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 9 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 14 Next page →
| From | Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 01:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <5061345.KXCjsDB0bh@PointedEars.de> |
| In reply to | #378294 |
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, No, *you* cannot read. > since otherwise they can't travel through the Aether, just like that. There is no "Aether", and a carrier frequency is of course not required for an electromagnetic wave to travel. > Consequently, you can't call a carrier frequency as L1, since that > frequency already has a name, a Carrier Frequency. Utter nonsense. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_frequency> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_modulation> > You know nothing about wireless data communication, and provable, also > other stuff. You are unemployable, so to speak. You have not the slightest idea of a shadow of a clue what you are talking about, which now we have found out includes “wireless data communication”. And you are a gibbering, ‘nym-shifting troll, which is worse than that. *PLONK* PointedEars -- Q: Why is electricity so dangerous? A: It doesn't conduct itself. (from: WolframAlpha)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 16:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbphkh$125v$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378319 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: >> You know nothing about wireless data communication, and provable, also >> other stuff. You are unemployable, so to speak. > > You have not the slightest idea of a shadow of a clue what you are > talking about, which now we have found out includes “wireless data > communication”. > > And you are a gibbering, ‘nym-shifting troll, which is worse than that. > *PLONK* Why then aint you keep your plonking, and not read, since you already know who they are. You are the most ferocious reader in this group. You keep plonking, thereafter quickly you start again to read. What plonk is that, when you read, AND answer in details. You are so stupid, there is no need for you to answer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 16:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbphpe$125v$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378319 |
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote: > 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, > > No, *you* cannot read. I don't need to read, I know stuff in the field, not stories. >> since otherwise they can't travel through the Aether, just like that. > > There is no "Aether", and a carrier frequency is of course not required > for an electromagnetic wave to travel. Shut up. >> Consequently, you can't call a carrier frequency as L1, since that >> frequency already has a name, a Carrier Frequency. > > Utter nonsense. You. >> You know nothing about wireless data communication, and provable, also >> other stuff. You are unemployable, so to speak. > > You have not the slightest idea of a shadow of a clue what you are > talking about, which now we have found out includes “wireless data > communication”. Of course I don't have that. I am an expert in the field, and authot of many books
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 08:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b80ed247-3ce9-4277-83dc-b267b521e6dc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378265 |
On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 12:04:07 PM UTC-3, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > 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 For sure, since the device which has to decode the CDMA spread spectrum signal is, obviously, in your or mine GPS receiver. To receive the signal at 10.23 MHz ON THE GROUND, it has to sent at 10.2299999954326 MHz.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | François Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 18:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbn45t$1eku$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378274 |
paparios wrote: >> > Tom Roberts > > For sure, since the device which has to decode the CDMA spread spectrum > signal is, obviously, in your or mine GPS receiver. To receive the > signal at 10.23 MHz ON THE GROUND, it has to sent at 10.2299999954326 > MHz. Try in English now, or you don't know how to do it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-08 23:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c2fc1cdc-f772-47b9-9d48-49d8e731fe70@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378274 |
