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 3 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 22 Next page →
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-09-30 10:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4c30bfe1-4e30-4890-9d23-5e87ae2c634c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394305 |
El jueves, 29 de septiembre de 2016, 20:08:12 (UTC-4), HGW escribió: > On 30/09/16 03:00, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > El jueves, 29 de septiembre de 2016, 1:22:32 (UTC-4), HGW escribió: > >> On 29/09/16 00:51, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > >>> El miércoles, 28 de septiembre de 2016, 0:14:54 (UTC-4), HGW escribió: > >> > >>>> > >>>> There is no such evidence...and as I have just pointed out, the > >>>> algorithm terms used, ie., c(t'-t) give the current range automatically, > >>>> without having to correct for the satellite's movement. > >>>> The trick was to use (c+v)t and then subtract vt. Neat,eh? ...and nobody > >>>> realizes that c+v was assumed. > >>>> > >>> YOUR trick is a totally invalid one, as explained immediately. > >>> > >>> vt means the space run by a moving entity with velocity v in time t, ONLY in a > >>> frame where Newtonian equations hold good, and a one where an operative > >>> satellite or receptor is considered at rest is NOT such a frame according to > >>> 1686NM. > >> > >> Newton's equations hold good in all situations. > >> > > That is a totally false assertion, putting in evidence your insufficient 1686 > > Newtonian Mechanics (1686NM) knowledge. As a simple example, in the Ptolemy's > > system of coordinates with an assumed Earth at rest, 1686NM laws and equations > > do not hold good. > > Actually they do...but the calculations immediately become too messy to > handle. > Calculations are not involved at all here. You simply have not idea at all about what means that 1686NM does not hold good in the Ptolemy's system of coordinates with an assumed Earth at rest. I will try to explain it for you in a simple manner. 1686NM follows the same development way than the Euclidean geometry, starting from the assumed validity of few Axioms or Postulates and deriving then from them the theorems. The fact is that the assumed by Ptolemy rest Earth is already in contradiction with the three 1686NM Axioms (or Laws of Motion). To make compatible Ptolemy's view with 1686 Newton's one, we need a not existing at all infinite massive Earth. > >>> The c(t’-t) is the unique valid distance in a Newtonian frame (the GPS ECI > >>> system, a Newtonian Center of Mass one); not at all yours (c+v)t, vt and ct. > >> > >> c(t'-t), vt and ct are absolute distances. A rod can be placed across > >> them......and rods never change. > >> > > Your vt assumes a receptor at rest and a satellite with velocity v, and your ct > > a satellite at rest and a signal with velocity c; both situations never exist > > in the operative GPS, representing flagrant violations of 1686NM axioms or > > laws. Only the c(t'-t) is a valid absolute distance in the ECI Newtonian frame, > > compatible with the synchronization of all operative clocks. > > HAHAHHAHHA! I have just told you the truth but you wont listen. c(t'-t) > is really derived from (c+v(t'-t) -vt....the correct ballistic equation > for GPS signals. > That is a totally false derivation. v(t'-t) assumes already a rest receptor in contradiction with the 1686NM Axioms valid in the GPS ECI. The c(t'-t) is the unique valid distance compatible with 1686NM, with already the extraordinary HUGE experimental support of the GPS operation. I know that it will be very difficult for you to accept the experimental reality of today GPS, in total contradiction with the BaTh that you defend. > > By the way, who says that a rod never changes? Have you also insufficient > > Thermodynamics knowledge? > > You are very juvenile. The 'Perfect' rods used in thought experiments > have zero coefficients of thermal expansion. They also have infinite Y.M. > In the 1905R thought experiments, it is derived for a moving rod a little less length than a rest one, and for a moving clock a little slower running than a rest one. No mention at all of any 'Perfect' rod with zero coefficients of thermal expansion and infinite Young Module. The derivations are done starting from the validity of the two 1905R postulates, the same ones having today the already mentioned extraordinary HUGE experimental support of the GPS operation. > >>> Your problem is with 1686 Newton, having you not at all the right to violate > >>> 1686NM laws only because 1905 Einstein accepts the validity of them, no matter > >>> at all your opinion (or any other one) about his work. > >> > >> Einstein didn't accept them at all. He was a first rate hypocrite. > >> > > Einstein’s first 1905R postulate (denoted by him "Principle of Relativity") > > says (between [ ]): > > > > [ the same laws of electrodynamics and optics will be valid for all frames of > > reference for which the equations of mechanics hold good ] > > Yes, he pretended to accept Newton's relativity idea but then went on to > violate it by claiming that many absolute quantities were frame dependent. > Until now, you are here the unique one violating 1686NM Axioms, including then the 1686NM Corollary V (Galileo's Principle of Relativity). More probably, you have not idea at all about what Corollary V says, surely confusing it with the today SR symmetric equivalence of inertial frames. > > Are you pretending to change the History? On this group exists persons even > > affirming that 1905R never existed as a different from today SR theory, that it > > is only my personal wrong interpretation. Perhaps what you are trying to say is > > that Einstein changes later his way of think? If that is the case, we are in > > total agreement about this point. > > SR is based on Einstein' second postulate. His first was stolen from > Poincare and is irrelevant. I am talking here only about 1905R, very different from the later developed SR. Poincare managed the luminiferous ether that 1905 Einstein derived superfluous, precisely applying his first postulate that today finds the extraordinary HUGE support of GPS. It is a complete absurdity to credit Poincare with the holding good of 1864 Maxwell's electrodynamics (including the isotropic vacuum light speed c) in all Center of Mass Newtonian systems. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-01 08:50 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <nsmq7j$11ll$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394409 |
