Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #377555 > unrolled thread
| Started by | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-03-01 05:14 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-06 21:48 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 453 — 22 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 05:14 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 05:43 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 06:09 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 06:22 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 06:25 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 08:12 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 08:14 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 16:23 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 08:31 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 16:48 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 08:56 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 17:00 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 09:09 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 17:13 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 09:22 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 17:31 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 09:42 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 18:05 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:12 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 18:16 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:22 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 18:29 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:35 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 18:41 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:43 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 18:56 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 11:05 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 19:56 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 21:47 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:25 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 18:34 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:40 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 09:38 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 09:45 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:28 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 10:33 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 14:34 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 21:49 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 21:52 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 05:29 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 05:37 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 05:48 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 05:51 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 05:44 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:01 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:10 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:21 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:27 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:29 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:59 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 09:14 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 11:14 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 11:34 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 11:58 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 19:37 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-03 05:21 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-03 06:39 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-03 09:09 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-03 09:51 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Helénē Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-03 18:50 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-03 11:33 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-02 20:33 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 19:39 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:24 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-02 16:14 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 09:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 05:50 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:17 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 06:30 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 06:23 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 06:34 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 07:19 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-01 16:25 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 07:32 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-01 18:27 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-03-01 19:14 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 18:19 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-01 19:44 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@.- --- -.dotat> - 2016-03-01 21:13 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-01 21:51 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-01 20:17 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 20:16 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-02 13:09 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 20:30 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 23:12 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 23:24 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 23:38 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 23:46 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 23:58 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 00:03 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 00:28 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 00:42 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 00:50 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 00:59 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 01:08 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 02:45 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 03:06 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-02 05:46 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 23:10 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 03:17 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 03:25 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 03:39 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 03:47 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 05:04 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 05:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 06:02 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-02 22:53 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 04:24 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-03 11:25 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-03 06:18 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-04 11:35 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-03 22:55 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-04 19:34 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-04 01:22 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-04 23:24 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-04 05:30 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-05 12:07 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-05 06:50 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-05 17:00 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-05 10:26 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-05 21:42 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-05 13:19 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-06 12:58 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 13:35 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 05:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 14:45 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 15:32 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-06 23:31 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 03:00 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 03:25 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 03:37 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 03:49 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 04:06 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-09 20:01 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 22:36 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-07 21:13 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-07 20:51 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-07 21:56 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-07 21:07 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 13:49 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 15:33 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-06 05:49 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 13:54 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-07 11:13 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-06 23:27 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-07 19:45 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 01:33 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-07 21:32 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 03:11 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-07 22:35 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 03:48 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-07 22:59 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 04:38 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-08 11:04 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 22:57 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-08 18:49 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 00:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-08 19:43 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 01:31 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-08 21:46 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 03:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-08 22:39 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 05:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-09 11:15 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 23:33 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-09 19:24 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 01:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-09 22:20 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 03:46 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 03:54 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 04:00 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 05:00 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 05:32 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 05:37 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 19:39 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-09 20:47 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 21:31 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 08:40 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 17:07 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 09:38 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 11:38 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 11:44 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-10 20:47 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 14:34 -0600
