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 12 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 Next page →
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 11:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <_didnTKddLVXGHTLnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #379166 |
On 3/15/16 3/15/16 - 6:41 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > El viernes, 11 de marzo de 2016, 23:47:46 (UTC-5), tjrob137 escribió: >> You REALLY need to learn how to read, and you REALLY need to learn to be >> more precise in your statements. > I repeated to you already several times all detail about the origin and > meaning of the frequencies 10.23 and 10.2299999934526 MHz, referring you > always to the story of the first GPS satellite launching and the EXPERIMENTAL > FACTS well established since then. But the experimental facts are NOT what you think they are. In particular, the experiment used SIGNALS FROM THE SATELLITE RECEIVED ON THE GROUND, and made no measurement IN THE SATELLITE. So the EXPERIMENT can make no statement about the satellite clock's tick (modulation) rate, because IT DID NOT MEASURE IT. But we can make statements about the satellite clock's tick (modulation) rate, based on its construction, and I do below (and in previous articles). > The 10.2299999934526 MHz frequency is only the NOT operative one for a > satellite clock at ground BEFORE the launching, Your phrasing is unusual and I don't know what you mean by this. But it is clear that a satellite is NOT in operation when on the ground before launch. But if one did measure its modulation frequency using an instrument co-located (and co-moving) with the satellite on the ground, one would indeed obtain 10.2299999934526 MHz. And since the electronics is not changed between launch and orbit, if one measured its modulation frequency in orbit, using an instrument IN THE SATELLITE, one would of course obtain the same frequency, 10.2299999934526 MHz. This is confirmed by the construction of the divider between the Cs oscillator and the modulation frequency. The Cs oscillator of course oscillates at 9,192,631,770 Hz (because that is the definition of the second), and the divider is constructed to output 10.2299999934526 MHz from that input. > You continue repeating about SIGNALS FROM THE CLOCKS, with an emitting > frequency 10.2299999945326 MHz from the satellites and received at ground a > 10.23 MHz, what do NOT exist at all. I have said several times that this is the MODULATION FREQUENCY, and the carrier frequencies are integral multiples of it. Note that the modulation frequency _IS_ the frequency at which signals (P-code chips) are received, the carrier merely serves to "carry" the modulation. > The 10.2299... is NOT present at all in the already operative satellite, SURE IT IS. If you measured its modulation frequency IN ORBIT using an instrument IN THE SATELLITE, you would of course obtain 10.2299999934526 MHz. That _IS_ what "in the satellite" means. The actual construction of the satellites confirms this. > you can confirm it directly by yourself searching for that number in all the > GPS documents, where in all the electronic diagrams appears only the unique > 12.23MHz source frequency available inside the satellite, the one showed by > the operative clock. You are wrong. Read paparios's quote from GPS documents in this thread. > Please, read Ashby's story about the first GPS satellite launching to PRECISE > the EXPERIMENTAL FACTS; you are requiring me to be PRECISE about what do not > exist, a totally impossible task. YOU need to read that story. It supports my claim and refutes yours. In particular, SIGNALS from the satellite with an unmodified divider were observed to advance too rapidly ON THE GROUND. But SIGNALS from the satellite when the modified divider was engaged advanced properly at 10.2300000000000 MHz ON THE GROUND (geoid). The modified divider, of course, made the modulation frequency be 10.2299999934526 MHz IN THE SATELLITE. > [... more repetitions of the same errors] The ECI coordinate system used by the GPS has coordinate clocks that "tick" [#] at 10.2300000000000 MHz AS SEEN FROM THE GROUND (geoid), and gravitation is completely ignored. In this ECI coordinate system light propagates isotropically at c in vacuum (corrections are made for the ionosphere and the rest of the atmosphere). This is only possible because the satellite clocks have a modified divider and actually "tick" [#] at 10.2299999934526 MHz. This modification is necessary because the ECI coordinates ignore gravitation, but the physical satellites cannot possibly do that, and the satellites are not at rest in the ECI (but its coordinate clocks are). Once the clock offset is applied, each satellite clock displays the ECI coordinate time that an imaginary coordinate clock co-located with the satellite would show (such coordinate clocks are of course at rest in the ECI, which is why they must be imaginary; the only places it is possible to have real ones are at earth's poles, or in airplanes flying carefully defined paths). [#] Really signal modulation. You seem to be confusing the ECI coordinate time with the construction of the satellites. The fact that the ECI coordinate time ignores gravitation is what REQUIRES the satellite clocks to tick [#] at 10.2299999934526 MHz, because the satellites (obviously) cannot ignore either gravitation or their motion relative to the ECI. Gedanken: Consider two ECI coordinate clocks located along the path of a satellite. Of course these clocks are at rest in the ECI and synchronized with ECI time, so they of course tick [#] at 10.2300000000000 MHz. Neglecting drifts and applying the clock offset, when the satellite passes each of them its current time will be the same as each coordinate clock's time. So the satellite clock ticks [#] at 10.2300000000000 MHz MEASURED IN THE ECI, but the satellite clock ticks [#] at 10.2299999934526 MHz (because these last words refer to the clock itself, and thus mean measured by a co-located and co-moving observer -- i.e. in the satellite). As I keep emphasizing and you keep ignoring: PRECISION IN THOUGHT AND WORD IS ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED. In particular, you _MUST_ state where or how each frequency you mention is measured. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 10:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c1cda666-ff70-4df0-9cc9-6a301ea68a04@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379217 |
On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 9:11:56 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > if one did measure its modulation frequency using an instrument > co-located (and co-moving) with the satellite on the ground, one > would indeed obtain 10.2299999934526 MHz. What instrument can measure and distinguish frequencies of 10.2300000000000MHz and 10.2299999934526MHz? Is Tom's stupid god Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar whispering into Tom's ears again? <shrug> > if one measured its modulation frequency in orbit, using an > instrument IN THE SATELLITE, one would of course obtain the same > frequency, 10.2299999934526 MHz. This is confirmed... Absolute nonsense. <shrug> > the modulation frequency _IS_ the frequency at which signals > (P-code chips) are received, the carrier merely serves to "carry" > the modulation. Again, no GPS receivers can distinguish 10.2300000000000MHz from 10.2299999934526MHz. If Tom is smart enough to understand how GPS works, the receiver does not really care about the differences in these two frequencies. Why is that? <shrug> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/NzdAzmnYrzw/I1f89-WIBAAJ
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 19:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ncc7b5$j2e$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #379217 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:_didnTKddLVXGHTLnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com... |Your phrasing is unusual and I don't know what you mean by this. But it is clear |that a satellite is NOT in operation when on the ground before launch. But if |one did measure its modulation frequency using an instrument co-located (and |co-moving) with the satellite on the ground, one would indeed obtain |10.2299999934526 MHz. So said The Shit! Must be the truth! But it isn't. As you can check in any documentation, instrument co-located and co-moving with the satelite is indicating GPS time instead your local time idiocy, so - no surprise it supplies us with numbers your Shit didn't predict.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-16 11:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3fe6831f-9762-451f-9276-2c7e84cc49bb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379242 |
On Wednesday, March 16, 2016 at 3:06:32 PM UTC-3, Maciej Woźniak wrote: > Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:_didnTKddLVXGHTLnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com... > > |Your phrasing is unusual and I don't know what you mean by this. But it is > clear > |that a satellite is NOT in operation when on the ground before launch. But > if > |one did measure its modulation frequency using an instrument co-located > (and > |co-moving) with the satellite on the ground, one would indeed obtain > |10.2299999934526 MHz. > > So said The Shit! > Must be the truth! > But it isn't. > As you can check in any documentation, instrument co-located > and co-moving with the satelite is indicating GPS time instead > your local time idiocy, so - no surprise it supplies us with numbers > your Shit didn't predict. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-18 16:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3508561e-bafa-4812-a7a7-ceb91b0c4bc3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379217 |
El miércoles, 16 de marzo de 2016, 11:11:56 (UTC-5), tjrob137 escribió: > On 3/15/16 3/15/16 - 6:41 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > El viernes, 11 de marzo de 2016, 23:47:46 (UTC-5), tjrob137 escribió: > >> You REALLY need to learn how to read, and you REALLY need to learn to be > >> more precise in your statements. > > I repeated to you already several times all detail about the origin and > > meaning of the frequencies 10.23 and 10.2299999934526 MHz, referring you > > always to the story of the first GPS satellite launching and the EXPERIMENTAL > > FACTS well established since then. > > But the experimental facts are NOT what you think they are. In particular, the > experiment used SIGNALS FROM THE SATELLITE RECEIVED ON THE GROUND, and made no > measurement IN THE SATELLITE. So the EXPERIMENT can make no statement about the > satellite clock's tick (modulation) rate, because IT DID NOT MEASURE IT. > Then, following you, all the information received from GPS satellites do NOT correspond to measurements done by devices into the satellite, including its position and time at the instant showed by the clock, the device measuring the GPS ECI time defined by 1905 Einstein. You are making a very serious assertion, what implies not only the