W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 17:26:21 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 12:04:07 PM UTC-3, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > 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 > > For sure, since the device which has to decode the CDMA spread spectrum signal is, obviously, in your or mine GPS receiver. To receive the signal at 10.23 MHz ON THE GROUND, it has to sent at 10.2299999954326 MHz. So said The Shit. Must be true, but measurements say differently.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 06:04 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <8ad45278-48ae-4c66-918c-e7d6d4392297@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378345 |
El miércoles, 9 de marzo de 2016, 2:41:15 (UTC-5), mlwo...@wp.pl escribió: > W dniu wtorek, 8 marca 2016 17:26:21 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > > On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 at 12:04:07 PM UTC-3, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > > 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 > > > > For sure, since the device which has to decode the CDMA spread spectrum signal is, obviously, in your or mine GPS receiver. To receive the signal at 10.23 MHz ON THE GROUND, it has to sent at 10.2299999954326 MHz. > > So said The Shit. Must be true, but measurements > say differently. What 1905 Einstein says is that ALL the synchronized clocks in the stationary system of all Earth's parts (a Newtonian center of mass system, today denoted GPS ECI) are showing the same and unique (defined by him) time, corresponding to the same and unique synchronizing frequency of 10.23 MHz for ALL the clocks, including the operative satellite ones. The 10.2299999954326 MHz frequency is only a temporal NOT operative one for a clock in a satellite still at ground before the launching, what increases to the desired 10.23 MHz when it is already operative in orbit. There is NOT at all in the operative GPS any 10.23 MHz SIGNAL frequency transmitted or received in any place. The communication channels that broadcast information from the satellites to the stationary space use other different (and arbitrary) carrier frequencies. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 06:50 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <678b7f85-ee7c-49e9-a156-5370a988530a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378370 |
On Wednesday, March 9, 2016 at 11:04:18 AM UTC-3, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > What 1905 Einstein says is that ALL the synchronized clocks in the stationary > system of all Earth's parts (a Newtonian center of mass system, today denoted > GPS ECI) are showing the same and unique (defined by him) time, corresponding > to the same and unique synchronizing frequency of 10.23 MHz for ALL the clocks, > including the operative satellite ones. > > The 10.2299999954326 MHz frequency is only a temporal NOT operative one for a > clock in a satellite still at ground before the launching, what increases to > the desired 10.23 MHz when it is already operative in orbit. > > There is NOT at all in the operative GPS any 10.23 MHz SIGNAL frequency > transmitted or received in any place. The communication channels that broadcast > information from the satellites to the stationary space use other different > (and arbitrary) carrier frequencies. > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) Why do you insist in assert all this nonsense. Do you persist in asserting that the GPS organization people do not know what they are doing? Again, according to IS-GPS-800D, pp 2 and 3: "3 SIGNAL REQUIREMENTS The requirements specified in this section define the requisite characteristics of the SS/US interface for the GPS L1C signal. 3.1 Signal StructureThe GPS SV typically transmits multiple distinct signals modulated on the L1 RF carrier. The signals include C/A, P(Y), M, and L1C which are modulated on the carrier frequency." "3.2 Signal Definition 3.2.1 Signal Characteristics The following specifies the characteristics and quality of the L1C signal. 3.2.1.1 Frequency Plan The carrier frequency for the L1C signal shall be coherently derived from a frequency source common with other signals 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 Δf/f = -4.4647E-10, which is equivalent to a change in the L1C-code chipping rate of 1.023 MHz by a Δ f = -4.5674E-4 Hz. This results in an offset L1C-code chipping rate of 1.02299999954326 MHz. The nominal carrier frequency (f0) - as it appears to an observer on the ground - shall be 1575.42 MHz. The requirements specified in this IS shall pertain to the signal contained within a 30.69 MHz bandwidth centered about the L1 nominal frequency. The L1C signal shall utilize a modulation technique of BOC (fs, 1) which specifies a subcarrier frequency of fs × 1.023 MHz and a spreading code chipping rate of 1 × 1.023 MHz = 1.023 MHz." "3.4.2 SV Time vs. GPS Time In controlling the SVs and uploading of data, the CS shall allow for the following timing relationships: Each SV operates on its own SV time; All TOI and Interval Time of Week (ITOW) in the CNAV-2 messages shall be in SV-time; All other data in the CNAV-2 messages shall be relative to GPS-time; The acts of transmitting the CNAV-2 messages shall be executed by the SV on SV time." And, according to IS-GPS-200G, pp.3: "3 REQUIREMENTS 3.1 Interface Definition. The interface between the GPS Space Segment (SS) and the GPS navigation User Segment (US) includes two RF links, L1 and L2. Utilizing these links, the space vehicles (SVs) of the SS shall provide continuous earth coverage signals that provide to the US the ranging codes and the system data needed to accomplish the GPS navigation (NAV) mission. These signals shall be available to a suitably equipped user with RF visibility to an SV." Then in pp.13: "3.3 Interface Criteria. The criteria specified in the following define the requisite characteristics of the SS/US interface for the L1 and L2. 