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 12:43 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 15:37 -0600
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 16:27 -0600
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 19:11 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 13:14 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 21:21 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 19:53 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-10 19:57 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 21:06 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-10 23:19 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 04:24 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 06:18 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 18:14 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 18:08 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 18:14 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 17:07 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 10:00 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 10:04 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 10:25 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 10:43 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 20:17 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 12:33 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 20:44 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 12:52 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 21:13 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 06:28 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-11 18:18 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 07:21 -0600
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 19:37 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 22:41 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-12 21:42 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 13:16 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 14:35 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 09:43 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 20:22 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 10:39 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 21:32 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 13:13 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 11:18 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 21:34 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 17:27 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 09:04 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-13 01:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 11:01 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 03:53 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-10 12:00 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 22:57 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-10 19:30 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-10 01:18 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-10 22:49 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-10 04:50 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-10 04:56 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-10 05:02 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 11:54 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-10 23:22 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 19:24 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 00:36 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 19:44 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 01:11 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 21:30 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 02:47 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 04:38 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-12 11:28 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 16:44 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 10:33 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Yeriychow Patroklos <yeriypat@kambuneta.com> - 2016-03-12 09:53 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-12 11:22 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Yeriychow Patroklos <yeriypat@kambuneta.com> - 2016-03-12 10:26 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Yeriychow Patroklos <yeriypat@kambuneta.com> - 2016-03-12 10:26 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 17:58 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-16 16:36 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 09:45 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-16 17:07 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 10:39 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-16 18:04 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 11:15 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 18:17 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 00:27 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 19:38 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 01:05 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 21:31 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 02:35 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 22:12 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 03:29 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-11 22:36 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-11 04:00 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-12 11:48 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 10:28 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-12 21:34 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 11:58 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-12 23:19 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 13:45 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-12 05:15 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 14:21 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-12 06:20 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 16:20 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-12 14:28 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 23:49 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-12 14:58 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-12 17:28 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Yeriychow Patroklos <yeriypat@kambuneta.com> - 2016-03-12 13:32 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 01:12 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-12 16:18 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 14:29 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 09:40 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 20:00 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 10:47 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 21:42 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 13:22 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-13 23:46 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 15:13 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-14 12:51 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-14 19:34 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-15 11:48 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 00:29 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-15 20:18 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 03:15 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-15 22:02 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 04:56 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-16 00:43 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 07:15 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-16 11:20 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-16 00:32 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-16 22:02 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-16 04:31 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-16 22:42 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-16 04:59 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 05:19 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-17 12:28 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-17 00:26 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-17 21:50 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-17 04:32 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-17 22:48 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-17 05:59 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-18 08:52 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-18 00:04 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-18 19:02 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-18 19:03 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-18 01:23 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-18 19:28 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-18 01:53 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-18 21:44 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-18 04:17 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-18 22:33 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-18 05:08 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-18 05:27 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-19 12:00 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-19 08:56 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-19 19:08 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-19 09:47 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-19 20:07 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-19 10:16 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-19 21:42 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-19 14:01 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-20 00:17 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-19 14:40 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-20 12:58 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-20 11:28 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-20 22:37 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-20 14:07 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-20 07:35 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-20 16:14 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-20 09:51 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-20 18:33 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-20 17:16 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-20 23:40 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 08:50 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-20 17:00 