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 381 — 37 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 ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-23 22:33 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-03-24 00:11 -0700
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 ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-23 17:14 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 06:16 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Yves Hrodland <yvesh24@wisenetworking.org> - 2016-03-24 14:00 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 07:35 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Yves Hrodland <yvesh24@wisenetworking.org> - 2016-03-24 15:19 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 14:41 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-24 15:32 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Yves Hrodland <yvesh24@wisenetworking.org> - 2016-03-24 22:56 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Yves Hrodland <yvesh24@wisenetworking.org> - 2016-03-24 22:57 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-25 11:34 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-03-28 15:56 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-03-29 07:00 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-03-29 20:36 +0200
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-29 11:35 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-03-29 12:03 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 16:39 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-04-01 17:00 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-02 09:08 +0200
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-04-02 01:17 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-02 12:55 +0200
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-04-02 01:18 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-02 14:08 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-02 21:56 +0200
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> - 2016-04-02 20:06 +0000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-03 23:58 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-04 16:47 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 04:44 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 12:01 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-04-05 12:29 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-06 23:10 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 14:13 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 15:59 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-07 23:17 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> - 2016-04-08 23:57 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-08 00:08 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! HGW <HGW@....> - 2016-04-08 21:23 +1000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-08 11:28 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-08 22:34 +0200
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-10 11:38 +1000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-08 14:02 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-08 21:25 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-09 09:06 +0200
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 16:33 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 16:50 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-11 23:01 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 06:58 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 07:36 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-13 16:38 +0200
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-13 08:28 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-13 19:13 +0200
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 17:44 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-13 19:09 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-13 23:03 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-13 19:02 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-13 23:09 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-14 04:48 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-14 05:04 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 14:40 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-04-13 15:51 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-13 19:11 -0400
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-13 23:18 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-14 00:22 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 10:06 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-14 14:16 -0400
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-15 04:58 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-15 09:33 -0400
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-15 18:10 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-04-15 20:03 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 07:08 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 08:45 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 10:53 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-04-18 13:33 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 04:07 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 04:28 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-19 05:16 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 14:36 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 14:09 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-19 15:27 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-19 16:40 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-19 19:33 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-19 21:45 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-19 23:23 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-20 06:06 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-20 16:50 +0200
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 14:35 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 16:28 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-20 22:26 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-20 23:36 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-21 17:04 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-04-20 07:19 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-16 08:19 +0200
