Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #393756 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-09-26 06:22 +1000 |
| Last post | 2016-10-07 13:52 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 436 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-26 06:22 +1000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-26 11:20 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-26 19:50 +1000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-09-26 21:43 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-26 06:42 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-26 02:40 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-26 20:17 +1000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-26 05:37 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-27 03:37 +1000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-26 12:08 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 08:34 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-27 03:56 +1000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-09-26 13:16 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-27 08:29 +1000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-27 12:16 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-09-28 06:31 +1000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-27 15:20 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-28 14:06 +1000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-28 09:32 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 15:17 +1000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-29 08:59 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-30 09:48 +1000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-09-30 11:58 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-01 08:40 +1000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-01 07:36 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-02 18:02 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-02 08:10 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-03 09:18 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-03 11:15 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-05 07:24 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-04 17:32 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 08:04 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-06 11:21 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-07 08:19 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-09-27 15:03 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-28 14:14 +1000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 07:51 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 15:22 +1000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 10:00 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-30 10:08 +1000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 10:32 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-01 08:50 +1000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-10-03 05:38 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-05 07:41 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-10-05 05:40 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 08:18 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 09:31 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-07 09:47 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 13:40 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-08 04:11 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-08 10:12 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-08 15:28 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-09 09:39 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-09 11:44 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-10 05:32 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-10 18:55 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-11 09:06 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-11 01:03 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-11 18:24 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-09 17:43 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-10 05:36 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-11 04:36 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-11 23:07 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Scott <Scott@oe0vgk3s.info> - 2016-10-11 21:20 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-10-11 15:00 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-12 09:16 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-12 15:00 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-12 06:12 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-11 23:23 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 13:53 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-13 13:33 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 12:04 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-14 11:25 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-14 02:44 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 07:03 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-14 15:09 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-15 05:04 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-14 19:04 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-15 06:31 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-16 12:01 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 08:23 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-18 03:46 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-18 09:03 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 19:44 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-18 01:46 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-18 23:26 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-18 16:52 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-19 10:30 -0500
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-20 03:55 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-19 19:38 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-10-20 05:50 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-20 10:21 -0500
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-20 15:48 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-20 23:56 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 16:59 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-20 15:46 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-15 00:51 -0500
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-15 00:45 -0500
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-16 05:16 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-15 14:06 -0500
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-15 12:19 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-16 06:31 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 12:37 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 10:12 -0500
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-17 09:32 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-17 10:11 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 08:32 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-18 03:51 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 19:48 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-18 23:32 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-16 00:56 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-16 01:05 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 21:46 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-16 11:16 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 07:49 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-14 19:57 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 14:02 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-15 05:06 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-16 15:02 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-17 02:34 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-16 20:56 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 08:06 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-18 10:06 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-18 19:45 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-18 13:30 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-18 13:43 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-19 07:45 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-18 23:43 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-19 11:18 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-20 03:48 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-19 21:22 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-20 09:58 -0500
