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 20 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 18 19 [20] 21 22 Next page →
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 02:21 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f72ed5c3-a7b9-435e-b8b6-646dfb434aab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394306 |
On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 7:17:49 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > On 29/09/16 21:35, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 5:25:18 AM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > >> On 29/09/16 16:06, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > >> That misses my point entirely. What are xn, yn and zn? Are they > >> satellite coordinates when the signals are sent or when they are > >> received? > > > > ***READ THE CODE*** > > It does not relate to what matters here Of course it matters. Satellites regularly broadcast signals that pinpoint their positions at precisely defined moments of satellite time; in other words, they regularly specify events in the satellite coordinate system. Receivers compute their pseudoranges to these events using the assumption of a constant speed of light. Quartz clocks are generally only accurate to about 1 ppm. If fewer than four satellites acquisitions are available, then, if we multiply one millionth of a second per second clock error by c, it should be evident that uncorrected pseudorange computations can easily misinterpret stationary objects as zooming along at 300 meters per second at a distance hundreds of thousands of kilometers distant from their true positions. With four or more satellites, the receiver clock error can be computed, and the more satellites you have to work with, the the better your your position estimation. The important thing to note when reading the source code, is that the pseudorange computations are made to x, y, z, t events in the satellite coordinate system assuming constant speed of light, not to some complicated x+dx, y+dy, z+dz, t+dt position where the magnitudes of dx, dy, dz, dt are calculated on the basis of how far the satellite would have moved in the time it would have taken for light to have traveled from satellite to receiver. There is a calculation to compensate for the Sagnac effect, i.e. relativity of simultaneity, but that is a different computation entirely, and also assumes constant speed of light. ***READ THE SOURCE CODE.*** > > The ranges are based on when they are sent, making appropriate > > corrections for the Sagnac effect and assuming constant c. > > >> Also, what is wrong with considering the calculations from the > >> clocks themselves. After all, the location on Earth is given by > >> effectively drawing four solid arcs around each clock at a measured > >> radius. The vectors are drawn from the clocks not the receiver. > >> ..and the signals move at c relative to the clocks. However, the > >> receiver could move 4 or 5 metres while the signal is traveling and > >> that must be corrected out. > > > > The GPS code does not extrapolate satellite positions and it does not > > need to. That is because c+v is nonsense. > > What are you talking about? The GPS has to know precisely where each > satellite is at the instant a time signal is received....not when it was > sent. No, the pseudorange computations are to the satellite positions at the time when the signals were sent. ***READ THE SOURCE CODE.*** > The use of c+v automatically corrects for the satellite's radial > movement and the fictitious Sagnac effect. The source code makes use of c, not c+v. ***READ THE SOURCE CODE.*** > GPS exemplifies the way the name Einstein has been linked to every > physics achievement when it really has nothing to do with it. > It again proves the existence of a gigantic conspiracy of which you seem > to be part. > > >> When it is, the answer you get is the same as that calculated at > >> the receiver using c+v, where v is the radial speed of the clock. > > > > In your dreams.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 02:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <40770ecc-5f6c-43b8-8fa0-2bc987d88269@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394351 |
W dniu piątek, 30 września 2016 11:21:42 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 7:17:49 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > > On 29/09/16 21:35, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 5:25:18 AM UTC-5, HGW wrote: > > >> On 29/09/16 16:06, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > > >> That misses my point entirely. What are xn, yn and zn? Are they > > >> satellite coordinates when the signals are sent or when they are > > >> received? > > > > > > ***READ THE CODE*** > > > > It does not relate to what matters here > > Of course it matters. Satellites regularly broadcast signals that pinpoint their > positions at precisely defined moments of satellite time; in other words, they > regularly specify events in the satellite coordinate system. And, unfortunately, this coordinate system has nothing in common with the revolutional, one and only proper path of creating coordinate systems invented by Great Guru.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-01 06:25 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nsmhn2$lv2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394351 |
