Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #674030 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2026-10-01 15:10 +0000 |
| Last post | 2026-10-09 13:07 +0200 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 275 — 17 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-01 15:10 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-01 17:33 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-01 15:36 +0000
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-01 16:01 +0000
Re: Job interview Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-01 10:02 -0700
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-01 19:22 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-01 21:09 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 06:32 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 10:27 +0000
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-02 11:21 +0000
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 11:27 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 13:33 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 11:41 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 13:53 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 11:57 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 14:14 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 12:17 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 14:27 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 12:35 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 15:39 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 13:45 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 16:19 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 14:25 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 16:41 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 14:45 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 17:07 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 15:14 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 17:28 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 15:32 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-02 18:04 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 16:14 +0000
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-02 16:14 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 15:40 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 13:43 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 18:09 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 16:15 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 18:30 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 16:33 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 18:49 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 16:51 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 19:04 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-04 10:54 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-04 13:10 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-04 11:19 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-04 16:12 +0200
Re: Job interview nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-10-02 14:09 +0200
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-02 23:47 +0200
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 06:40 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 10:04 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 12:46 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 10:56 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 13:04 +0200
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-03 11:11 +0000
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-03 12:51 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-03 19:48 +0000
Re: Job interview Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-04 10:57 +0000
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-06 20:21 +0000
Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-07 20:18 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-07 12:03 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-08 07:07 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-07 23:03 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-08 10:32 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-08 10:46 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-08 16:34 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation (was: Job interview) HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-09 10:18 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-09 13:14 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-09 06:42 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 10:24 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-13 14:36 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-13 18:31 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 17:52 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-13 17:58 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-13 20:10 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-13 21:05 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-13 23:30 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Randell Frukalov <rada@ovled.ru> - 2026-10-13 22:07 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-13 15:36 -0700
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 10:44 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 16:34 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 14:51 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 17:29 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 15:31 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 17:37 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 15:48 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 18:04 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 16:19 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 18:29 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 16:34 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 18:51 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 16:53 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-14 19:06 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-14 22:19 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 07:05 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 09:29 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 11:51 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 10:07 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 12:23 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 10:27 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 12:40 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 10:44 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 12:52 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 10:54 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 13:01 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 11:01 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 13:04 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 11:06 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 13:11 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 11:21 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 15:14 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 13:17 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 15:27 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 13:29 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 15:39 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 13:56 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:09 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:12 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:20 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:22 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:27 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:28 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:37 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:39 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:41 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:42 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 16:54 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 14:56 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 17:15 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 15:25 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 17:36 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 15:40 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 17:45 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 15:51 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 17:58 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 15:59 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:05 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:08 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:13 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:14 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:20 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:26 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:28 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:31 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:41 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:43 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:48 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Python <python@cccp.invalid> - 2026-10-15 16:50 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-15 18:52 +0200
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Faith Lihobaba <tbla@oiia.ru> - 2026-10-15 18:11 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 08:43 +0000
Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-13 17:09 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-03 18:44 +0000
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-04 22:07 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-06 12:23 +0000
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-07 02:10 +0200
Re: Job interview Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-07 07:13 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-07 23:25 +0000
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-08 21:11 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-10 18:42 +0000
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-11 20:18 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 18:34 +0000
Re: Job interview "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-07 02:16 +0200
Re: Job interview HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-07 23:35 +0000
Newton and the speed of light (was: Job interview) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-06 07:45 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light (was: Job interview) Voil Babloev <ivolbe@lba.ru> - 2026-10-06 16:38 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 09:50 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 10:13 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Terence Holopov <vne@llr.ru> - 2026-10-06 17:42 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-06 11:25 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-07 02:13 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-07 10:35 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-07 21:54 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 07:45 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-13 10:50 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 09:51 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-13 16:38 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 16:25 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 09:45 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 07:34 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-14 18:03 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 08:47 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-19 02:12 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:25 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:28 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:30 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:31 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:36 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 15:30 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Manish Babadjanov <baam@ahbo.ru> - 2026-10-19 22:48 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-20 01:20 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-19 21:14 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-20 12:39 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-21 02:00 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 13:18 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 13:22 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-20 10:35 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-21 02:45 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-21 03:26 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-21 20:36 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-29 02:23 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 21:24 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-28 22:23 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-29 15:31 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-29 16:31 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-21 13:47 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-23 17:42 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-23 13:21 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-24 16:47 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-24 11:15 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 14:32 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 01:29 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2026-10-31 21:32 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 04:35 +0000
Electrons and photons (was: Newton and the speed of light) Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 07:57 +0100
Re: Electrons and photons Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 07:27 -0800
Re: Electrons and photons Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 08:42 -0800
Re: Electrons and photons HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 18:50 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 21:36 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 04:28 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 21:42 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 18:53 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 11:13 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-11-01 14:47 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 08:54 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 08:55 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2026-11-01 21:20 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Cletus Rustamov <ltr@meatcelu.ru> - 2026-11-01 18:18 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Blaine <cactus_DAC@yahoo.com> - 2026-11-01 14:45 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-29 15:16 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 13:45 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 13:54 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 13:57 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 14:07 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 14:09 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 14:13 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 01:16 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 21:26 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 05:02 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 08:19 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 10:14 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 01:13 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-11-01 01:09 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-31 21:22 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-11-01 04:56 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-11-01 07:00 -0800
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-13 16:36 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-13 09:46 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 07:26 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-14 18:57 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-14 19:21 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-14 19:14 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Broderick Balarev <brdob@rdar.ru> - 2026-10-14 18:35 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 07:25 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-16 07:48 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-19 01:33 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-20 10:37 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-21 02:46 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-23 17:44 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-25 16:15 +0100
Re: Newton and the speed of light Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2026-10-25 10:07 -0700
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-27 10:16 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-27 10:10 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-08 03:56 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-07 20:27 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-07 22:15 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-08 06:56 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2026-10-08 10:58 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-08 13:03 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-09 08:03 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2026-10-08 07:09 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light (was: Job interview) HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-06 13:12 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-06 17:21 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-06 20:05 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-07 20:06 +0200
Re: Newton and the speed of light HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> - 2026-10-09 08:44 +0000
Re: Newton and the speed of light Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2026-10-09 13:07 +0200
Page 8 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 14 Next page →
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-15 18:28 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation |
| Message-ID | <18dec0d438a1d61b$5604$1970418$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #674496 |
On 10/15/2026 6:26 PM, Python wrote: > Le 15/10/2026 à 18:20, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 10/15/2026 6:14 PM, Python wrote: >>> Yet: >>> >>> relativity BEFORE launch: +446.5 x 10^-12 >> >> Of your time dilation delusion, >> falsified by the measurement giving 0. >> >> >> >>> measurement in orbit: +442.5 x 10^-12 >> >> Of the clock error, The Shit's prediction - 0, >> falsified. > > > This is now pure word magic. > > Relativity predicted: > > +446.5 x 10^-12 Of your time dilation delusion. The measured value - 0. Falsified. > > They put the clock in orbit and measured: > > +442.5 x 10^-12 Of the clock error, The Shit's prediction - 0, falsified. > > You rename the measured quantity "clock error" and declare that > relativity measured 0. Oppositely. YOU rename it and declare The Shit to be confirmed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-15 16:31 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation |
| Message-ID | <G6ZOA-F4tPEFvvc_HDK5HjuSufE@jntp> |
| In reply to | #674497 |
Le 15/10/2026 à 18:28, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
> On 10/15/2026 6:26 PM, Python wrote:
>> Le 15/10/2026 à 18:20, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>> On 10/15/2026 6:14 PM, Python wrote:
>>>> Yet:
>>>>
>>>> relativity BEFORE launch: +446.5 x 10^-12
>>>
>>> Of your time dilation delusion,
>>> falsified by the measurement giving 0.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> measurement in orbit: +442.5 x 10^-12
>>>
>>> Of the clock error, The Shit's prediction - 0,
>>> falsified.
>>
>>
>> This is now pure word magic.
>>
>> Relativity predicted:
>>
>> +446.5 x 10^-12
>
> Of your time dilation delusion. The measured
> value - 0. Falsified.
>
>
>
>>
>> They put the clock in orbit and measured:
>>
>> +442.5 x 10^-12
>
> Of the clock error, The Shit's prediction - 0,
> falsified.
>
>>
>> You rename the measured quantity "clock error" and declare that
>> relativity measured 0.
>
> Oppositely. YOU rename it and declare
> The Shit to be confirmed.
No renaming is needed.
Before launch, relativity calculated a fractional frequency shift:
+446.5 x 10^-12
With the correction disabled, NTS-2 measured a fractional frequency
shift:
+442.5 x 10^-12
Same observable. Same sign. Agreement ~1%.
You call the first "time dilation" and the second "clock error" solely
because admitting they are the same measured frequency shift ends your
argument.
