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 14 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 20 Next page →
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-28 15:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4eb81ee2-3435-4a32-9883-e0218f48eb48@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380142 |
El viernes, 25 de marzo de 2016, 11:34:31 (UTC-5), tjrob137 escribió:
> 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).]
>
In my 21 Mar post to you I specify very clearly the 4 different states a GPS
satellite can be, taken from the GPS history, about 4 decades ago. I repeat my
literal words:
[ 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. ]
As you can see, the 4 states refer always to the GPS satellite with the clock
inside, with the two different physical conditions that determine its state
very clearly specified, at ground (BEFORE the launching) or in orbit (AFTER the
launching), without correction applied (WITHOUT frequency divider) or with
correction applied (WITH frequency divider).
The clock is a time measuring device, being in this case the time that 1905
Einstein define for the GPS ECI, the same time ALL (NOT distinguishing clocks
"at ground" from ones "in orbit") synchronized clocks (at the selected 10.23
MHz frequency) are showing simultaneously at the same instant of ECI time.
The EXPERIMENTAL FACT {EF) that I am referring (corresponding to the historical
first GPS satellite launching) is that the frequency the clock at the state S1
(at ground without correction) shows (10.2300000000000 MHz), is NOT the same
it shows (10.2300000045674 MHz) when at the state S2 (in orbit without
correction).
> This is just not true. For your state S2 that latter frequency would be
> measured ON THE GROUND for SIGNALS FROM THE SATELLITE.
>
You have no right at all (or any other) to change the History. You are
referring to a measurement that NEVER took place, neither in 1977 nor in any
other moment until today.
The unique measurement of time in GPS ECI is the one specified by 1905 Einstein
almost at the end of Section 1 in his Jun 30 paper:
[ The "time" of an event is that which is given simultaneously with the event
by a stationary clock located at the place of the event, this clock being
synchronous, and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a
specified stationary clock. ]
The specified stationary clock in the GPS ECI case can be one at a pole (on the
Earth's geoid).
Before defining time (on the same Section 1), 1905 Einstein rejects any
"measure at a distance", as the one you are introducing here.
> 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.
>
Oh yes, they had the unique possible frequency measuring apparatus IN the
satellite, the clock showing 10.23 MHz when 1905 Einstein synchronized, or a
different frequency when NOT synchronized. They had also IN the satellite the
arithmetically exact frequency divider. ALL observations were done IN the
satellite, not at all the "at a distance" ones that perhaps your not sufficient
knowledge about how communication channels work leaded you to think.
What the clock IN the satellite shows is part of the DATA broadcasted from the
satellite to all the GPS ECI stationary space. Those DATA are NOT affected by
distance, velocity, gravitational potential or any other difference between the
transmitter and the receptor.
The modulation frequency used to encode the DATA into the carrier frequency
transmitted, or to decode it out from the carrier frequency received; is NOT a
SIGNAL that is transmitted or received, but a frequency that is available and
USED in the modulation and demodulation processes that take place only in the
transmitter and the receptor respectively.
> [#] 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).
>
The clock inside the satellite is a time measuring device, and what it measures
or shows, is part of the DATA broadcasted WITHOUT ANY CHANGE to all the GPS ECI
stationary space, including the ground (Earth's geoid), as you know already.
And in my state S2 (corresponding to the first GPS satellite launching case, in
orbit without correction) it DEFINITIVELY measures 10.2300000045674 MHz IN THE
SATELLITE, an EXPERIMENTAL FACT (EF) since 1977), and NOT the 10.2300000000000
MHz that you mention, violating History and expressing in a very explicit way
YOUR REJECTION to that EF.
I said to you more than once that you are using an already obsolete time unit
(second) definition. Since 1977, it is already an EXPERIMENTAL FACT that a Cs
atom shows 9,192,631,770 Hz ONLY in the Earth's geoid physical conditions.
>
> > 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.
>
I have nothing to do with what occurs almost 4 decades ago (first GPS satellite
launching), and much less with 1905 Einstein time definition and application to
the today denoted GPS ECI stationary system.
You are here the unique one talking about GPS SIGNALS (and measurements of
them) that never existed.
You are not only rejecting the historical experimental evidence supporting all
the development of GPS since 1977, but also rejecting to consider the modern
GPS technical documentation where in all electronic diagrams the unique
frequency source available for use into an OPERATIVE SV GPS satellite is always
10.23 MHz, the 1905 Einstein synchronizing frequency for ALL GPS clocks showing
simultaneously the same ECI time, a frequency that is NEVER a SIGNAL
transmitted or received in any GPS ECI site, including the reference ground
(Earth's geoid).
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
......
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-29 07:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <91d50e25-5507-4099-bcd3-6068886cb3b0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380389 |
On Monday, March 28, 2016 at 7:56:04 PM UTC-3, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> El viernes, 25 de marzo de 2016, 11:34:31 (UTC-5), tjrob137 escribió:
> > 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).]
> >
> In my 21 Mar post to you I specify very clearly the 4 different states a GPS
> satellite can be, taken from the GPS history, about 4 decades ago. I repeat my
> literal words:
>
> [ 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. ]
>
Clearly these so called states are not properly described.
S1. Atomic clock to be launched, frequency measured at ground before being launched. Originally this frequency was measured as 10.23 MHz.
S2. Atomic clock in orbit, frequency measured at ground while the clock is in orbit. Originally this frequency was measured from the ground as 10.230000004425 MHz (see 2002 Physics Today Ashby paper, pp 45).
S3. Atomic clock in orbit with correction applied, frequency measured at ground while the clock is in orbit. This frequency is measured to be 10.23 MHz.
S4. Atomic clock before launch with correction applied, frequency measured at ground before being launched. This frequency is 10.22999999543 MHz.
> As you can see, the 4 states refer always to the GPS satellite with the clock
> inside, with the two different physical conditions that determine its state
> very clearly specified, at ground (BEFORE the launching) or in orbit (AFTER the
> launching), without correction applied (WITHOUT frequency divider) or with
> correction applied (WITH frequency divider).
>
> The clock is a time measuring device, being in this case the time that 1905
> Einstein define for the GPS ECI, the same time ALL (NOT distinguishing clocks
> "at ground" from ones "in orbit") synchronized clocks (at the selected 10.23
> MHz frequency) are showing simultaneously at the same instant of ECI time.
>
> The EXPERIMENTAL FACT {EF) that I am referring (corresponding to the historical
> first GPS satellite launching) is that the frequency the clock at the state S1
> (at ground without correction) shows (10.2300000000000 MHz), is NOT the same
> it shows (10.2300000045674 MHz) when at the state S2 (in orbit without
> correction).
>
Again these measures are done at the ground....
> > This is just not true. For your state S2 that latter frequency would be
> > measured ON THE GROUND for SIGNALS FROM THE SATELLITE.
> >
> You have no right at all (or any other) to change the History. You are
> referring to a measurement that NEVER took place, neither in 1977 nor in any
> other moment until today.
>
> The unique measurement of time in GPS ECI is the one specified by 1905 Einstein
> almost at the end of Section 1 in his Jun 30 paper:
>
> [ The "time" of an event is that which is given simultaneously with the event
> by a stationary clock located at the place of the event, this clock being
> synchronous, and indeed synchronous for all time determinations, with a
> specified stationary clock. ]
>
> The specified stationary clock in the GPS ECI case can be one at a pole (on the
> Earth's geoid).