On 30/09/16 19:21, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 7:17:49 PM UTC-5, HGW wrote: >>> >>> The GPS code does not extrapolate satellite positions and it does not >>> need to. That is because c+v is nonsense. >> >> What are you talking about? The GPS has to know precisely where each >> satellite is at the instant a time signal is received....not when it was >> sent. > No, the pseudorange computations are to the satellite positions at the time > when the signals were sent. ***READ THE SOURCE CODE.*** ....and that is no good to anyone. Clearly, the data has to be corrected to the satellite positions at time of receipt. ...The analysis is based on the assumption that the signals travel at c relative to the satellites. Subsequently, corrections are made to accommodate the movements of the satellites during signal transits and as I have pointed out, those corrections amount to using c+v directly. >> The use of c+v automatically corrects for the satellite's radial >> movement and the fictitious Sagnac effect. > > The source code makes use of c, not c+v. ***READ THE SOURCE CODE.*** It uses c as the signal speed relative to the satellites...which is correct. Relative to the receiver, the signals travel at c+v... and that assumption becomes apparent when one looks closely at how the corrections are applied.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 16:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nPydnfFjXMi8QnPKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #394439 |
On 9/30/16 9/30/16 3:25 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 30/09/16 19:21, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >> the pseudorange computations are to the satellite positions at the time >> when the signals were sent. ***READ THE SOURCE CODE.*** > > ....and that is no good to anyone. Clearly, the data has to be corrected to the > satellite positions at time of receipt. NONSENSE! The radio signal traveled satellite->receiver, and ALL that matters (for the calculation of the pseudorange between this satellite and this receiver) are the satellite position at transmission, the receiver position at reception, and the time between transmission and reception. Where the satellite happens to be when the receiver hears the signal has nothing whatsoever to do with anything. Just THINK about it -- the satellite knows when it sends its time mark, and knows where it is located when it sends it. It cannot possibly know its position when any given receiver receives that time mark, as there are MANY different receivers at MANY different distances from the satellite. So the satellite position at the time of reception cannot possibly matter. Just COMPUTE it -- the pseudo range does not depend in any way on where the satellite happens to be when the receiver receives the time mark. All that is needed for that calculation is the location of the satellite when it sent its time mark, the time contained in the time mark, and the time the receiver receives it (which is determined by a fit to 4 or more pseudoranges and time marks from 4 or more satellites). As PCH says, READ THE SOURCE CODE. > ...The analysis is based on the assumption that the signals travel at c relative > to the satellites. NO! The calculation is based on the FACT that that radio signals travel with speed c RELATIVE TO THE ECI COORDINATES. No matter how much you try to deny this fact, it remains a fact, and this _IS_ how GPS receivers calculate pseudoranges to satellites, and derive their position from them. If c+v was used, where v is the velocity of the satellite, the GPS simply would not have the accuracy it does. Moreover, YOU WOULD SEE THAT IN THE SOURCE CODE, but it isn't there.... > [... further fantasies and misconceptions] Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 04:47 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nsosqu$1m85$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394442 |
On 01/10/16 07:54, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 9/30/16 9/30/16 3:25 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
>> On 30/09/16 19:21, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>>> the pseudorange computations are to the satellite positions at the time
>>> when the signals were sent. ***READ THE SOURCE CODE.***
>>
>> ....and that is no good to anyone. Clearly, the data has to be
>> corrected to the
>> satellite positions at time of receipt.
>
> NONSENSE! The radio signal traveled satellite->receiver, and ALL that
> matters (for the calculation of the pseudorange between this satellite
> and this receiver) are the satellite position at transmission, the
> receiver position at reception, and the time between transmission and
> reception. Where the satellite happens to be when the receiver hears the
> signal has nothing whatsoever to do with anything.
> Just THINK about it -- the satellite knows when it sends its time
> mark, and knows where it is located when it sends it. It cannot
> possibly know its position when any given receiver receives that
> time mark, as there are MANY different receivers at MANY different
> distances from the satellite. So the satellite position at the
> time of reception cannot possibly matter.
Tom, Firstly, please read my original post and then consider its
relevance to the principle of triangulation.
Let R be moving randomly relative to three fixed points. (For our
purpose here, only radial speeds are relevant and the 'v' used below
will refer to radial speed relative to R)
P2
P3
P1
>
R
R's location can be specified by its precise distance from the three
points at any INSTANT. Those distances are truly represented by three
vectors drawn between R and the points.