Physics doesn't care what labels you need.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-15 18:41 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation |
| Message-ID | <18dec18815f88c5c$7073$1958670$c2365abb@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #674498 |
On 10/15/2026 6:31 PM, Python wrote: > Le 15/10/2026 à 18:28, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 10/15/2026 6:26 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 15/10/2026 à 18:20, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 10/15/2026 6:14 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Yet: >>>>> >>>>> relativity BEFORE launch: +446.5 x 10^-12 >>>> >>>> Of your time dilation delusion, >>>> falsified by the measurement giving 0. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> measurement in orbit: +442.5 x 10^-12 >>>> >>>> Of the clock error, The Shit's prediction - 0, >>>> falsified. >>> >>> >>> This is now pure word magic. >>> >>> Relativity predicted: >>> >>> +446.5 x 10^-12 >> >> Of your time dilation delusion. The measured >> value - 0. Falsified. >> >> >> >>> >>> They put the clock in orbit and measured: >>> >>> +442.5 x 10^-12 >> >> Of the clock error, The Shit's prediction - 0, >> falsified. >> >>> >>> You rename the measured quantity "clock error" and declare that >>> relativity measured 0. >> >> Oppositely. YOU rename it and declare >> The Shit to be confirmed. > > > No renaming is needed. > > Before launch, relativity calculated a fractional frequency shift: > > +446.5 x 10^-12 AND your time dilation delusion. The same. AND the clock error. 0 > > With the correction disabled, NTS-2 measured a fractional frequency > shift: > +442.5 x 10^-12 Sure. > > Same observable. Same sign. Agreement ~1%. A pity that it was really a clock error to compensate, not your time dilation idiocy. The difference indeed may be subtle, but there is no doubt.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-15 16:43 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation |
| Message-ID | <y1wJ5L8HLAgMmnxM1z21tHX9qsQ@jntp> |
| In reply to | #674499 |
Le 15/10/2026 à 18:41, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
> On 10/15/2026 6:31 PM, Python wrote:
>> Le 15/10/2026 à 18:28, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>> On 10/15/2026 6:26 PM, Python wrote:
>>>> Le 15/10/2026 à 18:20, Maciej Woźniak a écrit :
>>>>> On 10/15/2026 6:14 PM, Python wrote:
>>>>>> Yet:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> relativity BEFORE launch: +446.5 x 10^-12
>>>>>
>>>>> Of your time dilation delusion,
>>>>> falsified by the measurement giving 0.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> measurement in orbit: +442.5 x 10^-12
>>>>>
>>>>> Of the clock error, The Shit's prediction - 0,
>>>>> falsified.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is now pure word magic.
>>>>
>>>> Relativity predicted:
>>>>
>>>> +446.5 x 10^-12
>>>
>>> Of your time dilation delusion. The measured
>>> value - 0. Falsified.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> They put the clock in orbit and measured:
>>>>
>>>> +442.5 x 10^-12
>>>
>>> Of the clock error, The Shit's prediction - 0,
>>> falsified.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You rename the measured quantity "clock error" and declare that
>>>> relativity measured 0.
>>>
>>> Oppositely. YOU rename it and declare
>>> The Shit to be confirmed.
>>
>>
>> No renaming is needed.
>>
>> Before launch, relativity calculated a fractional frequency shift:
>>
>> +446.5 x 10^-12
>
> AND your time dilation delusion. The same.
> AND the clock error. 0
>
>>
>> With the correction disabled, NTS-2 measured a fractional frequency
>> shift:
>> +442.5 x 10^-12
>
> Sure.
>
>>
>> Same observable. Same sign. Agreement ~1%.
>
> A pity that it was really a clock error to
> compensate, not your time dilation idiocy.
> The difference indeed may be subtle, but
> there is no doubt.
And, by the most astonishing coincidence in experimental physics:
predicted relativistic shift: 446.5
your "clock error": 442.5
x 10^-12.
You can call it a banana if that helps.
Relativity predicted the banana before launch.
Your t'=t predicted no banana at all.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-15 18:48 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation |
| Message-ID | <18dec1ec053dae2b$6435$1964278$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #674500 |
On 10/15/2026 6:43 PM, Python wrote: > Le 15/10/2026 à 18:41, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >> On 10/15/2026 6:31 PM, Python wrote: >>> Le 15/10/2026 à 18:28, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>> On 10/15/2026 6:26 PM, Python wrote: >>>>> Le 15/10/2026 à 18:20, Maciej Woźniak a écrit : >>>>>> On 10/15/2026 6:14 PM, Python wrote: >>>>>>> Yet: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> relativity BEFORE launch: +446.5 x 10^-12 >>>>>> >>>>>> Of your time dilation delusion, >>>>>> falsified by the measurement giving 0. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> measurement in orbit: +442.5 x 10^-12 >>>>>> >>>>>> Of the clock error, The Shit's prediction - 0, >>>>>> falsified. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This is now pure word magic. >>>>> >>>>> Relativity predicted: >>>>> >>>>> +446.5 x 10^-12 >>>> >>>> Of your time dilation delusion. The measured >>>> value - 0. Falsified. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> They put the clock in orbit and measured: >>>>> >>>>> +442.5 x 10^-12 >>>> >>>> Of the clock error, The Shit's prediction - 0, >>>> falsified. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> You rename the measured quantity "clock error" and declare that >>>>> relativity measured 0. >>>> >>>> Oppositely. YOU rename it and declare >>>> The Shit to be confirmed. >>> >>> >>> No renaming is needed. >>> >>> Before launch, relativity calculated a fractional frequency shift: >>> >>> +446.5 x 10^-12 >> >> AND your time dilation delusion. The same. >> AND the clock error. 0 >> >>> >>> With the correction disabled, NTS-2 measured a fractional frequency >>> shift: >>> +442.5 x 10^-12 >> >> Sure. >> >>> >>> Same observable. Same sign. Agreement ~1%. >> >> A pity that it was really a clock error to >> compensate, not your time dilation idiocy. >> The difference indeed may be subtle, but >> there is no doubt. > > And, by the most astonishing coincidence in experimental physics: > > predicted relativistic shift: 446.5 Of your time dilation idiocy. Measured value: 0. Falsified. > your "clock error": 442.5 The Shit's prediction: 0. Falsified. > > x 10^-12. > > You can call it a banana if that helps. Maybe in your moronic physics. In the reality sane people must care about what words they use and how. > Relativity predicted the banana before launch. A lie, of course, like always, your mad Shit has predicted no clock error for this case.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Python <python@cccp.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-15 16:50 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation |
| Message-ID | <V0rOb1lArYnzGLKaBvfS_RHcdJ8@jntp> |
| In reply to | #674501 |
Maciej,
This is becoming wonderfully simple.
BEFORE launch:
relativity: +446.5 x 10^-12
IN orbit, correction OFF:
clock: +442.5 x 10^-12
Maciej:
"Different things because I call the second one an ERROR!"
No, Maciej. A label is not an observable.
The observable was the fractional frequency shift.
It was predicted.
Then it was measured.
To ~1%.
You have finally reduced your refutation of relativity to changing the
noun after seeing the number.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-15 18:52 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation |
| Message-ID | <18dec227becb1095$6436$1964278$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #674502 |
On 10/15/2026 6:50 PM, Python wrote: > Maciej, > > This is becoming wonderfully simple. > > BEFORE launch: > > relativity: +446.5 x 10^-12 Of your time dilation idiocy. Measured value - 0. Falsified. > > IN orbit, correction OFF: > > clock: +442.5 x 10^-12 Cure, a clock error. The Shit's prediction - 0. Falsified.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Faith Lihobaba <tbla@oiia.ru> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-15 18:11 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation |
| Message-ID | <11ar50l$24lr2$1@news.nntp4.net> |
| In reply to | #674503 |
Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> This is becoming wonderfully simple. >> >> BEFORE launch: >> >> relativity: +446.5 x 10^-12 > > Of your time dilation idiocy. Measured value - 0. > Falsified. you never mesure time, idiot, you register. Time is a dimension used to measure everything else; you are so stupid i cant believe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-16 08:43 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation |
| Message-ID | <18def60b5d86fd49$3077$2656352$4056de03@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #674393 |
On Tue, 13 Oct 26 17:58:24 +0000, Python wrote: > Ralph, > >> I prefer to remain in the real world with good old Newton, who is >> always right and much simpler. > > The problem is that every time we ask your "much simpler" physics to > calculate something, it stops being physics and becomes prose. > > GPS clock shift? "Gravitational self compression." A vertical steel rod will extend by several parts 10000000 if sent into orbit. Work it out if you can. > Magnetism? "Some unknown and very powerful mechanism." Ok tell me what pushes a conductor carrying a current SIDEWAYS in a magnetic field. Explain the PHYSICS behind the left and right hand rules. The maths are simple, just pull out the vector cross product, which of course is just a convenient convention... but it does not explain the physics. What pushes two bar magnets together? Not equations. Can you see any forces...NO because they involve unknown and unimaginable dimensions.Physics is not mathematics. Physics is about concepts, Mathematicians have cashed in on the discoveries. > Fields? "Dimensions that humans know nothing about." > > Free fall? The accelerometer doesn't count because you prefer the radar. You are proably ny more informed than 1905 Einstein, when an 'accelerometer' was a mass hanging on a spring. They are still used for detecting things like earthquakes and underground atomic bomb explosions...but a sky diver needs something more sophisticated. > > And when an actual theory gives quantitative predictions, it becomes > "academic bullshit". .yes...like the 'frequency of light'. > Newton deserves considerably better advocates. > > Physics consists in constructing models that make quantitative, > falsifiable predictions. "There must be some unknown mechanism in some > unknown dimension" is not simpler physics. No that's what all the lackeys do. Physics is about thinking up something new.simething that might be worth investigating. For instance when a charge is moved by a field, the 'back emf' reduces the field. So...when an object falls under gravity, does it somehow reduce the local gravity field? .my book is full of such sensational questions. > It isn't physics yet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 17:09 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: Newton's theories of light and gravitation |
| Message-ID | <11alhjp$2nq98$1@gwaiyur.mb-net.net> |
| In reply to | #674374 |
HenryWilson wrote: > On Fri, 9 Oct 2026 13:14:05 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> HenryWilson wrote: >>> On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 20:18:12 +0200, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >>>> HenryWilson wrote: >>>>> It is surprising how often the two theories produce the same number >>>>> but in different ways and with different interpretations... >>>> >>>> And yet the Newtonian interpretation is literally wrong by 100 % >>>> (twice as much as is observed) when it comes to the deflection of >>>> starlight passing by close to the Sun, as Eddington et al. showed >>>> first in 1919 (as predicted by Einstein in 1916). >>> >>> That (and their failure to explain >>>> the outcome of Young's double-slit experiment, and the anomalous >>>> precession of the perihelion of Mercury, among other things) is how we >>>> /know/ that Newton's theories of light and gravitation are _both_ >>>> wrong, >>>> and his theory of gravitation is only a good approximation in special >>>> situations. >>> >>> Eddington's result was a joke... >> >> It was not. And his observations have been confirmed with greater >> precision by newer observations multiple times. > > He only managed to get one photo. False. <https://zenodo.org/records/1432106>, page 300 (Does it not bother you to be so easily disproved all the time?) >>> and Mercury's precession has no fixed value. >> You are not making sense. Precession is an effect, not a quantity. > > The RATE OF precession was the issue. The rate of the precession _of the perihelion_ of Mercury's _orbit_. > Th argument was over its quantity. You don't know what you are talking about. > why don't you learn something about your own stupid theory? It is not my theory; and it is not stupid, because it _works_. >>> It isn't hard to end up with an incorrect factor of 2 in scientific >>> calculations even when you use a calculator. >> False. > > How would you know . You have never made one. False again. >> We are not talking about gravity waves, and in Newton's theory of >> gravitation there are no gravitational waves because in his theory >> gravitation is an effect due to a force that is acting instantaneously >> at a distance. > > Just like the one that pulls two bar magnets together from a distance.. That one also does NOT act instantaneously, which is why light is an electromagnetic wave. If only you would consider the references that you are given... > I cannot see any 'curved spacetiime' explaining that... Because it is not necessary. Classical and quantum electrodynamics suffice. -- PointedEars Twitter: @PointedEars2 Please do not cc me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-03 18:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18db1949f6dfc753$11316$16561$4256dc03@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #674117 |
On Fri, 2 Oct 2026 23:47:11 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 02.10.2026 13:21, skrev HenryWilson:
>>
>> Everybody knows that the clocks are continually monitored and software
>> adjusted to keep them all close to absolute synch. Their actual rates
>> do not matter so long as it is reasonably close to that of the ground
>> clocks.