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-21 12:19 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-20 23:25 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-21 21:48 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-21 04:03 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 04:21 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-18 04:57 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 12:15 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-18 21:46 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 14:02 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-18 22:21 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 07:19 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 07:55 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 12:16 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 20:54 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 13:22 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 21:43 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 14:15 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 22:38 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 16:20 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 14:44 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 23:03 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-11 04:31 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-07 06:28 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 06:37 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-07 13:33 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-07 22:13 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-07 20:06 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 23:00 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-10 05:31 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-10 06:20 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-10 15:36 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-11 06:01 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-11 17:55 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-13 09:34 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-13 17:54 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 10:12 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 10:44 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 16:33 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 18:28 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 19:00 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 19:42 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-13 19:53 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 05:15 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 05:27 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 06:02 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 06:19 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 07:27 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 07:34 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 07:45 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 07:48 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 06:18 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 07:16 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 07:32 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 07:31 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 08:59 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 09:15 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 09:55 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 10:04 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 10:31 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 10:44 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 11:00 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 09:21 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 12:26 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 10:36 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 12:57 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 11:01 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 14:22 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 12:27 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 15:06 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 19:19 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 11:30 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-15 19:43 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 12:07 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 14:55 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 14:43 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 16:52 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 14:59 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 17:04 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 15:30 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 18:02 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 17:16 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 13:26 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 11:35 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 14:28 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-15 12:34 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 15:16 -0500
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 12:26 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-15 18:11 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 05:31 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Iephthae Sparrow <yvosp@gideoncloud.net> - 2016-03-14 17:51 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 10:56 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Comhghall Parthalan <compart@draggonpart.org> - 2016-03-14 18:19 +0000
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-14 06:20 -0700
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-04 05:59 -0800
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-03-10 11:54 +1100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-04 09:34 -0600
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-04 18:04 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-06 19:36 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 20:08 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-06 21:25 +0100
Re: A challenge for a relativistic moron Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 21:48 +0100
Page 7 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 23 Next page →
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 21:42 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <djvrgdFromcU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #377933 |
On 5/03/2016 8:26 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:djvav9FnokdU1@mid.individual.net... > > On 5/03/2016 4:50 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: >> >> >> Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup >> dyskusyjnych:djupqgFk0u9U1@mid.individual.net... >> >>> Yeah. So, once again. >>> What is the period of the oscillator tick measured on GPS >>> by the clock there? >>> Does it still appear as 1/n for You? >> >> |You haven't adequately defined n, and your earlier description of >> |"switching a second" is apt to cause confusion in this context. >> >> Confusion is only for You, because You have problems >> with basic terms. A second is an unit of time. Uniit of time >> is 1 switched by the clock. > > |Clearly a clock will only step at one second intervals if it's been > |constructed to that it will. > > If clock indicated 20 and now indicate 30, 10 units passed. > It's nothing but simple substraction. Certainly, but the length of those units depends on the construction. > >> >> |In the case of a GPS satellite, where the period of the oscillator is >> |1/10.2299999954326MHz >> >> Have You heard of relativity principle? You're denying it:( > > |No I'm not. If you think I am, then explain how. > > According to relativity principle, all laws of physics > are the same everywhere. All - means also Cs > oscillator period. Everywhere - means also on > GPS satellite. Certainly. It means the period of the oscillator at the satellite is 1/n seconds at the satellite, and the period of the oscillator on the Earth is 1/n seconds on the Earth. That's an application of the relativity principle. But it doesn't mean that the period of the oscillator at the satellite is 1/n seconds on the Earth, nor that the period of the oscillator on the Earth is 1/n seconds at the satellite. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-05 13:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nbeiso$dv$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #377935 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:djvrgdFromcU1@mid.individual.net... >> |In the case of a GPS satellite, where the period of the oscillator is >> |1/10.2299999954326MHz >> >> Have You heard of relativity principle? You're denying it:( > > |No I'm not. If you think I am, then explain how. > > According to relativity principle, all laws of physics > are the same everywhere. All - means also Cs > oscillator period. Everywhere - means also on > GPS satellite. |Certainly. It means the period of the oscillator at the satellite is 1/n |seconds at the satellite Right. Now, read the above: In the case of a GPS satellite, where the period of the oscillator is 1/10.2299999954326MHz Do You now see, how You denied Your beloved principle? But, as I said. Don't worry. Your mumble is denying itself, but it's just words! They don't matter. You're relativist. You're Great Guru follower!!!! You've understood The Essence!!! Surely, nobody can beat You with mere words.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 12:58 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <dk1h6sFaogpU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #377941 |
On 5/03/2016 11:19 PM, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:djvrgdFromcU1@mid.individual.net... > >>> |In the case of a GPS satellite, where the period of the oscillator is >>> |1/10.2299999954326MHz >>> >>> Have You heard of relativity principle? You're denying it:( >> >> |No I'm not. If you think I am, then explain how. >> >> According to relativity principle, all laws of physics >> are the same everywhere. All - means also Cs >> oscillator period. Everywhere - means also on >> GPS satellite. > > |Certainly. It means the period of the oscillator at the satellite is 1/n > |seconds at the satellite > > Right. Now, read the above: In the case of a GPS satellite, where the > period of the oscillator is 1/10.2299999954326MHz Then n is the reciprocal of that. Alternatively, if you retain the same n, then the satellite doesn't step at intervals of one second at the satellite. You realise that the frequency is different because a different oscillator is used, and not for any other reason? > > Do You now see, how You denied Your beloved principle? Not at all. Nothing above implies that the laws of physics are different. Sylvia.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 13:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nbh86d$c7j$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #377974 |
Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:dk1h6sFaogpU1@mid.individual.net... > |Certainly. It means the period of the oscillator at the satellite is 1/n > |seconds at the satellite > > Right. Now, read the above: In the case of a GPS satellite, where the > period of the oscillator is 1/10.2299999954326MHz |Then n is the reciprocal of that. |Alternatively, if you retain the same n, then the satellite doesn't step |at intervals of one second at the satellite. |You realise that the frequency is different because a different |oscillator is used, and not for any other reason? What is so different between a Cs atom on Earth and Cs atom on GPS satellite? > Do You now see, how You denied Your beloved principle? |Not at all. Nothing above implies that the laws of physics are different. I believe You don't see, but, yes. Different frequency of identical oscillator (a Cs atom) implies.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 05:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <60dfd96a-2ebb-429c-8385-94bd193cdc9d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377992 |
El domingo, 6 de marzo de 2016, 9:35:27 (UTC-3), Maciej Woźniak escribió: > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:dk1h6sFaogpU1@mid.individual.net... > > > |Certainly. It means the period of the oscillator at the satellite is 1/n > > |seconds at the satellite > > > > Right. Now, read the above: In the case of a GPS satellite, where the > > period of the oscillator is 1/10.2299999954326MHz > > |Then n is the reciprocal of that. > |Alternatively, if you retain the same n, then the satellite doesn't step > |at intervals of one second at the satellite. > |You realise that the frequency is different because a different > |oscillator is used, and not for any other reason? > > What is so different between a Cs atom on Earth and > Cs atom on GPS satellite? > > > Do You now see, how You denied Your beloved principle? > |Not at all. Nothing above implies that the laws of physics are different. > > I believe You don't see, but, yes. Different frequency of > identical oscillator (a Cs atom) implies. You see Polish troll, there is some difference between an oscillator and a counter. GPS facts are: 1) Each satellite carries atomic clocks which, in the case of Cs clocks count ticks defining the second. 2) Each satellite transmits signals by using frequencies, which are derived (and so not equal) from the atomic clock on board. This frequencies are adjusted to take into account relativistic effects. 3) The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals are coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SV (the atomic clock). The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz. The SV carrier frequency and clock rates -- as they would appear to an observer located in the SV -- are offset to compensate for relativistic effects. The clock rates are offset by Δf/f = -4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping rate of 10.23 MHz offset by a Δf = -4.5674E-3 Hz. This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz. The nominal carrier frequencies (f0) shall be 1575.42 MHz, and 1227.6 MHz for L1 and L2, respectively 4) Caesium-based atomic clocks observe electromagnetic transitions in the hyperfine structure of caesium-133 atoms and use it as a reference point. The first accurate caesium clock was built by Louis Essen in 1955 at the National Physical Laboratory in the UK. They have been improved repeatedly over the past half-century, and form the basis for standards-compliant time and frequency measurements, and have been regarded as "the most accurate realization of a unit that mankind has yet achieved." These clocks measure frequency with an error of 2 to 3 parts in 10^14, which would correspond to a time measurement accuracy of 2 nanoseconds per day, or one second in 1.4 million years. The latest versions are accurate to better than 1 part in 10^15, which means they would be off by about 1 second in 20 million years. 5) Under the International System of Units (via the International Committee for Weights and Measures, or CIPM), since 1967 the second has been defined as the duration of 9192631770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom. 6) The Global Positioning System (GPS) provides very accurate timing and frequency signals. A GPS receiver works by measuring the relative time delay of signals from a minimum of four, but usually more, GPS satellites, each of which has at least two onboard caesium and as many as two rubidium atomic clocks. The relative times are mathematically transformed into three absolute spatial coordinates and one absolute time coordinate. GPS Time (GPST) is a continuous time scale and theoretically accurate to about 14 ns. However, most receivers lose accuracy in the interpretation of the signals and are only accurate to 100 ns. The GPST is related to but differs from TAI (International Atomic Time) and UTC (Coordinated Universal Time). GPST remains at a constant offset with TAI (TAI – GPST = 19 seconds) and like TAI does not implement leap seconds. Periodic corrections are performed to the on-board clocks in the satellites to keep them synchronized with ground clocks. The GPS navigation message includes the difference between GPST and UTC. As of July 2015, GPST is 17 seconds ahead of UTC because of the leap second added to UTC on June 30, 2015. Receivers subtract this offset from GPS Time to calculate UTC and specific timezone values. 7) Each GPS satellite continuously broadcasts a navigation message on L1 C/A and L2 P/Y frequencies at a rate of 50 bits per second (see bitrate). Each complete message takes 750 seconds (12 1/2 minutes) to complete. The message structure has a basic format of a 1500-bit-long frame made up of five subframes, each subframe being 300 bits (6 seconds) long. Subframes 4 and 5 are subcommutated 25 times each, so that a complete data message requires the transmission of 25 full frames. Each subframe consists of ten words, each 30 bits long. Thus, with 300 bits in a subframe times 5 subframes in a frame times 25 frames in a message, each message is 37,500 bits long. At a transmission rate of 50-bit/s, this gives 750 seconds to transmit an entire almanac message (GPS). Each 30-second frame begins precisely on the minute or half-minute as indicated by the atomic clock on each satellite. 8) All satellites broadcast at the same two frequencies, 1.57542 GHz (L1 signal) and 1.2276 GHz (L2 signal). The satellite network uses a CDMA spread-spectrum technique[citation needed] where the low-bitrate message data is encoded with a high-rate pseudo-random (PRN) sequence that is different for each satellite. The receiver must be aware of the PRN codes for each satellite to reconstruct the actual message data. The C/A code, for civilian use, transmits data at 1.023 million chips per second, whereas the P code, for U.S. military use, transmits at 10.23 million chips per second. The actual internal reference of the satellites is 10.22999999543 MHz to compensate for relativistic effects that make observers on the Earth perceive a different time reference with respect to the transmitters in orbit. The L1 carrier is modulated by both the C/A and P codes, while the L2 carrier is only modulated by the P code. The P code can be encrypted as a so-called P(Y) code that is only available to military equipment with a proper decryption key. Both the C/A and P(Y) codes impart the precise time-of-day to the user.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 14:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nbhc9u$seo$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #377998 |
Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:60dfd96a-2ebb-429c-8385-94bd193cdc9d@googlegroups.com... El domingo, 6 de marzo de 2016, 9:35:27 (UTC-3), Maciej Woźniak escribió: > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:dk1h6sFaogpU1@mid.individual.net... > > > |Certainly. It means the period of the oscillator at the satellite is > > 1/n > > |seconds at the satellite > > > > Right. Now, read the above: In the case of a GPS satellite, where the > > period of the oscillator is 1/10.2299999954326MHz > > |Then n is the reciprocal of that. > |Alternatively, if you retain the same n, then the satellite doesn't step > |at intervals of one second at the satellite. > |You realise that the frequency is different because a different > |oscillator is used, and not for any other reason? > > What is so different between a Cs atom on Earth and > Cs atom on GPS satellite? > > > Do You now see, how You denied Your beloved principle? > |Not at all. Nothing above implies that the laws of physics are different. > > I believe You don't see, but, yes. Different frequency of > identical oscillator (a Cs atom) implies. |You see Polish troll, there is some difference between an oscillator and a counter. GPS facts are: 1)Clocks are indicating t'=t, against your insane Shit. Thus, according to Great Guru's own definition of time, time on GPS is galilean. Good bye, The Shit. 2)Your screaming about your Shit's prediction were exactly opposite to real Shit's predictions, and when I proved you that, you shut up for a while 3)But in the long term, you're unable to learn even from your own mistakes, so you're yelling and screaming again. As expected from a relativistic moron
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 15:32 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c13201c4-24df-492b-90a6-6a6dbb07baeb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #377999 |