In the case of the GPS, R and the points are all moving relatively and
communication between them is not instantaneous. The ECI coordinates of
the points is known accurately at any instant. The time signals emitted
by the points do not arrive at R at the same instant so R cannot know
its exact distance to each point at any one particular instant. The
consequence is that calculated vectors drawn from the points never meet
precisely at one point. Accuracy is improved in a number of ways, the
use of four or more points being one.
The argument I have raised is that the signals travel at c+v rather than
c and the accuracy of the system is actually improved as a result.
If R could establish its INSTANTANEOUS distance to each point the
vectors would meet.
Consider that R is at rest with P1 and P3 but that P2 is moving at v.
R can rightly establish its fixed distances to P1 and P3 by using
c(t'-t), where t' is time of receipt of time signal t. For P2 however,
the same calculation will produce the distance to the known location of
P2 when the signal was sent. That presents no problem since all three
distances and point coordinates are known at one instant (since those to
P1 and P2 are constant).
However if all three points are moving, because common time signals do
not arrive simultaneously, the instantaneous distances cannot be
determined, even though the coordinates are all known the time of emission.
My revelation is that because the signals really travel at c+v and the
clocks move a distance vt during signal travel, the use of c(t'-t) which
is just [(c+v)(t'-t) - vt] does effectively produce three distances at
the SAME instant.
Einstein's error is very conveniently canceled out through the use of c
rather than c+v.
Clever, eh?.
(The above facts might be easier to understand if the situation is
viewed from the point of view of each clock, in which case the signals
DO move at c relative to each and R moves at different speeds and
directions in each frame.}
<religious propaganda snipped>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 01:02 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nspmbk$a2m$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #394499 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >My revelation is that because the signals really travel at c+v and the >clocks move a distance vt during signal travel, the use of c(t'-t) which >is just [(c+v)(t'-t) - vt] does effectively produce three distances at >the SAME instant. >Einstein's error is very conveniently canceled out through the use of c >rather than c+v. >Clever, eh?. Ralph Malcolm, explain your math. (c+v)(t'-t) is c(t'-t)+v(t'-t), or can be written as c(t'-t)+vt'-vt. So your [(c+v)(t'-t) - vt] becomes c(t'-t)+vt'-2vt. This is not equal to c(t'-t). How is that any sort of "revelation" or "clever" in any way, Ralph?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-02 18:05 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nsqbk1$1f3e$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394549 |
On 02/10/16 12:02, Michael Moroney wrote: > "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: > >> My revelation is that because the signals really travel at c+v and the >> clocks move a distance vt during signal travel, the use of c(t'-t) which >> is just [(c+v)(t'-t) - vt] does effectively produce three distances at >> the SAME instant. >> Einstein's error is very conveniently canceled out through the use of c >> rather than c+v. >> Clever, eh?. > > Dr Wilson, explain your math. (c+v)(t'-t) is c(t'-t)+v(t'-t), or can > be written as c(t'-t)+vt'-vt. So your [(c+v)(t'-t) - vt] becomes > c(t'-t)+vt'-2vt. This is not equal to c(t'-t). How is that any sort of > "revelation" or "clever" in any way, Dr Wilson? Poor idiot can't even understand what I wrote..... It means, poor Irish clown, that by using c rather than true c+v, one automatically corrects for the source's movement during communication time. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 00:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nssa0k$ssv$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #394570 |
HGW <hw@....> writes: >On 02/10/16 12:02, Michael Moroney wrote: >> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >> >>> My revelation is that because the signals really travel at c+v and the >>> clocks move a distance vt during signal travel, the use of c(t'-t) which >>> is just [(c+v)(t'-t) - vt] does effectively produce three distances at >>> the SAME instant. >>> Einstein's error is very conveniently canceled out through the use of c >>> rather than c+v. >>> Clever, eh?. >> >> Dr Wilson, explain your math. (c+v)(t'-t) is c(t'-t)+v(t'-t), or can >> be written as c(t'-t)+vt'-vt. So your [(c+v)(t'-t) - vt] becomes >> c(t'-t)+vt'-2vt. This is not equal to c(t'-t). How is that any sort of >> "revelation" or "clever" in any way, Dr Wilson? >Poor idiot can't even understand what I wrote..... Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, that is because you keep messing with my posts, Ralph, by making it look like I was speaking to some nonexistent Dr. Wilson, Ralph Rabbidge. Ralph, as I just showed you, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, your math is all screwed up, Ralph. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, first of all, Ralph, the GPS receiver needs to know the exact time and position of the satellite when it sends the data, Ralph. Ralph Rabbidge, the position of the satellite some time later is irrelevant, Ralph. Ralph, secondly, I showed you that c(t'-t) is most certainly *not* equal to [(c+v)(t'-t) - vt] as you foolishly claim, Ralph. So Ralph Rabbidge, yet another attempt at proving light moves at c+v has failed, Ralph. And as was pointed out to you many times, Ralph, *read the source code*, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. >It means, poor Irish clown, that by using c rather than true c+v, one >automatically corrects for the source's movement during communication time. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, why attack your own ethnicity, Ralph? Rabbidge is a fine Irish name, Ralph. And once again, Ralph, the GPS source's movement after the signal broadcast is irrelevant, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, what if a positioning thruster accidentally fired at full strength after the signal was sent, Ralph? It would not affect the calculations based on that signal one bit, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Ralph, of course, all signals *after* the accidental firing would be corrupted, Ralph. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 07:50 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nt14ne$d56$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394654 |
On 03/10/16 11:50, Michael Moroney wrote: "I'm so stupid I did not realize that all GPS 1.00.000000am time signals did NOT arrive at a ground receiver at the same instant. They might be milliseconds apart. In fact no 4 time signals arrive at the same instant and so the receiver has to correct for that. Without people as clever as Henry Wilson the system would never work"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 02:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nt1nkl$fd9$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #394844 |
HGW <hw@....> writes: >On 03/10/16 11:50, Michael Moroney wrote: >"I'm so stupid I did not realize that all GPS 1.00.000000am time signals >did NOT arrive at a ground receiver at the same instant. They might be >milliseconds apart. In fact no 4 time signals arrive at the same instant >and so the receiver has to correct for that. Without people as clever as >Henry Wilson the system would never work" Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, I see you have no answer to my factual statement that the GPS receiver needs multiple (x,y,z,t) coordinates of the exact positions/times of the satellites to solve the equations to determine its location, Ralph. Ralph Rabbidge, the (x,y,z,t) parameters transmitted by the satellites are EXACT (as exact as the clocks/orbital data the satellites have), and they are not ESTIMATES as you (Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge) would have it use, an ESTIMATE of a current position based on an ESTIMATE on some v, which you (Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge) and your dirty BaThwater claim affects the speed of the signal. Of what use is this ESTIMATED satellite position, Ralph? Ralph, we have no signal from it telling us what time it is when the satellite is at the ESTIMATED position, assuming it actually gets there, Ralph Rabbidge. After all, Ralph Rabbidge, there are three position variables, Ralph, and even if your BaThwater crock was true, Ralph, and we happened to know v, Ralph, that isn't enough information to compute three position variables, Ralph Rabbidge. And Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, an error of just 1 nanosecond in the time you derive from your estimates, Ralph, produce an error of 30 cm, Ralph Rabbidge. Also, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, it does not matter whether the multiple satellite signals are received at different times, Ralph Rabbidge. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, the receiver has to solve multiple 4 equations in 4 unknowns for the receivers (x,y,z,t) with equations c^2(t-tj)^2 = (x-xj)^2 + (y-yj)^2 + (z-zj)^2 for multiple j's. Ralph Rabbidge, note that the receiver gets EXACT values since the (xj,yj,zj,tj) from the satellites are known exactly, as is the speed of the signal to the receiver, c, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Ralph Rabbidge, why would its position at some possibly unknown time later be at all helpful, Ralph?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 11:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nt2gqo$eed$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #394844 |
On 04.10.2016 22:50, HGW wrote: > > ".. all GPS 1.00.000000am time signals > did NOT arrive at a ground receiver at the same instant. They might be > milliseconds apart. In fact no 4 time signals arrive at the same instant > and so the receiver has to correct for that. Without people as clever as > Henry Wilson the system would never work" Who is so stupid that he believes this? :-D The GPS signals are continuous, so the receiver is at any time simultaneously receiving the times of transmission of the signals from several satellites (>=4). Each satellite is transmitting the time signal at regular intervals, but the PRN signal is synced to this time and is transmitted continuously. Since the satellites are identified by the PRN signals which are known by the receiver, and is locked to the PRN in a phase locked loop, the receiver will by counting the PRN bits always know the time of transmission of the signal it is receiving now. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 15:52 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nt37kc$gj3$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #394902 |
"Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> writes: >The GPS signals are continuous, so the receiver is at any time >simultaneously receiving the times of transmission of the signals >from several satellites (>=4). >Each satellite is transmitting the time signal at regular intervals, >but the PRN signal is synced to this time and is transmitted >continuously. Since the satellites are identified by the PRN >signals which are known by the receiver, and is locked to the PRN >in a phase locked loop, the receiver will by counting the PRN bits >always know the time of transmission of the signal it is receiving >now. I forgot about this. The GPS knows the time of each satellite just by adding the time from the last broadcast of the time to the time corresponding to the PRN bit count since then (all delayed by the distance over c, of course).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 08:30 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nt3reh$h99$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394922 |
On 06/10/16 02:52, Michael Moroney wrote: > "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> writes: > >> The GPS signals are continuous, so the receiver is at any time >> simultaneously receiving the times of transmission of the signals >>from several satellites (>=4). > >> Each satellite is transmitting the time signal at regular intervals, >> but the PRN signal is synced to this time and is transmitted >> continuously. Since the satellites are identified by the PRN >> signals which are known by the receiver, and is locked to the PRN >> in a phase locked loop, the receiver will by counting the PRN bits >> always know the time of transmission of the signal it is receiving >> now. > > I forgot about this. The GPS knows the time of each satellite just > by adding the time from the last broadcast of the time to the time > corresponding to the PRN bit count since then (all delayed by the > distance over c, of course). ...and since it is the distance that you are trying to determine, you are in a bit of trouble.... --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 03:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nt4i0f$j3e$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #394956 |
HGW <hw@....> writes: >On 06/10/16 02:52, Michael Moroney wrote: >> "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> writes: >> >>> The GPS signals are continuous, so the receiver is at any time >>> simultaneously receiving the times of transmission of the signals >>>from several satellites (>=4). >> >>> Each satellite is transmitting the time signal at regular intervals, >>> but the PRN signal is synced to this time and is transmitted >>> continuously. Since the satellites are identified by the PRN >>> signals which are known by the receiver, and is locked to the PRN >>> in a phase locked loop, the receiver will by counting the PRN bits >>> always know the time of transmission of the signal it is receiving >>> now. >> >> I forgot about this. The GPS knows the time of each satellite just >> by adding the time from the last broadcast of the time to the time >> corresponding to the PRN bit count since then (all delayed by the >> distance over c, of course). >...and since it is the distance that you are trying to determine, you >are in a bit of trouble.... No, Ralph. We are trying to determine our position (and the time). From the broadcast position and time (which we know is the broadcast time plus the PRN bit count time) from 4 satellites, we solve four equations and four unknowns to get the position and time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 20:03 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nt53vl$6mp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394975 |
On 06/10/16 14:55, Michael Moroney wrote: > HGW <hw@....> writes: know the time of transmission of the signal it is receiving >>>> now. >>> >>> I forgot about this. The GPS knows the time of each satellite just >>> by adding the time from the last broadcast of the time to the time >>> corresponding to the PRN bit count since then (all delayed by the >>> distance over c, of course). > >> ...and since it is the distance that you are trying to determine, you >> are in a bit of trouble.... > > No, Doctor. We are trying to determine our position (and the time). > From the broadcast position and time (which we know is the broadcast > time plus the PRN bit count time) from 4 satellites, we solve four > equations and four unknowns to get the position and time. You said "all delayed by the distance over c". The distances are all different. Until you know the distance, you cannot determine the delays of each signal. No two signals will arrive at the same instant and so the positions of each clock will have to be corrected to bring them all into line with a common time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 20:21 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nt552j$8jp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394975 |