>
> Lets see how it is in the real world as opposed to your fantasy.
>
> 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.
>
> Read this article!
> 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.
>
> The a_f0 parameter is the clock offset, that is the error of the
> SV-clock t_SV.
> According to Table 20-I in the Interface Control Document is this
> parameter stored in a 22 bits register where the LSB = 2^{-31}s.
> The format is 2-complement, so the largest value of this parameter is ±
> 2^{21}*2^{-31}s = ± 0.000976s ≈ ± 1ms.
> That means that if t_SV is wrong by more that 1 ms, a_f0 will overflow
> and it will be impossible to sync the corrected time t.
>
> If the rate of the clock was not corrected by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
> then the error of the SV-clock would be > 1ms after 26 days.
> The fact is that the SV-clock is running for years without correction.
I heard the figure was 5.3e-10 after the supposed velocity correction 7us/
d is included. That just happens to be exactly the fractional increase in
speed of the falling signals...quite a coincidence Paul, wouldn't you
agree?
> So the SV-clocks' actual rates do indeed matter.
They matter to Einstein supporters but not to GPS engineers. Naturally the
clocks rates will change when sent into free fall....their physical
dimensions change, including tuned cavities...but not by the claimed GR
prediction. That is just another publicity stunt orchestrated by the Grand
Conspiracy. Naturally, the clocks are immediately coarsely software
adjusted after arriving in orbit...to closely match the rates of the
ground clocks. .so incorporating the GR correction is quite
unnecessary....but fortunately, it does no harm.
>
>
>> Interestingly, 45.2us/day (divided by 86400) represents a fractional
>> increase of 5.24e-10 us/sec.
>
> Quite.
>
> The GPS continuously measures the gravitational blue shift to be Δf/f =
> -Δλ/λ = 5.2996e-10, and has done so all the time for 49 years.
>
>
>> It just so happens that according to Newton, the speed of the falling
>> signals increases by exactly that same fraction...from c to
>> c(1+5.24e-10) ...quite a coincidence, would you not agree?
>
> Newton had nothing to say about the speed of EM-radiation.
>
> He did however predict that an object falling from GPS-orbit with radius
> r to the Earth with radius R will increase its speed by:
> Δv = √(2⋅GM⋅(1/R−1/r)) = 9746 m/s Δv/c = 3.251e-5
>
> If the object's initial speed of the body is c, then the speed when it
> hits the ground would be v = c(1+3.251e-5)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-04 22:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <119ubjd$81ln$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #674151 |
Den 03.10.2026 20:44, skrev HenryWilson:
> On Fri, 2 Oct 2026 23:47:11 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>> Den 02.10.2026 13:21, skrev HenryWilson:
>>>
>>> Everybody knows that the clocks are continually monitored and software
>>> adjusted to keep them all close to absolute synch. Their actual rates
>>> do not matter so long as it is reasonably close to that of the ground
>>> clocks.
>>
>> Lets see how it is in the real world as opposed to your fantasy.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Read this article!
>> 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.
>>
>> The a_f0 parameter is the clock offset, that is the error of the
>> SV-clock t_SV.
>> According to Table 20-I in the Interface Control Document is this
>> parameter stored in a 22 bits register where the LSB = 2^{-31}s.
>> The format is 2-complement, so the largest value of this parameter is ±
>> 2^{21}*2^{-31}s = ± 0.000976s ≈ ± 1ms.
>> That means that if t_SV is wrong by more that 1 ms, a_f0 will overflow
>> and it will be impossible to sync the corrected time t.
>>
>> If the rate of the clock was not corrected by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
>> then the error of the SV-clock would be > 1ms after 26 days.
>> The fact is that the SV-clock is running for years without correction.
Did you understand this?
It is a fact that the SV-clock is adjusted down by the factor
(1 - 4.4647e-10).
It is a fact that the adjusted clock for years stays in sync with
the master clock within 1 ms.
It is a fact that if the SV-clock was unadjusted then it would
be off sync by more than 1 ms after 26 days.
>
> I heard the figure was 5.3e-10 after the supposed velocity correction 7us/
> d is included.
What you heard is wrong.
The gravitational blue shift of the SV signal is Δf/f = 5.2996e-10
The kinetic red shift (due to motion) is Δf/f = -0.8349e-10
The total(gravitational + kinetic) blue shift is Δf/f = 4.4647e-10
> That just happens to be exactly the fractional increase in
> speed of the falling signals...quite a coincidence Paul, wouldn't you
> agree?
Signals do not increase their speed as they fall.
However, Newton predicts that the increased speed of
the falling signal is Δv/c = 3.251e-5 , not 5.3e-10
See below.
It is however no coincidence that you believe that
Newton predicts that the fractional increase in
speed of the falling signal is 5.3e-10.
The observed reality MUST be predicted by Newton!
Right? :-D
>
>> So the SV-clocks' actual rates do indeed matter.
>
> They matter to Einstein supporters but not to GPS engineers.
Don't be ridiculous.
The engineers who are building the GPS receivers may know nothing
about relativity, but they do know that if the receivers were
not built exactly as specified in the Interface Control Document,
they wouldn't work.
https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
Above I told you what this document has to say about clock rates.
> Naturally the
> clocks rates will change when sent into free fall....their physical
> dimensions change, including tuned cavities...but not by the claimed GR
> prediction. That is just another publicity stunt orchestrated by the Grand
> Conspiracy. Naturally, the clocks are immediately coarsely software
> adjusted after arriving in orbit...to closely match the rates of the
> ground clocks. .so incorporating the GR correction is quite
> unnecessary....but fortunately, it does no harm.
So you accept that the GR correction is incorporated, but you believe
that the GPS would work even if it wasn't. :-D
You have told me that you are no engineer.
I believe you!
>>
>>
>>> Interestingly, 45.2us/day (divided by 86400) represents a fractional
>>> increase of 5.24e-10 us/sec.
>>
>> Quite.
>>
>> The GPS continuously measures the gravitational blue shift to be Δf/f =
>> -Δλ/λ = 5.2996e-10, and has done so all the time for 49 years.
>>
>>
>>> It just so happens that according to Newton, the speed of the falling
>>> signals increases by exactly that same fraction...from c to
>>> c(1+5.24e-10) ...quite a coincidence, would you not agree?
>>
>> Newton had nothing to say about the speed of EM-radiation.
>>
>> He did however predict that an object falling from GPS-orbit with radius
>> r to the Earth with radius R will increase its speed by:
>> Δv = √(2⋅GM⋅(1/R−1/r)) = 9746 m/s Δv/c = 3.251e-5
>>
>> If the object's initial speed of the body is c, then the speed when it
>> hits the ground would be v = c(1+3.251e-5)
-------------------
While we are talking about GPS:
You are aware that the GPS continuously falsifies the emission
theory, or are you not?
You are standing in one of the 6 orbital planes of the GPS.
There are four SVs in each orbital plane, and your position
is midway between two of the SVs.