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-14 13:21 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-15 00:37 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-15 15:11 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-15 21:40 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-15 22:25 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-15 05:16 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-08 11:23 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-08 22:32 +0200
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-10 13:16 +1000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-09 21:15 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 10:32 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-10 21:37 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 17:51 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Koobee Wublee <koobee.wublee@gmail.com> - 2016-04-11 22:47 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-04-12 00:45 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-04-12 01:10 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! HGW <hw@...> - 2016-04-12 09:12 +1000
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2016-04-04 21:35 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-06 14:36 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-04-07 06:42 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-07 07:34 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-04-08 11:04 -0500
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-04-08 22:29 +0200
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-09 07:19 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-09 07:39 -0700
Re: Einsteinian Simultaneity and syncronism : no thanks ! kenseto <setoken@att.net> - 2016-04-09 12:45 -0700
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 13 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 20 Next page →
| 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]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 02:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a48fb823-07ae-4f6d-90e6-c88bd08b2041@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379784 |
W dniu wtorek, 22 marca 2016 02:00:52 UTC+1 użytkownik paparios napisał: > and explain to him why you consider the Official GPS documentation to be wrong. wrong That's simple - their clocks are UNPROPER!!! Great Guru proved they are!!! Zillions of experiments confirmed they are!!!! How did they dare to use them?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 04:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <12f36616-a2e4-48cf-a2d7-5c848a761fc1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379784 |
El lunes, 21 de marzo de 2016, 20:00:52 (UTC-5), paparios escribió: > 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 The Official GPS documentation is not wrong; what can be wrong is the interpretation of its text made by persons that seem not having sufficient knowledge about the communication channels used in GPS, an also about GPS history, in special the 1977 first GPS satellite launching. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 04:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <724d83f2-3aba-4b69-961f-e3c7ff87cfee@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379814 |
On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:40:28 AM UTC-3, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > El lunes, 21 de marzo de 2016, 20:00:52 (UTC-5), paparios escribió: > > 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 > > The Official GPS documentation is not wrong; what can be wrong is the interpretation of its text made by persons that seem not having sufficient knowledge about the communication channels used in GPS, an also about GPS history, in special the 1977 first GPS satellite launching. > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) So, in your opinion, the people responsible for keeping the GPS system in a working condition, do use the wrong interpretation of the official documentation?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 05:30 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3ac79b51-8f71-46f4-a0a1-1e86ec564133@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379815 |
El martes, 22 de marzo de 2016, 6:50:16 (UTC-5), paparios escribió: > On Tuesday, March 22, 2016 at 8:40:28 AM UTC-3, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > El lunes, 21 de marzo de 2016, 20:00:52 (UTC-5), paparios escribió: > > > > 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 > > > > The Official GPS documentation is not wrong; what can be wrong is the interpretation of its text made by persons that seem not having sufficient knowledge about the communication channels used in GPS, an also about GPS history, in special the 1977 first GPS satellite launching. > > > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > > So, in your opinion, the people responsible for keeping the GPS system in a working condition, do use the wrong interpretation of the official documentation? Of course not; the today excellent GPS service proves the high quality of all its personal. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-20 23:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <06e2fc2f-3d57-4239-b879-e08a6ba51b59@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379661 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 21 marca 2016 04:49:01 UTC+1 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > 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). Yes, real point of views violate moronic visions of your guru in every point. > 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. Not so long ago you mumbled, that direct comparing of clocks is impossible in this case. > NONSENSE. I am merely describing WHAT THE GPS DOCUMENTS SAY. Well, yes. Among other things inconsistent with your Shit, they say clocks of GPS indicate t'=t. Game over.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-21 07:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fa036d5d-2663-4a8b-915f-2984f066512d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379661 |