>
> Before defining time (on the same Section 1), 1905 Einstein rejects any
> "measure at a distance", as the one you are introducing here.
>
These is, of course, just a figment of your imagination...
> > 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.
> >
> Oh yes, they had the unique possible frequency measuring apparatus IN the
> satellite, the clock showing 10.23 MHz when 1905 Einstein synchronized, or a
> different frequency when NOT synchronized. They had also IN the satellite the
> arithmetically exact frequency divider. ALL observations were done IN the
> satellite, not at all the "at a distance" ones that perhaps your not sufficient
> knowledge about how communication channels work leaded you to think.
>
Your lack knowledge about GR is showing. Nothing related to gravity, in the GPS system, can affect the frequency of the atomic clock. If the clock is ticking at 10.23 MHz on the ground, it will continue to tick at 10.23 MHz while in orbit. What changes, due to spacetime orientation, is the measure from that frequency FROM THE GROUND.
> What the clock IN the satellite shows is part of the DATA broadcasted from the
> satellite to all the GPS ECI stationary space. Those DATA are NOT affected by
> distance, velocity, gravitational potential or any other difference between the
> transmitter and the receptor.
>
> The modulation frequency used to encode the DATA into the carrier frequency
> transmitted, or to decode it out from the carrier frequency received; is NOT a
> SIGNAL that is transmitted or received, but a frequency that is available and
> USED in the modulation and demodulation processes that take place only in the
> transmitter and the receptor respectively.
>
This is all BS.
> > [#] 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).
> >
> The clock inside the satellite is a time measuring device, and what it measures
> or shows, is part of the DATA broadcasted WITHOUT ANY CHANGE to all the GPS ECI
> stationary space, including the ground (Earth's geoid), as you know already.
>
> And in my state S2 (corresponding to the first GPS satellite launching case, in
> orbit without correction) it DEFINITIVELY measures 10.2300000045674 MHz IN THE
> SATELLITE, an EXPERIMENTAL FACT (EF) since 1977), and NOT the 10.2300000000000
> MHz that you mention, violating History and expressing in a very explicit way
> YOUR REJECTION to that EF.
>
> I said to you more than once that you are using an already obsolete time unit
> (second) definition. Since 1977, it is already an EXPERIMENTAL FACT that a Cs
> atom shows 9,192,631,770 Hz ONLY in the Earth's geoid physical conditions.
>
This is BS, as reading the Ashby paper shows. Note to readers: Both Ashby papers are not very well written as he tends to use expressions that may confuse some uneducated readers (such as Valls). For instance he writes: "Figure 2 shows the net fractional frequency offset of an atomic clock in a circular orbit, which is essentially the left side of Eq. (35) plotted as a function of orbit radius 𝑎, with a change of sign." without explaining that all these frequency offsets are measured at the ground (which is clear in other parts of the papers).
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> I have nothing to do with what occurs almost 4 decades ago (first GPS satellite
> launching), and much less with 1905 Einstein time definition and application to
> the today denoted GPS ECI stationary system.
>
> You are here the unique one talking about GPS SIGNALS (and measurements of
> them) that never existed.
>
> You are not only rejecting the historical experimental evidence supporting all
> the development of GPS since 1977, but also rejecting to consider the modern
> GPS technical documentation where in all electronic diagrams the unique
> frequency source available for use into an OPERATIVE SV GPS satellite is always
> 10.23 MHz, the 1905 Einstein synchronizing frequency for ALL GPS clocks showing
> simultaneously the same ECI time, a frequency that is NEVER a SIGNAL
> transmitted or received in any GPS ECI site, including the reference ground
> (Earth's geoid).
>
> RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
>
> ......
Again more BS already explained to Valls several times.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-29 20:36 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ndei0e$cbk$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #380416 |
Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:91d50e25-5507-4099-bcd3-6068886cb3b0@googlegroups.com... |S1. Atomic clock to be launched, frequency measured at ground before being launched. Originally this frequency was measured as 10.23 MHz. |S2. Atomic clock in orbit, frequency measured at ground while the clock is in orbit. Originally this frequency was measured from the ground as 10.230000004425 MHz (see 2002 Physics Today Ashby paper, pp 45). |S3. Atomic clock in orbit with correction applied, frequency measured at ground while the clock is in orbit. This frequency is measured to be 10.23 MHz. Will you maybe tell us, poor idiot, which atom is this atomic clock relying on and how to correct the frequency of this atom?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-29 11:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <yNmdnXdNrdRVM2fLnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #380389 |
On 3/28/16 3/28/16 - 5:56 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. ]
>
> As you can see, the 4 states refer always to the GPS satellite with the clock
> inside, with the two different physical conditions that determine its state
> very clearly specified, at ground (BEFORE the launching) or in orbit (AFTER the
> launching), without correction applied (WITHOUT frequency divider) or with
> correction applied (WITH frequency divider).
Well, there is always a frequency divider. S1 and S2 have the standard divider
used in atomic clocks everywhere [@], while S3 and S4 have the modified divider
used only in GPS satellites.
[@] on earth, valid without further correction only on the geoid.
> The clock is a time measuring device, being in this case the time that 1905
> Einstein define for the GPS ECI, the same time ALL (NOT distinguishing clocks
> "at ground" from ones "in orbit") synchronized clocks (at the selected 10.23
> MHz frequency) are showing simultaneously at the same instant of ECI time.
Well, SR ("1905 Einstein") does not really apply, because GRAVITATION IS
PRESENT. But the ECI coordinates used in the GPS are CLOSE to inertial
coordinates of SR in that the coordinate speed of light in vacuum is
isotropically c. But they are MANIFESTLY not coordinates of SR (or "1905R"),
because the equations of Newtonian mechanics do NOT hold good (clock skew is
present -- a standard physical clock at rest in the ECI at satellite altitude
would NOT display GPS time -- this is OBVIOUS to everyone but you).
> The EXPERIMENTAL FACT {EF) that I am referring (corresponding to the historical
> first GPS satellite launching) is that the frequency the clock at the state S1
> (at ground without correction) shows (10.2300000000000 MHz), is NOT the same
> it shows (10.2300000045674 MHz) when at the state S2 (in orbit without
> correction).
YOU KEEP MAKING THE SAME MISTAKE: WHERE WAS THAT 10.2300000045674 MHz OBSERVED,
AND HOW IS IT MEASURED?????
Of course the answer is: on the ground via SIGNALS from the clock in the
satellite [#].
Had there been a frequency-measuring device traveling inside the satellite, it
would measure 10.2300000000000 MHz. INDEED THERE IS SUCH A DEVICE CONSISTING OF
THE Cs OSCILLATOR AND THE (UNMODIFIED) FREQUENCY DIVIDER, AND IT _MANIFESTLY_
MEASURED 10.2300000000000 MHz.
See below about your confusions related to the definition of
the second.
>> This is just not true. For your state S2 that latter frequency would be
>> measured ON THE GROUND for SIGNALS FROM THE SATELLITE.
>>
> You have no right at all (or any other) to change the History.
I am not "changing the history" at all. YOU are misinterpreting it.
And are confused about the definition of the second. See below.
> You are
> referring to a measurement that NEVER took place, neither in 1977 nor in any
> other moment until today.
Not true. In 1977 in state S2 they measured 10.2300000045674 MHz on the ground
[#] via signals from the satellite. Moreover, the Cs oscillator and (unmodified)
divider was certainly present in the SV while in orbit (S2).