rejection of the veracity of all the information transmitted by the first GPS satellite (launched in 1977), but also the one transmitted by ALL CPS satellites since then until our days, only because you think they are transmitted using communication channels signals that can be affected by velocity and gravity, physical conditions that affect every thing with only one and unique exception: the Cs oscillator. Evidently you do not know in sufficient detail the DATA that is broadcasted from the GPS satellites. All they refer to some GPS ECI time instant, including the satellite identification, position and the corresponding time showed by the clock inside the satellite (among others). In 1977, the received data from the first GPS satellite (clock NOT yet relativistic corrected) was processed jointly with the data available at ground, to detect any possible malfunction on the satellite, in special the time instant the clock inside the satellite is showing that MUST be always the SAME GPS ECI time showed by any synchronized clock at ground (or any other place in the GPS ECI). After about 20 days of carefully operation, it is detected a time drift of +442.5 parts in 10E12, pretty close to the +446.5 predicted by SR-GR, and the drift disappear after the relativistic correction is put on. As you can see, does not exist at all any 10.2299999954326 MHz SIGNAL transmitted by the satellite and received at ground as 10.23 MHz. The DATA received at ground (including the GPS receptors) is the SAME transmitted by the satellites. The 10.23 MHz synchronizing frequency for ALL the operative GPS clocks is USED in ALL GPS ECI places for many different tasks (including the data modulation), but it is NOT a data that needs to be measured, transmitted or received in any place. > But we can make statements about the satellite clock's tick > (modulation) rate, based on its construction, and I do below > (and in previous articles). > The clock tick rate (the one corresponding to the 10.23 MHz synchronizing frequency that must remain constant in any operative clock in the GPS ECI to implement the 1905 Einstein time) and the data modulation process in the communication channels that USES the 10.23 MHz frequency are two very different things. The GPS ECI time instant that an operative satellite clock is showing is part of the data transmitted and received by the communication channels, but the frequency USED in the data modulation process in the communication channels is NOT data transmitted or received in any part. The recent beautiful Pluto images received in Earth correspond to photos done near Pluto, surely at a position and time measured by devices into the SV. You have no right at all to say now that in 1977 "the EXPERIMENT can make no statement about the satellite clock's tick (modulation) rate, because IT DID NOT MEASURE IT". The time the clock is showing into the SV is transmitted and received successfully at ground (as the Pluto photo to Earth), WITHOUT any relation at all with the use or not of the showed clock frequency for any task inside the SV, including the modulation one in communication channels. > > > The 10.2299999934526 MHz frequency is only the NOT operative one for a > > satellite clock at ground BEFORE the launching, > > Your phrasing is unusual and I don't know what you mean by this. But it is clear > that a satellite is NOT in operation when on the ground before launch. But if > one did measure its modulation frequency using an instrument co-located (and > co-moving) with the satellite on the ground, one would indeed obtain > 10.2299999934526 MHz. > > And since the electronics is not changed between launch and orbit, if one > measured its modulation frequency in orbit, using an instrument IN THE > SATELLITE, one would of course obtain the same frequency, 10.2299999934526 MHz. > The clock is already a measuring time device showing that frequency in some physical conditions, the transmitter is a different device. If that frequency is USED in the transmitter or not, cannot affect at all what the measuring time device is showing. All your reference to a measurement with another device "co-located and co-moving" is totally senseless, even knowing me that what you are doing is trying to incorporate here a local SR inertial system, but you cannot, because here gravity is present. You CANNOT use here SR, but I am already using 1905R supported by EXPERIMENTAL FACTS. I read already the rest of this post, containing only assertions derived from the principal ones that I addressed already in all detail. Consider that I only delaying them, giving priority to the previous ones. Anyway, I will end (this post) considering your interpretation about what occurred in 1977 when the first GPS satellite launching, that you know already that it is contrary to the opinion of all the GPS staff since then. .............. > > Please, read Ashby's story about the first GPS satellite launching to PRECISE > > the EXPERIMENTAL FACTS; you are requiring me to be PRECISE about what do not > > exist, a totally impossible task. > > YOU need to read that story. It supports my claim and refutes yours. In > particular, SIGNALS from the satellite with an unmodified divider were observed > to advance too rapidly ON THE GROUND. But SIGNALS from the satellite when the > modified divider was engaged advanced properly at 10.2300000000000 MHz ON THE > GROUND (geoid). The modified divider, of course, made the modulation frequency > be 10.2299999934526 MHz IN THE SATELLITE. > By construction, the modulation frequency in the transmitter