El domingo, 20 de marzo de 2016, 22:49:01 (UTC-5), tjrob137 escribió: > 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). > You are recognizing now, forced by the EXPERIMENTAL FACTS (what you know very well having not the right to reject), that the operative GPS satellite contains a relativistic corrected on-board clock displaying ECI time, corresponding to a 1905 Einstein synchronizing frequency of 10.23 MHz, NOT AT ALL the 10.229999954326 MHz one that you are (erroneously) claiming. You are then here one in contradiction with yourself. > 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. > The GPS is a SYSTEM; no part of it can make anything without the other ones, including the control segment at ground. > > > You are making a very serious assertion, > The one based on your ignorance about the fact (that you do not want even to mention here, erasing my reference to it), that the frequency the clock inside the satellite shows at some ECI time instant can be know in any part of the operative GPS, not affected at all by velocity and/or gravitational potential, because it is data traveling encoded inside a modulated carrier frequency signal (like the photos received at Earth from the SV near Pluto). > NONSENSE. I am merely describing WHAT THE GPS DOCUMENTS SAY. > What is totally FALSE; see the IS-GPS-200H document (for example: Fig.3-1, pag.21; Fig.3-6, pag.28; Fig.3-10, pag.34), and verify by yourself that the unique source frequency that appears inside an operative satellite (corresponding to the one the internal clock is showing) is always the 1905 Einstein synchronizing 10.23 MHz one.] Your rejection of the EXPERIMENTAL FACTS established in 1977 and supported by the very successful GPS behavior since then, is the unique outrageous thing here. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 11:20 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <V9ydnYIttfQo7WzLnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #379691 |
On 3/21/16 3/21/16 9:46 AM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > El domingo, 20 de marzo de 2016, 22:49:01 (UTC-5), tjrob137 escribió: >> On 3/18/16 3/18/16 6:47 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: >>> 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). >> > You are recognizing now, forced by the EXPERIMENTAL FACTS (what you know very > well having not the right to reject), I never "rejected" any experimental facts. YOU misinterpreted them (confusing clocks with signals, and fantasizing that the ECI is an inertial frame in the sense of SR/"1905R"). > that the operative GPS satellite contains > a relativistic corrected on-board clock displaying ECI time, corresponding to a > 1905 Einstein synchronizing frequency of 10.23 MHz, NO. YOU KEEP MAKING THE SAME MISTAKE: failing to distinguish between signals and clocks, and failing to specify WHERE THE MEASUREMENT IS MADE. The CLOCK in a GPS satellite ticks at 10.2299999934526 MHz (the P-code chipping rate). On the ground the SIGNALS from this clock arrive at 10.2300000000000 MHz. THESE ARE MANIFESTLY DIFFERENT. The ECI coordinates used in the GPS ignore gravity, but the physical clock in the satellite CANNOT POSSIBLY DO SO. So if you consider a GPS coordinate clock at satellite altitude, which is necessarily IMAGINARY and of course at rest in the ECI, then it would NOT be in sync with the REAL satellite clock as it goes by. This is due to the fact that the ECI coordinates ignore gravity and the satellite is moving wrt the ECI -- that is, ECI coordinate clocks do NOT correspond to real clocks throughout their domain of validity, they correspond to real clocks ONLY ON THE GEOID. Everybody but you KNOWS that any clock not on the geoid, and any clock moving wrt the earth's surface, MUST BE CORRECTED in order to display GPS time. That's why the satellite clocks have MODIFIED dividers. Just because Einstein's 1905 paper described inertial coordinates does NOT mean that they correspond to the situation near earth. In fact they DO NOT. But since GR is completely independent of coordinates, the GPS can construct ECI coordinates in which the vacuum speed of light is isotropically c RELATIVE TO THE COORDINATES. But those coordinates do NOT correspond to the behavior or real clocks -- thinking this is an inertial frame of SR is JUST PLAIN WRONG. This OUGHT to be obvious, as the ECI orbits the sun with the earth -- no inertial frame of SR could possibly do that. The ECI is not really an inertial frame -- objects in freefall do NOT travel in straight lines relative to it. But it is "inertial" in the sense needed by the GPS: light travels along paths that are indistinguishable from straight, and with coordinate speed in vacuum that is isotropically c. > NOT AT ALL the > 10.229999954326 MHz one that you are (erroneously) claiming. I repeat: YOU ARE WRONG. > You are then here one in contradiction with yourself. Nope. YOU are not reading carefully enough. > Your rejection of the EXPERIMENTAL FACTS established in 1977 and supported by > the very successful GPS behavior since then, is the unique outrageous thing > here. Not true. I do not "reject" those results. YOU misinterpret them. I do indeed describe what the interface specification described. YOU are confused. And you merely repeat the same errors over and over and over again. Signals _ARE_ different from clocks, WHERE a measurement is made DOES make a difference, and the ECI is NOT an inertial frame (SR or "1905R"). Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-22 18:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ncrvjl$oaj$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #379836 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:V9ydnYIttfQo7WzLnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com... On 3/21/16 3/21/16 9:46 AM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > El domingo, 20 de marzo de 2016, 22:49:01 (UTC-5), tjrob137 escribió: >> On 3/18/16 3/18/16 6:47 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: >>> 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). >> > You are recognizing now, forced by the EXPERIMENTAL FACTS (what you know > very > well having not the right to reject), |I never "rejected" any experimental facts. Well, a lie, as expected from a relativistic trash. |THE COORDINATES. But those coordinates do NOT correspond to the behavior or real |clocks -- Obviously, clock imagined by a relativistic morons are more real for him, than real clocks of real GPS. As usual. The word he inhabits is the world of his moronic dreams. A proper world obeying his moronic standards and rules...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-23 17:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <814e9d01-014a-44ba-b151-7019277247fd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #379836 |
