Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #377175 > unrolled thread
| Started by | nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-02-26 01:38 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-03-06 18:49 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 262 — 31 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-02-26 01:38 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 17:59 +0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-26 03:05 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 19:29 +0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-26 04:14 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 20:35 +0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-26 05:17 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 21:23 +0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-26 06:34 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 22:38 +0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-27 09:30 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 04:34 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 04:37 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-26 05:19 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-02-26 06:57 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-26 13:06 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-26 19:21 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2016-02-27 19:33 +1100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! PC <pc468@hotmail.com> - 2016-02-27 08:52 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-27 12:22 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-02-28 11:04 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-02-28 22:39 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-28 23:33 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 04:53 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 05:55 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 06:09 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 06:14 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-02-29 06:37 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 06:44 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 06:59 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-29 17:28 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-02-29 16:41 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 09:27 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-02-29 17:31 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 19:59 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 19:58 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-09 06:19 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! alsor@interia.pl - 2016-02-26 11:29 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-02-27 09:35 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 20:04 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-02-29 22:45 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 12:56 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-01 11:25 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 02:59 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 03:32 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 03:58 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 04:31 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 04:44 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 05:38 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 13:03 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 23:00 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-03-02 01:08 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 01:27 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 03:15 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 03:25 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 03:38 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 03:46 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 05:03 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 05:15 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 06:05 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-02 06:20 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 06:56 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-02 18:25 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 09:43 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-02 19:39 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 10:53 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-02 23:13 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 13:47 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-03 23:14 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 05:43 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 06:13 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 07:19 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 10:10 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-01 21:50 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-01 22:12 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 20:58 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-02-29 21:12 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-01 10:24 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-01 17:38 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-01 09:28 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-01 22:57 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Emigdio Sophronius <emigg@augustvisitors.org> - 2016-03-01 16:51 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 10:04 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2016-03-01 18:54 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-02 09:22 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-02 18:27 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-02 20:01 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-02 22:13 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Henry Wilson <Hewn@bigpond.com> - 2016-03-04 09:17 +1100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-04 10:03 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-04 19:44 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-05 13:18 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-07 18:20 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-07 23:32 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 18:43 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-08 11:29 +0100