is the same frequency showed by the clock in the satellite and transmitted as data to the receptor at ground. The experimental result (after 20 days of careful checking) was an increase of +442.5 parts in 10E12 in the frequency showed by the clock in the satellite, detected in the DATA demodulated in the receptor with and also increased P-code chipping rate. This behavior was the predicted by SR-GR and used in the construction of the correction stuff. You make a completely wrong interpretation, surely by ignoring that the frequency showed by the clock in the satellite is received as DATA in the receptor without any change (as the photos of Pluto made near it are received in the Earth or any other possible place). If we repeat the 1977 experiment today (a totally unnecessary one), the 10.23 MHz showed by the clock at ground changes to 10.2300000045674 MHz when already in orbit, returning to the original value at ground 10.23 MHz when the correction stuff is connected, but now in orbit (I am using the more accurate data available today). That is the behavior designed and desired to make possible the synchronization of ALL GPS clocks at the same 10.23MHz 1905 Einstein synchronizing frequency. In the today ordinary routine when making any GPS satellite launching, the relativistic correction is applied to the not operative clock at ground before the launching, changing its frequency from the standard 10.23 MHz one to 10.2299999954326 MHz, returning it to the desired 10,23 MHz one when already operative in orbit. If it were in general true that a clock does not change its frequency after a change in velocity and/or gravitational potential (as you think), the relativistic correction would been never necessary (in a world that does not exist at all, of course). What you think in general is only true in the particular case that the velocity effect and the gravitational potential one (that have opposite signs)have equal absolute magnitudes, as is the case in the Earth's geoid, unique place where the Cs atom behaves as you think in any place, trusting in an already obsolete BIPM second definition. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) ...............................................
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-18 17:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ed18d1a0-858c-43e9-9bbe-146517daaad0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379481 |
El viernes, 18 de marzo de 2016, 20:47:59 (UTC-3), Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato escribió: > El miércoles, 16 de marzo de 2016, 11:11:56 (UTC-5), tjrob137 escribió: > > But the experimental facts are NOT what you think they are. In particular, the > > experiment used SIGNALS FROM THE SATELLITE RECEIVED ON THE GROUND, and made no > > measurement IN THE SATELLITE. So the EXPERIMENT can make no statement about the > > satellite clock's tick (modulation) rate, because IT DID NOT MEASURE IT. > > > Then, following you, all the information received from GPS satellites do NOT > correspond to measurements done by devices into the satellite, including its > position and time at the instant showed by the clock, the device measuring the > GPS ECI time defined by 1905 Einstein. > > You are making a very serious assertion, what implies not only the rejection of > the veracity of all the information transmitted by the first GPS satellite > (launched in 1977), but also the one transmitted by ALL CPS satellites since > then until our days, only because you think they are transmitted using > communication channels signals that can be affected by velocity and gravity, > physical conditions that affect every thing with only one and unique exception: > the Cs oscillator. > What nonsesnse is this? You appear to recognize that orbiting atomic clocks, measured from the ground, appear to run fast. The is only simple logic that in order to properly decode the satellite transmitted signals, the satellite frequencies has to be decreased so the GPS receivers (expecting a 10.23 Mhz coded signal) receive the proper signal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 22:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1uudnXISe9C38nLLnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #379481 |
On 3/18/16 3/18/16 6:47 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > El miércoles, 16 de marzo de 2016, 11:11:56 (UTC-5), tjrob137 escribió: >> On 3/15/16 3/15/16 - 6:41 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: >>> El viernes, 11 de marzo de 2016, 23:47:46 (UTC-5), tjrob137 escribió: >>>> You REALLY need to learn how to read, and you REALLY need to learn to be >>>> more precise in your statements. >>> I repeated to you already several times all detail about the origin and >>> meaning of the frequencies 10.23 and 10.2299999934526 MHz, referring you >>> always to the story of the first GPS satellite launching and the EXPERIMENTAL >>> FACTS well established since then. >> >> But the experimental facts are NOT what you think they are. In particular, the >> experiment used SIGNALS FROM THE SATELLITE RECEIVED ON THE GROUND, and made no >> measurement IN THE SATELLITE. So the EXPERIMENT can make no statement about the >> satellite clock's tick (modulation) rate, because IT DID NOT MEASURE IT. >> > Then, following you, all the information received from GPS satellites do NOT > correspond to measurements done by devices into the satellite, including its > position and time at the instant showed by the clock, Yes, OF COURSE. The satellite has no instruments that are capable of measuring