A bit of simple geometry will tell you that the distance
to the each of the SVs is d = 25028 km, and one of the SVs
is approaching you at the speed v = 1022 m/s, while
the other is receding from you at the speed v = 1022 m/s.
The speeds above are in the ECI-frame.
Since the Earth is rotating, you will have a speed in
in the ECI-frame, your speed parallel to the SV orbit
depend on your latitude and which side of the Earth you are.
This speed is at the most (at equator) 267 m/s. It will
always be opposite for the two SVs, so overall it will cancel.
So we ignore it in the following.
According to the emission theory the speed of the signal from
the approaching SV will be c + v. The extra time to reach your
receiver is Δt = d/(c+v)-d/v = -285 ns.
This means that the emission theory will give the distance to
the SV ~85m shorter than if the speed of light was c.
According to the emission theory the speed of the signal from
the receding SV will be c - v. The extra time to reach your
receiver is Δt = d/(c-v)-d/v = 285 ns.
This means that the emission theory will give the distance to
the SV ~85m longer than if the speed of light was c.
Do I have to explain why this falsifies the emission theory? :-D
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-06 12:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18dbf03fde2b49cc$3684$2337915$4036de63@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #674185 |
On Sun, 4 Oct 2026 22:07:41 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 03.10.2026 20:44, skrev HenryWilson:
>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2026 23:47:11 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
opposed to your fantasy.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Read this article!
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> The a_f0 parameter is the clock offset, that is the error of the
>>> SV-clock t_SV.
>>> According to Table 20-I in the Interface Control Document is this
>>> parameter stored in a 22 bits register where the LSB = 2^{-31}s.
>>> The format is 2-complement, so the largest value of this parameter is
>>> ±
>>> 2^{21}*2^{-31}s = ± 0.000976s ≈ ± 1ms.
>>> That means that if t_SV is wrong by more that 1 ms, a_f0 will overflow
>>> and it will be impossible to sync the corrected time t.
>>>
>>> If the rate of the clock was not corrected by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
>>> then the error of the SV-clock would be > 1ms after 26 days.
>>> The fact is that the SV-clock is running for years without correction.
>
> Did you understand this?
> It is a fact that the SV-clock is adjusted down by the factor (1 -
> 4.4647e-10).
> It is a fact that the adjusted clock for years stays in sync with the
> master clock within 1 ms.
> It is a fact that if the SV-clock was unadjusted then it would be off
> sync by more than 1 ms after 26 days.
>>
>> I heard the figure was 5.3e-10 after the supposed velocity correction
>> 7us/
>> d is included.
>
> What you heard is wrong.
>
> The gravitational blue shift of the SV signal is Δf/f = 5.2996e-10 The
> kinetic red shift (due to motion) is Δf/f = -0.8349e-10 The
> total(gravitational + kinetic) blue shift is Δf/f = 4.4647e-10
>
>> That just happens to be exactly the fractional increase in speed of the
>> falling signals...quite a coincidence Paul, wouldn't you agree?
>
> Signals do not increase their speed as they fall.
Not in your imaginary constant c universe...but they do in the real world
> However, Newton predicts that the increased speed of the falling signal
> is Δv/c = 3.251e-5 , not 5.3e-10
Really? Does it really increase speed by 9742 m/s? Maybe you have
forgotten how to integrate.
> See below.
>
> It is however no coincidence that you believe that Newton predicts that
> the fractional increase in speed of the falling signal is 5.3e-10.
>
> The observed reality MUST be predicted by Newton!
> Right? :-D
Paul, when you sober up and learn to calculate, come back.
>>> So the SV-clocks' actual rates do indeed matter.
>>
>> They matter to Einstein supporters but not to GPS engineers.
>
> Don't be ridiculous.
> The engineers who are building the GPS receivers may know nothing about
> relativity, but they do know that if the receivers were not built
> exactly as specified in the Interface Control Document, they wouldn't
> work. https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
>
> Above I told you what this document has to say about clock rates.
>> Naturally the clocks rates will change when sent into free
>> fall....their physical dimensions change, including tuned
>> cavities...but not by the claimed GR prediction. That is just another
>> publicity stunt orchestrated by the Grand Conspiracy. Naturally, the
>> clocks are immediately coarsely software adjusted after arriving in
>> orbit...to closely match the rates of the ground clocks. .so
>> incorporating the GR correction is quite unnecessary....but
>> fortunately, it does no harm.
>
> So you accept that the GR correction is incorporated, but you believe
> that the GPS would work even if it wasn't. :-D
The system would work perfectly well if the clocks ran at twice their
current rate...so long as they were all in absolute synch.
> You have told me that you are no engineer.
> I believe you!
You are confusing me with your good exfriend the late Androcles.
I am a fully qualified Physicist amongst other things.
>>>> Interestingly, 45.2us/day (divided by 86400) represents a fractional
>>>> increase of 5.24e-10 us/sec.
>>>
>>> Quite.
>>>
>>> The GPS continuously measures the gravitational blue shift to be Δf/f
>>> =
>>> -Δλ/λ = 5.2996e-10, and has done so all the time for 49 years.
>>>
>>>
>>>> It just so happens that according to Newton, the speed of the falling
>>>> signals increases by exactly that same fraction...from c to
>>>> c(1+5.24e-10) ...quite a coincidence, would you not agree?
>>>
>>> Newton had nothing to say about the speed of EM-radiation.
>>> He did however predict that an object falling from GPS-orbit with
>>> radius r to the Earth with radius R will increase its speed by:
>>> Δv = √(2⋅GM⋅(1/R−1/r)) = 9746 m/s Δv/c = 3.251e-5
HAHAHAAAAHAHAHA! Are you completely mad? The signal takes about 0.067
seconds to ground level. You have calculated that its average acceleration
is a massive ~14781 gs. Pretty heavy rocks in Norway, eh?
>>> If the object's initial speed of the body is c, then the speed when
>>> it hits the ground would be v = c(1+3.251e-5)
You have proved yourself to be absoluitely clueless..or very drunk. No
wonder you were conned by Einstein.
> While we are talking about GPS:
> You are aware that the GPS continuously falsifies the emission theory,
> or are you not?
Not at all. My GPS wrist watch has no cesium. I suppose you will also
claim that moving mirror experiments and Sagnac also refute BaTh...not o
mention the Einsteinian's favourite, the Pound/Rebka experiment.
> You are standing in one of the 6 orbital planes of the GPS.
> There are four SVs in each orbital plane, and your position is midway
> between two of the SVs.
> A bit of simple geometry will tell you that the distance to the each of
> the SVs is d = 25028 km, and one of the SVs is approaching you at the
> speed v = 1022 m/s, while the other is receding from you at the speed v
> = 1022 m/s.
Are you in a mental institution. I do not live at the Earth's centre and
if I did, the SVs would hardly be moving towards or away from me.
> The speeds above are in the ECI-frame.
> Since the Earth is rotating, you will have a speed in in the ECI-frame,
> your speed parallel to the SV orbit depend on your latitude and which
> side of the Earth you are.
> This speed is at the most (at equator) 267 m/s.
It will always be
> opposite for the two SVs, so overall it will cancel.
> So we ignore it in the following.
>
> According to the emission theory the speed of the signal from the
> approaching SV will be c + v. The extra time to reach your receiver is
> Δt = d/(c+v)-d/v = -285 ns.
> This means that the emission theory will give the distance to the SV
> ~85m shorter than if the speed of light was c.
>
> According to the emission theory the speed of the signal from the
> receding SV will be c - v. The extra time to reach your receiver is Δt =
> d/(c-v)-d/v = 285 ns.
> This means that the emission theory will give the distance to the SV
> ~85m longer than if the speed of light was c.
>
> Do I have to explain why this falsifies the emission theory? :-D
No Paul, You have to explain why you are now incapable of making sense.
Paul, the Earth's equatorial speed is ~496 m/s. In the time it takes a
signal to reach Earth, the equator moves about 33 metres and the clock
~261 metres in orbit. Since both movements are almost perpendicular to the
LOS between clock and receiver, the distance between those two changes by
sqrt(20200000^2+290^2)-20200000.
That equals virtually zero. For an SV at the horizon...which would never
be used in practice...the error is more like 1.5 metres.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-07 02:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <K4gxS.32551$00H5.2333@fx18.ams4> |
| In reply to | #674202 |
Den 06.10.2026 14:23, skrev HenryWilson:
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2026 22:07:41 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>> Den 03.10.2026 20:44, skrev HenryWilson:
>>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2026 23:47:11 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> opposed to your fantasy.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Read this article!
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> The a_f0 parameter is the clock offset, that is the error of the
>>>> SV-clock t_SV.
>>>> According to Table 20-I in the Interface Control Document is this
>>>> parameter stored in a 22 bits register where the LSB = 2^{-31}s.
>>>> The format is 2-complement, so the largest value of this parameter is
>>>> ±
>>>> 2^{21}*2^{-31}s = ± 0.000976s ≈ ± 1ms.
>>>> That means that if t_SV is wrong by more that 1 ms, a_f0 will overflow
>>>> and it will be impossible to sync the corrected time t.
>>>>
>>>> If the rate of the clock was not corrected by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
>>>> then the error of the SV-clock would be > 1ms after 26 days.
>>>> The fact is that the SV-clock is running for years without correction.
>> Did you understand this?
>> It is a fact that the SV-clock is adjusted down by the factor (1 -
>> 4.4647e-10).
>> It is a fact that the adjusted clock for years stays in sync with the
>> master clock within 1 ms.