So everything I am describing actually took place, while your FANTASY (that
there was a measurement inside the SV that obtained 10.2300000045674 MHz) never
happened.
[#] Computed from the observation of the clock drift, which is
what was actually measured.
See below about your confusions related to the definition of
the second.
>> Go back and READ VERY CAREFULLY the description of the experiment.
You STILL need to do that.
> ALL observations were done IN the
> satellite,
You are wrong, plain and simple. GO BACK AND READ THE DESCRIPTION OF THE
EXPERIMENT. They made NO OBSERVATIONS WHATSOEVER "IN the satellite", their
measurements were made ON THE GROUND. There could be no observation "IN the
satellite" at all, because THE EXPERIMENTERS WERE ON THE GROUND.
Why do you attempt to rewrite history?
> What the clock IN the satellite shows is part of the DATA broadcasted from the
> satellite to all the GPS ECI stationary space.
This is true (though stated weirdly). But see below about your confusions
related to the definition of the second.
> Those DATA are NOT affected by
> distance, velocity, gravitational potential or any other difference between the
> transmitter and the receptor.
This is NOT true. In the operational GPS the satellite clock chipping rate is
10.2300000045674 MHz IN THE SATELLITE, while SIGNALS FROM THE SATELLITE CLOCK
arrive on the ground at 10.2300000000000 MHz. This is undeniable and is MANIFEST
from the GPS design documents and from its actual operation.
See below about your confusions related to the definition of
the second.
YOUR GUESSES ARE WRONG. "1905R" DOES NOT APPLY. YOU KEEP MAKING THE SAME
MISTAKE: not distinguishing between signals and clocks, and not specifying where
measurements were made. If you would just be more precise in your statements YOU
would see how nonsensical your claims actually are, and how contrary to fact
they are.
But you MUST understand what the definition of the second
ACTUALLY is. See below.
> And in my state S2 (corresponding to the first GPS satellite launching case, in
> orbit without correction) it DEFINITIVELY measures 10.2300000045674 MHz IN THE
> SATELLITE, an EXPERIMENTAL FACT (EF) since 1977), and NOT the 10.2300000000000
> MHz that you mention, violating History and expressing in a very explicit way
> YOUR REJECTION to that EF.
Your claim here is just plain not true. They made NO MEASUREMENT WHATSOEVER
INSIDE THE SATELLITE. All measurements were made ON THE GROUND. And as I said,
if one considers the Cs oscillator and the (unmodified) divider to be a
frequency-measuring device, then it CLEARLY measured 10.2300000000000 MHz IN THE
SATELLITE (in your state S2).
See below about your confusions related to the definition of the second.
HERE IT IS:
> Since 1977, it is already an EXPERIMENTAL FACT that a Cs
> atom shows 9,192,631,770 Hz ONLY in the Earth's geoid physical conditions.
Those last 7 words are YOURS AND YOURS ALONE. This may well be your core mistake
that screws up everything you say here. I suspect you are confusing the
definition of the second with the definition of UTC and/or the GPS coordinates
(both of which are defined on the geoid). This is no longer an experimental
issue, this is the DEFINITION of what "1 second" means.
Go read the ISO/CIPM definition. It makes no mention of location. It doesn't
need to, and WOULD BE WRONG if it did so. The key point is that the local laws
of physics are the same everywhere/everywhen, and a unit of time can be defined
ONLY LOCALLY. The people who wrote that definition understood all I am saying
here, but YOU DON'T.
The world in general, and the GPS in particular, do NOT
conform to "1905R". But they do conform to GR, as best we
know at present (which is exceedingly accurate).
In both SR and GR the local laws of physics are the same
everywhere/everywhen. Your last 7 words are in conflict
with that, including Einstein's first postulate of "1905R".
UTC is defined on the geoid (using the ISO/CIPM location-independent definition
of the second). The GPS coordinates are based on the ISO/CIPM
location-independent definition of the second on the geoid.
> I have nothing to do with what occurs almost 4 decades ago (first GPS satellite
> launching),
So why do you FANTASIZE that they made measurements "in the satellite"????? The
experimenters were on the ground, and they compared SIGNALS from the satellite
to clocks ON THE GROUND. They obtained results consistent with the prediction of
GR for the physical situation they had. (They then MODIFIED the satellite clock
so it would conform to the GPS design, and did so for all subsequent satellites.)
As I said above, it seems your core mistake is to think the
ISO/CIPM definition of the second applies "only on the geoid".
In fact it applies everywhere, LOCALLY, including inside GPS
satellites.
IOW: do you REALLY think that the local laws of physics are DIFFERENT for every
location off the geoid? Because that would be required in your fantasy land (in
which a Cs oscillator in GPS orbit ticks faster than 9,192,631,770 Hz).
This, of course, would be directly in conflict with Einstein's
first postulate of "1905R".
Your fantasy land is SELF-INCONSISTENT. You need to learn what is known about
the real world, the one we actually inhabit.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-03-29 12:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ktGdnebLNM3LKGfLnZ2dnUU7_81h4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #380422 |
On 3/29/16 3/29/16 - 11:35 AM, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 3/28/16 3/28/16 - 5:56 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. ] >> >> As you can see, the 4 states refer always to the GPS satellite with the clock >> inside, with the two different physical conditions that determine its state >> very clearly specified, at ground (BEFORE the launching) or in orbit (AFTER the >> launching), without correction applied (WITHOUT frequency divider) or with >> correction applied (WITH frequency divider). > > Well, there is always a frequency divider. S1 and S2 have the standard divider > used in atomic clocks everywhere [@], while S3 and S4 have the modified divider > used only in GPS satellites. > > [@] on earth, valid without further correction only on the geoid. This footnote is in error. I said "valid" where I meant "displays UTC". Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-01 16:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <27da4298-b013-4704-b0fd-f1f5c270fba9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380422 |
El martes, 29 de marzo de 2016, 11:35:23 (UTC-5), tjrob137 escribió:
> On 3/28/16 3/28/16 - 5:56 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. ]
> >
> > As you can see, the 4 states refer always to the GPS satellite with the clock
> > inside, with the two different physical conditions that determine its state
> > very clearly specified, at ground (BEFORE the launching) or in orbit (AFTER the
> > launching), without correction applied (WITHOUT frequency divider) or with
> > correction applied (WITH frequency divider).
>
> Well, there is always a frequency divider. S1 and S2 have the standard divider
> used in atomic clocks everywhere [@], while S3 and S4 have the modified divider
> used only in GPS satellites.
>
Yes, you are very right. Replace my "frequency divider" by your "modified
divider". The N. Ashby's text use the phrase "frequency synthesizer"; but I
prefer to include the word "divider", emphasizing the fact that the application
of the correction always DIMINISHES by a constant factor ANY frequency the
clock shows in ANY physical condition.
> [@] on earth, valid without further correction only on the geoid.
>
Tom R: (This footnote is in error. I said "valid" where I meant "displays UTC")
>
> > The clock is a time measuring device, being in this case the time that 1905
> > Einstein define for the GPS ECI, the same time ALL (NOT distinguishing clocks
> > "at ground" from ones "in orbit") synchronized clocks (at the selected 10.23
> > MHz frequency) are showing simultaneously at the same instant of ECI time.