Free energy "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-02 22:24 +0100
Re: Free energy Henry Wilson <Hewn@bigpond.com> - 2016-03-04 09:21 +1100
Re: Free energy Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-03 23:41 +0100
Re: Free energy "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-04 10:03 +0100
Re: Free energy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 08:01 -0600
Re: Free energy mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-04 06:59 -0800
Re: Free energy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 11:11 -0600
Re: Free energy Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-04 19:51 +0000
Re: Free energy Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 14:12 -0800
Re: Free energy Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 17:12 -0600
Re: Free energy Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-08 19:33 +0000
Re: Free energy Henry Wilson <HGW@home.com> - 2016-03-08 19:40 +0000
Re: Free energy Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-08 19:27 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-06 09:22 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 17:11 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-02 16:57 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-03 10:18 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-03 17:16 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-03 19:41 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Henry Wilson <Hewn@bigpond.com> - 2016-03-04 09:22 +1100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helénē Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-03 22:49 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-04 10:09 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 10:48 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 08:02 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 08:20 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 08:48 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-04 09:00 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 11:58 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-03 21:27 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 12:59 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-03 22:42 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-03 13:58 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-03 23:02 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-03 16:32 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 15:46 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 15:59 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 01:31 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 03:54 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 11:52 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 14:44 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 22:40 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-04 16:07 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 05:33 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 06:18 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-07 06:37 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 06:40 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-07 16:34 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:22 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-07 17:23 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:19 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:34 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 16:37 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-07 08:48 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 16:58 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-07 18:01 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-07 15:01 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-07 23:01 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 07:04 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-08 15:37 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 08:29 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-08 18:00 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 10:31 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-08 19:07 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 11:13 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2016-03-09 01:48 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-09 16:05 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-09 16:08 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 08:26 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-08 18:03 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 23:41 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 06:04 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 06:50 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-09 17:10 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> - 2016-03-09 18:00 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-09 15:23 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-09 21:32 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 14:03 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> - 2016-03-09 23:06 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-03-14 04:15 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-14 19:58 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-14 14:34 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 12:59 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-03-17 19:00 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-11 16:09 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-11 22:47 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-15 02:23 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 02:44 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 16:41 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-15 17:02 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 08:22 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 09:38 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 10:12 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 10:38 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 11:20 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 11:45 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-17 15:53 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 09:51 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Dewydd