On 01/10/16 03:32, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > El jueves, 29 de septiembre de 2016, 20:08:12 (UTC-4), HGW escribió: >> On 30/09/16 03:00, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: >>>> Newton's equations hold good in all situations. >>>> >>> That is a totally false assertion, putting in evidence your insufficient 1686 >>> Newtonian Mechanics (1686NM) knowledge. As a simple example, in the Ptolemy's >>> system of coordinates with an assumed Earth at rest, 1686NM laws and equations >>> do not hold good. >> >> Actually they do...but the calculations immediately become too messy to >> handle. >> > Calculations are not involved at all here. You simply have not idea at all > about what means that 1686NM does not hold good in the Ptolemy's system of > coordinates with an assumed Earth at rest. I will try to explain it for you in > a simple manner. > > 1686NM follows the same development way than the Euclidean geometry, starting > from the assumed validity of few Axioms or Postulates and deriving then from > them the theorems. The fact is that the assumed by Ptolemy rest Earth is > already in contradiction with the three 1686NM Axioms (or Laws of Motion). The Earth's frame is constantly accelerating t different rates and in different directions. If that could be included in the calculations, then it would, in theory, be possible to predict the movements of other bodies in the universe. Of course it is impossible except maybe for very short periods. You should realize however that your own arguments are assuming the sun is 'at rest'....which is not true. It too experiences constant accelerations. > To make compatible Ptolemy's view with 1686 Newton's one, we need a not > existing at all infinite massive Earth. > >>>>> The c(t’-t) is the unique valid distance in a Newtonian frame (the GPS ECI >>>>> system, a Newtonian Center of Mass one); not at all yours (c+v)t, vt and ct. >>>> >>>> c(t'-t), vt and ct are absolute distances. A rod can be placed across >>>> them......and rods never change. >>>> >>> Your vt assumes a receptor at rest and a satellite with velocity v, and your ct >>> a satellite at rest and a signal with velocity c; both situations never exist >>> in the operative GPS, representing flagrant violations of 1686NM axioms or >>> laws. Only the c(t'-t) is a valid absolute distance in the ECI Newtonian frame, >>> compatible with the synchronization of all operative clocks. >> >> HAHAHHAHHA! I have just told you the truth but you wont listen. c(t'-t) >> is really derived from (c+v(t'-t) -vt....the correct ballistic equation >> for GPS signals. >> > That is a totally false derivation. v(t'-t) assumes already a rest receptor in > contradiction with the 1686NM Axioms valid in the GPS ECI. The c(t'-t) is the > unique valid distance compatible with 1686NM, with already the extraordinary > HUGE experimental support of the GPS operation. I agree....but you cannot see that the term c(t'-t) is actually derived from (c+v)(t'-t)-vt. > I know that it will be very difficult for you to accept the experimental > reality of today GPS, in total contradiction with the BaTh that you defend. The experimental reality proves that c+v is used before the satellite's movement vt is corrected out. I just showed you why.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 05:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <cede7cf7-b405-4e61-8474-0f608f4c0c78@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394448 |
El viernes, 30 de septiembre de 2016, 18:50:32 (UTC-4), HGW escribió: > On 01/10/16 03:32, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > El jueves, 29 de septiembre de 2016, 20:08:12 (UTC-4), HGW escribió: > >> On 30/09/16 03:00, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > >>>> Newton's equations hold good in all situations. > >>>> > >>> That is a totally false assertion, putting in evidence your insufficient 1686 > >>> Newtonian Mechanics (1686NM) knowledge. As a simple example, in the Ptolemy's > >>> system of coordinates with an assumed Earth at rest, 1686NM laws and equations > >>> do not hold good. > >> > >> Actually they do...but the calculations immediately become too messy to > >> handle. > >> > > Calculations are not involved at all here. You simply have not idea at all > > about what means that 1686NM does not hold good in the Ptolemy's system of > > coordinates with an assumed Earth at rest. I will try to explain it for you in > > a simple manner. > > > > 1686NM follows the same development way than the Euclidean geometry, starting > > from the assumed validity of few Axioms or Postulates and deriving then from > > them the theorems. The fact is that the assumed by Ptolemy rest Earth is > > already in contradiction with the three 1686NM Axioms (or Laws of Motion). > > The Earth's frame is constantly accelerating t different rates and in > different directions. If that could be included in the calculations, > then it would, in theory, be possible to predict the movements of other > bodies in the universe. Of course it is impossible except maybe for very > short periods. > > You should realize however that your own arguments are assuming the sun > is 'at rest'....which is not true. It too experiences constant > accelerations. > You are only putting in evidence here your ignorance about basic 1686NM, centuries before 1905 Einstein. See what says Corollary VI of 1686NM , a generalization of the V (Galileo's Principle of Relativity from zero acceleration (any uniform velocity) to any variable acceleration (centuries before GR): (1686 Newton’s literal words between [ ]) [ COROLLARY VI. "If bodies, any how moved among themselves, are urged in the direction of parallel lines by equal accelerative forces, they will all continue to move among themselves, after the same, manner as if they had been urged by no such forces." For these forces acting equally (with respect to the quantities of the bodies to be moved), and in the direction of parallel lines, will (by Law II) move all the bodies equally (as to velocity), and therefore will never produce any change in the positions or motions of the bodies among themselves. ] The requirement of parallel equal accelerative forces hold very good for the Solar system accelerated as a whole entity in the Galaxy system. This is why we can apply 1686NM to the Solar system considering it as the whole Universe, ignoring completely the presence of all bodies external to it (Newton did it). A similar procedure is done with the Earth frame, where even the presence of he Moon can be ignored in the original GPS design. > > To make compatible Ptolemy's view with 1686 Newton's one, we need a not > > existing at all infinite massive Earth. > > According to 1686NM, any finite massive entity cannot be considered at rest if we want to describe its interaction with other external entities; but thanks to Corollary VI, that is not at all a problem if we are interested to describe the interactions among its internal parts, as in the Solar system case or the GPS ECI one. > >>>>> The c(t’-t) is the unique valid distance in a Newtonian frame (the GPS ECI > >>>>> system, a Newtonian Center of Mass one); not at all yours (c+v)t, vt and ct. > >>>> > >>>> c(t'-t), vt and ct are absolute distances. A rod can be placed across > >>>> them......and rods never change. > >>>> > >>> Your vt assumes a receptor at rest and a satellite with velocity v, and your ct > >>> a satellite at rest and a signal with velocity c; both situations never exist > >>> in the operative GPS, representing flagrant violations of 1686NM axioms or > >>> laws. Only the c(t'-t) is a valid absolute distance in the ECI Newtonian frame, > >>> compatible with the synchronization of all operative clocks. > >> > >> HAHAHHAHHA! I have just told you the truth but you wont listen. c(t'-t) > >> is really derived from (c+v(t'-t) -vt....the correct