>
> Well, SR ("1905 Einstein") does not really apply, because GRAVITATION IS
Yes, SR does NOT apply, because GRAVITATION IS PRESENT, as in the stationary
system 1905 Einstein introduces at the end of Section 4 of his June 30 paper,
the 1686 Newtonian Earth Center of Mass (ECM) system corresponding to the body
set of all Earth's part interacting according to Newtonian equations, INCLUDING
THE GRAVITATIONAL ONES; with Euclidean geometry, Cartesian coordinates and
space separated from the time that he defines in Section 1, the same stationary
system today denoted GPS Earth Centered Inertial (ECI).
Resuming, SR does NOT apply, but 1905R YES.
> PRESENT. But the ECI coordinates used in the GPS are CLOSE to inertial
> coordinates of SR in that the coordinate speed of light in vacuum is
> isotropically c. But they are MANIFESTLY not coordinates of SR (or "1905R"),
> because the equations of Newtonian mechanics do NOT hold good (clock skew is
The 1905R has Euclidean geometry, Cartesian coordinates and an isotropic c (as
the today GPS ECI, see anywhere the system of equations a GPS receptor
resolves). Why do you say now that ECI does not have 1905R coordinates? The
equations of Newtonian mechanics DO HOLD good in any 1905R stationary system by
definition.
> present -- a standard physical clock at rest in the ECI at satellite altitude
> would NOT display GPS time -- this is OBVIOUS to everyone but you).
>
That a clock in the ECI changes its tick frequency when is put in it at a
different velocity (1905R) and/or gravitational potential (1915GR), is
precisely what is converted in an EXPERIMENTAL FACT since the first GPS
satellite launching; YOU ARE the one rejecting that EF, NOT ME.
The relativistic correction becomes necessary precisely to synchronize ALL GPS
clocks (including the ground and operative satellite ones) with the 1905R
defined ECI time.
>
> > The EXPERIMENTAL FACT {EF) that I am referring (corresponding to the historical
> > first GPS satellite launching) is that the frequency the clock at the state S1
> > (at ground without correction) shows (10.2300000000000 MHz), is NOT the same
> > it shows (10.2300000045674 MHz) when at the state S2 (in orbit without
> > correction).
>
> YOU KEEP MAKING THE SAME MISTAKE: WHERE WAS THAT 10.2300000045674 MHz OBSERVED,
> AND HOW IS IT MEASURED?????
>
The 1905 Einstein defined time for any event can be measured in ONLY one place,
the same place where the event occurs (see Section 1 of the 1905 text).
A GPS satellite clock in operative orbit is always broadcasting internal DATA
to ALL the GPS stationary space through communication channels, including the
ime that the inside clock is showing.
In 1977, after 20 days receiving (and processing) the DATA from the first
orbiting satellite in ALL the operative GPS sites with clocks synchronized at
the selected 10.23 MHz frequency (including control stations at ground or in
any other place), the mentioned INCREASE in the tick frequency of the first
clock in orbit is detected.
> Of course the answer is: on the ground via SIGNALS from the clock in the
> satellite [#].
>
> Had there been a frequency-measuring device traveling inside the satellite, it
> would measure 10.2300000000000 MHz. INDEED THERE IS SUCH A DEVICE CONSISTING OF
> THE Cs OSCILLATOR AND THE (UNMODIFIED) FREQUENCY DIVIDER, AND IT _MANIFESTLY_
> MEASURED 10.2300000000000 MHz.
>
You are here CONTRADICTING the EXPERIMENTAL FACT established since 1977,
precisely the motiving cause for the 1980 BIPM formal redefinition of the
second, recognizing that in physical conditions different from the rotating
Earth's geoid the standard Cs clock is not showing the 9192631770 Hz frequency.
In the last 1997 BIPM redefinition, the Cs atom must be at rest with absolute
zero Kelvin temperature. I suspect that the mentioned "rest" is relative to ANY
(1905R Einstein and 1686 Newton) Center of Mass system, including the today
denoted GPS ECI.
> See below about your confusions related to the definition of
> the second.
>
>
> >> This is just not true. For your state S2 that latter frequency would be
> >> measured ON THE GROUND for SIGNALS FROM THE SATELLITE.
> >>
> > You have no right at all (or any other) to change the History.
>
> I am not "changing the history" at all. YOU are misinterpreting it.
>
> And are confused about the definition of the second. See below.
>
>
> > You are
> > referring to a measurement that NEVER took place, neither in 1977 nor in any
> > other moment until today.
>
> Not true. In 1977 in state S2 they measured 10.2300000045674 MHz on the ground
> [#] via signals from the satellite. Moreover, the Cs oscillator and (unmodified)
> divider was certainly present in the SV while in orbit (S2).
>
> So everything I am describing actually took place, while your FANTASY (that
> there was a measurement inside the SV that obtained 10.2300000045674 MHz) never
> happened.
>
You are vindicating here (once more) your rejection to the EXPERIMENTAL FACT
established since 1977, about the tick frequency of the first GPS clock in
orbit, changing from 10.2300000000000 MHz (state S1) to 10.2300000045674 MHz
(state S2).]
> [#] Computed from the observation of the clock drift, which is
> what was actually measured.
>
Surely you know that frequency and time are inversely related.
The important point here is that the clock drift in time is derived from the
sequence of times showed by the clock inside the orbiting satellite (part of
the DATA broadcasted to ALL the GPS operative sites synchronized at 10.23 MHz),
with no relation at all with any measured frequency at ground of a SIGNAL that
following you is emitted from the satellite at a different frequency.
> See below about your confusions related to the definition of
> the second.
>
>
> >> Go back and READ VERY CAREFULLY the description of the experiment.
>
> You STILL need to do that.
>
You need also to do that; but I recommend you, that previously, increase a
little more your knowledge about how communication channels work, transmitting
and receiving the same DATA without changing them.
>
> > ALL observations were done IN the
> > satellite,
>
> You are wrong, plain and simple. GO BACK AND READ THE DESCRIPTION OF THE
> EXPERIMENT. They made NO OBSERVATIONS WHATSOEVER "IN the satellite", their
> measurements were made ON THE GROUND. There could be no observation "IN the
> satellite" at all, because THE EXPERIMENTERS WERE ON THE GROUND.
>
> Why do you attempt to rewrite history?
>
You are only putting here in evidence your not sufficient knowledge about how
communication channels work. The DATA transmitted and received are always the
SAME, not affected by the distance, velocity, gravitational potential or any
other physical difference between the transmitter and the receptor.
All the GPS operates with the measurements of time corresponding to events
occurring IN the SAME place where the measuring clock is situated at some GPS
ECI instant (according to the 1905R time definition). ALL operative GPS clocks
are showing simultaneously the same ECI time at any instant, ALL them being
then synchronized with the same selected 10.23 MHz frequency.
>
> > What the clock IN the satellite shows is part of the DATA broadcasted from the
> > satellite to all the GPS ECI stationary space.
>
> This is true (though stated weirdly). But see below about your confusions
> related to the definition of the second.
>
>
> > Those DATA are NOT affected by
> > distance, velocity, gravitational potential or any other difference between the
> > transmitter and the receptor.
>
> This is NOT true. In the operational GPS the satellite clock chipping rate is
> 10.2300000045674 MHz IN THE SATELLITE, while SIGNALS FROM THE SATELLITE CLOCK
> arrive on the ground at 10.2300000000000 MHz. This is undeniable and is MANIFEST
> from the GPS design documents and from its actual operation.