Hrodland <dewdhr@wisecommodities.org> - 2016-03-17 17:25 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-17 19:37 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Cesare Pancratius <cesarepanc@porphyriocontext.org> - 2016-03-19 13:27 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-03-17 20:25 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 22:48 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 16:41 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-17 16:58 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 08:03 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 17:53 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-19 08:46 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Cesare Pancratius <cesarepanc@porphyriocontext.org> - 2016-03-19 13:58 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-19 15:00 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Cesare Pancratius <cesarepanc@porphyriocontext.org> - 2016-03-19 14:14 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-21 05:55 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-21 06:18 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-21 09:53 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 10:02 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-21 13:05 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-21 17:03 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 16:30 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-03-21 13:01 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Snowshoe <no@spam.please> - 2016-03-21 17:06 -0400
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 21:08 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-21 17:03 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 22:18 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Snowshoe <no@spam.please> - 2016-03-21 21:02 -0400
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-22 00:22 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-16 11:11 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 10:07 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-16 19:06 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-16 11:45 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 16:47 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-18 17:59 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-20 22:48 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-20 22:27 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:20 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-21 07:32 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-21 09:37 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 09:55 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 08:11 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-21 11:52 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 16:58 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> - 2016-03-21 17:03 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-21 18:08 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 13:04 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 15:51 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 18:00 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-22 02:23 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 04:40 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 04:50 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-22 05:30 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-20 23:34 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-21 07:46 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-22 11:20 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-22 18:32 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-08 11:11 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 13:41 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-08 23:41 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-08 22:37 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-09 20:33 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-03-09 22:45 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-09 23:02 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-06 08:57 -0600
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> - 2016-03-06 15:15 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 17:09 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 08:31 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 18:04 +0100
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-06 09:38 -0800
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-06 18:49 +0100
Page 8 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 14 Next page →
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 06:37 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c95278a1-9342-482f-8649-597e6838321d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378126 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 15:18:57 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > 1) The SPACE VEHICLE (that is the GPS satellite) uses a relativistic effects adjusted frequency of 10.2299999954326 MHz. According to your moronic guru's own definition of time, there is no time dilation on GPS. That means, that another effect has to be used to adjust frequency you're talking about. And the number is wrong, too. Your Shit says, but measuremnent done on GPS satelite is showing 10.23 MHz.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 06:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <bd74de11-3ce3-4381-a194-35595a6a08f6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378128 |
On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 11:37:32 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 15:18:57 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > > > 1) The SPACE VEHICLE (that is the GPS satellite) uses a relativistic effects adjusted frequency of 10.2299999954326 MHz. > > According to your moronic guru's own definition > of time, there is no time dilation on GPS. > > That means, that another effect has to be used > to adjust frequency you're talking about. > > And the number is wrong, too. Your Shit says, > but measuremnent done on GPS satelite is showing > 10.23 MHz. You are wrong, as always, moronic troll!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 16:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nbk72e$78b$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #378130 |
Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:bd74de11-3ce3-4381-a194-35595a6a08f6@googlegroups.com... On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 11:37:32 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 15:18:57 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios > napisał: > > > 1) The SPACE VEHICLE (that is the GPS satellite) uses a relativistic > > effects adjusted frequency of 10.2299999954326 MHz. > > According to your moronic guru's own definition > of time, there is no time dilation on GPS. > > That means, that another effect has to be used > to adjust frequency you're talking about. > > And the number is wrong, too. Your Shit says, > but measuremnent done on GPS satelite is showing > 10.23 MHz. |You are wrong, as always, moronic troll!!! No, I'm not, moronic troll.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 08:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2c193c15-a3e3-4f1d-89dc-5a8a4800c671@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378147 |
On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 12:34:39 PM UTC-3, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:bd74de11-3ce3-4381-a194-35595a6a08f6@googlegroups.com... > > On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 11:37:32 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 15:18:57 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios > > napisał: > > > > > 1) The SPACE VEHICLE (that is the GPS satellite) uses a relativistic > > > effects adjusted frequency of 10.2299999954326 MHz. > > > > According to your moronic guru's own definition > > of time, there is no time dilation on GPS. > > > > That means, that another effect has to be used > > to adjust frequency you're talking about. > > > > And the number is wrong, too. Your Shit says, > > but measuremnent done on GPS satelite is showing > > 10.23 MHz. > > |You are wrong, as always, moronic troll!!! > > No, I'm not, moronic troll. Yes you are, brainless moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 17:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nbk9ue$qn3$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #378157 |
Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:2c193c15-a3e3-4f1d-89dc-5a8a4800c671@googlegroups.com... On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 12:34:39 PM UTC-3, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:bd74de11-3ce3-4381-a194-35595a6a08f6@googlegroups.com... > > On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 11:37:32 AM UTC-3, mlwo...@wp.pl wrote: > > W dniu poniedziałek, 7 marca 2016 15:18:57 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios > > napisał: > > > > > 1) The SPACE VEHICLE (that is the GPS satellite) uses a relativistic > > > effects adjusted frequency of 10.2299999954326 MHz. > > > > According to your moronic guru's own definition > > of time, there is no time dilation on GPS. > > > > That means, that another effect has to be used > > to adjust frequency you're talking about. > > > > And the number is wrong, too. Your Shit says, > > but measuremnent done on GPS satelite is showing > > 10.23 MHz. > > |You are wrong, as always, moronic troll!!! > > No, I'm not, moronic troll. |Yes you are, brainless moron. No, I'm not, brainless moron.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 08:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c623bc05-5539-42b5-929b-47f88212206b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378126 |
El lunes, 7 de marzo de 2016, 9:18:57 (UTC-5), paparios escribió: > On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 10:33:43 AM UTC-3, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > El viernes, 4 de marzo de 2016, 19:07:14 (UTC-5), paparios escribió: > > > El viernes, 4 de marzo de 2016, 20:46:27 (UTC-3), Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato escribió: > > > > > I will repeat for you the EXPERIMENTAL FACTS. > > > > > > > > In the first GPS launching (without correction). > > > > > > > > Frequency at ground: 10.23 MHz; Frequency in orbit: GREATER than 10.23 MHz by +442.5 parts in 10E12. > > > > > > > > In all the other launching until today (with more recent correction). > > > > Frequency at ground: 10.299999954326 MHz; Frequency in orbit: 10.230000000000 MHz . > > > > > > > > > > You should read the Offical GPS Documentation before writting nonsense. For instance, see http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200H.pdf > > > > > As I wrote to Tom, I read already that document page by page, searching > > (without success) for a place describing in it a transmission (or reception) of > > a signal with the 10.23 MHz (or near to it) synchronizing frequency for all GPS > > clocks. > > > > > In that document see page 13, section 3.3.1.1, where the frequency plan is explained: > > > > > > "For Block IIA, IIR, IIR-M, and IIF satellites, the requirements specified in this IS shall pertain to the signal contained within two 20.46 MHz bands; one centered about the L1 nominal frequency and the other centered about the L2 nominal frequency (see Table 3-Vb). For GPS III and subsequent satellites, the requirements specified in this IS shall pertain to the signal contained > > > within two 30.69 MHz bands; one centered about the L1 nominal frequency and the other centered about the L2 nominal frequency (see Table 3-Vc). The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2 signals shall be coherently derived from a common frequency source within the SV. 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 ∆f/f = - 4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the P > > > - code chipping rate of 10.23 MHz offset by a ∆f = -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." > > > > > > So you see you have your numbers in the wrong locations. > > > > You simply repeat the technical document, forgetting to specify what numbers do > > you think I am putting in the wrong locations and why. > > > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > > Well it appears that either you can't read or you are unwilling to understand what is written above: > > 1) The SPACE VEHICLE (that is the GPS satellite) uses a relativistic effects adjusted frequency of 10.2299999954326 MHz. > Yes, but that frequency value corresponds to the frequency the clock is showing when it is still NOT operative ON THE GROUND BEFORE the launching, as an astronaut (or any visitor) inside the SV can verify. > 2) The GPS received frequency ON THE GROUND is 10.23 MHz. Once the satellite IS operative in orbit, its clock is already showing the desired 10.23 MHz synchronizing frequency that MUST show ALL GPS operative clocks in ANY place of the GPS ECI. An astronaut inside the SV can verify that. A 10.23 MHz SIGNAL is NOT emitted or received in ANY place of the GPS ECI, because following the 1905 Einstein time definition, that synchronizing frequency is already SIMULTANEOUSLY in ALL the stationary points of the GPS ECI, including all the ones where in any instant all the SV (operative satellites) are passing. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 08:34 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e44a0617-04fd-4982-8cc6-5a05a0906020@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378155 |