>> It is a fact that if the SV-clock was unadjusted then it would be off
>> sync by more than 1 ms after 26 days.
The above are irrefutable facts!
DO YOU UNDERSTAND IT?
>>>
>>>> So the SV-clocks' actual rates do indeed matter.
>>>
>>> They matter to Einstein supporters but not to GPS engineers.
>>
>> Don't be ridiculous.
>> The engineers who are building the GPS receivers may know nothing about
>> relativity, but they do know that if the receivers were not built
>> exactly as specified in the Interface Control Document, they wouldn't
>> work. https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
Do you really not understand this?
>
> The system would work perfectly well if the clocks ran at twice their
> current rate...so long as they were all in absolute synch.
In GPS-time is second as defined by SI chosen as time unit.
The rate of these seconds are 86400 seconds per day (24h).
What do you mean by "twice of their current rate"?
>
>> While we are talking about GPS:
>
>> You are standing in one of the 6 orbital planes of the GPS.
>> There are four SVs in each orbital plane, and your position is midway
>> between two of the SVs.
>> A bit of simple geometry will tell you that the distance to the each of
>> the SVs is d = 25028 km, and one of the SVs is approaching you at the
>> speed v = 1022 m/s, while the other is receding from you at the speed v
>> = 1022 m/s.
>
> Are you in a mental institution. I do not live at the Earth's centre and
> if I did, the SVs would hardly be moving towards or away from me.
I will repeat the calculation with better precision:
You are not at the Earth's centre, so the angle between
the line of sight and the velocity of the SV is 78.4⁰.
The speed of the SV is v₀ = 3874 m/s, and the speed component
towards you is v = ± v₀⋅cos(78.4⁰) = ± 774.6 m/s.
The direction to the SV is 33.4⁰ from horizontal, and the distance
is d = 22508 km.
>
>> The speeds above are in the ECI-frame.
>> Since the Earth is rotating, you will have a speed in in the ECI-frame,
>> your speed parallel to the SV orbit depend on your latitude and which
>> side of the Earth you are.
>> This speed is at the most (at equator) 267 m/s.
It doesn't matter that the receiver moves while the signals
are on their way. The receiver may obviously be anywhere between
these two SVs. That only means that the signals the receiver
receives simultaneously were not emitted simultaneously, and
the real distances to the SVs are not equal.
In my examples below, the the real position of the receiver
at reception is midway between the positions of the SVs at emission.
This is for simplicity, but it hasn't have to be like that.
According to the emission theory the speed of the signal from
the approaching SV will be c + v. The extra time to reach your
receiver is Δt = d/(c+v)-d/c = -194 ns.
This means that the emission theory will give the distance to
the SV ~58m shorter than if the speed of light was c.
According to the emission theory the speed of the signal from
the receding SV will be c - v. The extra time to reach your
receiver is Δt = d/(c-v)-d/c = 194 ns.
This means that the emission theory will give the distance to
the SV ~58m longer than if the speed of light was c.
>>
>> Do I have to explain why this falsifies the emission theory? :-D
>
> No Paul, You have to explain why you are now incapable of making sense.
>
> Paul, the Earth's equatorial speed is ~496 m/s. In the time it takes a
> signal to reach Earth, the equator moves about 33 metres and the clock
> ~261 metres in orbit.
It does obviously not matter that the SVs move _after_ the emission.
It is the distance to the SV _at the time of emission_ that is calculated.
And that the receiver moves before it receives the signal
doesn't matter at all, the receiver may be anywhere between
the SVs.
The point is that the emission theory will always give too
short distance to approaching SVs, and too long distance
to receding SVs.
We know that since the GPS works, this doesn't happen in
the real world.
The emission theory is falsified.
> Since both movements are almost perpendicular to the
> LOS between clock and receiver, the distance between those two changes by
> sqrt(20200000^2+290^2)-20200000.
> That equals virtually zero. For an SV at the horizon...which would never
> be used in practice...the error is more like 1.5 metres.
You are babbling.
The SVs in my examples are 33.4⁰ above the horizon, and
the angle between the velocity of the SV and the line
of sight is 78.4⁰.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-07 07:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <18dc2752357c9622$131266$867271$c2265aab@news.newsdemon.com> |
| In reply to | #674214 |
On 10/7/2026 2:10 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > DO YOU UNDERSTAND IT? > >>>> >>>>> So the SV-clocks' actual rates do indeed matter. >>>> >>>> They matter to Einstein supporters but not to GPS engineers. >>> >>> Don't be ridiculous. >>> The engineers who are building the GPS receivers may know nothing about >>> relativity, but they do know that if the receivers were not built >>> exactly as specified in the Interface Control Document, they wouldn't >>> work. https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf > > Do you really not understand this? > >> >> The system would work perfectly well if the clocks ran at twice their >> current rate...so long as they were all in absolute synch. > > In GPS-time is second as defined by SI chosen as time unit. Why don't you scream it's irrefutable fact, poor trash? Is it because it's an impudent lie? > The rate of these seconds are 86400 seconds per day (24h). And your mad Shit was predicting 86400 on Earth, 86400+38us at a satellite.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-07 23:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18dc62f34468016a$2552$1684987$4206dc53@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #674214 |
On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 02:10:52 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 06.10.2026 14:23, skrev HenryWilson:
>> On Sun, 4 Oct 2026 22:07:41 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>>> Den 03.10.2026 20:44, skrev HenryWilson:
>>>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2026 23:47:11 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> opposed to your fantasy.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> Read this article!
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>> The a_f0 parameter is the clock offset, that is the error of the
>>>>> SV-clock t_SV.
>>>>> According to Table 20-I in the Interface Control Document is this
>>>>> parameter stored in a 22 bits register where the LSB = 2^{-31}s.
>>>>> The format is 2-complement, so the largest value of this parameter
>>>>> is ±
>>>>> 2^{21}*2^{-31}s = ± 0.000976s ≈ ± 1ms.
>>>>> That means that if t_SV is wrong by more that 1 ms, a_f0 will
>>>>> overflow and it will be impossible to sync the corrected time t.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the rate of the clock was not corrected by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
>>>>> then the error of the SV-clock would be > 1ms after 26 days.
>>>>> The fact is that the SV-clock is running for years without
>>>>> correction.
>
>>> Did you understand this?
>>> It is a fact that the SV-clock is adjusted down by the factor (1 -
>>> 4.4647e-10).
>>> It is a fact that the adjusted clock for years stays in sync with the
>>> master clock within 1 ms.
>>> It is a fact that if the SV-clock was unadjusted then it would be off
>>> sync by more than 1 ms after 26 days.
>
> The above are irrefutable facts!
>
> DO YOU UNDERSTAND IT?
I understand why you are becoming so desperate. You can't even calculate
properly. The clock drift is monitored and continually software corrected
out. Atomic clocks don't have a dial with numbers on it. Their current
readings are numbers in a computer...along with a record of previous
adjustments.
>>>>> So the SV-clocks' actual rates do indeed matter.
>>>>
>>>> They matter to Einstein supporters but not to GPS engineers.
>>>
>>> Don't be ridiculous.
>>> The engineers who are building the GPS receivers may know nothing
>>> about relativity, but they do know that if the receivers were not
>>> built exactly as specified in the Interface Control Document, they
>>> wouldn't work.
>>> https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
>
> Do you really not understand this?
Of course I do. It is vital that their current drift and corrected time is
known.
>> The system would work perfectly well if the clocks ran at twice their
>> current rate...so long as they were all in absolute synch.
>
> In GPS-time is second as defined by SI chosen as time unit.
> The rate of these seconds are 86400 seconds per day (24h).
>
> What do you mean by "twice of their current rate"?
Their current rate was arbitrarily chosen because of its practicality.but
a wide range of rates would suffice, so long as all clocks were running at
the same, after any corrections.
>
>
>>> While we are talking about GPS:
>>
>>> You are standing in one of the 6 orbital planes of the GPS.
>>> There are four SVs in each orbital plane, and your position is midway
>>> between two of the SVs.
>>> A bit of simple geometry will tell you that the distance to the each
>>> of the SVs is d = 25028 km, and one of the SVs is approaching you at
>>> the speed v = 1022 m/s, while the other is receding from you at the
>>> speed v = 1022 m/s.
>>
>> Are you in a mental institution. I do not live at the Earth's centre
>> and if I did, the SVs would hardly be moving towards or away from me.
>
> I will repeat the calculation with better precision:
>
> You are not at the Earth's centre, so the angle between the line of
> sight and the velocity of the SV is 78.4⁰.
> The speed of the SV is v₀ = 3874 m/s, and the speed component towards
> you is v = ± v₀⋅cos(78.4⁰) = ± 774.6 m/s.
> The direction to the SV is 33.4⁰ from horizontal, and the distance is d
> = 22508 km.
What are you raving about now? If the SV is directly overhead i, its has
no speed relative to me. The clocks are orbiting at a height of ~20200
kms. The Earth's radius is ~6378 kms.
>
>
>>> The speeds above are in the ECI-frame.
>>> Since the Earth is rotating, you will have a speed in in the
>>> ECI-frame,
>>> your speed parallel to the SV orbit depend on your latitude and which
>>> side of the Earth you are.
>>> This speed is at the most (at equator) 267 m/s.
>
> It doesn't matter that the receiver moves while the signals are on their
> way. The receiver may obviously be anywhere between these two SVs. That
> only means that the signals the receiver receives simultaneously were
> not emitted simultaneously, and the real distances to the SVs are not
> equal.