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-21 03:36 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-20 09:42 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-21 04:24 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-20 17:28 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-20 10:32 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-21 20:05 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-21 14:32 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> - 2016-10-21 13:51 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-22 04:17 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-21 08:28 -0500
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-21 06:30 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-21 08:25 -0500
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-21 06:28 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-22 04:20 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-21 12:37 -0500
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-22 10:42 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-21 20:04 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-22 09:44 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Dwain Foster <dwainbwe@tyrellysite.org> - 2016-10-22 12:44 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-22 19:56 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 08:54 -0500
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-24 10:59 -0500
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> - 2016-10-24 16:05 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-24 11:25 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> - 2016-10-24 18:30 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-24 12:05 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-24 23:34 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-26 06:44 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> - 2016-10-25 19:49 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-26 06:57 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> - 2016-10-25 20:02 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-26 20:43 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Walter Bautista <wabau@outlookbay.org> - 2016-10-26 14:51 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Walter Bautista <wabau@outlookbay.org> - 2016-10-26 14:56 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 04:17 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-27 04:36 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-25 22:22 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Walter Bautista <wabau@outlookbay.org> - 2016-10-25 20:48 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-25 14:05 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-26 20:46 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. pnalsing@gmail.com - 2016-10-25 16:32 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-21 03:57 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-20 21:03 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-20 23:59 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-21 20:12 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-21 02:18 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-18 22:44 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 11:26 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 12:30 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-14 21:38 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 13:06 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 13:27 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 13:36 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 13:42 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-15 00:56 -0500
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 06:16 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-15 15:40 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 13:39 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-14 15:01 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 16:05 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 06:20 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 06:46 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-15 16:30 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 08:08 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 08:31 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-15 10:11 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 10:56 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-15 13:58 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 14:02 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-16 11:00 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. ScottPN <Scott@oe0vgk3s.info> - 2016-10-16 18:08 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. ScottPN <Scott@oe0vgk3s.info> - 2016-10-16 18:09 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 19:30 -0500
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-17 00:11 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-17 14:51 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-17 10:45 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 15:12 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 15:55 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 03:40 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-18 04:07 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 15:14 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 16:28 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 15:04 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 15:49 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 20:48 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-19 13:07 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 13:24 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-19 14:08 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-19 14:11 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 13:37 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-22 13:50 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 14:02 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-23 06:56 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 11:33 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-23 13:55 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 13:43 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-24 14:33 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-26 20:54 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-26 08:13 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-27 04:56 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-26 12:09 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-23 15:00 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 13:54 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 16:00 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 22:41 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 22:52 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-19 23:07 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-20 08:22 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-21 04:06 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 13:55 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-22 15:12 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-23 07:29 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-23 11:25 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 09:39 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-24 14:28 -0500