ballistic equation > >> for GPS signals. > >> > > That is a totally false derivation. v(t'-t) assumes already a rest receptor in > > contradiction with the 1686NM Axioms valid in the GPS ECI. The c(t'-t) is the > > unique valid distance compatible with 1686NM, with already the extraordinary > > HUGE experimental support of the GPS operation. > > I agree....but you cannot see that the term c(t'-t) is actually derived > from (c+v)(t'-t)-vt. > That derivation is also a wrong one, implying 1686NM Axioms violations, because vt is NOT a valid 1686NM distance in the GPS ECI (assumes a not existing receptor at rest). > > I know that it will be very difficult for you to accept the experimental > > reality of today GPS, in total contradiction with the BaTh that you defend. > > The experimental reality proves that c+v is used before the satellite's > movement vt is corrected out. > I just showed you why. Neither c+v nor vt are in the GPS ECI valid 1686NM distances, as I showed to you already in all detail (with the additional support in this post of 1686 Newton's literal words). The experimentally reality of GPS supports c(t'-t) as the unique valid 1686NM distance, in total agreement with the two 1905R original postulates. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 07:41 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nt144v$c60$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394671 |
On 03/10/16 23:38, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > El viernes, 30 de septiembre de 2016, 18:50:32 (UTC-4), HGW escribió: > You are only putting in evidence here your ignorance about basic 1686NM, > centuries before 1905 Einstein. > > See what says Corollary VI of 1686NM , a generalization of the V (Galileo's > Principle of Relativity from zero acceleration (any uniform velocity) to any > variable acceleration (centuries before GR): > > (1686 Newton’s literal words between [ ]) [ COROLLARY VI. > > "If bodies, any how moved among themselves, are urged in the direction of > parallel lines by equal accelerative forces, they will all continue to move > among themselves, after the same, manner as if they had been urged by no such > forces." > > For these forces acting equally (with respect to the quantities of the bodies > to be moved), and in the direction of parallel lines, will (by Law II) move all > the bodies equally (as to velocity), and therefore will never produce any > change in the positions or motions of the bodies among themselves. ] > > The requirement of parallel equal accelerative forces hold very good for the > Solar system accelerated as a whole entity in the Galaxy system. This is why we > can apply 1686NM to the Solar system considering it as the whole Universe, > ignoring completely the presence of all bodies external to it (Newton did it). > A similar procedure is done with the Earth frame, where even the presence of > he Moon can be ignored in the original GPS design. That is true for inertial frames but if the sun is accelerating, what you are saying is wrong. >>> To make compatible Ptolemy's view with 1686 Newton's one, we need a not >>> existing at all infinite massive Earth. >>> > According to 1686NM, any finite massive entity cannot be considered at rest if > we want to describe its interaction with other external entities; but thanks to > Corollary VI, that is not at all a problem if we are interested to describe the > interactions among its internal parts, as in the Solar system case or the GPS > ECI one. GPS clock orbits are constantly adjusted using empirical methods. After that, the man concern is keeping all the clocks in absolute synch with each other. >> I agree....but you cannot see that the term c(t'-t) is actually derived >> from (c+v)(t'-t)-vt. >> > That derivation is also a wrong one, implying 1686NM Axioms violations, because > vt is NOT a valid 1686NM distance in the GPS ECI (assumes a not existing > receptor at rest). It is not wrong. It is simple maths that applies to any situation where a time signal is sent from a relatively moving source. It gives the distance to the source at the instant the signal is received. >>> I know that it will be very difficult for you to accept the experimental >>> reality of today GPS, in total contradiction with the BaTh that you defend. >> >> The experimental reality proves that c+v is used before the satellite's >> movement vt is corrected out. >> I just showed you why. > > Neither c+v nor vt are in the GPS ECI valid 1686NM distances, as I showed to > you already in all detail (with the additional support in this post of 1686 > Newton's literal words). > > The experimentally reality of GPS supports c(t'-t) as the unique valid 1686NM > distance, in total agreement with the two 1905R original postulates. GPS needs 4 such equations to pinpoint a location on Earth. No four time signals arrive at any receiver at the same instant. The receiver has to correct for that and it is very conveniently achieved by subtracting vt from (c+v)(t'-t). That makes it only appear that c rather than c+v is used in the system. > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 05:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1f2e6620-2563-4ce9-bb4e-dbc1b7941f14@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394843 |
El martes, 4 de octubre de 2016, 16:41:07 (UTC-4), HGW escribió: > On 03/10/16 23:38, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > El viernes, 30 de septiembre de 2016, 18:50:32 (UTC-4), HGW escribió: > > > You are only putting in evidence here your ignorance about basic 1686NM, > > centuries before 1905 Einstein. > > > > See what says Corollary VI of 1686NM , a generalization of the V (Galileo's > > Principle of Relativity from zero acceleration (any uniform velocity) to any > > variable acceleration (centuries before GR): > > > > (1686 Newton’s literal words between [ ]) [ COROLLARY VI. > > > > "If bodies, any how moved among themselves, are urged in the direction of > > parallel lines by equal accelerative forces, they will all continue to move > > among themselves, after the same, manner as if they had been urged by no such > > forces." > > > > For these forces acting equally (with respect to the quantities of the bodies > > to be moved), and in the direction of parallel lines, will (by Law II) move all > > the bodies equally (as to velocity), and therefore will never produce any > > change in the positions or motions of the bodies among themselves. ] > > > > The requirement of parallel equal accelerative forces hold very good for the > > Solar system accelerated as a whole entity in the Galaxy system. This is why we > > can apply 1686NM to the Solar system considering it as the whole Universe, > > ignoring completely the presence of all bodies external to it (Newton did it). > > A similar procedure is done with the Earth frame, where even the presence of > > he Moon can be ignored in the original GPS design. > > That is true for inertial frames but if the sun is accelerating, what > you are saying is wrong. > I am saying absolutely nothing about the *inertial frames* of today SR. The point that we are just debating has nothing to do with SR, but only with 1686NM, and you seem not understanding the meaning of its Cor. VI, the one with the literal text that I just gave you. I will try to explain it to you again with additional details. 