You got that back to front. The signals ARE emitted at the same absolute
times but are not received simultaneously. That is where the receiving
clock plays a role. .but it does not have to be anywhere near as accurate
as the SVs.
>
> In my examples below, the the real position of the receiver at reception
> is midway between the positions of the SVs at emission.
> This is for simplicity, but it hasn't have to be like that.
>
> According to the emission theory the speed of the signal from the
> approaching SV will be c + v. The extra time to reach your receiver is
> Δt = d/(c+v)-d/c = -194 ns.
> This means that the emission theory will give the distance to the SV
> ~58m shorter than if the speed of light was c.
>
> According to the emission theory the speed of the signal from the
> receding SV will be c - v. The extra time to reach your receiver is Δt =
> d/(c-v)-d/c = 194 ns.
> This means that the emission theory will give the distance to the SV
> ~58m longer than if the speed of light was c.
>
>
>>> Do I have to explain why this falsifies the emission theory? :-D
>>
>> No Paul, You have to explain why you are now incapable of making sense.
>>
>> Paul, the Earth's equatorial speed is ~496 m/s. In the time it takes a
>> signal to reach Earth, the equator moves about 33 metres and the clock
>> ~261 metres in orbit.
>
> It does obviously not matter that the SVs move _after_ the emission.
> It is the distance to the SV _at the time of emission_ that is
> calculated.
> And that the receiver moves before it receives the signal doesn't matter
> at all, the receiver may be anywhere between the SVs.
>
> The point is that the emission theory will always give too short
> distance to approaching SVs, and too long distance to receding SVs.
>
> We know that since the GPS works, this doesn't happen in the real world.
>
> The emission theory is falsified.
>> Since both movements are almost perpendicular to the LOS between clock
>> and receiver, the distance between those two changes by
>> sqrt(20200000^2+290^2)-20200000.
>> That equals virtually zero. For an SV at the horizon...which would
>> never be used in practice...the error is more like 1.5 metres.
>
> You are babbling.
> The SVs in my examples are 33.4⁰ above the horizon, and the angle
> between the velocity of the SV and the line of sight is 78.4⁰.
The position of the SV are derived on the assumption of constant c. The
orbits are not as believed. Clocks are no where they are assumed to
be...but that does not matter because constant c is assumed throughout and
so produces the right answers. If the orbit ephemerides were calculated
according to Newton, the variable speed model would also work perfectly
well. This is another example of the two theories being able to work in
parallel. I am not claiming SR is entirely wrong. It works in many
cases...just that Newton is much simpler and easy to understand. It always
works. Note SR never said that light speed in space is not variable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-08 21:11 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11a8pq1$4nua$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #674245 |
Den 08.10.2026 01:25, skrev HenryWilson:
> On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 02:10:52 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>> Den 06.10.2026 14:23, skrev HenryWilson:
>>> On Sun, 4 Oct 2026 22:07:41 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Den 03.10.2026 20:44, skrev HenryWilson:
>>>>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2026 23:47:11 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Read this article!
>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The a_f0 parameter is the clock offset, that is the error of the
>>>>>> SV-clock t_SV.
>>>>>> According to Table 20-I in the Interface Control Document is this
>>>>>> parameter stored in a 22 bits register where the LSB = 2^{-31}s.
>>>>>> The format is 2-complement, so the largest value of this parameter
>>>>>> is ±
>>>>>> 2^{21}*2^{-31}s = ± 0.000976s ≈ ± 1ms.
>>>>>> That means that if t_SV is wrong by more that 1 ms, a_f0 will
>>>>>> overflow and it will be impossible to sync the corrected time t.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the rate of the clock was not corrected by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
>>>>>> then the error of the SV-clock would be > 1ms after 26 days.
>>>>>> The fact is that the SV-clock is running for years without
>>>>>> correction.
Above I have explained in detail how the reported times from
the SVs factually are kept in sync with GPS-time, and your
response is:
> I understand why you are becoming so desperate. You can't even calculate
> properly. The clock drift is monitored and continually software corrected
> out. Atomic clocks don't have a dial with numbers on it. Their current
> readings are numbers in a computer...along with a record of previous
> adjustments.
You demonstrate that you haven't read what I wrote,
and that you have no intension of learning how the GPS work.
End of GPS lessons.
----------------------------------
>>>> While we are talking about GPS:
>>>
>>>> You are standing in one of the 6 orbital planes of the GPS.
>>>> There are four SVs in each orbital plane, and your position is midway
>>>> between two of the SVs.
>>
>> You are not at the Earth's centre, so the angle between the line of
>> sight and the velocity of the SV is 78.4⁰.
>> The speed of the SV is v₀ = 3874 m/s, and the speed component towards
>> you is v = ± v₀⋅cos(78.4⁰) = ± 774.6 m/s.
>> The direction to the SV is 33.4⁰ from horizontal, and the distance is d
>> = 22508 km.
>
> What are you raving about now? If the SV is directly overhead i, its has
> no speed relative to me. The clocks are orbiting at a height of ~20200
> kms. The Earth's radius is ~6378 kms.
Read again:
You are standing in one of the 6 orbital planes of the GPS.
There are four SVs in each orbital plane, and your position
is midway between two of the SVs.
You are not at the Earth's centre, so the angle between
the line of sight and the velocity of each SV is 78.4⁰, not 90⁰.
The speed of the SV is v₀ = 3874 m/s, and the speed component
towards you is v = ± v₀⋅cos(78.4⁰) = ± 774.6 m/s.
Both SVs are 33.4⁰ above the horizon, and the distance to each SV
is d = 22508 km.
Is there anything particular you don't understand?
>>
>> It doesn't matter that the receiver moves while the signals are on their
>> way. The receiver may obviously be anywhere between these two SVs. That
>> only means that the signals the receiver receives simultaneously were
>> not emitted simultaneously, and the real distances to the SVs are not
>> equal.
> You got that back to front. The signals ARE emitted at the same absolute
> times but are not received simultaneously. That is where the receiving
> clock plays a role. .but it does not have to be anywhere near as accurate
> as the SVs.
A GPS receiver always receive the signals from all the SVs it is
tracking simultaneously. The GPS-time of signal emission of
the tracked SVs will all be different.
That's how GPS _factually_ works.
>> In my examples above, the the real position of the receiver at
reception
>> is midway between the positions of the SVs at emission.
>> This is for simplicity, but it hasn't have to be like that.
>>
>> According to the emission theory the speed of the signal from the
>> approaching SV will be c + v. The extra time to reach your receiver is
>> Δt = d/(c+v)-d/c = -194 ns.
>> This means that the emission theory will give the distance to the SV
>> ~58m shorter than if the speed of light was c.
>>
>> According to the emission theory the speed of the signal from the
>> receding SV will be c - v. The extra time to reach your receiver is Δt =
>> d/(c-v)-d/c = 194 ns.
>> This means that the emission theory will give the distance to the SV
>> ~58m longer than if the speed of light was c.
>>
>> We know that since the GPS works, this doesn't happen in the real world.
>>
>> The emission theory is falsified.
>
> The position of the SV are derived on the assumption of constant c. The
> orbits are not as believed. Clocks are no where they are assumed to
> be...but that does not matter because constant c is assumed throughout and
> so produces the right answers. If the orbit ephemerides were calculated
> according to Newton, the variable speed model would also work perfectly
> well. This is another example of the two theories being able to work in
> parallel. I am not claiming SR is entirely wrong. It works in many
> cases...just that Newton is much simpler and easy to understand. It always
> works. Note SR never said that light speed in space is not variable.
>
You are desperate now, aren't you? :-D
It's too stupid to comment on.
I will only say:
Even you must understand that if the positions of the SVs and the speeds
of the L-band signals weren't exactly known, the GPS wouldn't work.
Consider this:
About half of all SVs above the horizon have a speed component
towards you.
About half of all SVs above the horizon have a speed component
away from you.
That means that according to the emission theory, the speeds
of the signals from all the SVs are different and between
c ± ~800 m/s.
The real speed of a radio signal in the L-band is not c.
The signals are going through the ionosphere where
the delay can be from 3ns to 300ns.
But this delay is measured and compensated for.
(The delay is ~3ns in the night and ~200ns in the day)
The real, _measured_ average speeds are between c-12 m/s and c-800 m/s.
We know that these measured speeds give the correct position.
Do I have to explain why this falsifies the emission theory?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-10 18:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18dd3f38aca8117e$41$2261517$4276dc23@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #674274 |
On Thu, 8 Oct 2026 21:11:36 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 08.10.2026 01:25, skrev HenryWilson:
>> On Wed, 7 Oct 2026 02:10:52 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>>> Den 06.10.2026 14:23, skrev HenryWilson:
>>>> On Sun, 4 Oct 2026 22:07:41 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Den 03.10.2026 20:44, skrev HenryWilson:
>>>>>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2026 23:47:11 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Read this article!
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The a_f0 parameter is the clock offset, that is the error of the
>>>>>>> SV-clock t_SV.
>>>>>>> According to Table 20-I in the Interface Control Document is this
>>>>>>> parameter stored in a 22 bits register where the LSB = 2^{-31}s.
>>>>>>> The format is 2-complement, so the largest value of this parameter
>>>>>>> is ±
>>>>>>> 2^{21}*2^{-31}s = ± 0.000976s ≈ ± 1ms.
>>>>>>> That means that if t_SV is wrong by more that 1 ms, a_f0 will
>>>>>>> overflow and it will be impossible to sync the corrected time t.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the rate of the clock was not corrected by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
>>>>>>> then the error of the SV-clock would be > 1ms after 26 days.