3.3.1 Composite Signal. The following criteria define the characteristics of the composite signals. 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan. 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." Then in pp.92: "20.3.3.3.3.1 User Algorithm for SV Clock Correction. The polynomial defined in the following allows the user to determine the effective SV PRN code phase offset referenced to the phase center of the antennas (tsv) with respect to GPS system time (t) at the time of data transmission. The coefficients transmitted in subframe 1 describe the offset apparent to the twofrequency user for the interval of time in which the parameters are transmitted. This estimated correction accounts for the deterministic SV clock error characteristics of bias, drift and aging, as well as for the SV implementation characteristics of group delay bias and mean differential group delay. Since these coefficients do not include corrections for relativistic effects, the user's equipment must determine the requisite relativistic correction. Accordingly, the offset given below includes a term to perform this function." Then, in pp 93, follow the equations which the receiver uses (including relativistic correction terms) to determine the proper time. Finally in figure 20-3 there is a Sample Application of Correction Parameters.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 17:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nbpht5$fdf$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #378374 |
Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:678b7f85-ee7c-49e9-a156-5370a988530a@googlegroups.com... |Why do you insist in assert all this nonsense. Do you persist in asserting that the GPS organization people do not know what they are doing? Strange? Most people don't. And the others make mistakes too.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Francois Theobaldus <fraop@sshimown.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 18:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbpoci$1ecv$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378380 |
Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:678b7f85-ee7c-49e9-a156-5370a988530a@googlegroups.com... > > |Why do you insist in assert all this nonsense. Do you persist in > asserting that the GPS organization people do not know what they are > doing? > > Strange? Most people don't. And the others make mistakes too. So you are not asserting. I am asserting all day long. That moron doesn't even know what asserting stands for, in a civilized language.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 15:23 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <eOSdnehe_valCX3LnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #378370 |
On 3/9/16 3/9/16 - 8:04 AM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > The 10.2299999954326 MHz frequency is only a temporal NOT operative one for a > clock in a satellite still at ground before the launching, what increases to > the desired 10.23 MHz when it is already operative in orbit. This is wrong, and seems to be the crux of your error. As I said before: you do NOT know enough about modern physics to realize that whenever you mention such a frequency you MUST also specify where and how it is measured. The 10.2299999954326 MHz modulation frequency applies within the satellite ALL THE TIME, because the electronics does not vary; the L1 and L2 frequencies are proportionally lower IN THE SATELLITE, ALL THE TIME (on the ground before launch, and when in orbit). This is CERTAIN because the second is DEFINED as 9,192,631,770 periods of the Cs oscillator in the satellite, and the on-board divider turns 9,192.631,770 MHz into 10.2299999954326 MHz. You keep confusing measurements on the ground (geoid) with measurements in the satellite. DON'T DO THAT -- THEY ARE DIFFERENT. Another error that you alone make is due to the fact that in 1905 Einstein did not know how this worked. UNLIKE YOU, Einstein learned better. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 21:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbq4pb$5v1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378421 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > This is CERTAIN because the second is DEFINED as 9,192,631,770 > periods of the Cs oscillator in the satellite, and the on-board divider > turns 9,192.631,770 MHz into 10.2299999954326 MHz. Ohh please divide that, since you experienced. You may use whatever hardware you may find suitable, as shift register, accumulators, multiplexer etc. The main issue is that it has to be done fast, fast hardware. Let me see that diagram turning 9,192,631,770 Hz into 10,229,999.9954326 Hz I just can't wait.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 14:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0ef59cf5-2e05-4bfd-b140-a14f3809895e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378423 |