On 06/10/16 14:55, Michael Moroney wrote: > HGW <hw@....> writes: > >> ...and since it is the distance that you are trying to determine, you >> are in a bit of trouble.... >. > No, Dr. We are trying to determine our position (and the time). > From the broadcast position and time (which we know is the broadcast > time plus the PRN bit count time) from 4 satellites, we solve four > equations and four unknowns to get the position and time. ...and in the time it takes to do all that, the receiver will have moved considerably. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 16:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nt5mpp$ojn$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #394956 |
On 05.10.2016 23:30, HGW wrote: > On 06/10/16 02:52, Michael Moroney wrote: >> "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> writes: >> >>> The GPS signals are continuous, so the receiver is at any time >>> simultaneously receiving the times of transmission of the signals >>> from several satellites (>=4). >> >>> Each satellite is transmitting the time signal at regular intervals, >>> but the PRN signal is synced to this time and is transmitted >>> continuously. Since the satellites are identified by the PRN >>> signals which are known by the receiver, and is locked to the PRN >>> in a phase locked loop, the receiver will by counting the PRN bits >>> always know the time of transmission of the signal it is receiving >>> now. >> >> I forgot about this. The GPS knows the time of each satellite just >> by adding the time from the last broadcast of the time to the time >> corresponding to the PRN bit count since then Exactly. So at any time the receiver will know the times of transmission of all the signals it is receiving 'now'. And since the receiver knows the nominal position of the SVs as a function of time, and it has received the orbit correction data from the SVs, it will know the exact [*] position of all the SVs when they transmitted the signals it is receiving 'now'. [*] within the precision of the SV clock >> (all delayed by thedistance over c, of course). Yes, but not quite. c is the speed of light in vacuum, but the signal is not in vacuum. It has to pass the ionosphere which is a plasma, and the speed of light in a plasma is lower than c. So the signal will be delayed in the ionosphere. This delay varies between daytime and nighttime, it varies with latitude, it varies with season, and it varies with solar activity (the ionosphere is ionized by the solar wind). The diurnal variation is strongest, a typical variation in the delay will be ~ 10 ns at night, and 50 - 80 ns during the day. This delay must be corrected for, which is done as follows: The receiver has a model of the ionosphere to calculate the delay. This model has a number of parameters which depend on the conditions in the ionosphere. The GPS monitoring stations will monitor the ionosphere and calculate the values of these parameters and upload them to the SVs, which will transmit them to the receiver. > > ...and since it is the distance that you are trying to determine, you > are in a bit of trouble.... What are you babbling about? All you have to do is to solve the four equations with respect to the time of reception t and the position of the receiver (x,y,z): (with the correction mentioned above) (tn-t) = sqrt((x_n - x)^2 + (y_n - y)^2 + (z_n - z)^2)/c n = 1,2,3,4 where tn is the known time of transmission of the signal from SV n, and (x_n, y_n, z_n) is its known position at the time t_n. All coordinates in the ECI-frame. And note: The radial speed of the satellites at 45 degrees from vertical is ~ +/- 600m/s = +/- 2E-6 c. If the speed of light were source dependent this would give a variation in the delay of +/- 133ns as the satellite passed from +45 degrees to -45 degrees. The GPS wouldn't work. But the GPS does work so the speed of light doesn't depend on the speed of the source. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 09:15 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nt6idm$19gr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394998 |
On 07/10/16 01:23, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > So at any time the receiver will know the times of transmission > of all the signals it is receiving 'now'. And since the receiver > knows the nominal position of the SVs as a function of time, > and it has received the orbit correction data from the SVs, > it will know the exact [*] position of all the SVs when they > transmitted the signals it is receiving 'now'. > > [*] within the precision of the SV clock > > >>> (all delayed by thedistance over c, of course). > > Yes, but not quite. c is the speed of light in vacuum, > but the signal is not in vacuum. It has to pass the ionosphere > which is a plasma, and the speed of light in a plasma is lower > than c. So the signal will be delayed in the ionosphere. > This delay varies between daytime and nighttime, it varies > with latitude, it varies with season, and it varies with > solar activity (the ionosphere is ionized by the solar wind). > The diurnal variation is strongest, a typical variation in > the delay will be ~ 10 ns at night, and 50 - 80 ns during > the day. This delay must be corrected for, which is done > as follows: > The receiver has a model of the ionosphere to calculate > the delay. This model has a number of parameters which > depend on the conditions in the ionosphere. The GPS > monitoring stations will monitor the ionosphere and > calculate the values