El domingo, 6 de marzo de 2016, 10:45:36 (UTC-3), Maciej Woźniak escribió: > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:60dfd96a-2ebb-429c-8385-94bd193cdc9d@googlegroups.com... > > El domingo, 6 de marzo de 2016, 9:35:27 (UTC-3), Maciej Woźniak escribió: > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:dk1h6sFaogpU1@mid.individual.net... > > > > > |Certainly. It means the period of the oscillator at the satellite is > > > 1/n > > > |seconds at the satellite > > > > > > Right. Now, read the above: In the case of a GPS satellite, where the > > > period of the oscillator is 1/10.2299999954326MHz > > > > |Then n is the reciprocal of that. > > |Alternatively, if you retain the same n, then the satellite doesn't step > > |at intervals of one second at the satellite. > > |You realise that the frequency is different because a different > > |oscillator is used, and not for any other reason? > > > > What is so different between a Cs atom on Earth and > > Cs atom on GPS satellite? > > > > > Do You now see, how You denied Your beloved principle? > > |Not at all. Nothing above implies that the laws of physics are different. > > > > I believe You don't see, but, yes. Different frequency of > > identical oscillator (a Cs atom) implies. > > |You see Polish troll, there is some difference between an oscillator and a > counter. GPS facts are: > > 1)Clocks are indicating t'=t, against your insane Shit. > Thus, according to Great Guru's own definition of time, > time on GPS is galilean. > Good bye, The Shit. You do not indicate, as usual, which clocks are indicating t'=t. The receiver in your car (if you have a car with GPS) does not have an atomic clock in it. That GPS receiver device have to get signals from at least 4 satellites and sometimes it gets more than 4 (say 5, 6 or 7 signals). The reason why the GPS receiver needs all those satellite signals is to derive both the reading of the GPS master clock and the location of the receiver. If the satellite were not to transmit in the 10.2299999954326 MHz frequency, both location and time would be off mark within a few minutes. > 2)Your screaming about your Shit's prediction were > exactly opposite to real Shit's predictions, and when > I proved you that, you shut up for a while Nah, I know you are a moron troll, which is unable to read and undertand the documents regarding the GPS system, as you have shown in several opportunities around here. > 3)But in the long term, you're unable to learn even from > your own mistakes, so you're yelling and screaming > again. > As expected from a relativistic moron Nah....you are the guy wasting your time, since all of your nonsensical rantings will not change an iota of how science and technology work. I'm afraid there are a lot of people exceeding your poor reasoning abilities. For sure, you are not even funny.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 23:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ec335191-49ab-41fa-a54c-d6ee469f9a03@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378081 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 00:32:16 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > El domingo, 6 de marzo de 2016, 10:45:36 (UTC-3), Maciej Woźniak escribió: > > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup > > dyskusyjnych:60dfd96a-2ebb-429c-8385-94bd193cdc9d@googlegroups.com... > > > > El domingo, 6 de marzo de 2016, 9:35:27 (UTC-3), Maciej Woźniak escribió: > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > dyskusyjnych:dk1h6sFaogpU1@mid.individual.net... > > > > > > > |Certainly. It means the period of the oscillator at the satellite is > > > > 1/n > > > > |seconds at the satellite > > > > > > > > Right. Now, read the above: In the case of a GPS satellite, where the > > > > period of the oscillator is 1/10.2299999954326MHz > > > > > > |Then n is the reciprocal of that. > > > |Alternatively, if you retain the same n, then the satellite doesn't step > > > |at intervals of one second at the satellite. > > > |You realise that the frequency is different because a different > > > |oscillator is used, and not for any other reason? > > > > > > What is so different between a Cs atom on Earth and > > > Cs atom on GPS satellite? > > > > > > > Do You now see, how You denied Your beloved principle? > > > |Not at all. Nothing above implies that the laws of physics are different. > > > > > > I believe You don't see, but, yes. Different frequency of > > > identical oscillator (a Cs atom) implies. > > > > |You see Polish troll, there is some difference between an oscillator and a > > counter. GPS facts are: > > > > 1)Clocks are indicating t'=t, against your insane Shit. > > Thus, according to Great Guru's own definition of time, > > time on GPS is galilean. > > Good bye, The Shit. > > You do not indicate, as usual, which clocks are indicating t'=t. You don't indicate, as usual, which clocks doesn't. > The receiver in your car (if you have a car with GPS) does not have an atomic > clock in it. That GPS receiver device have to get signals from at least 4 [And more blah, blah, blah in a desperate try to change the subject.]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 03:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d97d184c-5373-47c4-83e5-646c77393ce6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378104 |
On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 4:31:27 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 00:32:16 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > > El domingo, 6 de marzo de 2016, 10:45:36 (UTC-3), Maciej Woźniak escribió: > > > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > dyskusyjnych:60dfd96a-2ebb-429c-8385-94bd193cdc9d@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > El domingo, 6 de marzo de 2016, 9:35:27 (UTC-3), Maciej Woźniak escribió: > > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > dyskusyjnych:dk1h6sFaogpU1@mid.individual.net... > > > > > > > > > |Certainly. It means the period of the oscillator at the satellite is > > > > > 1/n > > > > > |seconds at the satellite > > > > > > > > > > Right. Now, read the above: In the case of a GPS satellite, where the > > > > > period of the oscillator is 1/10.2299999954326MHz > > > > > > > > |Then n is the reciprocal of that. > > > > |Alternatively, if you retain the same n, then the satellite doesn't step > > > > |at intervals of one second at the satellite. > > > > |You realise that the frequency is different because a different > > > > |oscillator is used, and not for any other reason? > > > > > > > > What is so different between a Cs atom on Earth and > > > > Cs atom on GPS satellite? > > > > > > > > > Do You now see, how You denied Your beloved principle? > > > > |Not at all. Nothing above implies that the laws of physics are different. > > > > > > > > I believe You don't see, but, yes. Different frequency of > > > > identical oscillator (a Cs atom) implies. > > > > > > |You see Polish troll, there is some difference between an oscillator and a > > > counter. GPS facts are: > > > > > > 1)Clocks are indicating t'=t, against your insane Shit. > > > Thus, according to Great Guru's own definition of time, > > > time on GPS is galilean. > > > Good bye, The Shit. > > > > You do not indicate, as usual, which clocks are indicating t'=t. > > > You don't indicate, as usual, which clocks doesn't. > > > The receiver in your car (if you have a car with GPS) does not have an atomic > clock in it. That GPS receiver device have to get signals from at least 4 > > [And more blah, blah, blah in a desperate try to change > the subject.] There is no subject to be changed in the first place, as you do not have a subject in any of your nonsensical post, besides snipping the responses addressing your nonsense. Each GPS satellite is provided with TWO Cs atomic clocks and TWO Rubidium atomic clocks (do you know why is that?). Each Cs atomic clock is the same standard of the GPS master clock located on ground. The GPS receiver in your car does not receive directly the Cs atomic clock frequency, but some CDMA coded signals at two frequencies, 1.57542 GHz (L1 signal) and 1.2276 GHz (L2 signal). The satellite network uses a CDMA spread-spectrum technique where the low-bitrate message data is encoded with a high-rate pseudo-random (PRN) sequence that is different for each satellite. The receiver must be aware of the PRN codes for each satellite to reconstruct the actual message data. The C/A code, for civilian use, transmits data at 1.023 million chips per second, whereas the P code, for U.S. military use, transmits at 10.23 million chips per second. The actual internal reference of the satellites is 10.22999999543 MHz to compensate for relativistic effects. So, the GPS satellite derives its 10.22999999543 MHz internal reference from the atomic clocks on board. The GPS receiver gets a 10.23 MHz signal which allows it to decode the CDMA spread spectrum signal for the location calculations. End of history.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 03:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3c7c2088-e55c-41b4-8867-b08166d91944@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378110 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 12:00:45 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 4:31:27 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 00:32:16 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > > > El domingo, 6 de marzo de 2016, 10:45:36 (UTC-3), Maciej Woźniak escribió: > > > > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > dyskusyjnych:60dfd96a-2ebb-429c-8385-94bd193cdc9d@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > El domingo, 6 de marzo de 2016, 9:35:27 (UTC-3), Maciej Woźniak escribió: > > > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > > dyskusyjnych:dk1h6sFaogpU1@mid.individual.net... > > > > > > > > > > > |Certainly. It means the period of the oscillator at the satellite is > > > > > > 1/n > > > > > > |seconds at the satellite > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. Now, read the above: In the case of a GPS satellite, where the > > > > > > period of the oscillator is 1/10.2299999954326MHz > > > > > > > > > > |Then n is the reciprocal of that. > > > > > |Alternatively, if you retain the same n, then the satellite doesn't step > > > > > |at intervals of one second at the satellite. > > > > > |You realise that the frequency is different because a different > > > > > |oscillator is used, and not for any other reason? > > > > > > > > > > What is so different between a Cs atom on Earth and > > > > > Cs atom on GPS satellite? > > > > > > > > > > > Do You now see, how You denied Your beloved principle? > > > > > |Not at all. Nothing above implies that the laws of physics are different. > > > > > > > > > > I believe You don't see, but, yes. Different frequency of > > > > > identical oscillator (a Cs atom) implies. > > > > > > > > |You see Polish troll, there is some difference between an oscillator and a > > > > counter. GPS facts are: > > > > > > > > 1)Clocks are indicating t'=t, against your insane Shit. > > > > Thus, according to Great Guru's own definition of time, > > > > time on GPS is galilean. > > > > Good bye, The Shit. > > > > > > You do not indicate, as usual, which clocks are indicating t'=t. > > > > > > You don't indicate, as usual, which clocks doesn't. > > > > > The receiver in your car (if you have a car with GPS) does not have an atomic > clock in it. That GPS receiver device have to get signals from at least 4 > > > > [And more blah, blah, blah in a desperate try to change > > the subject.] > > There is no subject to be changed in the first place, as you do not have a subject in any of your nonsensical post, besides snipping the responses addressing your nonsense. > > Each GPS satellite is provided with TWO Cs atomic clocks and TWO Rubidium atomic clocks (do you know why is that?). Each Cs atomic clock is the same standard of the GPS master clock located on ground. No, poor idiot, it is not the same standard. If the clocks were of the same standard, they would unsynchronize and indicate your moronic time dilation, wouldn't they? That would be a great success of your Shit. But it's unacceptable for sane people that made and use GPS. > The GPS receiver in your car does not receive directly the Cs atomic clock [And blah, blah, blah in a desperate try to change the subject].