>>>>>>> The fact is that the SV-clock is running for years without
>>>>>>> correction.
>
> Above I have explained in detail how the reported times from the SVs
> factually are kept in sync with GPS-time, and your response is:
>
>> I understand why you are becoming so desperate. You can't even
>> calculate properly. The clock drift is monitored and continually
>> software corrected out. Atomic clocks don't have a dial with numbers on
>> it. Their current readings are numbers in a computer...along with a
>> record of previous adjustments.
>
> You demonstrate that you haven't read what I wrote,
> and that you have no intension of learning how the GPS work.
In your ignornce, you repeat that the SV clock are not corrected and run
for years. Of course they are not PHYSICALLY corrected but they are
constantly software corrected during each day. They drift by quite large
mounts..but of course most of that assumed 'drift' is actually just part
of the constant c error.
> End of GPS lessons.
>
> ----------------------------------
>
>>>>> While we are talking about GPS:
>>>>
>>>>> You are standing in one of the 6 orbital planes of the GPS.
>>>>> There are four SVs in each orbital plane, and your position is
>>>>> midway between two of the SVs.
>>>
>>> You are not at the Earth's centre, so the angle between the line of
>>> sight and the velocity of the SV is 78.4⁰.
>>> The speed of the SV is v₀ = 3874 m/s, and the speed component towards
>>> you is v = ± v₀⋅cos(78.4⁰) = ± 774.6 m/s.
>>> The direction to the SV is 33.4⁰ from horizontal, and the distance is
>>> d = 22508 km.
>>
>> What are you raving about now? If the SV is directly overhead i, its
>> has no speed relative to me. The clocks are orbiting at a height of
>> ~20200 kms. The Earth's radius is ~6378 kms.
>
> Read again:
> You are standing in one of the 6 orbital planes of the GPS.
> There are four SVs in each orbital plane, and your position is midway
> between two of the SVs.
> You are not at the Earth's centre, so the angle between the line of
> sight and the velocity of each SV is 78.4⁰, not 90⁰. The speed of the SV
> is v₀ = 3874 m/s, and the speed component towards you is v = ±
> v₀⋅cos(78.4⁰) = ± 774.6 m/s.
> Both SVs are 33.4⁰ above the horizon, and the distance to each SV is d =
> 22508 km.
>
> Is there anything particular you don't understand?
>
>
>>> It doesn't matter that the receiver moves while the signals are on
>>> their way. The receiver may obviously be anywhere between these two
>>> SVs. That only means that the signals the receiver receives
>>> simultaneously were not emitted simultaneously, and the real distances
>>> to the SVs are not equal.
>
>> You got that back to front. The signals ARE emitted at the same
>> absolute times but are not received simultaneously. That is where the
>> receiving clock plays a role. .but it does not have to be anywhere near
>> as accurate as the SVs.
>
> A GPS receiver always receive the signals from all the SVs it is
> tracking simultaneously. The GPS-time of signal emission of the tracked
> SVs will all be different.
> That's how GPS _factually_ works.
No Paul, it is much more complicated than that. .but it is hard to find
much information about this. One report says that GPS time signals are
sent every 1 millisecond, in which case your claim is trivial nonsense for
obvious reasons. (if they arrived simultaneously in one receiver they wold
no do so Another statement however, suggests that the signals are
encoded so that their detection at any instant will reveal the precise
emission time of that part of the signal. which is your claim. I cannot
see how the different arrival times could be completely eliminated in that
way... AND it is elsewhere pointed out that one of the main errors
afflicting the system is that caused by the different signal arrival
times.
> >> In my examples above, the the real position of the receiver at
> reception
>>> is midway between the positions of the SVs at emission.
>>> This is for simplicity, but it hasn't have to be like that.
>>>
>>> According to the emission theory the speed of the signal from the
>>> approaching SV will be c + v. The extra time to reach your receiver is
>>> Δt = d/(c+v)-d/c = -194 ns.
>>> This means that the emission theory will give the distance to the SV
>>> ~58m shorter than if the speed of light was c.
>>>
>>> According to the emission theory the speed of the signal from the
>>> receding SV will be c - v. The extra time to reach your receiver is Δt
>>> =
>>> d/(c-v)-d/c = 194 ns.
>>> This means that the emission theory will give the distance to the SV
>>> ~58m longer than if the speed of light was c.
>>>
>>> We know that since the GPS works, this doesn't happen in the real
>>> world.
>>>
>>> The emission theory is falsified.
>>
>> The position of the SV are derived on the assumption of constant c. The
>> orbits are not as believed. Clocks are not where they are assumed to
>> be...but that does not matter because constant c is assumed throughout
>> and so produces the right answers. If the orbit ephemerides were
>> calculated according to Newton, the variable speed model would also
>> work perfectly well. This is another example of the two theories being
>> able to work in parallel. I am not claiming SR is entirely wrong. It
>> works in many cases...just that Newton is much simpler and easy to
>> understand. It always works. Note SR never said that light speed in
>> space is not variable.
>>
>>
> You are desperate now, aren't you? :-D
No Paul, all the details about SV positions, ephemerides and even rates is
calculated on the assumption of constant light speed. What you refuse to
accept is that most of the corrections being constantly made to each
clock...and sent with each signal...is actually just compensating for the
refusal to use variable signal speeds throughout.
> It's too stupid to comment on.
>
> I will only say:
> Even you must understand that if the positions of the SVs and the speeds
> of the L-band signals weren't exactly known, the GPS wouldn't work.
Well, in some respects it doesn't accurately work. To ensure accurate
navigation, it unwittingly assumes that the Earth's surface is constantly
moving both radially and laterally and that the atmosphere and ionosphere
change in just the right way to always make Einstein look good.
>
> Consider this:
> About half of all SVs above the horizon have a speed component towards
> you.
> About half of all SVs above the horizon have a speed component away from
> you.
>
> That means that according to the emission theory, the speeds of the
> signals from all the SVs are different and between c ± ~800 m/s.
>
> The real speed of a radio signal in the L-band is not c.
> The signals are going through the ionosphere where the delay can be from
> 3ns to 300ns.
> But this delay is measured and compensated for.
> (The delay is ~3ns in the night and ~200ns in the day)
>
> The real, _measured_ average speeds are between c-12 m/s and c-800 m/s.
> We know that these measured speeds give the correct position.
>
> Do I have to explain why this falsifies the emission theory?
You are using a process that is entirely based on constant light speed in
your attempt to prove variable light speed wrong. That is a typical
mistake made by supporters of Einstein.
If you redesign every aspect of GPS on the basis of variable light speeds,
It would work just as well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-11 20:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <11agjph$2sirn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #674331 |
Den 10.10.2026 20:42, skrev HenryWilson:
> On Thu, 8 Oct 2026 21:11:36 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2026 23:47:11 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Lets see how it is in the real world as opposed to your fantasy.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Read this article!
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> The a_f0 parameter is the clock offset, that is the error of the
>>> SV-clock t_SV.
>>> According to Table 20-I in the Interface Control Document is this
>>> parameter stored in a 22 bits register where the LSB = 2^{-31}s.
>>> The format is 2-complement, so the largest value of this parameter
>>> is ± 2^{21}*2^{-31}s = ± 0.000976s ≈ ± 1ms.
>>> That means that if t_SV is wrong by more that 1 ms, a_f0 will
>>> overflow and it will be impossible to sync the corrected time t.
>>>
>>> If the rate of the clock was not corrected by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
>>> then the error of the SV-clock would be > 1ms after 26 days.
>>> The fact is that the SV-clock is running for years without correction.
> In your ignornce, you repeat that the SV clock are not corrected and run
> for years. Of course they are not PHYSICALLY corrected but they are
> constantly software corrected during each day.
If you had read what I wrote above, you would have known how
the "software correction" is done.
> They drift by quite large
> mounts..but of course most of that assumed 'drift' is actually just part
> of the constant c error.
I have told you _several_ times, and you will find this further
down in the very post you are responding to:
"The real speed of a radio signal in the L-band is not c.
The signals are going through the ionosphere where
the delay can be from 3ns to 300ns.
But this delay is measured and compensated for.
(The delay is ~3ns in the night and ~200ns in the day)"
I have told you before:
On 23. September 2026 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.
There is no "constant c error".
>>
>> A GPS receiver always receive the signals from all the SVs it is
>> tracking simultaneously. The GPS-time of signal emission of the tracked
>> SVs will all be different.
>> That's how GPS _factually_ works.
>
> No Paul, it is much more complicated than that. .but it is hard to find
> much information about this.
It's not hard to find at all:
See the Interface Control Document:
https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
Everything I tell you is found in this document.
> One report says that GPS time signals are
> sent every 1 millisecond, in which case your claim is trivial nonsense for
> obvious reasons. (if they arrived simultaneously in one receiver they wold
> no do so Another statement however, suggests that the signals are
> encoded so that their detection at any instant will reveal the precise
> emission time of that part of the signal. which is your claim. I cannot
> see how the different arrival times could be completely eliminated in that
> way... AND it is elsewhere pointed out that one of the main errors
> afflicting the system is that caused by the different signal arrival
> times.
Note this:
A GPS receiver can continuously and simultaneously track up to
12 SVs. It will receive every bit of the tracked SVs.
I have told you before:
On 25. September 2026 Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
| 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.
The receiver will also measure the time within the 1ms, so
that at any time it will know the time when the signal was
sent to a precision ~ 1 ns.