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-24 13:06 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> - 2016-10-24 20:07 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-24 15:23 -0500
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> - 2016-10-24 20:34 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-26 07:09 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> - 2016-10-25 20:16 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-26 19:50 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-26 14:26 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-27 05:00 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 16:13 -0500
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-24 22:35 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> - 2016-10-24 20:47 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 15:07 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 15:52 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-24 18:29 -0500
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 06:16 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-25 06:34 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-25 09:57 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 11:14 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 04:22 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-25 15:44 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-26 11:13 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-27 05:11 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-26 23:23 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Walter Bautista <wabau@outlookbay.org> - 2016-10-26 22:10 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 15:15 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-27 21:57 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 16:28 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-29 20:34 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-29 14:27 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-30 11:29 +0100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-31 05:01 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 17:39 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 05:01 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. paparios <paparios@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 06:20 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Walter Bautista <wabau@outlookbay.org> - 2016-10-27 14:23 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 13:07 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-27 22:40 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 16:33 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-28 09:34 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-27 10:12 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-27 23:04 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 13:49 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-24 15:16 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 13:07 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 13:52 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-16 00:58 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 09:15 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 10:18 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-17 03:11 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-15 15:16 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 09:22 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 10:05 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 13:18 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-15 13:58 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-16 01:00 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 09:19 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-16 11:47 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 19:35 -0500
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-17 11:20 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. ScottPN <Scott@oe0vgk3s.info> - 2016-10-17 09:46 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-17 14:43 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-17 14:57 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Scott <scott@oe0vgk3s.info> - 2016-10-17 15:46 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-17 02:49 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-16 11:42 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 05:17 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 11:50 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 12:19 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-16 23:31 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 14:45 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-18 12:34 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-18 15:09 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-19 11:27 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-12 15:32 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-10-12 06:46 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-12 09:30 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-12 19:25 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-13 09:08 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-13 13:40 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-13 01:28 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-13 19:35 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-13 05:35 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-14 06:29 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-13 14:41 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-14 20:21 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2016-10-15 05:00 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-13 16:19 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-14 06:34 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-14 03:59 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-14 20:23 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 13:50 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 12:48 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 06:11 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-12 19:55 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-13 09:15 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-13 01:33 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 19:03 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 00:28 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-13 11:12 -0500
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-13 09:57 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-13 14:08 -0500
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-13 14:10 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. sdf <sdf@sdf.sdf> - 2016-10-15 02:23 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-15 01:02 -0500