it own position. It does, of course, contain an on-board clock that DOES display ECI time (when the clock offset is applied). The satellite does not need to measure any of that: The GROUND SEGMENT of the GPS measures the position of each satellite and uploads the appropriate coefficients of its ephemeris for it to broadcast to users. The GROUND SEGMENT of the GPS measures the clock offset of each satellite and uploads it for the satellite to broadcast to users. All of this is described in the GPS design and requirements documents. It is OUTRAGEOUS that you don't bother to read them and just keep making incorrect statements. > You are making a very serious assertion, NONSENSE. I am merely describing WHAT THE GPS DOCUMENTS SAY. I am attempting to get YOU to recognize the errors YOU are making. It looks like that is hopeless, so goodbye. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 22:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <987e2844-07eb-4b17-bc60-fd40f6bd07f9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379661 |
On Sunday, March 20, 2016 at 8:49:01 PM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > The satellite does contain an on-board clock that DOES display > ECI time (when the clock offset is applied). A better system design is to call out for a programmable calendar time that can be synchronized to another trivially, effortlessly, and economically. See IEEE1588. In addition, check out the following on the myths of GPS. <shrug> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/NzdAzmnYrzw/I1f89-WIBAAJ > The satellite does not need to measure any of that: The GROUND > SEGMENT of the GPS measures the position of each satellite and > uploads the appropriate coefficients of its ephemeris for it to > broadcast to users. The GROUND SEGMENT of the GPS measures the > clock offset of each satellite and uploads it for the satellite > to broadcast to users. This is nonsense. The only thing the satellite is doing is to synchronize its time (not clock frequency) with the standard satellite time which can be a reference satellite. <shrug> > All of this is described in the GPS design and requirements > documents. It is OUTRAGEOUS that you don't bother to read > them and just keep making incorrect statements. The bible that Tom mentions is useless. Tom and its cronies keep mentioning this GPS bible without giving why after the reason has been debunked by Koobee Wublee and other scholars of science. This is totally abnormal in Einstein dingleberries. Tom is totally naked after taking away its bibles in which Tom knows not why Tom itself is blindly accepting. <shrug> > I am merely describing WHAT THE GPS DOCUMENTS SAY. Tom does not understand what the GPS document indicates. Tom does not question so as long as the bible supports GR. Tom is just another shill working to support the lies of SR and GR. <shrug> > [rest of stupid rant snipped]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 09:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ncovvv$1mgu$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379665 |
On 3/21/2016 12:27 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > A better system design is to call out for a programmable calendar time that > can be synchronized to another trivially, effortlessly, and economically. In other words, in Koobee's estimation, it is a better practice to make an on-the-fly, ad hoc correction than it is to build in BY DESIGN any physical principle that will minimize the correction that needs to be made. And he expects engineers to agree with him. -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 07:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0f78cdb0-a036-491d-aff2-59c72a12cf39@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379685 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 21 marca 2016 15:20:51 UTC+1 użytkownik Odd Bodkin napisał: > On 3/21/2016 12:27 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > > A better system design is to call out for a programmable calendar time that > > can be synchronized to another trivially, effortlessly, and economically. > > In other words, in Koobee's estimation, it is a better practice to make > an on-the-fly, ad hoc correction than it is to build in BY DESIGN any > physical principle that will minimize the correction that needs to be > made. And he expects engineers to agree with him. You don't know much about engineering, do you? Anyway, following an insane fool yelling "common sense is a set of prejudices!!!" is NOT a good engineering practice.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 09:37 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <IaCdndi4mJmNmm3LnZ2dnUU7_8xi4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #379685 |
On 3/21/16 3/21/16 - 9:20 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > On 3/21/2016 12:27 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: >> A better system design is to call out for a programmable calendar time that >> can be synchronized to another trivially, effortlessly, and economically. > > In other words, in Koobee's estimation, it is a better practice to make an > on-the-fly, ad hoc correction than it is to build in BY DESIGN any physical > principle that will minimize the correction that needs to be made. And he > expects engineers to agree with him. Yes. He's hopeless. And there is also the major point: I have been describing the GPS, and not some fantasy system KW hallucinates about. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 09:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ncp21f$1rkp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379689 |