El miércoles, 9 de marzo de 2016, 18:32:31 (UTC-3), Luigi Durante escribió: > Tom Roberts wrote: > > > This is CERTAIN because the second is DEFINED as 9,192,631,770 > > periods of the Cs oscillator in the satellite, and the on-board divider > > turns 9,192.631,770 MHz into 10.2299999954326 MHz. > > Ohh please divide that, since you experienced. You may use whatever > hardware you may find suitable, as shift register, accumulators, > multiplexer etc. The main issue is that it has to be done fast, fast > hardware. Let me see that diagram turning > > 9,192,631,770 Hz into 10,229,999.9954326 Hz > > I just can't wait. A first year student can do that. But you being the nym-shifting troll don´t, since you only know of moving large CRT TV sets.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Luigi Durante <luigdu@jaccappo.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-09 23:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nbqa9s$epf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #378428 |
paparios wrote: > El miércoles, 9 de marzo de 2016, 18:32:31 (UTC-3), Luigi Durante > escribió: >> Tom Roberts wrote: >> >> > This is CERTAIN because the second is DEFINED as 9,192,631,770 >> > periods of the Cs oscillator in the satellite, and the on-board >> > divider turns 9,192.631,770 MHz into 10.2299999954326 MHz. >> >> Ohh please divide that, since you experienced. You may use whatever >> hardware you may find suitable, as shift register, accumulators, >> multiplexer etc. The main issue is that it has to be done fast, fast >> hardware. Let me see that diagram turning >> >> 9,192,631,770 Hz into 10,229,999.9954326 Hz >> >> I just can't wait. > > A first year student can do that. But you being the nym-shifting troll > don´t, since you only know of moving large CRT TV sets. You misunderstood the subject, in case you consider yourself qualified to apply with an answer. Otherwise you are seemingly irrelevant. I'm not whomever you think I am. I am a completely different person, a nice man, with nice feelings. I can tell you for certain, that the task is not easy. Also, I am wondering whether you are winning credits for spelling your name correct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 04:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <80d470bc-b2d2-4202-865d-84688021bd50@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378436 |
Il giorno giovedì 10 marzo 2016 00:06:44 UTC+1, Luigi Durante ha scritto: > paparios wrote: > > > El miércoles, 9 de marzo de 2016, 18:32:31 (UTC-3), Luigi Durante > > escribió: > >> Tom Roberts wrote: > >> > >> > This is CERTAIN because the second is DEFINED as 9,192,631,770 > >> > periods of the Cs oscillator in the satellite, and the on-board > >> > divider turns 9,192.631,770 MHz into 10.2299999954326 MHz. > >> > >> Ohh please divide that, since you experienced. You may use whatever > >> hardware you may find suitable, as shift register, accumulators, > >> multiplexer etc. The main issue is that it has to be done fast, fast > >> hardware. Let me see that diagram turning > >> > >> 9,192,631,770 Hz into 10,229,999.9954326 Hz > >> > >> I just can't wait. > > > > A first year student can do that. But you being the nym-shifting troll > > don´t, since you only know of moving large CRT TV sets. > > You misunderstood the subject, in case you consider yourself qualified to > apply with an answer. Otherwise you are seemingly irrelevant. I'm not > whomever you think I am. I am a completely different person, a nice man, > with nice feelings. I can tell you for certain, that the task is not easy. > Also, I am wondering whether you are winning credits for spelling your > name correct. ....the overdisplayed discussion were around the frequencies ..how much ,why,where.. Perhaps it could be possible to use only one frequency and to resolve by math sistem all changements ( it seems , on the beginning , that Nasa(?) was thinking to a big math sistem throught compensations for bias effects ..but , perhaps, the coincidence of the errors with the eistenian formulas ( gravitational redshift and relativistic speed ) addressed for the specific solution towards an earth frequency 10.30.. - in orbital satellites 10.29.. - But enlarging the problem to the spatial travels , is it good to have a different time for each sistem , moving rocket , satellite or star ? A good compensed clock - the compensation can happen mathematically with gravity and spped sensors - can 1) give the distance of each received hourly signal 2) when two rochets meet , its have the same time 3) when we shall arrive to Mars , we have the same martian time 4) a rocket shall know the spatial position , receiving hourly signals from different directions 5) make obsolete the space-time