El martes, 22 de marzo de 2016, 11:20:06 (UTC-5), tjrob137 escribió: > On 3/21/16 3/21/16 9:46 AM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > El domingo, 20 de marzo de 2016, 22:49:01 (UTC-5), tjrob137 escribió: > >> On 3/18/16 3/18/16 6:47 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > >>> 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). > >> > > You are recognizing now, forced by the EXPERIMENTAL FACTS (what you know very > > well having not the right to reject), > > I never "rejected" any experimental facts. YOU misinterpreted them (confusing > clocks with signals, and fantasizing that the ECI is an inertial frame in the > sense of SR/"1905R"). > The EXPERIMENTAL FACTS (EF) that I am emphasizing with upper case letters since some days ago, are the ones I associate with the 1977 first GPS satellite launching and the since then continuous and very successful GPS operation until our days. From the GPS history (well detailed by Neil Ashby), we know that an SV satellite clock can be at the following 4 different states: S1. At ground without correction. S2. In orbit without correction. S3. In orbit with correction. S4, At ground with correction. S1 and S2 correspond to the 1977 first GPS satellite launching, being since then an EF that a non-operative GPS SV satellite clock showing 10.23 MHz at ground (without correction, state S1), pass to show 10.2300000045674 MHz when in orbit (without correction, state S2) IN the satellite. This is the more important of the EXPERIMENTAL FACTS that you REJECT, saying now that I am the one who misinterpreted them (confusing clocks with signals, and fantasizing that the ECI is an inertial frame in the sense of SR/"1905R"). No, evidently I have nothing to do with what occurs in 1977 and next following years. And what something more occurs? In 1977, after 20 days decoding the DATA broadcasted from the satellite, including the time instant showed by the internal clock on each transmission moment, the predicted by SR-GR increase in the frequency showed by the internal clock is confirmed, 4.5674E-3 Hz, the today something more accurate value that appears in the IF-GPS-200H document This corresponds to +45-7=+38 microseconds/day. The gravitational potential effect and the velocity one on the REAL clock inside the satellite pass to be an EF since then. Yes, "moving clocks run slow"(-7) and "higher clocks run fast"(+45) are also among the EF that you REJECT. > > > that the operative GPS satellite contains > > a relativistic corrected on-board clock displaying ECI time, corresponding to a > > 1905 Einstein synchronizing frequency of 10.23 MHz, > > NO. YOU KEEP MAKING THE SAME MISTAKE: failing to distinguish between signals and > clocks, and failing to specify WHERE THE MEASUREMENT IS MADE. > > The CLOCK in a GPS satellite ticks at 10.2299999934526 MHz (the P-code chipping > rate). On the ground the SIGNALS from this clock arrive at 10.2300000000000 MHz. > THESE ARE MANIFESTLY DIFFERENT. > Let us return to the GPS history. In 1977, after putting on the relativistic correction on the first satellite in orbit, the frequency showed by the internal clock decreases from 10.2300000045674 MHz to 10.2300000000000 MHz, passing from the S2 state to the S3 one. The later is also an EF (since 1977) that you REJECT, having me nothing to do with that. Since the second GPS satellite launching, a clock at ground showing 10.23 MHz (without correction, state S1) is relativistic corrected, passing to show 10.2299999954326 MHz (with correction, state S4) inside the SV still at ground before the launching. It returns to show 10.23 MHz when in orbit (with correction, state S3). As you can see, the S3 state (in orbit with correction) and showing 10.23 MHz INSIDE all the satellites is the unique compatible with all the EXPERIMENTAL FACTS (that you REJECT), confirming also that the operative GPS ECI with all clocks synchronized with the selected 10.23 MHz frequency, are showing the 1905 Einstein defined time for a stationary system, a 1686 Newtonian center of mass one with Euclidean geometry, Cartesian coordinates and space separated from time. > The ECI coordinates used in the GPS ignore gravity, but the physical clock in > the satellite CANNOT POSSIBLY DO SO. So if you consider a GPS coordinate clock > at satellite altitude, which is necessarily IMAGINARY and of course at rest in > the ECI, then it would NOT be in sync with the REAL satellite clock as it goes > by. This is due to the fact that the ECI coordinates ignore gravity and the > satellite is moving wrt the ECI -- that is, ECI coordinate clocks do NOT > correspond to real clocks throughout their domain of validity, they correspond > to real clocks ONLY ON THE GEOID. > Who says that ECI coordinates used in the GPS ignore gravity? The EXPERIMENTAL FACTS (that you REJECT) firmly established since 1977, take into account the gravitational potential effect (+45) and also the velocity one (-7), refuting already your "CANNOT POSSIBLY DO SO". The very REAL operative satellite clocks (already relativistic corrected for the gravitational potential effect and velocity one), are in the GPS very successfully showing the same ECI time that a virtual (or ideal) 1905 Einstein synchronized clock in each stationary space point it is passing in the corresponding ECI time instant. All the rest what you say only confirms that you CANNOT apply an SR unable to address gravity in the GPS ECI case, where since 1905 Einstein Relativity (denoted by me 1905R) gravity EXISTS, ruled by the corresponding Newtonian equations that hold good in any 1905 Einstein stationary system. > Everybody but you KNOWS that any clock not on the geoid, and > any clock moving wrt the earth's surface, MUST BE CORRECTED in > order to display GPS time. That's why the satellite clocks > have MODIFIED dividers. > I showed already how accepting the EXPERIMENTAL FACTS firmly established since 1977, ALL the GPS ECI operative clocks are 1905 Einstein synchronized with the same 10.23 MHz frequency corresponding to the same ECI time, including the satellite ones with the relativistic correction described. > Just because Einstein's 1905 paper described inertial coordinates does NOT mean > that they correspond to the situation near earth. In fact they DO NOT. But since > GR is completely independent of coordinates, the GPS can construct ECI > coordinates in which the vacuum speed of light is isotropically c RELATIVE TO > THE COORDINATES. But those coordinates do NOT correspond to the behavior or real > clocks -- thinking this is an inertial frame of SR is JUST PLAIN WRONG. > If you are referring to SR inertial coordinates (what exist without any relation at all with any material body), who says that Einstein's 1905 paper described inertial coordinates? By the contrary, since the Introduction 1905 Einstein identify systems of coordinates with bodies, defining "time" (Section 1) only relative to a type of entity that he denotes as "stationary system" of coordinates in which the equations of Newtonian mechanics hold good, using Euclidean geometry, Cartesian coordinates and space separated from time. At the end of Section 4, he introduces the stationary system of coordinates corresponding to the Newtonian center of mass of all the interacting Earth's parts, very fortunately the same entity today denoted GPS Earth Centered Inertial (ECI) system. > This OUGHT to be obvious, as the ECI orbits the sun with the earth > -- no inertial frame of SR could possibly do that. You are right, NO inertial frame of SR CAN do that, but a 1905R stationary system YES, applying 1686 Newton's Corollary VI, a generalization of the V (Galileo's PoR) from zero acceleration (any uniform velocity) to any variable acceleration. > The ECI is not really an inertial frame -- objects in freefall do > NOT travel in straight lines relative to it. But it is "inertial" > in the sense needed by the GPS: light travels along paths that are > indistinguishable from straight, and with coordinate speed in > vacuum that is isotropically c. > Fortunately, in the ECI we have as the stationary space an Euclidean one where the Earth is rotating (NOT limited to the SR-GR local ones), where light also behaves very close to a moving agent in vacuum with uniform and isotropic speed c (some minor corrections in the ionosphere need to be done sometimes). > > > NOT AT ALL the > > 10.229999954326 MHz one that you are (erroneously) claiming. > > I repeat: YOU ARE WRONG. > That the GPS operative clocks INSIDE the satellites shows in that places the synchronizing GPS 10.23 MHz is already an EXPERIMENTAL FACT firmly established since 1977 (I am also repeating). > > > You are then here one in contradiction with yourself. > > Nope. YOU are not reading carefully enough. > Remember that the EXPERIMENTAL FACTS that you REJECT, have absolutely nothing to do with me. In 1977 I am not yet involved in those affairs. The time order is very important to understand what occurs. > > > Your rejection of the EXPERIMENTAL FACTS established in 1977 and supported by > > the very successful GPS behavior since then, is the unique outrageous thing > > here. > > Not true. I do not "reject" those results. YOU misinterpret them. I do indeed > describe what the interface specification described. YOU are confused. And you > merely repeat the same errors over and over and over again. Signals _ARE_ > different from clocks, WHERE a measurement is made DOES make a difference, and > the ECI is NOT an inertial frame (SR or "1905R"). > I showed you already in sufficient detail how you are rejecting EXPERIMENTAL FACTS firmly established long before any interpretation of the GPS documentation by me. The 10.23 MHz frequency is USED in all GPS ECI parts, because it is the operative frequency that ALL the 1905 Einstein synchronized clocks are always showing; but it is NEVER a SIGNAL emitted or received in any part. What sense has to emit or receive a thing that you already have, with an accuracy of 1 part in 10E15 that ANY measuring device existing today NOT has? Surely you are confused with the USE of the 10.23 MHz as the modulation frequency (P-code chipping rate) in all the GPS transmitters and receptors to code or decode respectively the transmitted or received DATA. A 10.23 MHz SIGNAL NEVER travels from one place to another in the GPS ECI. Remember that the ECI time the operative satellite clock is showing INSIDE it is broadcasted to all the ECI stationary space as encoded DATA that is NOT affected by the distance or any difference on gravitational potential or velocity between the transmitter and the receptor. I mentioned more than once the Pluto photos taken in a place near it and received without changes in the Earth, to help your understanding about why a transmitted or received DATA in the operative GPS ECI, like the ECI time or frequency a satellite clock inside it is showing, never depends on any measurement done in any part. A similar remark for the 10.2299999954326 MHz SIGNAL that even does not exist at all in ANY place of the operative GPS. It is only the temporal non-operative frequency the internal SV clock is showing (S4 state) when still at ground before the launching. Yes, the ECI is NOT an SR inertial frame without relation at all with material bodies; but it IS a 1905R Einstein stationary system, a Newtonian center of mass system that can be moving as a whole thing with any variable acceleration compatible with 1686 Newton's Laws. The Solar System moving in the Galaxy is another better example. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 06:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <77b3d3d4-80e7-49e5-bcee-1151657b03fc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380005 |