1686NM Cor. VI refer to Newtonian Center of Mass (CM) systems, sets of interacting bodies sufficiently far away from other bodies to be modeled (each different set) by a single material point on its corresponding CM determined following 1686 Newton's three Axioms or Laws. By Cor. VI, we can then consider such CM system as if it were the whole Universe, with its CM at absolute rest and a single absolute time to describe the trajectories of all involved interacting bodies. The 1905R stationary systems are then the 1686NM CM ones. The Solar system is the more typical CM one, considering 1686 Newton that it CM (today barycenter) is at absolute rest. Our today GPS ECI system is also a CM one. Each CM is then (without any contradiction at all) at the relative absolute rest of its own system, and also an absolute moving whole entity with a relative velocity and acceleration in some higher hierarchy CM system. The Solar system barycenter is at rest on its own system, and accelerated as part of the higher hierarchy Galaxy system. The Earth's CM is at rest on the GPS ECI, and accelerated in the higher hierarchy Solar system. > >>> To make compatible Ptolemy's view with 1686 Newton's one, we need a not > >>> existing at all infinite massive Earth. > >>> > > According to 1686NM, any finite massive entity cannot be considered at rest if > > we want to describe its interaction with other external entities; but thanks to > > Corollary VI, that is not at all a problem if we are interested to describe the > > interactions among its internal parts, as in the Solar system case or the GPS > > ECI one. > > GPS clock orbits are constantly adjusted using empirical methods. After > that, the man concern is keeping all the clocks in absolute synch with > each other. > Total agreement, the important point is just to have always a single absolute time in all the corresponding stationary space points of a CM system. For practical reasons, the GPS clocks are not constantly physically adjusted, but the same result is obtained including part of the adjusting data included in what the receptors receive. The necessary periodical adjustment due to the non-perfect circular orbit of the satellites is managed in this way. > > >> I agree....but you cannot see that the term c(t'-t) is actually derived > >> from (c+v)(t'-t)-vt. > >> > > That derivation is also a wrong one, implying 1686NM Axioms violations, because > > vt is NOT a valid 1686NM distance in the GPS ECI (assumes a not existing > > receptor at rest). > > It is not wrong. It is simple maths that applies to any situation where > a time signal is sent from a relatively moving source. It gives the > distance to the source at the instant the signal is received. > You are totally wrong in this point. The satellite source is moving accelerated in a circular orbit (not a linear movement), being only necessary for the good GPS operation to take into account its position at the transmission instant, not at all its position at the reception one. The distance to the moving source at the instant the signal is received is not computed or used at all in any way on the GPS. Your argument trying to justify the BaTh is then completely false. > >>> I know that it will be very difficult for you to accept the experimental > >>> reality of today GPS, in total contradiction with the BaTh that you defend. > >> > >> The experimental reality proves that c+v is used before the satellite's > >> movement vt is corrected out. > >> I just showed you why. > > > > Neither c+v nor vt are in the GPS ECI valid 1686NM distances, as I showed to > > you already in all detail (with the additional support in this post of 1686 > > Newton's literal words). > > > > The experimentally reality of GPS supports c(t'-t) as the unique valid 1686NM > > distance, in total agreement with the two 1905R original postulates. > > GPS needs 4 such equations to pinpoint a location on Earth. No four time > signals arrive at any receiver at the same instant. The receiver has to > correct for that and it is very conveniently achieved by subtracting vt > from (c+v)(t'-t). > The transmission instants are the 4 different ones, the reception instant is the same unique one. Revise the system of Newtonian equations that all GPS receptors resolve. You seem very bad informed about basic GPS function. > That makes it only appear that c rather than c+v is used in the system. > Revise the GPS receptor software. Your satellite source speed v never appears. Only appears the isotropic signal speed c, as a very well established EXPERIMENTAL FACT. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 08:18 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nt3qmn$gdr$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394911 |
On 05/10/16 23:40, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > El martes, 4 de octubre de 2016, 16:41:07 (UTC-4), HGW escribió: > > 1686NM Cor. VI refer to Newtonian Center of Mass (CM) systems, sets of > interacting bodies sufficiently far away from other bodies to be modeled (each > different set) by a single material point on its corresponding CM determined > following 1686 Newton's three Axioms or Laws. By Cor. VI, we can then consider > such CM system as if it were the whole Universe, with its CM at absolute rest > and a single absolute time to describe the trajectories of all involved > interacting bodies. The 1905R stationary systems are then the 1686NM CM ones. > > The Solar system is the more typical CM one, considering 1686 Newton that it CM > (today barycenter) is at absolute rest. Our today GPS ECI system is also a CM > one. > > Each CM is then (without any contradiction at all) at the relative absolute > rest of its own system, and also an absolute moving whole entity with a > relative velocity and acceleration in some higher hierarchy CM system. > > The Solar system barycenter is at rest on its own system, and accelerated as > part of the higher hierarchy Galaxy system. The Earth's CM is at rest on the > GPS ECI, and accelerated in the higher hierarchy Solar system. That is what I have been saying. >> GPS clock orbits are constantly adjusted using empirical methods. After >> that, the man concern is keeping all the clocks in absolute synch with >> each other. >> > Total agreement, the important point is just to have always a single absolute > time in all the corresponding stationary space points of a CM system. > > For practical reasons, the GPS clocks are not constantly physically adjusted, > but the same result is obtained including part of the adjusting data included > in what the receptors receive. The necessary periodical adjustment due to the > non-perfect circular orbit of the satellites is managed in this way. > >> >>>> I agree....but you cannot see that the term c(t'-t) is actually derived >>>> from (c+v)(t'-t)-vt. >>>> >>> That derivation is also a wrong one, implying 1686NM Axioms violations, because >>> vt is NOT a valid 1686NM distance in the GPS ECI (assumes a not existing >>> receptor at rest). >> >> It is not wrong. It is simple maths that applies to any situation where >> a time signal is sent