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 19:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nc71l8$hqf$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #378925 |
Użytkownik "nero" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:80d470bc-b2d2-4202-865d-84688021bd50@googlegroups.com... | A good compensed clock - the compensation can happen mathematically with gravity and spped sensors - can There is really no need for that. Pulsars can do the same. 1) give the distance of each received hourly signal 2) when two rochets meet , its have the same time 3) when we shall arrive to Mars , we have the same martian time 4) a rocket shall know the spatial position , receiving hourly signals from different directions It can even be done without any on-board clock. 5) make obsolete the space-time To be obsolete, this idiocy would first have to be usable at least for a moment. You're talking to bunch of complete idiots. They don't care about anything but their making them feeling good mumble. You can't convince them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-14 14:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <aed1f2b4-75d7-4fae-98eb-7c1766d7ca9f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378970 |
On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 12:58:49 PM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > You're talking to bunch of complete idiots. They don't care about anything > but their making them feeling good mumble. You can't convince them. Why do you always have to talk about yourself?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 12:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a8edbafd-3e14-4f30-879c-fbaea5cb1226@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378987 |
On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 2:34:26 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 12:58:49 PM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > You're talking to bunch of complete idiots. They don't care about anything > > but their making them feeling good mumble. You can't convince them. > > Why do you always have to talk about yourself? It's the only person who listens to this fool. -- Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-17 19:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <080f8fc2-eaf2-4694-8c0b-2a33a32230ac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379368 |
On Thursday, March 17, 2016 at 1:59:56 PM UTC-6, JanPB wrote: > > On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 2:34:26 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Monday, March 14, 2016 at 12:58:49 PM UTC-6, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > > > > You're talking to bunch of complete idiots. They don't care about anything > > > but their making them feeling good mumble. You can't convince them. > > > > Why do you always have to talk about yourself? > > It's the only person who listens to this fool. > > -- > Jan Where's the "Like" button :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-11 16:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7697f87f-7821-4072-b0b9-59578dc62e2d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #378421 |
El miércoles, 9 de marzo de 2016, 16:23:06 (UTC-5), tjrob137 escribió: > On 3/9/16 3/9/16 - 8:04 AM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > The 10.2299999954326 MHz frequency is only a temporal NOT operative one for a > > clock in a satellite still at ground before the launching, what increases to > > the desired 10.23 MHz when it is already operative in orbit. > > This is wrong, and seems to be the crux of your error. As I said before: you do > NOT know enough about modern physics to realize that whenever you mention such a > frequency you MUST also specify where and how it is measured. > (You left without answer my Mar 8 post where I proved that the OPERATIVE satellite clock is NOT showing the 10.2299999954326 MHz frequency that you claim, but the 10.23 MHz one. Anyway, I will repeat here all my arguments jointly with other new ones. We are in total agreement that this is a crucial topic). According to the 1905 Einstein time definition for a stationary system, ALL synchronized clocks MUST be showing all the time the SAME selected synchronizing frequency, 10.23 MHz for the GPS ECI case. Without synchronizing ALL the GPS clocks at the same 10.23 MHz, the operation of the GPS is totally impossible. Your claim about operative clocks in the satellites showing a frequency different