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 03:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <20b8374d-62ce-41b1-8a57-f856c35e6490@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378112 |
On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 8:25:32 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 12:00:45 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > > On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 4:31:27 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 00:32:16 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > > > > El domingo, 6 de marzo de 2016, 10:45:36 (UTC-3), Maciej Woźniak escribió: > > > > > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > > dyskusyjnych:60dfd96a-2ebb-429c-8385-94bd193cdc9d@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > El domingo, 6 de marzo de 2016, 9:35:27 (UTC-3), Maciej Woźniak escribió: > > > > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > > > dyskusyjnych:dk1h6sFaogpU1@mid.individual.net... > > > > > > > > > > > > > |Certainly. It means the period of the oscillator at the satellite is > > > > > > > 1/n > > > > > > > |seconds at the satellite > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. Now, read the above: In the case of a GPS satellite, where the > > > > > > > period of the oscillator is 1/10.2299999954326MHz > > > > > > > > > > > > |Then n is the reciprocal of that. > > > > > > |Alternatively, if you retain the same n, then the satellite doesn't step > > > > > > |at intervals of one second at the satellite. > > > > > > |You realise that the frequency is different because a different > > > > > > |oscillator is used, and not for any other reason? > > > > > > > > > > > > What is so different between a Cs atom on Earth and > > > > > > Cs atom on GPS satellite? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do You now see, how You denied Your beloved principle? > > > > > > |Not at all. Nothing above implies that the laws of physics are different. > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe You don't see, but, yes. Different frequency of > > > > > > identical oscillator (a Cs atom) implies. > > > > > > > > > > |You see Polish troll, there is some difference between an oscillator and a > > > > > counter. GPS facts are: > > > > > > > > > > 1)Clocks are indicating t'=t, against your insane Shit. > > > > > Thus, according to Great Guru's own definition of time, > > > > > time on GPS is galilean. > > > > > Good bye, The Shit. > > > > > > > > You do not indicate, as usual, which clocks are indicating t'=t. > > > > > > > > > You don't indicate, as usual, which clocks doesn't. > > > > > > > The receiver in your car (if you have a car with GPS) does not have an atomic > clock in it. That GPS receiver device have to get signals from at least 4 > > > > > > [And more blah, blah, blah in a desperate try to change > > > the subject.] > > > > There is no subject to be changed in the first place, as you do not have a subject in any of your nonsensical post, besides snipping the responses addressing your nonsense. > > > > Each GPS satellite is provided with TWO Cs atomic clocks and TWO Rubidium atomic clocks (do you know why is that?). Each Cs atomic clock is the same standard of the GPS master clock located on ground. > > > No, poor idiot, it is not the same standard. > If the clocks were of the same standard, > they would unsynchronize and indicate your > moronic time dilation, wouldn't they? > That would be a great success of your Shit. > But it's unacceptable for sane people that > made and use GPS. > > > > > The GPS receiver in your car does not receive directly the Cs atomic clock > > [And blah, blah, blah in a desperate try to change the subject]. Blah blah blah in a desperate try to change the subject
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 03:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6f8b524f-667d-483a-99b9-617a7c331fe2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378114 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 12:37:36 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 8:25:32 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 12:00:45 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > > > On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 4:31:27 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 00:32:16 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > > > > > El domingo, 6 de marzo de 2016, 10:45:36 (UTC-3), Maciej Woźniak escribió: > > > > > > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > > > dyskusyjnych:60dfd96a-2ebb-429c-8385-94bd193cdc9d@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > El domingo, 6 de marzo de 2016, 9:35:27 (UTC-3), Maciej Woźniak escribió: > > > > > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > > > > dyskusyjnych:dk1h6sFaogpU1@mid.individual.net... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |Certainly. It means the period of the oscillator at the satellite is > > > > > > > > 1/n > > > > > > > > |seconds at the satellite > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. Now, read the above: In the case of a GPS satellite, where the > > > > > > > > period of the oscillator is 1/10.2299999954326MHz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |Then n is the reciprocal of that. > > > > > > > |Alternatively, if you retain the same n, then the satellite doesn't step > > > > > > > |at intervals of one second at the satellite. > > > > > > > |You realise that the frequency is different because a different > > > > > > > |oscillator is used, and not for any other reason? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is so different between a Cs atom on Earth and > > > > > > > Cs atom on GPS satellite? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do You now see, how You denied Your beloved principle? > > > > > > > |Not at all. Nothing above implies that the laws of physics are different. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe You don't see, but, yes. Different frequency of > > > > > > > identical oscillator (a Cs atom) implies. > > > > > > > > > > > > |You see Polish troll, there is some difference between an oscillator and a > > > > > > counter. GPS facts are: > > > > > > > > > > > > 1)Clocks are indicating t'=t, against your insane Shit. > > > > > > Thus, according to Great Guru's own definition of time, > > > > > > time on GPS is galilean. > > > > > > Good bye, The Shit. > > > > > > > > > > You do not indicate, as usual, which clocks are indicating t'=t. > > > > > > > > > > > > You don't indicate, as usual, which clocks doesn't. > > > > > > > > > The receiver in your car (if you have a car with GPS) does not have an atomic > clock in it. That GPS receiver device have to get signals from at least 4 > > > > > > > > [And more blah, blah, blah in a desperate try to change > > > > the subject.] > > > > > > There is no subject to be changed in the first place, as you do not have a subject in any of your nonsensical post, besides snipping the responses addressing your nonsense. > > > > > > Each GPS satellite is provided with TWO Cs atomic clocks and TWO Rubidium atomic clocks (do you know why is that?). Each Cs atomic clock is the same standard of the GPS master clock located on ground. > > > > > > No, poor idiot, it is not the same standard. > > If the clocks were of the same standard, > > they would unsynchronize and indicate your > > moronic time dilation, wouldn't they? > > That would be a great success of your Shit. > > But it's unacceptable for sane people that > > made and use GPS. > > > > > > > > > The GPS receiver in your car does not receive directly the Cs atomic clock > > > > [And blah, blah, blah in a desperate try to change the subject]. > > Blah blah blah in a desperate try to change the subject You see, poor idiot, it's my thread. I know its subject better.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 04:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <17429328-12ac-4e88-9c24-8fdae81626c4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378117 |