from a relatively moving source. It gives the >> distance to the source at the instant the signal is received. >> > You are totally wrong in this point. The satellite source is moving accelerated > in a circular orbit (not a linear movement), being only necessary for the good > GPS operation to take into account its position at the transmission instant, > not at all its position at the reception one. The distance to the moving source > at the instant the signal is received is not computed or used at all in any way > on the GPS. Your argument trying to justify the BaTh is then completely false. You people are forgetting that all the time signals of, say, 12.00000 from the satellites arrive at different instants at a particular receiver. They might arrive milliseconds apart. My point is relevant to the way corrections are made to bring them into line. > The transmission instants are the 4 different ones, the reception instant is > the same unique one. Revise the system of Newtonian equations that all GPS > receptors resolve. You seem very bad informed about basic GPS function. > >> That makes it only appear that c rather than c+v is used in the system. >> > Revise the GPS receptor software. Your satellite source speed v never appears. > Only appears the isotropic signal speed c, as a very well established > EXPERIMENTAL FACT. It is there but it disappears in the correction. Anyway my original post was more about determining the distance of an object that is moving towards an observer. If its time signal moves at c+v, its original distance was c+v(t'-t). Meanwhile it has moved v(t'-t). Therefore its current distance from the observer is c(t'-t), at the instant of receipt of signal. Do you understand that? > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 09:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <134e15aa-17e3-4e33-964e-f67c25bb54c2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #394952 |
El miércoles, 5 de octubre de 2016, 17:18:20 (UTC-4), HGW escribió: > On 05/10/16 23:40, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > El martes, 4 de octubre de 2016, 16:41:07 (UTC-4), HGW escribió: > > > > > 1686NM Cor. VI refer to Newtonian Center of Mass (CM) systems, sets of > > interacting bodies sufficiently far away from other bodies to be modeled (each > > different set) by a single material point on its corresponding CM determined > > following 1686 Newton's three Axioms or Laws. By Cor. VI, we can then consider > > such CM system as if it were the whole Universe, with its CM at absolute rest > > and a single absolute time to describe the trajectories of all involved > > interacting bodies. The 1905R stationary systems are then the 1686NM CM ones. > > > > The Solar system is the more typical CM one, considering 1686 Newton that it CM > > (today barycenter) is at absolute rest. Our today GPS ECI system is also a CM > > one. > > > > Each CM is then (without any contradiction at all) at the relative absolute > > rest of its own system, and also an absolute moving whole entity with a > > relative velocity and acceleration in some higher hierarchy CM system. > > > > The Solar system barycenter is at rest on its own system, and accelerated as > > part of the higher hierarchy Galaxy system. The Earth's CM is at rest on the > > GPS ECI, and accelerated in the higher hierarchy Solar system. > > That is what I have been saying. > I take note of what you say. > > >> GPS clock orbits are constantly adjusted using empirical methods. After > >> that, the man concern is keeping all the clocks in absolute synch with > >> each other. > >> > > Total agreement, the important point is just to have always a single absolute > > time in all the corresponding stationary space points of a CM system. > > > > For practical reasons, the GPS clocks are not constantly physically adjusted, > > but the same result is obtained including part of the adjusting data included > > in what the receptors receive. The necessary periodical adjustment due to the > > non-perfect circular orbit of the satellites is managed in this way. > > > >> > >>>> I agree....but you cannot see that the term c(t'-t) is actually derived > >>>> from (c+v)(t'-t)-vt. > >>>> > >>> That derivation is also a wrong one, implying 1686NM Axioms violations, because > >>> vt is NOT a valid 1686NM distance in the GPS ECI (assumes a not existing > >>> receptor at rest). > >> > >> It is not wrong. It is simple maths that applies to any situation where > >> a time signal is sent from a relatively moving source. It gives the > >> distance to the source at the instant the signal is received. > >> > > You are totally wrong in this point. The satellite source is moving accelerated > > in a circular orbit (not a linear movement), being only necessary for the good > > GPS operation to take into account its position at the transmission instant, > > not at all its position at the reception one. The distance to the moving source > > at the instant the signal is received is not computed or used at all in any way > > on the GPS. Your argument trying to justify the BaTh is then completely false. > > You people are forgetting that all the time signals of, say, 12.00000 > from the satellites arrive at different instants at a particular > receiver. They might arrive milliseconds apart. My point is relevant to > the way corrections are made to bring them into line. > You are the one that seem not knowing that the signal a GPS operative satellite broadcasts and each receptor receives is a continuous one, not existing at all in the receptor an atomic clock able to detect with precision the arriving time of any thing. What is denoted reception instant t on the system of Newtonian equations that the receptor resolves is an unknown to find with a single possible value, depending on the coded and decoded data in the continuous signal containing the precise positions (x_i, y_i, z_i) at time t_i of the involved (at least 4) i satellites. I repeat for you the system of equations: (x-x_i)^2+ (y-y_i)^2+ (z-z_i)^2= (ct-ct_i)^2 As you can see, your arriving events at different instants (with supposed huge milliseconds apart) in the receptor do not exist at all in the GPS. The unique velocity that appears in the receptor software is the signal isotropic velocity c; the satellite velocity v (changing direction continuously) does not appear on any part. > > > The transmission instants are the 4 different ones, the reception instant is > > the same unique one. Revise the system of Newtonian equations that all GPS > > receptors resolve. You seem very bad informed about basic GPS function. > > > >> That makes it only appear that c rather than c+v is used in the system. > >> > > Revise the GPS receptor software. Your satellite source speed v never appears. > > Only appears the isotropic signal speed c, as a very well established > > EXPERIMENTAL FACT. > > It is there but it disappears in the correction. But you are referring to a correction that does not exist at all on the open software. > Anyway my original post was more about determining the distance of an > object that is moving towards an observer. If its time signal moves at > c+v, its original distance was c+v(t'-t). Meanwhile it has moved > v(t'-t). Therefore its current distance from the observer is c(t'-t), at > the instant of receipt of signal. > Yes, IF its time signal moves at c+v, but the EXPERIMENTAL FACT is that in the GPS ECI the moving at velocity v satellite continuous signal moves at c, not at all at c+v. That is already more than sufficient to knock out your BaTh. > Do you understand that? > I understand all what you say (at least I think so), including your very strong motivation defending BaTh. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 09:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <45b22248-3d61-40bb-a801-87f25201fb7a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395109 |