El miércoles, 23 de marzo de 2016, 21:14:29 (UTC-3), Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato escribió: > > A similar remark for the 10.2299999954326 MHz SIGNAL that even does not exist > at all in ANY place of the operative GPS. It is only the temporal non-operative > frequency the internal SV clock is showing (S4 state) when still at ground > before the launching. > Unfortunately, this is completely wrong! First, an atomic clock frequency does not change after it is put into a satellite orbit. If the atomic clock was ticking at 10.23 MHz before launch, it will continue to tick at 10.23 MHz after launch. If you think that the frequency changes, explain what physical process produce such effect. Secondly, the measure from the ground of the frequency of an orbiting clock, which was ticking at 10.2299999954326 MHz before launch and, of course, it is ticking at 10.2299999954326 MHz while in orbit, is affected by the satellite speed and hight. That means that the frequency of the satellite clock will be measured at the ground to be exactly 10.23 MHz. You are continuing to misunderstand the whole relativity problem.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Yves Hrodland <yvesh24@wisenetworking.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 14:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nd0rsv$fff$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #380036 |
paparios wrote: >> A similar remark for the 10.2299999954326 MHz SIGNAL that even does not >> exist at all in ANY place of the operative GPS. It is only the temporal >> non-operative frequency the internal SV clock is showing (S4 state) >> when still at ground before the launching. > > Unfortunately, this is completely wrong! > First, an atomic clock frequency does not change after it is put into a > satellite orbit. If the atomic clock was ticking at 10.23 MHz before > launch, it will continue to tick at 10.23 MHz after launch. If you think > that the frequency changes, explain what physical process produce such > effect. Fortunately, not unfortunately. Great, paparios proves he finally just learned something. He insistingly said exactly the opposite anteriorly, calling the others correcting morons and trolls. Who is the troll now paparios?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 07:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0b1ef998-b28f-459f-9bcb-501712496a50@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380038 |
El jueves, 24 de marzo de 2016, 11:00:29 (UTC-3), Yves Hrodland escribió: > paparios wrote: > > >> A similar remark for the 10.2299999954326 MHz SIGNAL that even does not > >> exist at all in ANY place of the operative GPS. It is only the temporal > >> non-operative frequency the internal SV clock is showing (S4 state) > >> when still at ground before the launching. > > > > Unfortunately, this is completely wrong! > > First, an atomic clock frequency does not change after it is put into a > > satellite orbit. If the atomic clock was ticking at 10.23 MHz before > > launch, it will continue to tick at 10.23 MHz after launch. If you think > > that the frequency changes, explain what physical process produce such > > effect. > > Fortunately, not unfortunately. Great, paparios proves he finally just > learned something. He insistingly said exactly the opposite anteriorly, > calling the others correcting morons and trolls. Who is the troll now > paparios? Go back to find another ridiculous surname nymshifting troll. You are just a nobody large CRT TV set unemployed mover.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Yves Hrodland <yvesh24@wisenetworking.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 15:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nd10in$p4d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #380040 |
paparios wrote: > El jueves, 24 de marzo de 2016, 11:00:29 (UTC-3), Yves Hrodland > escribió: >> paparios wrote: >> >> >> A similar remark for the 10.2299999954326 MHz SIGNAL that even does >> >> not exist at all in ANY place of the operative GPS. It is only the >> >> temporal non-operative frequency the internal SV clock is showing >> >> (S4 state) when still at ground before the launching. >> > >> > Unfortunately, this is completely wrong! >> > First, an atomic clock frequency does not change after it is put into >> > a satellite orbit. If the atomic clock was ticking at 10.23 MHz >> > before launch, it will continue to tick at 10.23 MHz after launch. If >> > you think that the frequency changes, explain what physical process >> > produce such effect. >> >> Fortunately, not unfortunately. Great, paparios proves he finally just >> learned something. He insistingly said exactly the opposite anteriorly, >> calling the others correcting morons and trolls. Who is the troll now >> paparios? > > Go back to find another ridiculous surname nymshifting troll. You are > just a nobody large CRT TV set unemployed mover. I am a good capitalist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgig1QVU2lY
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 14:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6b4295e6-4576-4622-ae26-3bfcf0f56d7c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380036 |
El jueves, 24 de marzo de 2016, 8:16:40 (UTC-5), paparios escribió: > El miércoles, 23 de marzo de 2016, 21:14:29 (UTC-3), Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato escribió: > > > > > A similar remark for the 10.2299999954326 MHz SIGNAL that even does not exist > > at all in ANY place of the operative GPS. It is only the temporal non-operative > > frequency the internal SV clock is showing (S4 state) when still at ground > > before the launching. > > > > Unfortunately, this is completely wrong! > > First, an atomic clock frequency does not change after it is put into a satellite orbit. If the atomic clock was ticking at 10.23 MHz before launch, it will continue to tick at 10.23 MHz after launch. If you think that the frequency changes, explain what physical process produce such effect. > In 1977, when the first GPS satellite launching, an atomic clock ticking at 10.23 MHz is put inside an SV satellite still at ground before the launching (state S1, at ground without correction). After the put in orbit (state S2, in orbit without correction) and 20 days of careful attention, the frequency increases +442.5 parts in 10E12, close to the 10.23000000045674 MHz a today operative clock in