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. ScottPN <Scott@oe0vgk3s.info> - 2016-10-16 17:56 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-16 21:37 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. ScottPN <Scott@oe0vgk3s.info> - 2016-10-17 10:03 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 04:25 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. ScottPN <Scott@oe0vgk3s.info> - 2016-10-17 11:41 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 11:44 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-13 19:43 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 04:00 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> - 2016-10-13 14:58 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-14 06:43 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 13:32 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 16:18 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-14 20:27 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-14 04:06 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-15 05:20 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-13 16:03 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-13 13:59 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-14 06:22 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-15 11:42 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-15 12:08 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-15 13:53 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 18:10 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 21:28 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 15:30 +1000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 23:06 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-29 20:25 +1000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-29 04:35 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-30 10:17 +1000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-30 02:21 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-30 02:54 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-01 06:25 +1000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-09-30 16:54 -0500
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-02 04:47 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-02 01:02 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-02 18:05 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-03 00:50 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-05 07:50 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-05 02:13 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-05 11:23 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-05 15:52 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 08:30 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-06 03:55 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-06 20:03 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-06 20:21 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-06 16:23 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-07 09:15 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-07 09:59 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-08 21:44 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-08 22:02 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-09 09:58 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-09 11:06 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-10 06:14 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-10 08:21 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-10 11:52 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-11 20:29 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-10 10:23 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-11 09:20 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-10 19:02 -0500
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-11 19:04 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-11 00:53 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-11 20:14 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-06 08:28 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-06 03:58 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-03 19:48 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2016-10-03 19:50 +0000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-05 09:06 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2016-10-05 10:59 +0200
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> - 2016-10-06 20:13 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> - 2016-10-07 08:07 -0500
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-28 23:13 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-28 23:17 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-28 23:43 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. mlwozniak@wp.pl - 2016-09-29 04:44 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-09-30 10:21 +1000
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-06 11:53 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-07 09:24 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. alsor@interia.pl - 2016-10-07 06:52 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. HGW <hw@....> - 2016-10-08 10:05 +1100
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> - 2016-10-07 11:35 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-07 11:46 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-07 12:38 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-07 13:46 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-07 13:47 -0700
Re: Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2016-10-07 13:52 -0700
Page 1 of 22 [1] 2 3 … 22 Next page →
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 06:22 +1000 |
| Subject | Why GPS Supports BaTh and Refutes Einstein. |
| Message-ID | <ns9bl3$1vsi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
It is often claimed that large errors will result from the use of c+v in GPS calculations. This is wrong and the opposite is true. The use of constant light speed will cause large errors. Consider the linear situation for one clock. Moving source S will send a time signal to observer O. At any absolute instant, S and O are absolute distance Da apart. S--->v Da O v is known approx.. Assume all clocks are in absolute synch. S sends time signal at time t when O is at true distance D. O receives signal at his time t'. Time diff = t'-t. According to BaTh: D = (c+v)(t'-t) 'distance to where S was. Since then, S has moved v(t'-t). Therefore Da = D - v(t'-t) = c(t'-t) For triangulation, an arc with radius Da, is drawn around the source's known position at the instant of signal receipt. ___________________________________________________________- Alternatively: In S frame. O is approaching at v. According to BaTh, S sends signal at speed c and at time t when O is at true distance D. It is received at O at time t', after O has moved v(t'-t) Therefore Da = [D-(v(t'-t)] S calculates that t' = t + [D-(v(t'-t)]/c Again, Da = c(t'-t)
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 11:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nsap98$fp0$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #393756 |
On 25.09.2016 22:22, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > It is often claimed that large errors will result from the use of c+v in > GPS calculations. This is wrong and the opposite is true. The use of > constant light speed will cause large errors. So the GPS doesn't work, then. :-D > Consider the linear situation for one clock. > Moving source S will send a time signal to observer O. > At any absolute instant, S and O are absolute distance Da apart. > > S--->v Da O > > v is known approx.. Assume all clocks are in absolute synch. > > S sends time signal at time t when O is at true distance D. > O receives signal at his time t'. Time diff = t'-t. > According to BaTh: D = (c+v)(t'-t) 'distance to where S was. > Since then, S has moved v(t'-t). > Therefore Da = D - v(t'-t) = c(t'-t) > For triangulation, an arc with radius Da, is drawn around the source's > known position at the instant of signal receipt. > ___________________________________________________________- > Alternatively: > In S frame. O is approaching at v. > > According to BaTh, > S sends signal at speed c and at time t when O is at true distance D. It > is received at O at time t', > after O has moved v(t'-t) > Therefore Da = [D-(v(t'-t)] > > S calculates that t' = t + [D-(v(t'-t)]/c > Again, Da = c(t'-t) It is interesting to see that you desperately are trying to prove that if the speed of light were (c+v) it would give the same result as when the speed of light is c. You must have lost your mind completely. 'nuff said! -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 19:50 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nsar1i$1tr5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393830 |