W dniu piątek, 7 października 2016 18:31:59 UTC+2 użytkownik Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato napisał: > You are the one that seem not knowing that the signal a GPS operative satellite > broadcasts and each receptor receives is a continuous one, not existing at all > in the receptor an atomic clock able to detect with precision the arriving > time of any thing. > > What is denoted reception instant t on the system of Newtonian equations that > the receptor resolves is an unknown to find with a single possible value, > depending on the coded and decoded data in the continuous signal containing the > precise positions (x_i, y_i, z_i) at time t_i of the involved (at least 4) i > satellites. I repeat for you the system of equations: > > (x-x_i)^2+ (y-y_i)^2+ (z-z_i)^2= (ct-ct_i)^2 > > As you can see, your arriving events at different instants (with supposed huge > milliseconds apart) in the receptor do not exist at all in the GPS. The unique > velocity that appears in the receptor software is the signal isotropic velocity > c; the satellite velocity v (changing direction continuously) does not appear > on any part. Ah! You ignores completely the moving clock effect, therefore you can omit the speeds modification: c-v; thus you conclude finally the speed of signal is preserved - the c = inv. Yes? You are very stupid. :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-07 13:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a49576c1-c188-4244-85bd-87186863fc57@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395111 |
El viernes, 7 de octubre de 2016, 12:47:35 (UTC-4), al...@interia.pl escribió: > W dniu piątek, 7 października 2016 18:31:59 UTC+2 użytkownik Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato napisał: > > > You are the one that seem not knowing that the signal a GPS operative satellite > > broadcasts and each receptor receives is a continuous one, not existing at all > > in the receptor an atomic clock able to detect with precision the arriving > > time of any thing. > > > > What is denoted reception instant t on the system of Newtonian equations that > > the receptor resolves is an unknown to find with a single possible value, > > depending on the coded and decoded data in the continuous signal containing the > > precise positions (x_i, y_i, z_i) at time t_i of the involved (at least 4) i > > satellites. I repeat for you the system of equations: > > > > (x-x_i)^2+ (y-y_i)^2+ (z-z_i)^2= (ct-ct_i)^2 > > > > As you can see, your arriving events at different instants (with supposed huge > > milliseconds apart) in the receptor do not exist at all in the GPS. The unique > > velocity that appears in the receptor software is the signal isotropic velocity > > c; the satellite velocity v (changing direction continuously) does not appear > > on any part. > > Ah! You ignores completely the moving clock effect, I am referring to a GPS operative satellite, what implies that all clocks are already synchronized showing simultaneously the same time defined by 1905 Einstein for a stationary system, as the today denoted GPS ECI one is. It is common practice in today GPS to apply the adequate relativistic correction for the 1905R moving clock effect (and also the GR gravitational one) when still at ground before the launching. > therefore you can omit the speeds modification: c-v; That modification does not exist all in the GPS. In 1905 Relativity (1905R), in total agreement with its second postulate (an EXPERIMENTAL FACT since the successful 1977 GPS first satellite launching), the isotropic signal velocity c is independent of the operative satellite source velocity v. > thus you conclude finally the speed of signal is preserved - the c = inv. The isotropic signal velocity c has always the same constant value according to the 1905R first postulate, an EXPERIMENTAL FACT also since 1977, confirming also the character superfluous of any luminiferous ether. A unique 1905R stationary system is used in GPS, what implies that we have NOT any symmetric transformation between two different systems involved here. The symmetric c=invariant is present in SR, but not in 1905R where the running slower is always the moving clock, never the rest one. > > Yes? > No, all your deductions are contrary to the well established EXPERIMENTAL FACTS since 1977. > You are very stupid. :) I do not consider stupid to follow the scientific method; maybe you yes? RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-08 04:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c1e2dc14-63a5-4e1e-bf92-0f3e6e9b1a28@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395140 |
W dniu piątek, 7 października 2016 22:40:10 UTC+2 użytkownik Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato napisał: > El viernes, 7 de octubre de 2016, 12:47:35 (UTC-4), al...@interia.pl escribió: > > W dniu piątek, 7 października 2016 18:31:59 UTC+2 użytkownik Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato napisał: > > > > > You are the one that seem not knowing that the signal a GPS operative satellite > > > broadcasts and each receptor receives is a continuous one, not existing at all > > > in the receptor an atomic clock able to detect with precision the arriving > > > time of any thing. > > > > > > What is denoted reception instant t on the system of Newtonian equations that > > > the receptor resolves is an unknown to find with a single possible value, > > > depending on the coded and decoded data in the continuous signal containing the > > > precise positions (x_i, y_i, z_i) at time t_i of the involved (at least 4) i > > > satellites. I repeat for you the system of equations: > > > > > > (x-x_i)^2+ (y-y_i)^2+ (z-z_i)^2= (ct-ct_i)^2 > > > > > > As you can see, your arriving events at different instants (with supposed huge > > > milliseconds apart) in the receptor do not exist at all in the GPS. The unique > > > velocity that appears in the receptor software is the signal isotropic velocity > > > c; the satellite velocity v (changing direction continuously) does not appear > > > on any part. > > > > Ah! You ignores completely the moving clock effect, > > I am referring to a GPS operative satellite, what implies that all clocks are > already synchronized showing simultaneously the same time defined by 1905 > Einstein for a stationary system, as the today denoted GPS ECI one is. It is > common practice in today GPS to apply the adequate relativistic correction for > the 1905R moving clock effect (and also the GR gravitational one) when still at > ground before the