error, and the change >> in the rate error. These data are uploaded to the SVs as a correction >> polynomial. This polynomial is downloaded to the receiver together with >> t_SV, and the correction is made in the receiver. >> >> See: https://paulba.no/div/GPS_clock_correction.pdf >> From the Interface Control Document: >> https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf >> >> The SV will send the t_SV and the correction polynomial every 6 minutes. >> That means that the receiver will get the corrected time t every 6. >> minutes. >> >> But the receiver must at any time know the time t. >> To explain how that is achieved, we must have a closer look at the >> signal from the SV. >> >> Each SV has a unique pseudo random code (PRN code). This is 1023 bits >> long, and these bits are continuously sent from the SV. The bits are >> sent with the frequency 1023 kbps, >> which means that each PRN code lasts 1 ms. >> The data bits are modulated on top of this continuous stream of PRN >> code. The receiver gets the corrected time every 6 minutes, and during >> the 6 minutes the receiver counts the PRN codes and add 1 ms to the time >> for each code. >> >> Thus the receiver at any time knows the time t for 4+ SVs. > You have still have no idea of how the GPS works, and you will never learn. Case closed. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-24 18:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <1193ku6$kk5h$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #673613 |
HenryWilson wrote: > On Tue, 22 Sep 26 09:17:14 +0000, Python wrote: >>> The system was not running yet. >> >> Irrelevant. >> >> GPS did not need to be operational for an atomic clock aboard NTS-2 to >> tick. >> >> That's the nice thing about an accusation of experimental fraud: >> >> eventually you have to explain the fraud. >> >> So explain it. >> >> How was an UNCOMPENSATED cesium clock engineered to fake the effect of >> the compensation that had deliberately been left OFF? >> >> One mechanism will do. > > The rate of the clocks is unimportant. what matters is that they are > all in absolute synch with each other. The readings of the ground > clocks cancel out in the algorithms. My $80 GPS wristwatch doesn't > contain any Cs atoms. You do not know what you are talking about. The NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 test satellite had an unmodified Cs-133-based atomic clock aboard (and a frequency synthesizer to modify its output, should it become necessary). After a few days in orbit, *without* the frequency synthesizer, it was _ahead_ of the ground clocks, almost precisely as general relativity had predicted. Read the report: <https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA058591.pdf> -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-24 19:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18d850bf3ba0c2f8$78869$867271$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #673728 |
On 9/24/2026 6:59 PM, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > HenryWilson wrote: >> On Tue, 22 Sep 26 09:17:14 +0000, Python wrote: >>>> The system was not running yet. >>> >>> Irrelevant. >>> >>> GPS did not need to be operational for an atomic clock aboard NTS-2 to >>> tick. >>> >>> That's the nice thing about an accusation of experimental fraud: >>> >>> eventually you have to explain the fraud. >>> >>> So explain it. >>> >>> How was an UNCOMPENSATED cesium clock engineered to fake the effect of >>> the compensation that had deliberately been left OFF? >>> >>> One mechanism will do. >> >> The rate of the clocks is unimportant. what matters is that they are >> all in absolute synch with each other. The readings of the ground >> clocks cancel out in the algorithms. My $80 GPS wristwatch doesn't >> contain any Cs atoms. > You do not know what you are talking about. The NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 test > satellite had an unmodified Cs-133-based atomic clock aboard (and a > frequency synthesizer to modify its output, should it become necessary). > After a few days in orbit, *without* the frequency synthesizer, it was > _ahead_ of the ground clocks, almost precisely as general relativity had > predicted. Read the report: And in the meantime in the real world - forbidden by your insane church improper clocks keep measuring improper t=t' in improper seconds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-24 21:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d85fac276a1fe3$7039$2272267$4296dcc3@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #673728 |