>
What is totally FALSE; in the operational GPS ALL satellite clocks (as ALL GPS
ones, at ground or in any other place) must have the same10.2300000000000 MHz
1905R selected synchronizing tick frequency, being that the UNIQUE source
frequency USED inside the satellites for different functions (as the chipping
rate in the DATA modulation and demodulation processes in the communication
channels transmitters and receptors respectively).
This is undeniable and is MANIFEST from the GPS design documents and from its
actual operation. See for example in the IS-GPS-200H document: Fig.3-1, pag.21;
Fig.3-6, pag.28; Fig.3-10, pag.34.
I challenge you to point in what part of the document appears a chipping rate
of 10.2300000045674 MHz IN THE SATELLITE, or transmitted SIGNALS FROM THE
SATELLITE CLOCK received on the ground at 10.2300000000000 MHz.
> See below about your confusions related to the definition of
> the second.
>
> YOUR GUESSES ARE WRONG. "1905R" DOES NOT APPLY. YOU KEEP MAKING THE SAME
> MISTAKE: not distinguishing between signals and clocks, and not specifying where
> measurements were made. If you would just be more precise in your statements YOU
> would see how nonsensical your claims actually are, and how contrary to fact
> they are.
>
I showed you already in detail how the EXPERIMENTAL FACTS established since the
1977 first GPS satellite launching (and the posterior very successful
development of GPS) support 1905R and NOT SR.
You are the unique one here confusing GPS clocks, transmitters and receptors;
considering clocks as transmitters of chipping rates that only exist in
transmitters and receptor, and receptors receiving SIGNAL frequencies never
transmitted in any part.
> But you MUST understand what the definition of the second
> ACTUALLY is. See below.
>
>
> > And in my state S2 (corresponding to the first GPS satellite launching case, in
> > orbit without correction) it DEFINITIVELY measures 10.2300000045674 MHz IN THE
> > SATELLITE, an EXPERIMENTAL FACT (EF) since 1977), and NOT the 10.2300000000000
> > MHz that you mention, violating History and expressing in a very explicit way
> > YOUR REJECTION to that EF.
>
> Your claim here is just plain not true. They made NO MEASUREMENT WHATSOEVER
> INSIDE THE SATELLITE. All measurements were made ON THE GROUND. And as I said,
> if one considers the Cs oscillator and the (unmodified) divider to be a
> frequency-measuring device, then it CLEARLY measured 10.2300000000000 MHz IN THE
> SATELLITE (in your state S2).
>
> See below about your confusions related to the definition of the second.
> HERE IT IS:
>
> > Since 1977, it is already an EXPERIMENTAL FACT that a Cs
> > atom shows 9,192,631,770 Hz ONLY in the Earth's geoid physical conditions.
>
> Those last 7 words are YOURS AND YOURS ALONE. This may well be your core mistake
> that screws up everything you say here. I suspect you are confusing the
> definition of the second with the definition of UTC and/or the GPS coordinates
> (both of which are defined on the geoid). This is no longer an experimental
> issue, this is the DEFINITION of what "1 second" means.
>
> Go read the ISO/CIPM definition. It makes no mention of location. It doesn't
> need to, and WOULD BE WRONG if it did so. The key point is that the local laws
> of physics are the same everywhere/everywhen, and a unit of time can be defined
> ONLY LOCALLY. The people who wrote that definition understood all I am saying
> here, but YOU DON'T.
>
BIPM The International System of Units (SI)
www.bipm.org/en/si/si_brochure/
Appendix 2. Practical realization of the definition of the unit of time
In Section 3:
[[
The first definition of TAI was that submitted by the Consultative Committee
for the Definition of the Second (CCDS)1 in 1970 to the CIPM (Recommendation
S2; PV, 38, 110 and Metrologia, 1971, 7, 43):
[ International Atomic Time (TAI) is the time reference coordinate
established by the Bureau International de l'Heure on the basis of the
readings of atomic clocks operating in various establishments in accordance
with the definition of the second, the unit of time of the International System
of Units. ]
In the framework of general relativity TAI must be regarded as a time
coordinate (or coordinate time): its definition was therefore completed as
follows (declaration of the CCDS, BIPM Com. Cons. Déf. Seconde, 1980, 9, S 15
and Metrologia, 1981, 17, 70):
[ TAI is a coordinate time scale defined in a geocentric reference frame with
the SI second as realized on the rotating geoid as the scale unit.]
]]
In the 1970 definition (including the introductory comment), Relativity is no
mentioned at all. As you thought until very recently, "it makes no mention of
location. It doesn't need to, and WOULD BE WRONG if it did so. The key point is
hat the local laws of physics are the same everywhere/everywhen, and a unit of
time can be defined ONLY LOCALLY".
The 1980 redefinition is a very drastic change. It implies the explicit
recognition that changes on velocity and/or gravitational potential alter the
tick frequency of an atomic clock, because the compensation of both effects in
the geoid implies the independent existence of each one.
But what happens between 1970 and 1980 that makes necessary such a drastic
change? For me is evident: the 1977 first GPS satellite launching and the
establishment of the related EXPERIMENTAL FACTS that you (continue?) rejecting.
> The world in general, and the GPS in particular, do NOT
> conform to "1905R". But they do conform to GR, as best we
> know at present (which is exceedingly accurate).
>
1905R (without your (" ") is also exceedingly accurate, as I advanced to you
already many times in the last years, not only explaining GPS, but also the
whole Solar System (including the minor details, as the gravitational red shift
and Mercury's perihelion one), and with the very great advantage of to be very
much simpler than GR.
> In both SR and GR the local laws of physics are the same
> everywhere/everywhen. Your last 7 words are in conflict
> with that, including Einstein's first postulate of "1905R".
>
Are you including already 1905R first postulate among the 1905 Einstein's
"errors"? This is new for me now.
In ANY 1905 Einstein stationary system (what it is the same, in ANY 1686
Newtonian center of mass system), Nature Laws are the same.
And you think that the restriction to SR locality on GR is an advantage? The
great advantage of 1905R is precisely the not exclusion of gravity, being then
possible to extend the stationary system to include any desired part of the
Universe (including also the whole Universe, with perhaps the unique limitation
of a finite quantity of bodies).
>
> UTC is defined on the geoid (using the ISO/CIPM location-independent definition
> of the second). The GPS coordinates are based on the ISO/CIPM
> location-independent definition of the second on the geoid.
>
The 1905R coordinates are the Cartesian ones with Euclidean geometry, the same
ones that are using in this instant all the world GPS receptors, an
EXPERIMENTAL FACT supporting 1905R all the time in any place.
>
> > I have nothing to do with what occurs almost 4 decades ago (first GPS satellite
> > launching),
>
> So why do you FANTASIZE that they made measurements "in the satellite"????? The
> experimenters were on the ground, and they compared SIGNALS from the satellite
> to clocks ON THE GROUND. They obtained results consistent with the prediction of
> GR for the physical situation they had. (They then MODIFIED the satellite clock
> so it would conform to the GPS design, and did so for all subsequent satellites.)
>
In the operative GPS, the time of ANY event is the 1905R defined one, showed by
a synchronized clock in the SAME place the event occurs. What are only
FANTASIZES are your measurements "at a distance" with SIGNALS transmitted and
received that never existed. Do not forget to point where in the GPS
documentation appear those transmissions and receptions.