launching. > > > therefore you can omit the speeds modification: c-v; > > That modification does not exist all in the GPS. In 1905 Relativity (1905R), in total agreement with its second postulate (an EXPERIMENTAL FACT since the successful 1977 GPS first satellite launching), the isotropic signal velocity c is independent of the operative satellite source velocity v. > > > thus you conclude finally the speed of signal is preserved - the c = inv. > > The isotropic signal velocity c has always the same constant value according to > the 1905R first postulate, an EXPERIMENTAL FACT also since 1977, confirming also > the character superfluous of any luminiferous ether. > > A unique 1905R stationary system is used in GPS, what implies that we have NOT > any symmetric transformation between two different systems involved here. The > symmetric c=invariant is present in SR, but not in 1905R where the running > slower is always the moving clock, never the rest one. > > > > > Yes? > > > No, all your deductions are contrary to the well established EXPERIMENTAL FACTS > since 1977. > > > You are very stupid. :) > > I do not consider stupid to follow the scientific method; maybe you yes? You never heard what is the scientific method. 1. theory: any sigal moves with speed: c' = c-v, 2. theory: when a clock moves on a curved path, then it changes it's speed, thus the clock-time also changes, acordingly. 3. in a starionaly system the both: 1 i 2, cancel one other, thus you can omit the both, just in this way: c = inv, and t-clock = inv.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-08 10:12 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nt9a44$3rh$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395109 |
On 08/10/16 03:31, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > El miércoles, 5 de octubre de 2016, 17:18:20 (UTC-4), HGW escribió: >> On 05/10/16 > What is denoted reception instant t on the system of Newtonian equations that > the receptor resolves is an unknown to find with a single possible value, > depending on the coded and decoded data in the continuous signal containing the > precise positions (x_i, y_i, z_i) at time t_i of the involved (at least 4) i > satellites. I repeat for you the system of equations: > > (x-x_i)^2+ (y-y_i)^2+ (z-z_i)^2= (ct-ct_i)^2 > > As you can see, your arriving events at different instants (with supposed huge > milliseconds apart) in the receptor do not exist at all in the GPS. The unique > velocity that appears in the receptor software is the signal isotropic velocity > c; the satellite velocity v (changing direction continuously) does not appear > on any part. Yes, The receiver clock time is not important....which proves the GR 'rate correction' is totally unnecessary and bogus. >> >>> The transmission instants are the 4 different ones, the reception instant is >>> the same unique one. Revise the system of Newtonian equations that all GPS >>> receptors resolve. You seem very bad informed about basic GPS function. >>> >>>> That makes it only appear that c rather than c+v is used in the system. >>>> >>> Revise the GPS receptor software. Your satellite source speed v never appears. >>> Only appears the isotropic signal speed c, as a very well established >>> EXPERIMENTAL FACT. >> >> It is there but it disappears in the correction. > > But you are referring to a correction that does not exist at all on the open > software. The use of c rather than c+v automatically corrects the error....so the correction appears to be nonexistent. >> Anyway my original post was more about determining the distance of an >> object that is moving towards an observer. If its time signal moves at >> c+v, its original distance was c+v(t'-t). Meanwhile it has moved >> v(t'-t). Therefore its current distance from the observer is c(t'-t), at >> the instant of receipt of signal. >> > Yes, IF its time signal moves at c+v, but the EXPERIMENTAL FACT is that in the > GPS ECI the moving at velocity v satellite continuous signal moves at c, not at > all at c+v. That is already more than sufficient to knock out your BaTh. > >> Do you understand that? >> > I understand all what you say (at least I think so), including your very strong > motivation defending BaTh. It is the correct theory. There is no aether, like you seem to believe. > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-08 15:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ntasaq$8ge$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #395164 |
On 08.10.2016 01:12, HGW wrote:
> On 08/10/16 03:31, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
>>
>> What is denoted reception instant t on
>> the system of Newtonian equations
"Newtonian equations"?
>> that the receptor resolves is an unknown to find with
>> a single possible value, depending on the coded and
>> decoded data in the continuous signal containing the
>> precise positions (x_i, y_i, z_i) at time t_i of the involved
>> (at least 4) i satellites.
>> I repeat for you the system of equations:
>>
>> (x-x_i)^2+ (y-y_i)^2+ (z-z_i)^2= (ct-ct_i)^2
Right.
And I will emphasise what may be implicit in the above:
Since the receiver knows the exact position of an SV [*]
at any time of the SV clock, the SV position is a function of t_i.
So the equation could be written:
c(t-t_i) = sqrt((x-x_i(t_i))^2+ (y-y_i(t_i)^2+ (z-z_i(t_i))^2)
The only parameter the receiver will need from each SV [*]
to calculate the current time and position (t,x,y,z) is
the time of emission of the signal it is receiving at the GPS-time t.
[*] The receiver will have to receive a number of data from
the SV, the ephemeris parameters to calculate the precise
position of the SV at the time t_i, the clock offset, and
the ionospheric parameters to calculate the ionospheric delay.
These data are transmitted with 12.5 minute period. But they
are updated typically once a day, so the only parameter
the receiver has to receive continuously (by counting PRN chips)
to calculate the time t and position (x,y,z) is the time
of transmission t_i.
>>
>> As you can see, your arriving events at different instants
>> (with supposed huge milliseconds apart)
>> in the receptor do not exist at all in the GPS.
>> The unique velocity that appears in the receptor software
>> is the signal isotropic velocity c;
>> the satellite velocity v (changing direction continuously)
>> does not appear on any part.
>
> Yes, The receiver clock time is not important....which proves the GR
> 'rate correction' is totally unnecessary and bogus.
This is really remarkable! :-D
For several years Ralph Malcom Rabbidge has been repeating
the incredible stupidity that the fact that no precise clock
in the receiver is needed proves that the SV clock rates do
not have to be adjusted by the factor 4.4647E-10.
What kind of down-under upside-down logic is behind this
nonsensical conclusion? :-D
The simple fact is that for the GPS to work, all the SV clocks
have to be synchronous to the GPS coordinated time to within 100ns.
(The sync error is generally much less than 100ns).
It is an irrefutable fact that if the SV clock rate weren't
adjusted down by 4.4647E-10, they would drift off sync by
more than 100ns few minutes after each correction, which is
done typically once a day.