from the ground ones is a complete absurdity. That a clock at ground before the launching INCREASES its frequency when put in orbit at a different velocity and gravitational potential is an EXPERIMENTAL FACT since the first GPS satellite launching. The 10.23 MHz at ground increased to a greater value, returning to 10.23 when the relativistic correction was connected. Today, the relativistic correction is already applied at ground, decreasing the frequency from 10.23 MHZ to your 10.22999... one, a NOT OPERATIVE temporal frequency that increases to the OPERATIVE 10.23 MHz when in orbit. Make a search to the 10.22999... number in the GPS document and verify by yourself that the UNIQUE place where it appears in the 3.3.1.1 paragraph, the one you are misunderstanding, not realizing that it is the clock frequency an observer can see inside the SV satellite, BUT when it is still NOT operative at ground before the launching, NOT when it IS operative in orbit. Search for the number 10.23 and you will find it in many places, clear evidence that it is the OPERATIVE clock frequency showed inside the SV, used for many different functions, including the derivation of the different communication channels carrier frequencies L1 and L2, the unique emitted SIGNALS from the satellites (I repeat, your 10.22999... MHz transmitted SIGNAL from the satellites and received at ground as a 10.23 MHz simply does not exist at all in the GPS). > The 10.2299999954326 MHz modulation frequency applies within the satellite ALL > THE TIME, because the electronics does not vary; the L1 and L2 frequencies are > proportionally lower IN THE SATELLITE, ALL THE TIME (on the ground before > launch, and when in orbit). > > This is CERTAIN because the second is DEFINED as 9,192,631,770 > periods of the Cs oscillator in the satellite, and the on-board > divider turns 9,192.631,770 MHz into 10.2299999954326 MHz. > The second is defined with that number only at the geoid. Men cannot DEFINE a thing contrary to what occurs in Nature. You do not realize yet that what you describe here occurs inside the SV, but at ground BEFORE the launching, with a clock that is NOT operative yet. That number ...770 applies only at the Earth's geoid. The change with velocity and gravitational potential is already an EXPERIMENTAL FACT since the first GPS satellite launching, being predicted by SR-GR (when designing the clock relativistic correction, remember the associated equality +38=-7+45). The goal of that correction is precisely to obtain a clock showing the frequency 10.23 MHz when it is already OPERATIVE in orbit, when the Cs oscillator has a frequency GREATER than 10.23 MHs, an EXPERIMENTAL FACT since the launching of the first GPS satellite. > You keep confusing measurements on the ground (geoid) with measurements in the > satellite. DON'T DO THAT -- THEY ARE DIFFERENT. > 10.23*154=1575.42 10.23*120=1227.6 Arithmetical equalities proving that the 10.23 MHz frequency is the unique one showed by the operative clock in the satellite, used in the derivation of the carrier frequencies L1=1575.42 and L2=1227.6 MHz. 10.2299999954326*154 and 10.2299999954326*120 are NOT respectively equal to 1575.42 and 1227.6 in ANY place. The operative GPS does not need at all to transmit or receive a 10.23 MHz SIGNAL in any place. That 1905 Einstein time synchronizing frequency is AVAILABLE for use in ALL operative GPS clocks. > Another error that you alone make is due to the fact that in > 1905 Einstein did not know how this worked. UNLIKE YOU, > Einstein learned better. > 1905 Einstein is the FIRST making a 1905R relativistic correction on clocks with the time running affected by a change in velocity, with the goal to synchronize them in the stationary system, the same done when the first GPS satellite launching to eliminate the -7 microseconds/day time shift, near the end of Section 2 of his June 30 paper (between [ ])): [ We imagine further that at the two ends A and B of the rod, clocks are placed which synchronize with the clocks of the stationary system, that is to say that their indications correspond at any instant to the "time of the stationary system" at the places where they happen to be. These clocks are therefore "synchronous in the stationary system". ] You can now learn from 1905 Einstein how to do a relativistic correction on GPS clocks with the time running affected by a change in gravitational potential, to eliminate the +45 microseconds/day time shift predicted by him 10 years later by his 1915 GR. Only a UNIQUE synchronizing frequency for ALL the operative GPS clocks is compatible with the 1905 Einstein time definition and the EXPERIMENTAL FACTS accumulated until today, including the -7 microseconds/day velocity effect and the +45 gravitational potential one (I derived the two effects from only 1905R in a public way since 27-Sep-2010). RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 11 … 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web