You are very right mentioning the GR predictions when the first launching,
corresponding to a net INCREASE in the tick frequency of the clock INSIDE THE
SATELLITE, returning to the original 10.23 MHz after the application of the
relativistic correction.
Put you attention on the fact that the relativistic correction is effective in
both cases, applied at ground before the launching (from 10.23 to
0.2299999954326 MHz), or in orbit after it (from 10.2300000045674 to 10.23 MHz).
> As I said above, it seems your core mistake is to think the
> ISO/CIPM definition of the second applies "only on the geoid".
> In fact it applies everywhere, LOCALLY, including inside GPS
> satellites.
>
What a strange thinking. The measuring UNIT is defined in the geoid, but with
the intention to be used in ANY other part, including at an arbitrary long
distance from the Earth (and do not forget that in the stationary GPS ECI
system ONLY exist the Earth's parts determining its center of mass).
Why do you say LOCALLY? It can be any point of the INFINITE ECI stationary
space, including the points an orbiting satellite is passing. As you remain
confusing 1905R and SR, you forget that SR does NOT apply in the ECI due to the
presence of gravity.
> IOW: do you REALLY think that the local laws of physics are DIFFERENT for every
> location off the geoid? Because that would be required in your fantasy land (in
> which a Cs oscillator in GPS orbit ticks faster than 9,192,631,770 Hz).
>
The last you say is already a recognized EXPERIMENTAL FACT. When the first GPS
satellite launching, after applying the correction in orbit the frequency
diminishes to 10.23 MHz. Nobody put in doubt (except perhaps you) that before
the correction the Cs oscillator ticks faster than 9,192,631,770 Hz. This is
precisely the EF that made necessary the 1980 redefinition.
The Nature Laws are universal, always the same in any point of any stationary
system. What is for you a LOCAL Natural Law?
> This, of course, would be directly in conflict with Einstein's
> first postulate of "1905R".
>
The original 1905R first postulate is "...the same laws of electrodynamics and
optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of
mechanics hold good."
I consider appropriate to extend it today to ALL Nature Laws.
In any case, the conflict with 1905 Einstein would be the exclusion of the
equations of gravity from 1905R.
> Your fantasy land is SELF-INCONSISTENT. You need to learn what is known about
> the real world, the one we actually inhabit.
>
In the real world, the one we actually inhabit (even including the GPS
technical documentation), what is SELF-INCONSISTENT are your SIGNAL frequencies
transmitted and received on the GPS with different values.
I am now not sure if you claim that the transmitted one is 10.2299999954326 or
10.2300000045674 (maybe both). Anyway, whatever the case, it continues being
only your fantasy.
Even a 10.23 MHz SIGNAL frequency is NEVER transmitted or received in any place
of the operative GPS.
What I see on this real world is a GPS in continuous very successful function
since already almost four decades, supporting 1905R (and not using SR) every
instant of the 1905R defined time.
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
>
> Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-01 17:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1c75d7f5-07e0-4881-98f0-95b3178179fc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380706 |
On Friday, April 1, 2016 at 8:39:34 PM UTC-3, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: <snip the same tired nonsense> > In the real world, the one we actually inhabit (even including the GPS > technical documentation), what is SELF-INCONSISTENT are your SIGNAL frequencies > transmitted and received on the GPS with different values. > > I am now not sure if you claim that the transmitted one is 10.2299999954326 or > 10.2300000045674 (maybe both). Anyway, whatever the case, it continues being > only your fantasy. > > Even a 10.23 MHz SIGNAL frequency is NEVER transmitted or received in any place > of the operative GPS. > > What I see on this real world is a GPS in continuous very successful function > since already almost four decades, supporting 1905R (and not using SR) every > instant of the 1905R defined time. > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > > > > > Tom Roberts What it appears to be strange is that you continue to assert that an atomic clock, which is ticking at 10.2299999954326 MHz before launch, will change its ticking frequency while in orbit (apparently you think it changes to 10.23 MHz), contradicting all what not only GR but also SR say about the matter. Both in SR and GR, moving clocks do not change their ticking frequencies. What does change is the measuring of that moving clock frequency, from a stationary frame (in this case the ground stationary frame). Do you agree with this yes or no?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 09:08 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ndnr58$q94$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #380708 |
Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:1c75d7f5-07e0-4881-98f0-95b3178179fc@googlegroups.com... |Both in SR and GR, moving clocks do not change their ticking frequencies. That's because your poor idiot guru didn't know, what clocks are and what they are for. In GPS they do. Game over.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 01:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1fc03014-37b9-44a8-95ac-b534d1b85f22@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380722 |
Il giorno sabato 2 aprile 2016 09:08:25 UTC+2, Maciej Woźniak ha scritto: > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:1c75d7f5-07e0-4881-98f0-95b3178179fc@googlegroups.com... > > |Both in SR and GR, moving clocks do not change their ticking frequencies. > > That's because your poor idiot guru didn't know, what clocks are and > what they are for. > In GPS they do. > Game over. ..could somebody say to me how is working the Rebka-Pound exp and if is that exp working in the GPS ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 12:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ndo8f2$511$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #380723 |
Użytkownik "nero" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:1fc03014-37b9-44a8-95ac-b534d1b85f22@googlegroups.com... Il giorno sabato 2 aprile 2016 09:08:25 UTC+2, Maciej Woźniak ha scritto: > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:1c75d7f5-07e0-4881-98f0-95b3178179fc@googlegroups.com... > > |Both in SR and GR, moving clocks do not change their ticking frequencies. > > That's because your poor idiot guru didn't know, what clocks are and > what they are for. > In GPS they do. > Game over. |..could somebody say to me how is working the Rebka-Pound exp and if is that exp working in the GPS ? Of course, it's simple: The experiment confirms The Shit!!!!! And it confirms The Shit!!!! And The Shit is marvelous!!! And it is ingenious!!!! So, don't worry that clocks of GPS indicate t'=t, just like clocks always did. It means nothing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nero <oldogf@yahoo.it> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 01:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7ffeb138-57f7-4708-8c7b-d202e95ae5d6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380722 |
Il giorno sabato 2 aprile 2016 09:08:25 UTC+2, Maciej Woźniak ha scritto: > Użytkownik "paparios" napisał w wiadomości grup > dyskusyjnych:1c75d7f5-07e0-4881-98f0-95b3178179fc@googlegroups.com... > > |Both in SR and GR, moving clocks do not change their ticking frequencies. > > That's because your poor idiot guru didn't know, what clocks are and > what they are for. > In GPS they do. > Game over. ..could somebody say to me how is working the Rebka-Pound exp and if is that exp working in the GPS ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 14:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <OeOdnTvOK5cyhZ3KnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #380706 |
On 4/1/16 4/1/16 - 6:39 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
> [... repeating the same mistakes ad nauseum]
Why do you think the laws of physics are different in orbit from what they are
on the ground (geoid). That would of course be required to make the (unmodified)
satellite clock tick at a different rate when in orbit than when on the ground
(before launch).
IOW: Why do you think Einstein's first postulate (of "1905R") doesn't hold?
Why do you think the ECI is a "system of co-ordinates in which the equations of
Newtonian mechanics hold good"?
1. Newton's first law fails: a free object does NOT travel in a straight
line, it travels approximately in a circle with period 1 year and
radius ~150 million kilometers. The other two laws fail similarly....
2. The ECI is not even a proper coordinate system for NM, because a clock
at rest wrt it does NOT display its time coordinate except on the geoid.