On 26/09/16 19:20, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 25.09.2016 22:22, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> It is often claimed that large errors will result from the use of c+v in >> GPS calculations. This is wrong and the opposite is true. The use of >> constant light speed will cause large errors. > > So the GPS doesn't work, then. :-D > >> Consider the linear situation for one clock. >> Moving source S will send a time signal to observer O. >> At any absolute instant, S and O are absolute distance Da apart. >> >> S--->v Da O >> >> v is known approx.. Assume all clocks are in absolute synch. >> >> S sends time signal at time t when O is at true distance D. >> O receives signal at his time t'. Time diff = t'-t. >> According to BaTh: D = (c+v)(t'-t) 'distance to where S was. >> Since then, S has moved v(t'-t). >> Therefore Da = D - v(t'-t) = c(t'-t) >> For triangulation, an arc with radius Da, is drawn around the source's >> known position at the instant of signal receipt. >> ___________________________________________________________- >> Alternatively: >> In S frame. O is approaching at v. >> >> According to BaTh, >> S sends signal at speed c and at time t when O is at true distance D. It >> is received at O at time t', >> after O has moved v(t'-t) >> Therefore Da = [D-(v(t'-t)] >> >> S calculates that t' = t + [D-(v(t'-t)]/c >> Again, Da = c(t'-t) > > It is interesting to see that you desperately are trying to prove > that if the speed of light were (c+v) it would give the same result > as when the speed of light is c. > > You must have lost your mind completely. > > 'nuff said! Are you having trouble reading messages now? Or are simple equations too hard for you these days. I have shown that if a source is moving radially, such as in GPS or Cassini, the use of c+v corrects out the source's movement during the signal's travel time automatically. If c+v is not used, for instance when the GPS clock is near the horizon, a positioning error will result. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 21:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nsbtp4$lcb$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #393835 |
On 26.09.2016 11:50, HGW wrote: > On 26/09/16 19:20, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 25.09.2016 22:22, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> It is often claimed that large errors will result from the use of c+v in >>> GPS calculations. This is wrong and the opposite is true. The use of >>> constant light speed will cause large errors. >> >> So the GPS doesn't work, then. :-D >> >>> Consider the linear situation for one clock. >>> Moving source S will send a time signal to observer O. >>> At any absolute instant, S and O are absolute distance Da apart. >>> >>> S--->v Da O >>> >>> v is known approx.. Assume all clocks are in absolute synch. >>> >>> S sends time signal at time t when O is at true distance D. >>> O receives signal at his time t'. Time diff = t'-t. >>> According to BaTh: D = (c+v)(t'-t) 'distance to where S was. >>> Since then, S has moved v(t'-t). >>> Therefore Da = D - v(t'-t) = c(t'-t) >>> For triangulation, an arc with radius Da, is drawn around the source's >>> known position at the instant of signal receipt. >>> ___________________________________________________________- >>> Alternatively: >>> In S frame. O is approaching at v. >>> >>> According to BaTh, >>> S sends signal at speed c and at time t when O is at true distance D. It >>> is received at O at time t', >>> after O has moved v(t'-t) >>> Therefore Da = [D-(v(t'-t)] >>> >>> S calculates that t' = t + [D-(v(t'-t)]/c >>> Again, Da = c(t'-t) >> >> It is interesting to see that you desperately are trying to prove >> that if the speed of light were (c+v) it would give the same result >> as when the speed of light is c. > > Are you having trouble reading messages now? Or are simple equations too > hard for you these days. > > I have shown that if a source is moving radially, such as in GPS or > Cassini, the use of c+v corrects out the source's movement during the > signal's travel time automatically. If c+v is not used, for instance > when the GPS clock is near the horizon, a positioning error will result. > This is still my response: >> You must have lost your mind completely. >> >> 'nuff said! -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 06:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d90a7a55-115c-4ade-8a54-f3e7be8d8d4a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393830 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 26 września 2016 11:20:42 UTC+2 użytkownik Paul B. > It is interesting to see that you desperately are trying to prove > that if the speed of light were (c+v) it would give the same result > as when the speed of light is c. That's the key! Simply: A. if you use: c' = c = inv then you get: t' = k(t-xv); [using unit c = 1] B. but if you use the standar convention: t = inv, then you get just the: c' = 1 - v (it's c-v) In the SR's fallacy you can get directly the equation: r' = t' = k(t - xv) = c'
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 02:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bad9b698-f80d-426a-bf5c-c74e53d6ad50@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393756 |
W dniu niedziela, 25 września 2016 22:22:07 UTC+2 użytkownik HGWilson, DSc. napisał: > It is often claimed that large errors will result from the use of c+v in > GPS calculations. This is wrong and the opposite is true. The use of > constant light speed will cause large errors. GPS doesn't use ANY transforms. No frames, no points of view. GPS is a serious construction. It has just one coordinate set, as a serious construction should.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 20:17 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nsask8$pl$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393832 |
On 26/09/16 19:40, mlwozniak@wp.pl wrote: > W dniu niedziela, 25 września 2016 22:22:07 UTC+2 użytkownik HGWilson, DSc. napisał: >> It is often claimed that large errors will result from the use of c+v in >> GPS calculations. This is wrong and the opposite is true. The use of >> constant light speed will cause large errors. > > > GPS doesn't use ANY transforms. No frames, > no points of view. > GPS is a serious construction. It has just one > coordinate set, as a serious construction should. Harnagel claimed that errors wold result if light speed was source dependent. I have shown why he is an idiot.....but we already knew... --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 05:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d13f0a70-9c61-4189-88a3-363d516e7e79@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393841 |
On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 4:17:58 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > Harnagel claimed that errors wold result if light speed was source > dependent. I have shown why he is an idiot.....but we already knew... Au contraire, cochon, all you have demonstrated is that YOU are an idiot, and a dishonest one at that. I must be really getting to you that you reference me in a post in which I wasn't even involved :-))
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 03:37 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nsbmch$1klk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393850 |