On 3/21/2016 9:37 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 3/21/16 3/21/16 - 9:20 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: >> On 3/21/2016 12:27 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: >>> A better system design is to call out for a programmable calendar >>> time that >>> can be synchronized to another trivially, effortlessly, and >>> economically. >> >> In other words, in Koobee's estimation, it is a better practice to >> make an >> on-the-fly, ad hoc correction than it is to build in BY DESIGN any >> physical >> principle that will minimize the correction that needs to be made. And he >> expects engineers to agree with him. > > Yes. He's hopeless. By Koobee's estimation, it is the right and in fact the prerogative of engineers to build ad-hoc solutions to avoid acknowledging design principles from physicists, especially physicists that have been lauded as geniuses. > > And there is also the major point: I have been describing the GPS, and > not some fantasy system KW hallucinates about. According to Koobee, it was irresponsible for engineers designing the GPS system to acknowledge design principles from physicists lauded as geniuses, and therefore those irresponsible acts should be dismissed and the system re-engineered to avoid that acknowledgment. > > > Tom Roberts > -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 08:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8c0e1493-2f47-4ba1-8d16-48cb25cb1878@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379689 |
El lunes, 21 de marzo de 2016, 9:37:06 (UTC-5), tjrob137 escribió: > On 3/21/16 3/21/16 - 9:20 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote: > > On 3/21/2016 12:27 AM, Koobee Wublee wrote: > >> A better system design is to call out for a programmable calendar time that > >> can be synchronized to another trivially, effortlessly, and economically. > > > > In other words, in Koobee's estimation, it is a better practice to make an > > on-the-fly, ad hoc correction than it is to build in BY DESIGN any physical > > principle that will minimize the correction that needs to be made. And he > > expects engineers to agree with him. > > Yes. He's hopeless. > > And there is also the major point: I have been describing the GPS, and not some > fantasy system KW hallucinates about. > You are also hallucinating about an operative GPS that does not exist at all, with the satellite clocks showing a total nonexistent 10.229999954326 MHz frequency. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 11:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <0KGdnUnYH8Agu23LnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #379695 |
On 3/21/16 3/21/16 - 10:11 AM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > El lunes, 21 de marzo de 2016, 9:37:06 (UTC-5), tjrob137 escribió: >> And there is also the major point: I have been describing the GPS, and not >> some fantasy system KW hallucinates about. >> > You are also hallucinating about an operative GPS that does not exist at all, > with the satellite clocks showing a total nonexistent 10.229999954326 MHz > frequency. Nope. READ THE GPS DOCUMENTS. They say EXPLICITLY that AN OBSERVER IN THE SV would measure 10.2299999954326 MHz for the P-code chipping rate and the source of the carrier frequencies. The clearest and most relevant statement is contained in the Interface Specification IS-GPS-200H, 24-SEP-2013, discussing the source of the carrier frequencies (and also the modulation frequency for P-code chipping): 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. [IS-GPS-200H, section 3.3.1.1] (SV means space vehicle, and refers to a satellite in orbit.) You repeatedly make the same mistakes: failing to distinguish between clocks and signals, and failing to specify WHERE THE FREQUENCY IS MEASURED. Until you recognize your mistakes and correct them, you will remain confused. And WRONG. The relevant clocks are in the SV. So when one says "the clock's tick rate", one inherently means AS MEASURED IN THE SV. Measurements on the ground can only be of SIGNALS FROM THE SV, and will obtain a different value (here 10.2300000000000 MHz for the P-code chipping rate). Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 16:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncp97o$98i$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379702 |
Tom Roberts wrote: > 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. [IS-GPS-200H, section 3.3.1.1] Ohh boy, if anybody still believe that 30 years ago they could handle 4.5 miliHertz digitally. The whole thing is fake. You just gave the proof.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | bear making dust <bear@bearmakingdust.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 17:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ncp9hk$98i$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #379704 |