On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 1:19:21 PM UTC-3, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > El lunes, 7 de marzo de 2016, 9:18:57 (UTC-5), paparios escribió: > > Well it appears that either you can't read or you are unwilling to understand what is written above: > > > > 1) The SPACE VEHICLE (that is the GPS satellite) uses a relativistic effects adjusted frequency of 10.2299999954326 MHz. > > > Yes, but that frequency value corresponds to the frequency the clock is showing > when it is still NOT operative ON THE GROUND BEFORE the launching, as an > astronaut (or any visitor) inside the SV can verify. > Wrong and unjustified assertion (just a figment of your imagination). As the official document states quite clearly (which you refuses to read and understand): "The SV carrier frequency and clock rates -- AS THEY WOULD APPEAR TO AN OBSERVER LOCATED IN THE SPACE VEHICLE -- are offset to compensate for relativistic effects." The CDMA coded signal chipping rate is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz. > > 2) The GPS received frequency ON THE GROUND is 10.23 MHz. > > Once the satellite IS operative in orbit, its clock is already showing the > desired 10.23 MHz synchronizing frequency that MUST show ALL GPS operative > clocks in ANY place of the GPS ECI. An astronaut inside the SV can verify that. > This is just a figment of your imagination.... All GPS receivers need to receive the CDMA spread spectrum coded signal from at least four satellites in order to determine their location. > A 10.23 MHz SIGNAL is NOT emitted or received in ANY place of the GPS ECI, > because following the 1905 Einstein time definition, that synchronizing > frequency is already SIMULTANEOUSLY in ALL the stationary points of the GPS > ECI, including all the ones where in any instant all the SV (operative > satellites) are passing. > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) This is completely nonsense. The GPS receivers need to receive and decode a CDMA spread spectrum coded signal containing several data which the GPS system requires each GPS receiver to get in order to determine its location.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 16:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbkaou$1js4$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378162 |
paparios wrote: >> > 2) The GPS received frequency ON THE GROUND is 10.23 MHz. >> >> Once the satellite IS operative in orbit, its clock is already showing >> the desired 10.23 MHz synchronizing frequency that MUST show ALL GPS >> operative clocks in ANY place of the GPS ECI. An astronaut inside the SV >> can verify that. >> >> > This is just a figment of your imagination.... All GPS receivers need to > receive the CDMA spread spectrum coded signal from at least four > satellites in order to determine their location. No, three is sufficient, you don't need the elevation http://www.infowars.com/theres-an-insurrection-coming-the-american-people-are-sick-tired-of-crony-capitalism/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 08:48 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <66a73f3f-46ee-4157-ba62-0581fd2e09ab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378163 |
On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 1:37:54 PM UTC-3, Helene Swanhild wrote: > paparios wrote: > > >> > 2) The GPS received frequency ON THE GROUND is 10.23 MHz. > >> > >> Once the satellite IS operative in orbit, its clock is already showing > >> the desired 10.23 MHz synchronizing frequency that MUST show ALL GPS > >> operative clocks in ANY place of the GPS ECI. An astronaut inside the SV > >> can verify that. > >> > >> > > This is just a figment of your imagination.... All GPS receivers need to > > receive the CDMA spread spectrum coded signal from at least four > > satellites in order to determine their location. > > No, three is sufficient, you don't need the elevation > http://www.infowars.com/theres-an-insurrection-coming-the-american-people-are-sick-tired-of-crony-capitalism/ Shut the fuck off nym-shifting troll. You know nothing about this.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 16:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbkc02$1ogc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378169 |
paparios wrote: > On Monday, March 7, 2016 at 1:37:54 PM UTC-3, Helene Swanhild wrote: >> paparios wrote: >> >> >> > 2) The GPS received frequency ON THE GROUND is 10.23 MHz. >> >> >> >> Once the satellite IS operative in orbit, its clock is already showing >> >> the desired 10.23 MHz synchronizing frequency that MUST show ALL GPS >> >> operative clocks in ANY place of the GPS ECI. An astronaut inside the SV >> >> can verify that. >> >> >> >> >> > This is just a figment of your imagination.... All GPS receivers need to >> > receive the CDMA spread spectrum coded signal from at least four >> > satellites in order to determine their location. >> >> No, three is sufficient, you don't need the elevation >> http://www.infowars.com/theres-an-insurrection-coming-the-american-people-are-sick-tired-of-crony-capitalism/ > > Shut the fuck off nym-shifting troll. You know nothing about this. No pappy, or should I say, crappy, I do GPS to breakfast, something you only know from urban stories from internet, since google is your friend. And Wikipedia, you are strong at that too. As proof I will insinuate that you don't even know what comes out of an GPS receiver, the structure of the signal. See NMEA (I just helped you a lot). And how that data is to be used farther through the system. You are blank as an old A4 paper, something similar to this http://previews.123rf.com/images/wayoutwest/wayoutwest1204/wayoutwest120400016/13359691-Old-yellowing-lined-blank-A4-paper-isolated--Stock-Photo-background.jpg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 18:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nbkc64$cbt$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #378162 |
Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:e44a0617-04fd-4982-8cc6-5a05a0906020@googlegroups.com... |"The SV carrier frequency and clock rates -- AS THEY WOULD APPEAR TO AN OBSERVER LOCATED IN THE SPACE VEHICLE -- are offset to compensate for relativistic effects." The CDMA coded signal chipping rate is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz. Samely, as running trees would appear to an observer walking through a forest.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Helene Swanhild <helenes@gardenclosure.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 15:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbk53h$19h4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378124 |
Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > You simply repeat the technical document, forgetting to specify what > numbers do you think I am putting in the wrong locations and why. No, he is not repeating it. He is clearly no that smart to repeat anything. The method used is known under the name of Cut&Paste in Modern Science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-07 23:01 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <A4ydnVFVBNMEwUPLnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #378124 |
On 3/7/16 3/7/16 7:33 AM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > As I wrote to Tom, I read already that document page by page, searching > (without success) for a place describing in it a transmission (or reception) of > a signal with the 10.23 MHz (or near to it) synchronizing frequency for all GPS > clocks. It's clear that you do not understand the document and the nomenclature used in it. 10.2299999954326 MHz is the frequency at which the satellite MODULATES its two carriers (L1 and L2, which are specified as 154 and 120 times the modulation frequency). This is called the "chip frequency", and is the base frequency to which all digital frequencies in the satellite are referenced by integer multipliers; it is derived from the on-board atomic clocks. Because of the CDMA modulation used, it requires many "chip times" to transmit each data bit. Note that multiple data streams are XOR-ed into the two carrier modulations, using 1023 and 10230 chips/bit -- that is enough to separate the data streams, provide for receiver signal acquisition, and support robust error detection and correction at the receiver (all digitally). On the geoid, of course, the signals are received with a modulation frequency of 10.230000000000 MHz. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 07:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a635c21a-8758-470c-a06f-ec715f2f0c67@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378239 |
El martes, 8 de marzo de 2016, 0:01:16 (UTC-5), tjrob137 escribió: > On 3/7/16 3/7/16 7:33 AM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > As I wrote to Tom, I read already that document page by page, searching > > (without success) for a place describing in it a transmission (or reception) of > > a signal with the 10.23 MHz (or near to it) synchronizing frequency for all GPS > > clocks. > > It's clear that you do not understand the document and the nomenclature used in it. > > 10.2299999954326 MHz is the frequency at which the satellite MODULATES its two > carriers (L1 and L2, which are specified as 154 and 120 times the modulation > frequency). This is called the "chip frequency", and is the base frequency to > which all digital frequencies in the satellite are referenced by integer > multipliers; it is derived from the on-board atomic clocks. Because of the CDMA > modulation used, it requires many "chip times" to transmit each data bit. > > Note that multiple data streams are XOR-ed into the two carrier modulations, > using 1023 and 10230 chips/bit -- that is enough to separate the data streams, > provide for receiver signal acquisition, and support robust error detection and > correction at the receiver (all digitally). > > On the geoid, of course, the signals are received with a modulation frequency of > 10.230000000000 MHz. > Analyze the following two simple arithmetical EXACT equalities (with the * multiplication sign): 10.23*154=1575.42 10.23*120=1227.6 and make your own conclusions. Continue you thinking that "10.2299999954326 MHz is the frequency at which the satellite MODULATES its two carriers (L1 and L2, which are specified as 154 and 120 times the modulation frequency)" ?. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 15:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbmrkh$ulj$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378265 |
Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: >> On the geoid, of course, the signals are received with a modulation >> frequency of 10.230000000000 MHz. >> > Analyze the following two simple arithmetical EXACT equalities (with the > * multiplication sign): 10.23*154=1575.42 10.23*120=1227.6 > and make your own conclusions. > Continue you thinking that "10.2299999954326 MHz is the frequency at > which the satellite MODULATES its two carriers (L1 and L2, which are > specified as 154 and 120 times the modulation frequency)" ?. Well, L1 and L2 can't possibly be carriers, but the data, the datasignal, of signaldata if you wish. But can never be carriers. A carrier must be used to transfer the datasignal, not the other way around. A carrier is simply a frequency (AM) or ie, a width of frequencies (FM)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 08:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <565faa5b-5091-4645-978e-038c74068345@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378270 |