orbit shows before the correcting frequency divider. After putting on the correction (today after the correcting frequency divider, state S3, in orbit with correction), the clock returns to show the original 10.23 MHz frequency. Today, to a clock showing 10.23 MHz (state S1, at ground without correction) the correction is applied, changing the state S1 to S4 (at ground with correction) showing 10.2299999954326 MHz. After the put in orbit, the clock changes from state S4 to S3, returning to show the original 10.23 MHz. These are the EXPERIMENTAL FACTS since 1977 until today, not having you (or any other person) the right to reject them. Is so difficult for you to understand that if the frequency a clock is showing at ground does not change when it is put in orbit, the relativistic correction never would been necessary? > Secondly, the measure from the ground of the frequency of an orbiting clock, which was ticking at 10.2299999954326 MHz before launch and, of course, it is ticking at 10.2299999954326 MHz while in orbit, is affected by the satellite speed and hight. That means that the frequency of the satellite clock will be measured at the ground to be exactly 10.23 MHz. > What an operative clock is showing inside a satellite is broadcasted as encoded DATA to all the GPS ECI stationary space by the communication channels, not been affected by distance or any difference between the transmitter and receptor, including gravitational potential and velocity. > You are continuing to misunderstand the whole relativity problem. According to what I had derived already from 1905 Einstein Relativity (denoted by me1905R to distinguish it from SR), the mass of a body is a measure of its energy-content, including the gravitational potential one and any other type of energy. The gravitational mass m_G measures the total energy E of a body in any process in which E is conserved (E=K+P, kinetic energy K, potential energy P), like in free fall or orbiting another. The inertial mass m_I (part of m_G) results equal to a variable rest mass m_0 that measures the total potential energy P, being the ratio m_G/m_I equal to the 1905R relativistic factor gamma, function only of the body velocity v (for only v=0, body at rest, m_G=m_I=m_0). The variable frequency an atomic clock shows in a gravitational field (that practically coincides with the GR prediction) is proportional to the variable rest mass m_0 (of the Cs electron changing of quantum state) that measures its gravitational potential energy that depends on its position in the field. If interested, see the details in the following link: Valls Hidalgo-Gato, Rafael A. "Towards an extension of 1905 relativistic dynamics with a variable rest mass measuring potential energy" http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1210/1210.4157.pdf Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 15:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5fa5db0a-4650-423e-8999-81a6531c850d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380096 |
El jueves, 24 de marzo de 2016, 18:41:18 (UTC-3), Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato escribió: > El jueves, 24 de marzo de 2016, 8:16:40 (UTC-5), paparios escribió: > > El miércoles, 23 de marzo de 2016, 21:14:29 (UTC-3), Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato escribió: > > > > > > > > A similar remark for the 10.2299999954326 MHz SIGNAL that even does not exist > > > at all in ANY place of the operative GPS. It is only the temporal non-operative > > > frequency the internal SV clock is showing (S4 state) when still at ground > > > before the launching. > > > > > > > Unfortunately, this is completely wrong! > > > > First, an atomic clock frequency does not change after it is put into a satellite orbit. If the atomic clock was ticking at 10.23 MHz before launch, it will continue to tick at 10.23 MHz after launch. If you think that the frequency changes, explain what physical process produce such effect. > > > In 1977, when the first GPS satellite launching, an atomic clock ticking at > 10.23 MHz is put inside an SV satellite still at ground before the launching > (state S1, at ground without correction). > > After the put in orbit (state S2, in orbit without correction) and 20 days of > careful attention, the frequency increases +442.5 parts in 10E12, close to the > 10.23000000045674 MHz a today operative clock in orbit shows before the > correcting frequency divider. After putting on the correction (today after the > correcting frequency divider, state S3, in orbit with correction), the clock > returns to show the original 10.23 MHz frequency. You are still very wrong and shows you have not read carefully the Ashby paper. Indeed in 1977, the frequency NOT IN THE SATELLITE, BUT ON THE GROUND was measured to increase +442.5 parts in 10E12. Repeat with us ON THE GROUND!!!!! You still do not get it right? Nobody with instruments was located inside that 1977 satellite right? Look carefully at page 16 equation 36 of Ashby paper in http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/download/lrr-2003-1Color.pdf "In order for the satellite clock to appear to an observer on the geoid to beat at the chosen frequency of 10.23 MHz, the satellite clocks are adjusted lower in frequency so that the proper frequency is: f=10.22999999543 MHz (36) This adjustment is accomplished on the ground before the clock is placed in orbit." > > Today, to a clock showing 10.23 MHz (state S1, at ground without correction) > the correction is applied, changing the state S1 to S4 (at ground with > correction) showing 10.2299999954326 MHz. After the put in orbit, the clock > changes from state S4 to S3, returning to show the original 10.23 MHz. > > These are the EXPERIMENTAL FACTS since 1977 until today, not having you (or any > other person) the right to reject them. > You indeed do not have the right to alter what it is clearly written in scientific and official documentation on the subject. All measures of clocks are performed on the ground and, as Tom and me has been telling to you, it is the ground measure of an orbiting clock frequency what shows a difference with respect to an atomic clock on the ground. > > Secondly, the measure from the ground of the frequency of an orbiting clock, which was ticking at 10.2299999954326 MHz before launch and, of course, it is ticking at 10.2299999954326 MHz while in orbit, is affected by the satellite speed and hight. That means that the frequency of the satellite clock will be measured at the ground to be exactly 10.23 MHz. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Yves Hrodland <yvesh24@wisenetworking.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 22:56 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nd1rbh$c4d$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #380100 |