>> You are desperate now, aren't you? :-D
>
> No Paul, all the details about SV positions, ephemerides and even rates is
> calculated on the assumption of constant light speed. What you refuse to
> accept is that most of the corrections being constantly made to each
> clock...and sent with each signal...is actually just compensating for the
> refusal to use variable signal speeds throughout.
If the monitor stations' measurements of the SV-clocks were
based on the wrong assumption that the speed of L-band
radio signals were constant c, how could then the SV-clocks
be correctly corrected?
Wilsonian logic? :-D
>> The real speed of a radio signal in the L-band is not c.
>> The signals are going through the ionosphere where the delay
>> can be from3ns to 300ns.
>> But this delay is measured and compensated for.
>> (The delay is ~3ns in the night and ~200ns in the day)
>> Even you must understand that if the positions of the SVs and the speeds
>> of the L-band signals weren't exactly known, the GPS wouldn't work.
> Well, in some respects it doesn't accurately work. To ensure accurate
> navigation, it unwittingly assumes that the Earth's surface is constantly
> moving both radially and laterally and that the atmosphere and ionosphere
> change in just the right way to always make Einstein look good.
Henry Wilson claims that the GPS doesn't work!
You are doing really well now, Ralph! :-D
----------------------------
>> Consider this:
>> About half of all SVs above the horizon have a speed component towards
>> you.
>> About half of all SVs above the horizon have a speed component away from
>> you.
>>
>> That means that according to the emission theory, the speeds of the
>> signals from all the SVs are different and between c ± ~800 m/s.
The receiver knows the position of the SV and the GPS-time when
the signal was sent, but it doesn't know the GPS-time when the
signal was received. And even if it did know it, and could
calculate the time the signal has used to reach the receiver,
it could not calculate the distance to the SV because the speed
of the signal is unknown.
You must know the position of the SV _and_ the position of
the receiver to know the speed of the signal.
You must know the speed of the signal to determine the position
of the receiver and the GPS-time at reception.
Catch 22!
>>
>>
>> The real, _measured_ average speeds are between c-12 m/s and c-800 m/s.
The average speed for every SV is measured and known.
>> We know that these measured speeds give the correct position.
So we know that the speeds predicted by the emission theory are wrong.
>>
>> Do I have to explain why this falsifies the emission theory?
>
> You are using a process that is entirely based on constant light speed in
> your attempt to prove variable light speed wrong. That is a typical
> mistake made by supporters of Einstein.
> If you redesign every aspect of GPS on the basis of variable light speeds,
> It would work just as well.
>
Wilsonian logic again? :-D
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HenryWilson <Hgw@home.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2026-10-13 18:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <18de2a84a31e316c$1019$25751$4256dc03@news.newsgroupdirect.com> |
| In reply to | #674340 |
On Sun, 11 Oct 2026 20:18:06 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 10.10.2026 20:42, skrev HenryWilson:
>> On Thu, 8 Oct 2026 21:11:36 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2026 23:47:11 +0200, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Lets see how it is in the real world as opposed to your fantasy.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Read this article!
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> The a_f0 parameter is the clock offset, that is the error of the
>>>> SV-clock t_SV.
>>>> According to Table 20-I in the Interface Control Document is this
>>>> parameter stored in a 22 bits register where the LSB = 2^{-31}s.
>>>> The format is 2-complement, so the largest value of this parameter is
>>>> ± 2^{21}*2^{-31}s = ± 0.000976s ≈ ± 1ms.
>>>> That means that if t_SV is wrong by more that 1 ms, a_f0 will
>>>> overflow and it will be impossible to sync the corrected time t.
>>>>
>>>> If the rate of the clock was not corrected by (1 - 4.4647e-10)
>>>> then the error of the SV-clock would be > 1ms after 26 days.
>>>> The fact is that the SV-clock is running for years without
>>>> correction.
>
>> In your ignornce, you repeat that the SV clock are not corrected and
>> run for years. Of course they are not PHYSICALLY corrected but they are
>> constantly software corrected during each day.
>
> If you had read what I wrote above, you would have known how the
> "software correction" is done.
>
>
>> They drift by quite large mounts..but of course most of that assumed
>> 'drift' is actually just part of the constant c error.
>
> I have told you _several_ times, and you will find this further down in
> the very post you are responding to:
>
> "The real speed of a radio signal in the L-band is not c.
> The signals are going through the ionosphere where the delay can be
> from 3ns to 300ns.
> But this delay is measured and compensated for.
> (The delay is ~3ns in the night and ~200ns in the day)"
Atmospheric and ionosheric delays are a very useful for correcting out the
constant c errors. Why don't you mention the secret East/West 'delay' that
corrects for the respective c+v and c-v.
> I have told you before:
>
> On 23. September 2026 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.
>
> There is no "constant c error".
>
>
>>> A GPS receiver always receive the signals from all the SVs it is
>>> tracking simultaneously. The GPS-time of signal emission of the
>>> tracked SVs will all be different.
>>> That's how GPS _factually_ works.
>>
>> No Paul, it is much more complicated than that. .but it is hard to find
>> much information about this.
>
> It's not hard to find at all:
> See the Interface Control Document:
> https://www.gps.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/IS-GPS-200N.pdf
>
> Everything I tell you is found in this document.
>
>> One report says that GPS time signals are sent every 1 millisecond, in
>> which case your claim is trivial nonsense for obvious reasons. (if they
>> arrived simultaneously in one receiver they wold no do so Another
>> statement however, suggests that the signals are encoded so that their
>> detection at any instant will reveal the precise emission time of that
>> part of the signal. which is your claim. I cannot see how the different
>> arrival times could be completely eliminated in that way... AND it is
>> elsewhere pointed out that one of the main errors afflicting the system
>> is that caused by the different signal arrival times.
>
> Note this:
> A GPS receiver can continuously and simultaneously track up to 12 SVs.
> It will receive every bit of the tracked SVs.
>
> I have told you before:
>
> On 25. September 2026 Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> | 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.
>
> The receiver will also measure the time within the 1ms, so that at any
> time it will know the time when the signal was sent to a precision ~ 1
> ns.
That is not what you said before. .which was that all signals that arrive
simultaneously had the same emission times..obviously impossible
>
>>> You are desperate now, aren't you? :-D
>
>
>> No Paul, all the details about SV positions, ephemerides and even rates
>> is calculated on the assumption of constant light speed. What you
>> refuse to accept is that most of the corrections being constantly made
>> to each clock...and sent with each signal...is actually just
>> compensating for the refusal to use variable signal speeds throughout.
>
> If the monitor stations' measurements of the SV-clocks were based on the
> wrong assumption that the speed of L-band radio signals were constant c,
> how could then the SV-clocks be correctly corrected?
You don't understand. All signalling does actually occur at a variety of
different speeds. All calculations on the other hand, assume constant
light speed. So as well as pre-installing lots of 'relativistic
corrections', all relevant data has to be continuously upgraded and
included in each signal..
>
> Wilsonian logic? :-D
>
>>> The real speed of a radio signal in the L-band is not c.
>>> The signals are going through the ionosphere where the delay can be
>>> from3ns to 300ns.
>>> But this delay is measured and compensated for.
>>> (The delay is ~3ns in the night and ~200ns in the day)
>
>>> Even you must understand that if the positions of the SVs and the
>>> speeds of the L-band signals weren't exactly known, the GPS wouldn't
>>> work.
>
>> Well, in some respects it doesn't accurately work. To ensure accurate
>> navigation, it unwittingly assumes that the Earth's surface is
>> constantly moving both radially and laterally and that the atmosphere
>> and ionosphere change in just the right way to always make Einstein
>> look good.
>
> Henry Wilson claims that the GPS doesn't work!
>
> You are doing really well now, Ralph! :-D
>
> ----------------------------
>
>>> Consider this:
>>> About half of all SVs above the horizon have a speed component towards
>>> you.
>>> About half of all SVs above the horizon have a speed component away
>>> from you.
>>>
>>> That means that according to the emission theory, the speeds of the
>>> signals from all the SVs are different and between c ± ~800 m/s.
>
> The receiver knows the position of the SV and the GPS-time when the
> signal was sent,
No. The position is based on constant c signalling. The clocks are not
where thay are believed to be.
>but it doesn't know the GPS-time when the signal was
> received.
It doesn't need to know. It only needs to know the differences in those
arrival times, as recorded on its own less accurate clock.
>And even if it did know it, and could calculate the time the
> signal has used to reach the receiver,
> it could not calculate the distance to the SV because the speed of the
> signal is unknown.
>
> You must know the position of the SV _and_ the position of the receiver
> to know the speed of the signal.
>
> You must know the speed of the signal to determine the position of the
> receiver and the GPS-time at reception.
No, you can assume the speed is always c, so long as you also set the
whole thing up on that basis..so the continuing corrections compensate.
> Catch 22!
>
>
>>>
>>> The real, _measured_ average speeds are between c-12 m/s and c-800
>>> m/s.
>
> The average speed for every SV is measured and known.
>
>>> We know that these measured speeds give the correct position.
...assuming constant light speed.
> So we know that the speeds predicted by the emission theory are wrong.
>>>
>>> Do I have to explain why this falsifies the emission theory?
>
>
>> You are using a process that is entirely based on constant light speed
>> in your attempt to prove variable light speed wrong. That is a typical
>> mistake made by supporters of Einstein.
>> If you redesign every aspect of GPS on the basis of variable light
>> speeds,
>> It would work just as well.
Your funny little web articles are full of it...using SR to prove itself.
> Wilsonian logic again? :-D
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web