YOU have not thought this through, and have misunderstood the GPS documents.
Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 21:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ndp85g$5j4$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #380770 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:OeOdnTvOK5cyhZ3KnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com... On 4/1/16 4/1/16 - 6:39 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > [... repeating the same mistakes ad nauseum] |Why do you think the laws of physics are different in orbit from what they are |on the ground (geoid). That would of course be required to make the (unmodified) |satellite clock tick at a different rate when in orbit than when on the ground An impudent, loutish, brainwashing trick, typical for a relativistic morons and their Shit. Take a closer look at it. What is "unmodified" clock? This is a clock by construction ticking some rate. So, Tom's "logic" is: "clock ticking a rate n is ticking rate n!!! Oh, oh, how brilliantly he Shit is confirmed!!!!!"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bimpy <pimp@pimp.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-02 20:06 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ndp8op$kgk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #380773 |
Maciej Woźniak wrote: > An impudent, loutish, brainwashing trick, typical for a relativistic > morons and their Shit. Take a closer look at it. What is "unmodified" > clock? This is a clock by construction ticking some rate. > So, Tom's "logic" is: "clock ticking a rate n is ticking rate n!!! Oh, > oh, how brilliantly he Shit is confirmed!!!!!" I don't understand a word of what you say. Clocks are not characterized by ticks, but transition from a state to another. Those transition are not EVENT based, but time based, aka periodic transition propelled by some form of NATURAL drift. Inherently those transitions has to be cyclic and repetitive. If the input drift remains constant the cyclic transitions will repeat as same rate. Learn Natural Physics, my little friend.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-03 23:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2028700f-81bc-4fdd-b4e2-05a33ddf2ede@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380774 |
W dniu sobota, 2 kwietnia 2016 22:06:58 UTC+2 użytkownik Bimpy napisał: > Maciej Woźniak wrote: > > > An impudent, loutish, brainwashing trick, typical for a relativistic > > morons and their Shit. Take a closer look at it. What is "unmodified" > > clock? This is a clock by construction ticking some rate. > > So, Tom's "logic" is: "clock ticking a rate n is ticking rate n!!! Oh, > > oh, how brilliantly he Shit is confirmed!!!!!" > > I don't understand a word of what you say. What can I do? Clocks are not characterized by > ticks, but transition from a state to another. Those transition are not > EVENT based, but time based, aka periodic transition propelled by some > form of NATURAL drift. Inherently those transitions has to be cyclic and > repetitive. If the input drift remains constant the cyclic transitions > will repeat as same rate. Learn Natural Physics, my little friend. Of course, my little friend, you mean Natural Physics made by some natural idiots.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-04 16:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7b7951bf-1ec5-44e8-9980-2fcc660b4691@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380770 |
El sábado, 2 de abril de 2016, 14:08:33 (UTC-5), tjrob137 escribió: > On 4/1/16 4/1/16 - 6:39 PM, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > [... repeating the same mistakes ad nauseum] > > Why do you think the laws of physics are different in orbit from what they are > on the ground (geoid). That would of course be required to make the (unmodified) > satellite clock tick at a different rate when in orbit than when on the ground > (before launch). > In the 1977 first GPS satellite launching, the (unmodified) satellite clock ticks at a different rate when in orbit that when on the ground (before launch). The tiny INCREASE in the frequency the clock shows when changing from state S1 (at ground unmodified) to S2 (in orbit unmodified) is an EXPERIMENTAL FACT since then, the one you insist to reject. What the clock inside the satellite shows is broadcasted as DATA without change to ALL GPS operative sites, including the control ones at ground or any other place. If we repeat today the experiment, the frequency increases from 10.2300000000000 MHz to 10.2300000045674 MHz, with the tiny frequency difference of 4.5674E-5 Hz that appears in Section 3.3.1.1 of the IS-GPS-200H document. > IOW: Why do you think Einstein's first postulate (of "1905R") doesn't hold? > YOU ARE the one saying that "... the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good" (1905R first postulate) doesn't hold, NOT ME. Such a frame is denoted by 1905 Einstein as a stationary system, like the 1686 Newtonian center of mass system corresponding to all Earth's parts, the same today denoted GPS ECI, with Euclidean geometry, Cartesian coordinates and space separated from time. The SAME laws of physics hold good in any 1905R stationary system, including the ECI one. From where do you take that laws in an orbiting satellite are different from the ones in the rotating geoid? > Why do you think the ECI is a "system of co-ordinates in which the equations of > Newtonian mechanics hold good"? This is NOT my think, it is the 1905 Einstein's one when describing what is a stationary system, the unique type of entity where he defines the time of it. > 1. Newton's first law fails: a free object does NOT travel in a straight > line, it travels approximately in a circle with period 1 year and > radius ~150 million kilometers. The other two laws fail similarly.... You are surely referring here to the Earth-Moon (E-M) system movement in the Solar System. From where do you take the idea that the E-M can be considered a free object? Who gives you the right to "put off" or "put on" gravity when and where you want? > 2. The ECI is not even a proper coordinate system for NM, because a clock > at rest wrt it does NOT display its time coordinate except on the geoid. > I find nothing similar to "proper coordinate system" neither in 1686NM nor 1905R. Can you point from where do you take it? > > YOU have not thought this through, and have misunderstood the GPS documents. > You are the unique one here always failing to point anything in the GPS documents to support your continuous misunderstanding of them, confusing clocks, transmitters and receptors, talking about (non-existing at all) SIGNAL frequencies transmitted and received with different values, to not mention your lack of knowledge about how communication channels broadcast DATA from the orbiting satellites to all the GPS ECI stationary space without changing them. I take note of your silence about my comments addressing the official papers describing the BIPM unit time definition, especially the 1980 one recognizing the physical character of the velocity and gravitational potential effects in an atomic clock tick rate. And remember that 1905 Einstein was the first describing the velocity effect with the presence of gravity, being also the one establishing the fundamentals of 1905R, from where the gravitational effect can be derived (and MANY other important things), following a road COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from his 1915GR one and very much simpler (still unknown by you). RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato > > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 04:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b5b9e701-d109-4984-ad1e-468c5d20f624@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380916 |
On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 8:47:19 PM UTC-3, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > El sábado, 2 de abril de 2016, 14:08:33 (UTC-5), tjrob137 escribió: > In the 1977 first GPS satellite launching, the (unmodified) satellite clock > ticks at a different rate when in orbit that when on the ground (before > launch). The tiny INCREASE in the frequency the clock shows when changing from > state S1 (at ground unmodified) to S2 (in orbit unmodified) is an EXPERIMENTAL > FACT since then, the one you insist to reject. > This is totally wrong and it is not a EXPERIMENTAL FACT. You have been told many times that you are wrong and you are unable to demonstrate a single bit of what you assert. The EXPERIMENTAL FACTs are well described by Ashby (see section 5 of http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/download/lrr-2003-1Color.pdf). Ashby writes: "For atomic clocks in satellites, it is most convenient to consider the motions as they would be observed in the local ECI frame." This means measures are done at the local ECI frame. Then he writes: "The negative sign in this result means that the standard clock in orbit is beating too fast, primarily because its frequency is gravitationally blueshifted. 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: [1 - 4.4647 × 10^-10] × 10.23 MHz = 10.229 999 995 43 MHz." So you see you are completely wrong, again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 12:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <152308ef-2116-41aa-adc9-04ae6ecce43c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380948 |