of these parameters and upload > them to the SVs, which will transmit them to the receiver. In reality, this provides a neat way of empirically correcting out the use of c rather than c+v without actually telling anyone. (not to mention the infamous 'GR corretion' and all the other bogus SR based corrections) >> ...and since it is the distance that you are trying to determine, you >> are in a bit of trouble.... > > What are you babbling about? > > All you have to do is to solve the four equations > with respect to the time of reception t and > the position of the receiver (x,y,z): > (with the correction mentioned above) > > (tn-t) = sqrt((x_n - x)^2 + (y_n - y)^2 + (z_n - z)^2)/c > n = 1,2,3,4 > > where tn is the known time of transmission of the signal from SV n, > and (x_n, y_n, z_n) is its known position at the time t_n. > > All coordinates in the ECI-frame. > > And note: > > The radial speed of the satellites at 45 degrees from vertical > is ~ +/- 600m/s = +/- 2E-6 c. > If the speed of light were source dependent this would > give a variation in the delay of +/- 133ns as the satellite > passed from +45 degrees to -45 degrees. > The GPS wouldn't work. > But the GPS does work so the speed of light doesn't depend > on the speed of the source. In the frame of a satellite, the clock is at rest, the signal departs at speed c and the receiver is moving. The signal leaves at time t and arrives at t'. Both are recorded as numbers on presynched clocks. From the satellite's POV, the term c(t'-t) is the length of a line between it and the current position of the moving receiver. From the receiver's POV, the satellite has moved so the same line c(t'-t) must be the distance from IT to the CURRENT position of the satellite. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 09:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nt7km0$5ml$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #395040 |
On 07.10.2016 00:15, HGW wrote: > On 07/10/16 01:23, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> All you have to do is to solve the four equations >> with respect to the time of reception t and >> the position of the receiver (x,y,z): >> >> (t-tn) = sqrt((x_n - x)^2 + (y_n - y)^2 + (z_n - z)^2)/c >> n = 1,2,3,4 >> >> where tn is the known time of transmission of the signal from SV n, >> and (x_n, y_n, z_n) is its known position at the time t_n. >> >> All coordinates in the ECI-frame. >> >> And note: >> >> The radial speed of the satellites at 45 degrees from vertical >> is ~ +/- 600m/s = +/- 2E-6 c. >> If the speed of light were source dependent this would >> give a variation in the delay of +/- 133ns as the satellite >> passed from +45 degrees to -45 degrees. >> The GPS wouldn't work. > >> But the GPS does work so the speed of light doesn't depend >> on the speed of the source. This is one falsification of the emission theory, and thanks for giving yet another falsification of the emission theory: > In the frame of a satellite, the clock is at rest, the signal departs at > speed c and the receiver is moving. The signal leaves at time t and > arrives at t'. Both are recorded as numbers on presynched clocks. From > the satellite's POV, the term c(t'-t) is the length of a line between it > and the current position of the moving receiver. > From the receiver's POV, the satellite has moved so the same line > c(t'-t) must be the distance from IT to the CURRENT position of the > satellite. > The reason why the c(t'-t) is the distance between the satellite and receiver at the time of reception is obviously based on the assumptions that Galilean relativity applies and that the speed of light is c in the source frame and thus c+/-v in the receiver frame. (v is the radial speed) The fact that the GPS works when the equations I showed above are used prove that c(t'-t) is the distance between the position of the satellite at the time of emission and the position of the receiver at the time of reception. Your scenario is thus a falsification of the emission theory. Thanks again, Ralph. Well done! -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-08 21:44 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ntailk$1nge$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395077 |
On 07/10/16 18:59, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 07.10.2016 00:15, HGW wrote: > > The reason why the c(t'-t) is the distance between the satellite > and receiver at the time of reception is obviously based on > the assumptions that Galilean relativity applies and that > the speed of light is c in the source frame and thus c+/-v > in the receiver frame. (v is the radial speed) > > The fact that the GPS works when the equations I showed above > are used prove that c(t'-t) is the distance between the position > of the satellite at the time of emission and the position of > the receiver at the time of reception. > Your scenario is thus a falsification of the emission theory. Paul, four lines are effectively drawn from the clock coordinates at signal emission time and their arcs intersect on Earth. Their lengths are c(t'-t). The speed of the signals is c relative to the clocks. That is why the the GPS works. GPS prove BaTh. > Thanks again, Ralph. > Well done! > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 20 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 18 19 [20] 21 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web