On 26/09/16 22:37, Gary Harnagel wrote: > On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 4:17:58 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote: >> Harnagel claimed that errors wold result if light speed was source >> dependent. I have shown why he is an idiot.....but we already >> knew... > > Au contraire, cochon, all you have demonstrated is that YOU are an > idiot, and a dishonest one at that. > > I must be really getting to you that you reference me in a post in > which I wasn't even involved :-)) It is partly because of your stupid previous claims about Cassini and GPS that I made this very important discovery. The GPS algorithms actually USE (c+v)t-vt to get ct.....and nobody noticed. If they use ct-vt, GPS would be out by the amounts you previously claimed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 12:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f63c9ba5-916f-4b28-8af1-c053e1a355a2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393893 |
On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 11:37:35 AM UTC-6, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > On 26/09/16 22:37, Gary Harnagel wrote: > > > > On Monday, September 26, 2016 at 4:17:58 AM UTC-6, HGW wrote: > > > > > > Harnagel claimed that errors wold result if light speed was source > > > dependent. I have shown why he is an idiot.....but we already > > > knew... > > > > Au contraire, cochon, all you have demonstrated is that YOU are an > > idiot, and a dishonest one at that. > > > > I must be really getting to you that you reference me in a post in > > which I wasn't even involved :-)) > > It is partly because of your stupid previous claims about Cassini and > GPS that I made this very important discovery. > The GPS algorithms actually USE (c+v)t-vt to get ct.....and nobody noticed. > If they use ct-vt, GPS would be out by the amounts you previously claimed. :-))))) Stupid Ralphie-boy sees a term (c - v)*t and he immediately and stupidly believes it means c is not invariant. Only a mathematically-incompetent fool would jump to such a feckless conclusion. Take a light source whose location is xls = d + v*t. Take a stationary receiver at x = 0 which receives the light pulse and returns it to the light source. The light source emits a light pulse at t = 0 which travels at -c wrt the stationary receiver. Set up the equation of motion of the light pulse: x_pulse1 = d - c*t Which specifies that the speed of the pulse is c in the receiver's frame. The position of the pulse when it reaches the receiver is x = 0, so t1 = d/c x_return = d + v*t1 + v*t2 = d + v*d/c + v*t2 But x_return is also c*t2, so c*t2 = d + v*d/c + v*t2 Oh oh! t2 is a function of itself, what are we going to DO? :-)) Simple: (c - v)*t2 = d*(1 + v/c) t2 = d*(1 + v/c)/(c - v) We specified the light pulse traveled at c wrt the receiver, yet we have a c - v anyway when all calculations were performed in the receiver's frame. How could this be, oh mathematically-incompetent dunce?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 08:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <33ae8fae-f06f-43f9-b7fd-b57f53b52cfb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393756 |
El domingo, 25 de septiembre de 2016, 16:22:07 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. escribió: > It is often claimed that large errors will result from the use of c+v in > GPS calculations. This is wrong and the opposite is true. The use of > constant light speed will cause large errors. > > Consider the linear situation for one clock. > Moving source S will send a time signal to observer O. > At any absolute instant, S and O are absolute distance Da apart. > > S--->v Da O > > v is known approx.. Assume all clocks are in absolute synch. > > S sends time signal at time t when O is at true distance D. > O receives signal at his time t'. Time diff = t'-t. > According to BaTh: D = (c+v)(t'-t) 'distance to where S was. > Since then, S has moved v(t'-t). > Therefore Da = D - v(t'-t) = c(t'-t) > For triangulation, an arc with radius Da, is drawn around the source's > known position at the instant of signal receipt. > ___________________________________________________________- > Alternatively: > In S frame. O is approaching at v. > > According to BaTh, > S sends signal at speed c and at time t when O is at true distance D. It > is received at O at time t', > after O has moved v(t'-t) > Therefore Da = [D-(v(t'-t)] > > S calculates that t' = t + [D-(v(t'-t)]/c > Again, Da = c(t'-t) You make two different calculations. The first assuming a frame where O (the GPS receptor) is at rest, the second assuming a frame where S (satellite transmitter) is at rest. In neither of these two frames the Newtonian equations that you are showing hold good, making all your calculations totally wrong, without any valid mathematical or physical meaning. In the operative GPS there exists a UNIQUE frame where Newtonian equations hold good, with a UNIQUE space and also a UNIQUE time, the one all the synchronized clocks are always showing simultaneously at any instant. Euclidean geometry and Cartesian coordinates are used, and EVERY moving entity (satellite, receptor or any other entity) in that frame has a SINGLE space position and velocity v at any instant considered. I showed you already in my first post to your thread "Question for Relativity 'Expert'" the system of Newtonian equations that all GPS receptors are resolving continuously from already almost four decades, experimentally supporting the same isotropic velocity c for all time signals broadcasted from GPS operative satellites. I remain waiting for your answers in all your threads. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 03:56 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nsbnfd$1n5e$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393876 |
On 27/09/16 01:34, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > El domingo, 25 de septiembre de 2016, 16:22:07 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. escribió: >> It is often claimed that large errors will result from the use of c+v in >> GPS calculations. This is wrong and the opposite is true. The use of >> constant light speed will cause large errors. >> >> Consider the linear situation for one clock. >> Moving source S will send a time signal to observer O. >> At any absolute instant, S and O are absolute distance Da apart. >> >> S--->v Da O >> >> v is known approx.. Assume all clocks are in absolute synch. >> >> S sends time signal at time t when O is at true distance D. >> O receives signal at his time t'. Time diff = t'-t. >> According to BaTh: D = (c+v)(t'-t) 'distance to where S was. >> Since then, S has moved v(t'-t). >> Therefore Da = D - v(t'-t) = c(t'-t) >> For triangulation, an arc with radius Da, is drawn around the source's >> known position at the instant of signal receipt. >> ___________________________________________________________- >> Alternatively: >> In S frame. O is approaching at v. >> >> According to BaTh, >> S sends signal at speed c and at time t when O is at true distance D. It >> is received at O at time t', >> after O has moved v(t'-t) >> Therefore Da = [D-(v(t'-t)] >> >> S calculates that t' = t + [D-(v(t'-t)]/c >> Again, Da = c(t'-t) > > You make two different calculations. The first assuming a frame where O (the > GPS receptor) is at rest, the second assuming a frame where S (satellite > transmitter) is at rest. In neither of these two frames the Newtonian equations > that you are showing hold good, making all your calculations totally wrong, > without any valid mathematical or physical meaning. I have shown, for instance, why it is OK to use a GPS clock near the horizon if c+v is assumed for its signal speed. My calculations are for the radial component only. It means the clock's position at the instant of signal ARRIVAL can be used in the positioning process, making things a lot easier. > In the operative GPS there exists a UNIQUE frame where Newtonian equations hold > good, with a UNIQUE space and also a UNIQUE time, the one all the synchronized > clocks are always showing simultaneously at any instant. Euclidean geometry and > Cartesian coordinates are used, and EVERY moving