On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 8:49:50 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 12:37:36 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > > On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 8:25:32 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 12:00:45 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > > > > On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 4:31:27 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > > > > W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 00:32:16 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > > > > > > El domingo, 6 de marzo de 2016, 10:45:36 (UTC-3), Maciej Woźniak escribió: > > > > > > > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > > > > dyskusyjnych:60dfd96a-2ebb-429c-8385-94bd193cdc9d@googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > El domingo, 6 de marzo de 2016, 9:35:27 (UTC-3), Maciej Woźniak escribió: > > > > > > > > Użytkownik "Sylvia Else" napisał w wiadomości grup > > > > > > > > dyskusyjnych:dk1h6sFaogpU1@mid.individual.net... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |Certainly. It means the period of the oscillator at the satellite is > > > > > > > > > 1/n > > > > > > > > > |seconds at the satellite > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Right. Now, read the above: In the case of a GPS satellite, where the > > > > > > > > > period of the oscillator is 1/10.2299999954326MHz > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |Then n is the reciprocal of that. > > > > > > > > |Alternatively, if you retain the same n, then the satellite doesn't step > > > > > > > > |at intervals of one second at the satellite. > > > > > > > > |You realise that the frequency is different because a different > > > > > > > > |oscillator is used, and not for any other reason? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What is so different between a Cs atom on Earth and > > > > > > > > Cs atom on GPS satellite? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do You now see, how You denied Your beloved principle? > > > > > > > > |Not at all. Nothing above implies that the laws of physics are different. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe You don't see, but, yes. Different frequency of > > > > > > > > identical oscillator (a Cs atom) implies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > |You see Polish troll, there is some difference between an oscillator and a > > > > > > > counter. GPS facts are: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1)Clocks are indicating t'=t, against your insane Shit. > > > > > > > Thus, according to Great Guru's own definition of time, > > > > > > > time on GPS is galilean. > > > > > > > Good bye, The Shit. > > > > > > > > > > > > You do not indicate, as usual, which clocks are indicating t'=t. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You don't indicate, as usual, which clocks doesn't. > > > > > > > > > > > The receiver in your car (if you have a car with GPS) does not have an atomic > clock in it. That GPS receiver device have to get signals from at least 4 > > > > > > > > > > [And more blah, blah, blah in a desperate try to change > > > > > the subject.] > > > > > > > > There is no subject to be changed in the first place, as you do not have a subject in any of your nonsensical post, besides snipping the responses addressing your nonsense. > > > > > > > > Each GPS satellite is provided with TWO Cs atomic clocks and TWO Rubidium atomic clocks (do you know why is that?). Each Cs atomic clock is the same standard of the GPS master clock located on ground. > > > > > > > > > No, poor idiot, it is not the same standard. > > > If the clocks were of the same standard, > > > they would unsynchronize and indicate your > > > moronic time dilation, wouldn't they? > > > That would be a great success of your Shit. > > > But it's unacceptable for sane people that > > > made and use GPS. > > > > > > > > > > > > > The GPS receiver in your car does not receive directly the Cs atomic clock > > > > > > [And blah, blah, blah in a desperate try to change the subject]. > > > > Blah blah blah in a desperate try to change the subject > > You see, poor idiot, it's my thread. > I know its subject better. No you don't, uneducated moron
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 20:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbpvf6$1qmi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378120 |
paparios wrote: >> > > > The GPS receiver in your car does not receive directly the Cs >> > > > atomic clock >> > > >> > > [And blah, blah, blah in a desperate try to change the subject]. >> > >> > Blah blah blah in a desperate try to change the subject >> >> You see, poor idiot, it's my thread. >> I know its subject better. > > No you don't, uneducated moron You are so stupid, you get credits just for spelling your name correct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 22:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <97777333-b84e-4422-90ff-7fcd4040ba1e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378404 |
W dniu środa, 9 marca 2016 21:01:48 UTC+1 użytkownik Luigi Durante napisał: > paparios wrote: > > >> > > > The GPS receiver in your car does not receive directly the Cs > >> > > > atomic clock > >> > > > >> > > [And blah, blah, blah in a desperate try to change the subject]. > >> > > >> > Blah blah blah in a desperate try to change the subject > >> > >> You see, poor idiot, it's my thread. > >> I know its subject better. > > > > No you don't, uneducated moron > > You are so stupid, you get credits just for spelling your name correct. Rave, moron, and spit. What else can you do.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 21:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nbkndk$hb9$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #378110 |