paparios wrote: > f=10.22999999543 MHz (36) > This adjustment is accomplished on the ground before the clock is placed > in orbit." This is exactly what they want you to believe. Good for you having that another hobby. That hitting a drum with your palm hand and elbow, in a cyclic successive and periodic manner. Recent Progress in Fusion Energy http://tarpley.net/ "Poughkeepsie, NY – March 23, 2016 – The following are reports of the recent (Feb. 5, 2016) successful breakthrough in Chinese fusion energy research. Note that the superconducting Tokamak used by the Chinese was invented by Russian scientists (Soviet at the time of invention). The EAST, after being completed in 2007, has been undergoing trial runs to check its capabilities. The Chinese new generation experimental Tokamak fusion device has successfully implemented the world’s longest (102 seconds) plasma discharge by the electronic temperature of 50 million degrees Celsius in January 2016, according to the Hefei Institute of Physical Sciences, a branch of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, said on Feb. 4, 2016. 1 Chinese engineers have managed to create hydrogen gas that is three times hotter than the sun. The team was able to maintain 50 million degrees Celsius for 102 seconds – a breakthrough that could someday make fusion power a reality. It follows news that Germany used 2 megawatts of microwave radiation to heat hydrogen gas to 80 million degrees Celsius for a quarter of a second. 2"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Yves Hrodland <yvesh24@wisenetworking.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-24 22:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nd1rcf$c4e$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #380100 |
paparios wrote: > f=10.22999999543 MHz (36) > This adjustment is accomplished on the ground before the clock is placed > in orbit." This is exactly what they want you to believe. Good for you having that another hobby. That hitting a drum with your palm hand and elbow, in a cyclic successive and periodic manner. Recent Progress in Fusion Energy http://tarpley.net/ "Poughkeepsie, NY – March 23, 2016 – The following are reports of the recent (Feb. 5, 2016) successful breakthrough in Chinese fusion energy research. Note that the superconducting Tokamak used by the Chinese was invented by Russian scientists (Soviet at the time of invention). The EAST, after being completed in 2007, has been undergoing trial runs to check its capabilities. The Chinese new generation experimental Tokamak fusion device has successfully implemented the world’s longest (102 seconds) plasma discharge by the electronic temperature of 50 million degrees Celsius in January 2016, according to the Hefei Institute of Physical Sciences, a branch of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, said on Feb. 4, 2016. 1 Chinese engineers have managed to create hydrogen gas that is three times hotter than the sun. The team was able to maintain 50 million degrees Celsius for 102 seconds – a breakthrough that could someday make fusion power a reality. It follows news that Germany used 2 megawatts of microwave radiation to heat hydrogen gas to 80 million degrees Celsius for a quarter of a second. 2"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-25 11:34 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <xoSdnX4de_sI9WjLnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #380005 |
On 3/23/16 3/23/16 - 7:14 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > S1. At ground without correction. > S2. In orbit without correction. > S3. In orbit with correction. > S4, At ground with correction. > > S1 and S2 correspond to the 1977 first GPS satellite launching, being since > then an EF that a non-operative GPS SV satellite clock showing 10.23 MHz at > ground (without correction, state S1), pass to show 10.2300000045674 MHz when > in orbit (without correction, state S2) IN the satellite. [I don't know what you mean by "being since an EF ...". In your state S1 the satellite clock shows 10.2300000000000 MHz, measured either in the satellite or on the ground (in S1 they are the same).] This is just not true. For your state S2 that latter frequency would be measured ON THE GROUND for SIGNALS FROM THE SATELLITE. Go back and READ VERY CAREFULLY the description of the experiment. They had no frequency measuring apparatus IN the satellite [#], their instruments were ON THE GROUND. And I don't think they actually measured the chipping rate that accurately, I think they observed the drift of the satellite clock. But still, THEY WERE ON THE GROUND comparing to clocks ON THE GROUND; from their observation of the satellite clock's drift they would have measured SIGNALS FROM THE SATELLITE to have a chipping rate of 10.2300000045674 MHz ON THE GROUND. [#] Unless you consider the clock divider and the Cs atomic clock that are part of the satellite itself. This _IS_ a frequency-measuring instrument, and in your state S2 it DEFINITIVELY measures 10.2300000000000 MHz IN THE SATELLITE (because the Cs oscillator defines the second, and "without correction" means the divider gives 10.2300000000000 MHz from 9,192,631,770 Hz). > This is the more important of the EXPERIMENTAL FACTS that you REJECT, I am not "rejecting" anything. YOU have mis-read the description of the experiment. And, as I keep saying, YOU FAIL TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN CLOCKS AND SIGNALS, AND YOU FAIL TO SPECIFY WHERE THE MEASUREMENT WAS MADE. These omissions turn everything you write into nonsense. > [...] No point in re-hashing the same-old same old. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web