bear making dust wrote: > Tom Roberts wrote: > >> 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. [IS-GPS-200H, section 3.3.1.1] > > Ohh boy, if anybody still believe that 30 years ago they could handle > 4.5 miliHertz digitally. The whole thing is fake. You just gave the > proof. Did I say 30? Make it 40. Years.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 18:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ncp9r2$5mk$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #379702 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:0KGdnUnYH8Agu23LnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com... On 3/21/16 3/21/16 - 10:11 AM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > El lunes, 21 de marzo de 2016, 9:37:06 (UTC-5), tjrob137 escribió: >> And there is also the major point: I have been describing the GPS, and >> not >> some fantasy system KW hallucinates about. >> > You are also hallucinating about an operative GPS that does not exist at > all, > with the satellite clocks showing a total nonexistent 10.229999954326 MHz > frequency. |Nope. READ THE GPS DOCUMENTS. They say EXPLICITLY that AN OBSERVER IN THE SV |would measure A lie. As we can see below, they write "it would appear". Measurement, poor idiot, is: number of ticks divided by time counted by clock at SV. It would be exactly as you say - if only your "standard" of clocks were possible to treat seriously. |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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 13:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c0ee6c81-b16c-416a-9cb1-334bc6e1c823@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379702 |
On Monday, March 21, 2016 at 9:52:15 AM UTC-7, tjrob137 wrote: > READ THE GPS DOCUMENTS. They say EXPLICITLY that AN OBSERVER IN > THE SV would measure 10.2299999954326 MHz for the P-code chipping > rate and the source of the carrier frequencies. Koobee Wublee has explained why what the so-called bible is demanding is not necessary. See the link below. <shrug> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/sci.physics.relativity/2Zu4U9oVk-g/_im2QBsLBQAJ If one actually did what the so-called bible has said, you will have fleets of junk GPS satellites up in the orbits. <shrug>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 15:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <63c3c84f-c52b-4ce6-b32f-966aae8c6864@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379702 |
El lunes, 21 de marzo de 2016, 11:52:15 (UTC-5), tjrob137 escribió: > On 3/21/16 3/21/16 - 10:11 AM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > El lunes, 21 de marzo de 2016, 9:37:06 (UTC-5), tjrob137 escribió: > >> And there is also the major point: I have been describing the GPS, and not > >> some fantasy system KW hallucinates about. > >> > > You are also hallucinating about an operative GPS that does not exist at all, > > with the satellite clocks showing a total nonexistent 10.229999954326 MHz > > frequency. > > Nope. READ THE GPS DOCUMENTS. They say EXPLICITLY that AN OBSERVER IN THE SV > would measure 10.2299999954326 MHz for the P-code chipping rate and the source > of the carrier frequencies. > > The clearest and most relevant statement is contained in the Interface > Specification IS-GPS-200H, 24-SEP-2013, discussing the source of the carrier > frequencies (and also the modulation frequency for P-code chipping): > > 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. > [IS-GPS-200H, section 3.3.1.1] > > (SV means space vehicle, and refers to a satellite in orbit.) > > You repeatedly make the same mistakes: failing to distinguish between clocks and > signals, and failing to specify WHERE THE FREQUENCY IS MEASURED. Until you > recognize your mistakes and correct them, you will remain confused. And WRONG. > > The relevant clocks are in the SV. So when one says "the > clock's tick rate", one inherently means AS MEASURED IN > THE SV. Measurements on the ground can only be of SIGNALS > FROM THE SV, and will obtain a different value (here > 10.2300000000000 MHz for the P-code chipping rate). > > > Tom Roberts I suspect that you are taking out of context your quoted paragraph, not taking into account the immediately previous sentence and the last one. The extended last paragraph that I am considering is the following: [ 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 Δf/f = -4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping rate of 10.23 MHz offset by a Δf = -4.5674E-3 Hz. This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz. The nominal carrier frequencies (f0) shall be 1575.42 MHz, and 1227.6 MHz for L1 and L2, respectively. ] Yes, SV is the satellite Space Vehicle (with the clock inside), but from the GPS history we know that it can be in four very different states: S1. At ground without correction. S2. In orbit without correction. S3. In orbit with correction. S4, At ground with correction. If you consider that the quoted GPS document always corresponds to an SV state S3 (in orbit with correction), can you explain how the L1 and L2 carrier frequencies signals 1575.42 and 1227.6 Mhz can be derived inside the satellite from the 10.2299999954326 MHz that following you the inside clock is showing? Perhaps you think that the arithmetic equalities 10.23*154=1575.42 10.23*120=1227.6 do not apply inside the satellites? Please, do not forget that the 1575.42 and 1227.6 numbers appear in the document that you are claiming corresponds to the SV state S3. Finally, why in the GPS document in all the electronic diagrams appears only the unique available 10.23 MHz source frequency inside the satellite? In the GPS ECI we have a SINGLE time, the defined by 1905 Einstein, corresponding to any selected SINGLE synchronizing frequency, as the 10.23 MHz one, corresponding to the Earth's geoid. Once we have all the GPS clocks synchronized with the same frequency, have no sense at all to require where that frequency is measured, because it is already present in ALL the GPS ECI space points according to 1905 Einstein time definition, not being transmitted or received in any part as a frequency signal. However, the associated ECI time with the 10.23 MHz frequency, the same time that all GPS ECI operative clocks are always showing, can be broadcasted to all the ECI space as encoded data inside the modulated carrier signals of the communication channels, without any change due to velocity or gravitational potential. This possibility is the essential one that makes possible the GPS service. The local SR times of your SR-GR view play no role at all in the GPS ECI. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 18:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2788c017-750c-4c35-895d-55c6b28f11c4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379776 |