entity (satellite, receptor or > any other entity) in that frame has a SINGLE space position and velocity v at > any instant considered. All the clocks are in absolute synch and their orbit ephemerides accurately known, relative to the ECI. The individual movements of the clocks change nothing. > I showed you already in my first post to your thread "Question for Relativity > 'Expert'" the system of Newtonian equations that all GPS receptors are resolving > continuously from already almost four decades, experimentally supporting the > same isotropic velocity c for all time signals broadcasted from GPS operative > satellites. I remain waiting for your answers in all your threads. The algorithms effectively use c multiplied by the difference between the received time signal and the time reading of the receiver's clock to calculate the distance to the satellite. That is very ingenious because, as I have now shown, it covers up the use of (c+v)t by automatically subtracting the vt bit (clock movement during signal travel). > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-26 13:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d54ff76a-d755-4f8c-9138-623957562bff@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393895 |
El lunes, 26 de septiembre de 2016, 13:56:12 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. escribió: > On 27/09/16 01:34, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > El domingo, 25 de septiembre de 2016, 16:22:07 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. escribió: > >> It is often claimed that large errors will result from the use of c+v in > >> GPS calculations. This is wrong and the opposite is true. The use of > >> constant light speed will cause large errors. > >> > >> Consider the linear situation for one clock. > >> Moving source S will send a time signal to observer O. > >> At any absolute instant, S and O are absolute distance Da apart. > >> > >> S--->v Da O > >> > >> v is known approx.. Assume all clocks are in absolute synch. > >> > >> S sends time signal at time t when O is at true distance D. > >> O receives signal at his time t'. Time diff = t'-t. > >> According to BaTh: D = (c+v)(t'-t) 'distance to where S was. > >> Since then, S has moved v(t'-t). > >> Therefore Da = D - v(t'-t) = c(t'-t) > >> For triangulation, an arc with radius Da, is drawn around the source's > >> known position at the instant of signal receipt. > >> ___________________________________________________________- > >> Alternatively: > >> In S frame. O is approaching at v. > >> > >> According to BaTh, > >> S sends signal at speed c and at time t when O is at true distance D. It > >> is received at O at time t', > >> after O has moved v(t'-t) > >> Therefore Da = [D-(v(t'-t)] > >> > >> S calculates that t' = t + [D-(v(t'-t)]/c > >> Again, Da = c(t'-t) > > > > You make two different calculations. The first assuming a frame where O (the > > GPS receptor) is at rest, the second assuming a frame where S (satellite > > transmitter) is at rest. In neither of these two frames the Newtonian equations > > that you are showing hold good, making all your calculations totally wrong, > > without any valid mathematical or physical meaning. > > I have shown, for instance, why it is OK to use a GPS clock near the > horizon if c+v is assumed for its signal speed. > My calculations are for the radial component only. > It means the clock's position at the instant of signal ARRIVAL can be > used in the positioning process, making things a lot easier. > I proved already wrong all your calculations, based in total inadequate frames and the rejection of the isotropic signal velocity c used in all GPS receptors very successfully for already almost four decades. > > In the operative GPS there exists a UNIQUE frame where Newtonian equations hold > > good, with a UNIQUE space and also a UNIQUE time, the one all the synchronized > > clocks are always showing simultaneously at any instant. Euclidean geometry and > > Cartesian coordinates are used, and EVERY moving entity (satellite, receptor or > > any other entity) in that frame has a SINGLE space position and velocity v at > > any instant considered. > > All the clocks are in absolute synch and their orbit ephemerides > accurately known, relative to the ECI. The individual movements of the > clocks change nothing. > Exactly, all the clocks are synchronized on the operative GPS ECI with the same time; what implies that every signal broadcasted from a moving satellite at time t is received in a receptor at time t', running always a c(t'-t) distance at the same isotropic speed c, independent on any satellite, receptor or any other velocity. Yes, all is relative to the ECI, including the time. By the way, why you denote "absolute" the relative to the ECI time? Not problem at all, denote if you want also "absolute" the ECI space. Maybe you need to build a GPS in the Moon to understand well why time and space are both relatives, determined by the bodies themselves. > > I showed you already in my first post to your thread "Question for Relativity > > 'Expert'" the system of Newtonian equations that all GPS receptors are resolving > > continuously from already almost four decades, experimentally supporting the > > same isotropic velocity c for all time signals broadcasted from GPS operative > > satellites. I remain waiting for your answers in all your threads. > > The algorithms effectively use c multiplied by the difference between > the received time signal and the time reading of the receiver's clock to > calculate the distance to the satellite. Very right, but remember that the position of the satellite source corresponds to a different time from the one in which the receptor receives the signal. > That is very ingenious because, as I have now shown, it covers up the > use of (c+v)t by automatically subtracting the vt bit (clock movement > during signal travel). > Your last assertion is wrong, due to your inadequate use of frames where Newtonian equations do not hold good, as I pointed to you already before. > > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 08:29 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nsc7g3$p4l$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #393915 |
On 27/09/16 06:16, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > El lunes, 26 de septiembre de 2016, 13:56:12 (UTC-4), HGWilson, DSc. >> The algorithms effectively use c multiplied by the difference >> between the received time signal and the time reading of the >> receiver's clock to calculate the distance to the satellite. > > Very right, but remember that the position of the satellite source > corresponds to a different time from the one in which the receptor > receives the signal. > >> That is very ingenious because, as I have now shown, it covers up >> the use of (c+v)t by automatically subtracting the vt bit (clock >> movement during signal travel). >> > Your last assertion is wrong, due to your inadequate use of frames > where Newtonian equations do not hold good, as I pointed to you > already before. You are raising irrelevancies. What I am saying applies to Radar, GPS, Cassini and any range finding technique that involves a moving source which sends some kind of time signal. (radar does that indirectly) If an object is approaching an observer at c, its light moves at c+v relative to the observer. If it sends a time signal to the observer, that signal moves at (c+v) relative to the observer and takes time t = D/(c+v) to reach him, where D is the distance between the two at the instant the signal was sent. So D = (c+v)t. During the time taken for the signal to reach the observer, the source move a distance vt. Therefore when the observer receives the signal, the source is located (c+v)t - vt away. ...or just ct. Isn't that convenient? ...and it appears to support constant light speed when in fact it certainly does the opposite. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 12:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4b70e337-cac8-465e-86ca-370e90e5ffcf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #393921 |