On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 12:37:57 PM UTC-3, François Theobaldus wrote: > Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > >> On the geoid, of course, the signals are received with a modulation > >> frequency of 10.230000000000 MHz. > >> > > Analyze the following two simple arithmetical EXACT equalities (with the > > * multiplication sign): 10.23*154=1575.42 10.23*120=1227.6 > > and make your own conclusions. > > Continue you thinking that "10.2299999954326 MHz is the frequency at > > which the satellite MODULATES its two carriers (L1 and L2, which are > > specified as 154 and 120 times the modulation frequency)" ?. > > Well, L1 and L2 can't possibly be carriers, but the data, the datasignal, > of signaldata if you wish. But can never be carriers. A carrier must be > used to transfer the datasignal, not the other way around. A carrier is > simply a frequency (AM) or ie, a width of frequencies (FM) Keep out of a discussion you know nothing about, you nym-shifting troll. The carriers are there in the above.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 18:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbn3vc$1eku$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378275 |
paparios wrote: >> > Analyze the following two simple arithmetical EXACT equalities (with >> > the * multiplication sign): 10.23*154=1575.42 10.23*120=1227.6 and >> > make your own conclusions. >> > Continue you thinking that "10.2299999954326 MHz is the frequency at >> > which the satellite MODULATES its two carriers (L1 and L2, which are >> > specified as 154 and 120 times the modulation frequency)" ?. >> >> Well, L1 and L2 can't possibly be carriers, but the data, the >> datasignal, >> of signaldata if you wish. But can never be carriers. A carrier must be >> used to transfer the datasignal, not the other way around. A carrier is >> simply a frequency (AM) or ie, a width of frequencies (FM) > > Keep out of a discussion you know nothing about, you nym-shifting troll. > The carriers are there in the above. Hey papastupid, you just proved you know nothing about the GPS, and this is second time, I guess. L1 and L2 are signals, data signals, NOT carriers, you uneducated incoherent troll. Go back to sleep now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS_signals "There are 4 signals available for civilian use. In order of date of introduction, these are: L1 C/A, L2C, L5 and L1C.[1] L1 C/A"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 10:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b5588824-78d5-45e2-af0f-0d768a1e943a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378287 |
On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 3:00:21 PM UTC-3, François Theobaldus wrote: > paparios wrote: > > >> > Analyze the following two simple arithmetical EXACT equalities (with > >> > the * multiplication sign): 10.23*154=1575.42 10.23*120=1227.6 and > >> > make your own conclusions. > >> > Continue you thinking that "10.2299999954326 MHz is the frequency at > >> > which the satellite MODULATES its two carriers (L1 and L2, which are > >> > specified as 154 and 120 times the modulation frequency)" ?. > >> > >> Well, L1 and L2 can't possibly be carriers, but the data, the > >> datasignal, > >> of signaldata if you wish. But can never be carriers. A carrier must be > >> used to transfer the datasignal, not the other way around. A carrier is > >> simply a frequency (AM) or ie, a width of frequencies (FM) > > > > Keep out of a discussion you know nothing about, you nym-shifting troll. > > The carriers are there in the above. > > Hey papastupid, you just proved you know nothing about the GPS, and this > is second time, I guess. L1 and L2 are signals, data signals, NOT > carriers, you uneducated incoherent troll. Go back to sleep now. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS_signals > "There are 4 signals available for civilian use. In order of date of > introduction, these are: L1 C/A, L2C, L5 and L1C.[1] L1 C/A" You are so deeply stupid nym-shifting troll as to cite a wikipedia article and not reading it. It says the following: "For the ranging codes and navigation message to travel from the satellite to the receiver, they must be modulated onto a carrier wave. In the case of the original GPS design, two frequencies are utilized; one at 1575.42 MHz (10.23 MHz × 154) called L1; and a second at 1227.60 MHz (10.23 MHz × 120), called L2." Now fuck off ignorant.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 19:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbn7sl$1kp6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378291 |
paparios wrote: > "For the ranging codes and navigation message to travel from the > satellite to the receiver, they must be modulated onto a carrier wave. > In the case of the original GPS design, two frequencies are utilized; > one at 1575.42 MHz (10.23 MHz × 154) called L1; and a second at 1227.60 > MHz (10.23 MHz × 120), called L2." Now fuck off ignorant. Can't you read your own stuff, Pablo. The datasignals L1 and L2 needs carrier frequencies, since otherwise they can't travel through the Aether, just like that. Consequently, you can't call a carrier frequency as L1, since that frequency already has a name, a Carrier Frequency. You know nothing about wireless data communication, and provable, also other stuff. You are unemployable, so to speak.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 11:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6a416e2d-53c9-4c6b-9ec1-5dea9309a5ea@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378294 |
On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 4:07:05 PM UTC-3, Francois Theobaldus wrote: > paparios wrote: > > > "For the ranging codes and navigation message to travel from the > > satellite to the receiver, they must be modulated onto a carrier wave. > > In the case of the original GPS design, two frequencies are utilized; > > one at 1575.42 MHz (10.23 MHz × 154) called L1; and a second at 1227.60 > > MHz (10.23 MHz × 120), called L2." Now fuck off ignorant. > > Can't you read your own stuff, Pablo. The datasignals L1 and L2 needs > carrier frequencies, since otherwise they can't travel through the Aether, > just like that. Consequently, you can't call a carrier frequency as L1, > since that frequency already has a name, a Carrier Frequency. You know > nothing about wireless data communication, and provable, also other stuff. > You are unemployable, so to speak. You are an imbecile, so to speak!!! The carrier is 1.57542 GHz, while the data CDMA modulating the carrier (as received on the ground) is 10.23 MHz. You know nothing about this!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web