On Thu, 24 Sep 2026 18:59:48 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > HenryWilson wrote: >> On Tue, 22 Sep 26 09:17:14 +0000, Python wrote: >>>> The system was not running yet. >>> >>> Irrelevant. >>> >>> GPS did not need to be operational for an atomic clock aboard NTS-2 to >>> tick. >>> >>> That's the nice thing about an accusation of experimental fraud: >>> >>> eventually you have to explain the fraud. >>> >>> So explain it. >>> >>> How was an UNCOMPENSATED cesium clock engineered to fake the effect of >>> the compensation that had deliberately been left OFF? >>> >>> One mechanism will do. >> >> The rate of the clocks is unimportant. what matters is that they are >> all in absolute synch with each other. The readings of the ground >> clocks cancel out in the algorithms. My $80 GPS wristwatch doesn't >> contain any Cs atoms. > You do not know what you are talking about. The NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 test > satellite had an unmodified Cs-133-based atomic clock aboard (and a > frequency synthesizer to modify its output, should it become necessary). > After a few days in orbit, *without* the frequency synthesizer, it was > _ahead_ of the ground clocks, almost precisely as general relativity had > predicted. Read the report: > > <https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA058591.pdf> So what? Anything sent into free fall will change slightly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-24 23:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11945pj$l6ik$2@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #673742 |
HenryWilson wrote: > On Thu, 24 Sep 2026 18:59:48 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> HenryWilson wrote: >>> On Tue, 22 Sep 26 09:17:14 +0000, Python wrote: >>>> How was an UNCOMPENSATED cesium clock engineered to fake the effect of >>>> the compensation that had deliberately been left OFF? >>>> >>>> One mechanism will do. >>> >>> The rate of the clocks is unimportant. what matters is that they are >>> all in absolute synch with each other. The readings of the ground >>> clocks cancel out in the algorithms. My $80 GPS wristwatch doesn't >>> contain any Cs atoms. >> You do not know what you are talking about. The NAVSTAR GPS NTS-2 test >> satellite had an unmodified Cs-133-based atomic clock aboard (and a >> frequency synthesizer to modify its output, should it become necessary). >> After a few days in orbit, *without* the frequency synthesizer, it was >> _ahead_ of the ground clocks, almost precisely as general relativity had >> predicted. Read the report: >> >> <https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/ADA058591.pdf> > > So what? Anything sent into free fall will change slightly. How did you get that idea? And BTW, the ground clock in that test was an _atomic_ clock, too. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-09-21 19:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18d76bb316ae6279$16921$1665202$4246dc13@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #673487 |
On Mon, 21 Sep 26 11:27:32 +0000, Python wrote: >> According to The Shit, between e1 and e2 a clock on a GPS satellite >> should elapse 24hr+38us. >> >> But it doesn't. It's 24h with a good precision. > > Maciej, you have finally provided your experiment. > > And unfortunately it destroys your argument. > > The +38 us/day prediction is for the RATE DIFFERENCE produced by putting > the clock in GPS orbit. 38us/day just happens to be exactly fractionally equivalent to the speed increase of a falling GPS clock signal. Quite a coincidence, wouldn't you agree. > But an operational GPS satellite clock is deliberately adjusted to > compensate for that rate difference. > > This isn't something physicists invented afterwards because "The Wrong > Clock Ticketh". > > It is literally in the GPS engineering specification. > > The satellite frequency standard is offset by > > df/f = -4.4647e-10 > > to compensate for relativistic effects. > > For the traditional 10.23 MHz source this corresponds to about > > 10.22999999543 MHz > > on board. > > Then Nature applies the orbital relativistic effect. > > Result: > > deliberately slow clock > + relativistic rate difference -------------------------------- > approximately GPS coordinate rate. > > And you observe: > > 24 h. > > YES. > > THAT IS WHAT THE SYSTEM WAS ENGINEERED TO DO. > > > Your argument is therefore: > > 1. Relativity predicts +38 us/day. > > 2. Engineers deliberately offset the oscillator to compensate > for the predicted relativistic rate difference. > > 3. The compensated clock stays close to GPS time. > > 4. Therefore relativity predicted +38 us/day and Nature > measured zero. > > No. > > You measured the compensation working. > > > Nobody needs to scream: > > "THIS IS NOT A PROPER CLOCK!!!!" > > It is a perfectly real atomic clock. > > Its RATE HAS BEEN DELIBERATELY OFFSET. > > > And this is wonderfully testable. > > Your explanation says the relativistic correction is unnecessary. > > So take an otherwise equivalent uncompensated atomic frequency standard, > put it into the GPS orbit, and compare its accumulated time with the > terrestrial reference. > > Your prediction: apparently no +38 us/day. > > Relativity: approximately +38 us/day. > > THAT would be the experiment. > > > You spent several posts accusing the whole history of physics of fraud. > > It turns out your first concrete example of the fraud was an engineering > correction explicitly printed in the GPS specification. > > Nature did vote, Maciej. > > You accidentally counted the compensation as her ballot.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 16 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web