On 07.03.2016 12:00, paparios wrote: > > Each GPS satellite is provided with TWO Cs atomic clocks and > TWO Rubidium atomic clocks (do you know why is that?). Only one frequency standard (the most stable) is used at the time. There are currently 31 satellites in service, 29 are running on Rb standard and only 2 on Cs standard, so it seems like the Rb frequency standards tend to be better than the Cs standards. http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gps_datafiles.html ftp://tycho.usno.navy.mil/pub/gps/gpssat.txt > Each Cs atomic clock is the same standard of the GPS master > clock located on ground. The GPS receiver in your car does not > receive directly the Cs atomic clock frequency, but some CDMA > coded signals at two frequencies, 1.57542 GHz (L1 signal) and > 1.2276 GHz (L2 signal). > > The satellite network uses a CDMA spread-spectrum technique where > the low-bitrate message data is encoded with a high-rate pseudo-random > (PRN) sequence that is different for each satellite. > The receiver must be aware of the PRN codes for each satellite > to reconstruct the actual message data. And the receiver identifies the satellites by their PRN code. > The C/A code, for civilian use, > transmits data at 1.023 million chips per second, whereas the P code, > for U.S. military use, transmits at 10.23 million chips per second. > The actual internal reference of the satellites is 10.22999999543 MHz > to compensate for relativistic effects. > > So, the GPS satellite derives its 10.22999999543 MHz internal reference > from the atomic clocks on board. The GPS receiver gets a 10.23 MHz signal > which allows it to decode the CDMA spread spectrum signal for the location calculations. All this is correct, but I get (maybe wrongly so) the impression that you have missed the real point with the -4.4647E-10 correction. Remember that the satellites are moving at high speed, so the signal received by the receiver will be Doppler shifted order of magnitudes more than the minute GR correction. The frequencies from the satellites will be Doppler shifted by anything between +/- 3E-7. This is equivalent to a frequency shift of the carriers in the order of kHz. Since the bandwidth of the channels is ca. 20 MHz, this is of no consequence for the receiver. The reason, and only reason, why the frequency standard is corrected for relativistic effects is to make the SV clock run synchronously with the ground clocks. If the rate of the SV-clocks weren't GR-corrected when manufactured, they would run too fast by 4.4647E-10, which means that they would drift off sync by more than can be allowed after few minutes, and the GPS wouldn't work. Since all the frequencies in the SV are derived from same frequency standard, all the frequencies in the SV will be adjusted by -4.4647E-10, but the adjustment of the carrier frequencies is not really necessary, it's rather a side effect. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 20:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbkpkd$lvj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378198 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> The receiver must be aware of the PRN codes for each satellite >> to reconstruct the actual message data. > > And the receiver identifies the satellites by their PRN code. No shit Sherlock, once those must be different, hence unique. > All this is correct, but I get (maybe wrongly so) the impression > that you have missed the real point with the -4.4647E-10 correction. > > Remember that the satellites are moving at high speed, so the signal > received by the receiver will be Doppler shifted order of magnitudes > more than the minute GR correction. Not so, you still don't get it. Give me a break. When the satellites are right above the receiver there is no shift due to speed, since that speed would close to ZERO. You are an idiot. > The frequencies from the satellites will be Doppler shifted > by anything between +/- 3E-7. This is equivalent to a frequency > shift of the carriers in the order of kHz. Since the bandwidth > of the channels is ca. 20 MHz, this is of no consequence for > the receiver. Hmm. You don't even know what a bandwidth stands for. A Channel Width is not the same as the Receiver Bandwidth.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 21:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nbkpuv$lga$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #378201 |
On 07.03.2016 21:51, François Theobaldus wrote: > [] It doesn't help to change your name, the trolling idiot is recognized anyway. One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance make a person constantly change his name and write nonsense only. plonk -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 21:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbkqio$nfi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378205 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 07.03.2016 21:51, François Theobaldus wrote: > > [] > > It doesn't help to change your name, > the trolling idiot is recognized anyway. > > One can but wonder what kind of mental disturbance make a person > constantly change his name and write nonsense only. plonk You seems affected.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-06 13:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbhcgq$1osd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #377998 |
paparios wrote: >> I believe You don't see, but, yes. Different frequency of identical >> oscillator (a Cs atom) implies. > > You see Polish troll, What is this supposed to mean, in English?? > there is some difference between an oscillator and > a counter. GPS facts are: No, no GPS. Explain first that difference. > 1) Each satellite carries atomic clocks which, in the case of Cs clocks > count ticks defining the second. Why, are the other elements based atomic clocks not counting ticks defining seconds?? > 2) Each satellite transmits signals by using frequencies, which are > derived (and so not equal) from the atomic clock on board. This > frequencies are adjusted to take into account relativistic effects. There is no need for that. You can always have a heterodyne based receiver, able to manage a wide range of frequency, simply by using a local oscillator. > 3) The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals are coherently > derived from a common frequency source within the SV (the atomic clock). > The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears to an observer on > the ground -- is 10.23 MHz. The SV carrier frequency and clock rates -- > as they would appear to an observer located in the SV -- are offset to > compensate for relativistic effects. The clock rates are offset by Δf/f > = -4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping rate of > 10.23 MHz offset by a Δf = -4.5674E-3 Hz. This is equal to > 10.2299999954326 MHz. > The nominal carrier frequencies (f0) shall be 1575.42 MHz, and 1227.6 > MHz for L1 and L2, respectively I don't know. What do you think?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 23 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 23 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web