El lunes, 21 de marzo de 2016, 19:51:18 (UTC-3), Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato escribió: > El lunes, 21 de marzo de 2016, 11:52:15 (UTC-5), tjrob137 escribió: > > On 3/21/16 3/21/16 - 10:11 AM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > > El lunes, 21 de marzo de 2016, 9:37:06 (UTC-5), tjrob137 escribió: > > >> And there is also the major point: I have been describing the GPS, and not > > >> some fantasy system KW hallucinates about. > > >> > > > You are also hallucinating about an operative GPS that does not exist at all, > > > with the satellite clocks showing a total nonexistent 10.229999954326 MHz > > > frequency. > > > > Nope. READ THE GPS DOCUMENTS. They say EXPLICITLY that AN OBSERVER IN THE SV > > would measure 10.2299999954326 MHz for the P-code chipping rate and the source > > of the carrier frequencies. > > > > The clearest and most relevant statement is contained in the Interface > > Specification IS-GPS-200H, 24-SEP-2013, discussing the source of the carrier > > frequencies (and also the modulation frequency for P-code chipping): > > > > 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. > > [IS-GPS-200H, section 3.3.1.1] > > > > (SV means space vehicle, and refers to a satellite in orbit.) > > > > You repeatedly make the same mistakes: failing to distinguish between clocks and > > signals, and failing to specify WHERE THE FREQUENCY IS MEASURED. Until you > > recognize your mistakes and correct them, you will remain confused. And WRONG. > > > > The relevant clocks are in the SV. So when one says "the > > clock's tick rate", one inherently means AS MEASURED IN > > THE SV. Measurements on the ground can only be of SIGNALS > > FROM THE SV, and will obtain a different value (here > > 10.2300000000000 MHz for the P-code chipping rate). > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > I suspect that you are taking out of context your quoted paragraph, not taking > into account the immediately previous sentence and the last one. The extended > last paragraph that I am considering is the following: > > [ 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 Δf/f = -4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in the > P-code chipping rate of 10.23 MHz offset by a Δf = -4.5674E-3 Hz. This is equal > to 10.2299999954326 MHz. The nominal carrier frequencies (f0) shall be 1575.42 > MHz, and 1227.6 MHz for L1 and L2, respectively. ] > > Yes, SV is the satellite Space Vehicle (with the clock inside), but from the > GPS history we know that it can be in four very different states: > > S1. At ground without correction. > S2. In orbit without correction. > S3. In orbit with correction. > S4, At ground with correction. > > If you consider that the quoted GPS document always corresponds to an SV state > S3 (in orbit with correction), can you explain how the L1 and L2 carrier > frequencies signals 1575.42 and 1227.6 Mhz can be derived inside the satellite > from the 10.2299999954326 MHz that following you the inside clock is showing? > > Perhaps you think that the arithmetic equalities > > 10.23*154=1575.42 > > 10.23*120=1227.6 > > do not apply inside the satellites? > > Please, do not forget that the 1575.42 and 1227.6 numbers appear in the > document that you are claiming corresponds to the SV state S3. > > Finally, why in the GPS document in all the electronic diagrams appears only > the unique available 10.23 MHz source frequency inside the satellite? > > In the GPS ECI we have a SINGLE time, the defined by 1905 Einstein, > corresponding to any selected SINGLE synchronizing frequency, as the 10.23 MHz > one, corresponding to the Earth's geoid. Once we have all the GPS clocks > synchronized with the same frequency, have no sense at all to require where > that frequency is measured, because it is already present in ALL the GPS ECI > space points according to 1905 Einstein time definition, not being transmitted > or received in any part as a frequency signal. > > However, the associated ECI time with the 10.23 MHz frequency, the same time > that all GPS ECI operative clocks are always showing, can be broadcasted to all > the ECI space as encoded data inside the modulated carrier signals of the > communication channels, without any change due to velocity or gravitational > potential. This possibility is the essential one that makes possible the GPS > service. > > The local SR times of your SR-GR view play no role at all in the GPS ECI. > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) Instead of inventing here explanations based on Einstein 1905 paper, you should write to: Michael J Dunn Technical Director Global Positioning System Directorate and explain to him why you consider the Official GPS documentation to be wrong. wrong
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 12 of 14 — ← Prev page 1 … 10 11 [12] 13 14 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web