W dniu wtorek, 27 września 2016 00:29:38 UTC+2 użytkownik HGW napisał: > What I am saying applies to Radar, GPS, Cassini and any range finding > technique that involves a moving source which sends some kind of time > signal.(radar does that indirectly) Indeed. But any radar measurement includes an error of order: V_radar/c^2, due to the SR convention which assumes: V = 0 for any source. > If an object is approaching an observer at c, its light moves at c+v > relative to the observer. > If it sends a time signal to the observer, that signal moves at (c+v) > relative to the observer and takes time t = D/(c+v) to reach him, where > D is the distance between the two at the instant the signal was sent. So > D = (c+v)t. > During the time taken for the signal to reach the observer, the source > move a distance vt. Therefore when the observer receives the signal, the > source is located (c+v)t - vt away. ...or just ct. > Isn't that convenient? ...and it appears to support constant light speed > when in fact it certainly does the opposite. Very poor math. The real time period is simply an inverse of the frequency, due to the fact: T = 1/f. So, in any measurement of the impulses you just get the time period: T' = 1/f' = T * sqrt(1+v / 1-v), never 1/(c+v). And in a radar ranging type measurement you get a square: T'/T = (1+v / 1-v), what assumes still the radar is stationary: v_radar = 0, of course, therefore, an unavoidable, error of any radar is equal to: dv/v =~ v_radar^2/c^2.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 06:31 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nsekth$op5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394031 |
On 28/09/16 05:16, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 27 września 2016 00:29:38 UTC+2 użytkownik HGW napisał: > >> What I am saying applies to Radar, GPS, Cassini and any range finding >> technique that involves a moving source which sends some kind of time >> signal.(radar does that indirectly) > > Indeed. > But any radar measurement includes an error of order: > V_radar/c^2, due to the SR convention which assumes: V = 0 for any source. > >> If an object is approaching an observer at c, its light moves at c+v >> relative to the observer. >> If it sends a time signal to the observer, that signal moves at (c+v) >> relative to the observer and takes time t = D/(c+v) to reach him, where >> D is the distance between the two at the instant the signal was sent. So >> D = (c+v)t. >> During the time taken for the signal to reach the observer, the source >> move a distance vt. Therefore when the observer receives the signal, the >> source is located (c+v)t - vt away. ...or just ct. >> Isn't that convenient? ...and it appears to support constant light speed >> when in fact it certainly does the opposite. > > Very poor math. > > The real time period is simply an inverse of the frequency, > due to the fact: > T = 1/f. > > So, in any measurement of the impulses you just get the time period: > T' = 1/f' = T * sqrt(1+v / 1-v), never 1/(c+v). Very poor theory and explanation. You seem to be confusing the period of the signal at the source with the travel time of the signal. no wonder you get everything wrong. > And in a radar ranging type measurement you get a square: > T'/T = (1+v / 1-v), > > what assumes still the radar is stationary: v_radar = 0, of course, > therefore, an unavoidable, error of any radar is equal to: > dv/v =~ v_radar^2/c^2. Radar certainly has an error due to the fact that the return signal is assumed to move at c. The error can be corrected out if c+v is accepted.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-27 15:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4e096d97-c435-41bc-908f-05d7344e14d1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394044 |
W dniu wtorek, 27 września 2016 22:30:58 UTC+2 użytkownik HGWilson, DSc. > > So, in any measurement of the impulses you just get the time period: > > T' = 1/f' = T * sqrt(1+v / 1-v), never 1/(c+v). > > Very poor theory and explanation. You seem to be confusing the period of > the signal at the source with the travel time of the signal. no wonder > you get everything wrong. There is no any special explanation needed. T = 1/f; What this means? Simply: if you send a serie of singnals with a time separation: dt = T, then this is in fact a one signal with a frequency 1/T; thus the Doppler shift for freq. still applies to this scenario. > Radar certainly has an error due to the fact that the return signal is > assumed to move at c. The error can be corrected out if c+v is accepted. Indeed. A two way average of: c-v and c-v is just: c * (1-v^2/c^2).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 14:06 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nsffl3$1rs4$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394053 |
On 28/09/16 08:20, alsor@interia.pl wrote: >> Very poor theory and explanation. You seem to be confusing the period of >> the signal at the source with the travel time of the signal. no wonder >> you get everything wrong. > > There is no any special explanation needed. > > T = 1/f; > > What this means? > > Simply: if you send a serie of singnals with a time separation: > dt = T, > then this is in fact a one signal with a frequency 1/T; > thus the Doppler shift for freq. still applies to this scenario. > >> Radar certainly has an error due to the fact that the return signal is >> assumed to move at c. The error can be corrected out if c+v is accepted. > > Indeed. > A two way average of: c-v and c-v is just: c * (1-v^2/c^2). For radar, the outgoing signal moves at c wrt the source. The return signal moves at c+v, at least in remote space. There are two reasons for using radar. 1) for measuring an object's speed and 2) for determining an object's location (usually at the instant at which the signal is received). For 1) Doppler can be used. For 2), the two way time is all there is to go on so the speed as determined in 1) has to be incorporated. There will be errors in both cases if constant signal speed is assumed. I will work it out one day.. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-28 09:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e8cfda0e-a308-4b20-b8b4-e87bf7969f45@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394083 |
W dniu środa, 28 września 2016 06:07:01 UTC+2 użytkownik HGW napisał: > For radar, the outgoing signal moves at c wrt the source. The return > signal moves at c+v, at least in remote space. Very fantastic idea. :) > For 1) Doppler can be used. For 2), the two way time is all there is to > go on so the speed as determined in 1) has to be incorporated. > There will be errors in both cases if constant signal speed is assumed. > > I will work it out one day.. You are very funny.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-29 15:17 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nsi858$10h$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394129 |
On 29/09/16 02:32, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu środa, 28 września 2016 06:07:01 UTC+2 użytkownik HGW napisał: > >> For radar, the outgoing signal moves at c wrt the source. The return >> signal moves at c+v, at least in remote space. > > Very fantastic idea. :) > >> For 1) Doppler can be used. For 2), the two way time is all there is to >> go on so the speed as determined in 1) has to be incorporated. >> There will be errors in both cases if constant signal speed is assumed. >> >> I will work it out one day.. > > You are very funny. New facts usually amuse...but this is probably too hard for you.... > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 22 [1] 2 3 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web