El martes, 5 de abril de 2016, 7:44:04 (UTC-4), paparios escribió: > On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 8:47:19 PM UTC-3, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > El sábado, 2 de abril de 2016, 14:08:33 (UTC-5), tjrob137 escribió: > > > In the 1977 first GPS satellite launching, the (unmodified) satellite clock > > ticks at a different rate when in orbit that when on the ground (before > > launch). The tiny INCREASE in the frequency the clock shows when changing from > > state S1 (at ground unmodified) to S2 (in orbit unmodified) is an EXPERIMENTAL > > FACT since then, the one you insist to reject. > > > > This is totally wrong and it is not a EXPERIMENTAL FACT. You have been told many times that you are wrong and you are unable to demonstrate a single bit of what you assert. > > The EXPERIMENTAL FACTs are well described by Ashby (see section 5 of http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/download/lrr-2003-1Color.pdf). > > Ashby writes: > > "For atomic clocks in satellites, it is most convenient to consider the motions as they would be observed in the local ECI frame." > You quote just the beginning of section 5. > This means measures are done at the local ECI frame. > This means that the motions of the satellites are described as observed in the ECI stationary space, the (desired by design) circular orbit trajectories with the same constant height and speed. Same remark for the clocks at ground (Earth's rotating geoid), having also similar circular orbit trajectories in the ECI stationary space, but with different height and speed than the satellite ones. In the operative GPS, ALL the clocks MUST BE 1905R synchronized with the same (desired by design) 10.23 MHz frequency, corresponding to the same 1905 Einstein defined time showed by a virtual (or real) clock in EVERY ECI stationary space point, including the satellite and ground ones. As ALL GPS operative clocks are showing simultaneously the same ECI time in any instant of it, we can say that this time is observed simultaneously the same one from ANY part of the GPS ECI, including the ground (geoid) one. > Then he writes: > After 37 lines and 8 formulas derived using Newtonian mechanics, including the Principle of Energy Conservation. > "The negative sign in this result means that the standard clock in orbit is beating too fast, primarily because its frequency is gravitationally blueshifted. 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: > [1 - 4.4647 × 10^-10] × 10.23 MHz = 10.229 999 995 43 MHz." > > So you see you are completely wrong, again. Read what Ashby writes exactly after the text you quote: "This adjustment is accomplished on the ground before the clock is placed in orbit." When the clock is operative in orbit, it returns to the 10.23 MHz it had when still at ground before launch, as we can know reading the story of the first GPS satellite put in operative orbit, what begins 11 lines ahead. Fortunately, it is already an EXPERIMENTAL FACT, that an operative GPS satellite clock showing IN THE SATELLITE the (desired by design) 10.23 MHz 1905R synchronizing frequency, can be obtained applying the same relativistic adjustment either at ground before the launch (today ordinary GPS routine) or in orbit after it (only when the first GPS operative satellite in orbit). RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | paparios <paparios@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-05 12:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2a9bd96d-f70c-403f-9b37-9b4b799228a4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #380996 |
El martes, 5 de abril de 2016, 16:01:43 (UTC-3), Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato escribió: > El martes, 5 de abril de 2016, 7:44:04 (UTC-4), paparios escribió: > > On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 8:47:19 PM UTC-3, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > > El sábado, 2 de abril de 2016, 14:08:33 (UTC-5), tjrob137 escribió: > > > > > In the 1977 first GPS satellite launching, the (unmodified) satellite clock > > > ticks at a different rate when in orbit that when on the ground (before > > > launch). The tiny INCREASE in the frequency the clock shows when changing from > > > state S1 (at ground unmodified) to S2 (in orbit unmodified) is an EXPERIMENTAL > > > FACT since then, the one you insist to reject. > > > > > > > This is totally wrong and it is not a EXPERIMENTAL FACT. You have been told many times that you are wrong and you are unable to demonstrate a single bit of what you assert. > > > > The EXPERIMENTAL FACTs are well described by Ashby (see section 5 of http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/download/lrr-2003-1Color.pdf). > > > > Ashby writes: > > > > "For atomic clocks in satellites, it is most convenient to consider the motions as they would be observed in the local ECI frame." > > > You quote just the beginning of section 5. > > > This means measures are done at the local ECI frame. > > > This means that the motions of the satellites are described as observed in the > ECI stationary space, the (desired by design) circular orbit trajectories with > the same constant height and speed. > > Same remark for the clocks at ground (Earth's rotating geoid), having also > similar circular orbit trajectories in the ECI stationary space, but with > different height and speed than the satellite ones. > > In the operative GPS, ALL the clocks MUST BE 1905R synchronized with the same > (desired by design) 10.23 MHz frequency, corresponding to the same 1905 > Einstein defined time showed by a virtual (or real) clock in EVERY ECI > stationary space point, including the satellite and ground ones. > What is this you so call FACT of "MUST BE 1905R synchronized"? You are completely confused about what an atomic clock does in the presence of gravity and what the orientation of that atomic clock with respect to spacetime means. > As ALL GPS operative clocks are showing simultaneously the same ECI time in any > instant of it, we can say that this time is observed simultaneously the same > one from ANY part of the GPS ECI, including the ground (geoid) one. > Of course not. The satellite atomic clock continues to tick at 10.2299999954326 MHz the same frequency it had before being launched. The reading of that clock at the GPS receiver is 10.23 MHz, because it is in a different orientation with respect to the spacetime. You have been told this many times but you do not read. > > Then he writes: > > > After 37 lines and 8 formulas derived using Newtonian mechanics, including the > Principle of Energy Conservation. > > > "The negative sign in this result means that the standard clock in orbit is beating too fast, primarily because its frequency is gravitationally blueshifted. 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: > > [1 - 4.4647 × 10^-10] × 10.23 MHz = 10.229 999 995 43 MHz." > > > > > So you see you are completely wrong, again. > > Read what Ashby writes exactly after the text you quote: > > "This adjustment is accomplished on the ground before the clock is placed in > orbit." > Sure... > When the clock is operative in orbit, it returns to the 10.23 MHz it had when > still at ground before launch, as we can know reading the story of the first > GPS satellite put in operative orbit, what begins 11 lines ahead. > This is just your unproved and completely wrong assertion. > Fortunately, it is already an EXPERIMENTAL FACT, that an operative GPS > satellite clock showing IN THE SATELLITE the (desired by design) 10.23 MHz > 1905R synchronizing frequency, can be obtained applying the same relativistic > adjustment either at ground before the launch (today ordinary GPS routine) or > in orbit after it (only when the first GPS operative satellite in orbit). > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) What it is a proved EXPERIMENTAL FACT is that the SV atomic clock is ticking in orbit at 10.2299999954326 MHz, while the received signals at the GPS receiver ticks at 10.23 MHz.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-04-06 23:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7a7e8cd2-ddff-4a52-80ec-a66c3a5b4fae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #381001 |
W dniu wtorek, 5 kwietnia 2016 21:29:31 UTC+2 użytkownik paparios napisał: > > What it is a proved EXPERIMENTAL FACT is that the SV atomic clock is ticking in orbit at 10.2299999954326 MHz A lie, as expected from a relativistic trash. 1)it's neither atomic, nor clock 2)it's ticking 10.23, as measured by clock present on GPS and set for GPS time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 14 of 20 — ← Prev page 1 … 12 13 [14] 15 16 … 20 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web