You must live in Wonderland to think that the existence
or non existence of a clock in a receiver can affect
the sync of the SV clocks! :-D
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-09 09:39 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ntbsj3$1qqj$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395188 |
On 09/10/16 00:28, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 08.10.2016 01:12, HGW wrote: >> On 08/10/16 03:31, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: >>> >>> What is denoted reception instant t on >>> the system of Newtonian equations > > "Newtonian equations"? > >>> that the receptor resolves is an unknown to find with >>> a single possible value, depending on the coded and >>> decoded data in the continuous signal containing the >>> precise positions (x_i, y_i, z_i) at time t_i of the involved >>> (at least 4) i satellites. >>> I repeat for you the system of equations: >>> >>> (x-x_i)^2+ (y-y_i)^2+ (z-z_i)^2= (ct-ct_i)^2 > > Right. > And I will emphasise what may be implicit in the above: > Since the receiver knows the exact position of an SV [*] > at any time of the SV clock, the SV position is a function of t_i. > So the equation could be written: > > c(t-t_i) = sqrt((x-x_i(t_i))^2+ (y-y_i(t_i)^2+ (z-z_i(t_i))^2) > > The only parameter the receiver will need from each SV [*] > to calculate the current time and position (t,x,y,z) is > the time of emission of the signal it is receiving at the GPS-time t. > > [*] The receiver will have to receive a number of data from > the SV, the ephemeris parameters to calculate the precise > position of the SV at the time t_i, the clock offset, and > the ionospheric parameters to calculate the ionospheric delay. > These data are transmitted with 12.5 minute period. But they > are updated typically once a day, so the only parameter > the receiver has to receive continuously (by counting PRN chips) > to calculate the time t and position (x,y,z) is the time > of transmission t_i. > >>> >>> As you can see, your arriving events at different instants >>> (with supposed huge milliseconds apart) >>> in the receptor do not exist at all in the GPS. >>> The unique velocity that appears in the receptor software >>> is the signal isotropic velocity c; >>> the satellite velocity v (changing direction continuously) >>> does not appear on any part. >> >> Yes, The receiver clock time is not important....which proves the GR >> 'rate correction' is totally unnecessary and bogus. > > This is really remarkable! :-D > > For several years Dr Wilson has been repeating > the incredible stupidity that the fact that no precise clock > in the receiver is needed proves that the SV clock rates do > not have to be adjusted by the factor 4.4647E-10. > What kind of down-under upside-down logic is behind this > nonsensical conclusion? :-D The differences in clock readings are included in their individual signals. It is a simple matter to software correct for each. > The simple fact is that for the GPS to work, all the SV clocks > have to be synchronous to the GPS coordinated time to within 100ns. > (The sync error is generally much less than 100ns). > It is an irrefutable fact that if the SV clock rate weren't > adjusted down by 4.4647E-10, they would drift off sync by > more than 100ns few minutes after each correction, which is > done typically once a day. It is not a fact at all. Every clock is software fine tuned after being snet into orbit. Only a fool would believe otherwise. > You must live in Wonderland to think that the existence > or non existence of a clock in a receiver can affect > the sync of the SV clocks! :-D Receiver clocks are simple quartz crystal. They don't need high accuracy because their reading errors cancel out in the algorithms. I'm sure you really know this but are too stubborn to admit it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-09 11:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ntd3hm$rn1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #395221 |
On 09.10.2016 00:39, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 09/10/16 00:28, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 08.10.2016 01:12, HGW wrote: >>> >>> Yes, The receiver clock time is not important....which proves the GR >>> 'rate correction' is totally unnecessary and bogus. >> >> This is really remarkable! :-D >> >> For several years Ralph Malcom Rabbidge has been repeating >> the incredible stupidity that the fact that no precise clock >> in the receiver is needed proves that the SV clock rates do >> not have to be adjusted by the factor 4.4647E-10. >> What kind of down-under upside-down logic is behind this >> nonsensical conclusion? :-D >> >> The simple fact is that for the GPS to work, all the SV clocks >> have to be synchronous to the GPS coordinated time to within 100ns. >> (The sync error is generally much less than 100ns). >> It is an irrefutable fact that if the SV clock rate weren't >> adjusted down by 4.4647E-10, they would drift off sync by >> more than 100ns few minutes after each correction, which is >> done typically once a day. >> >> You must live in Wonderland to think that the existence >> or non existence of a clock in a receiver can affect >> the sync of the SV clocks! :-D To divert the attention from his stupidity Ralph repeats an irrelevant trivial fact which nobody ever has disputed: > Receiver clocks are simple quartz crystal. They don't need high accuracy > because their reading errors cancel out in the algorithms. and to be sure - pretend that I have disputed this trivial fact: > I'm sure you really know this but are too stubborn to admit it. Ralph, did you really think that this could divert the attention from the giant blunder you made when you claimed that the fact that there is no precise clock in the receivers proves that the SV clock rates do not have to be adjusted by the factor 4.4647E-10 ? :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-10 05:32 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nte2fs$r94$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395249 |
On 09/10/16 20:44, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Receiver clocks are simple quartz crystal. They don't need high accuracy >> because their reading errors cancel out in the algorithms. > > and to be sure - pretend that I have disputed this trivial fact: > >> I'm sure you really know this but are too stubborn to admit it. > > Ralph, did you really think that this could divert the attention > from the giant blunder you made when you claimed that the fact > that there is no precise clock in the receivers proves that > the SV clock rates do not have to be adjusted by the factor > 4.4647E-10 ? :-D The actual rate of the orbiting clocks is irrelevant and quite arbitrary, the only requirement being that all clocks are in absolute synch. Do you deny that the orbiting clocks must be in synch with each other? Do you deny that their synchronization is constantly software adjusted to keep them all in absolute synch? Do you understand that 'software adjustment' is no more that including their error in their signals?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-10 18:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ntgh65$4kg$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #395281 |
On 09.10.2016 20:32, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > The actual rate of the orbiting clocks is irrelevant and quite > arbitrary, the only requirement being that all clocks are in absolute > synch. A statement in the posting Ralph Malcom Rabbidge responded to: On 09/10/16 00:28, Paul B. Andersen wrote: | It is an irrefutable fact that if the SV clock rate weren't | adjusted down by 4.4647E-10, they would drift off sync by | more than 100ns few minutes after each correction, which is | done typically once a day. > Do you deny that the orbiting clocks must be in synch with each other? A statement in the posting Ralph Malcom Rabbidge responded to: On 09/10/16 00:28, Paul B. Andersen wrote: | The simple fact is that for the GPS to work, all the SV clocks | have to be synchronous to the GPS coordinated time to within 100ns. | (The sync error is generally much less than 100ns). > Do you deny that their synchronization is constantly software adjusted > to keep them all in absolute synch? > Do you understand that 'software adjustment' is no more that including > their error in their signals? April 2011 Paul B. Andersen wrote: | As I have told you before, the SV clocks are never adjusted | at all while in service. | The 'software correction' is the 'clock offset' which is | uploaded from the ground stations typically once a day. | This number says by how much the 'clock time' is off sync. | The 'clock time' and the 'clock offset' are transmitted | together, and the actual correction is made in the receiver. | The time reported by the satellite is: | 'reported time' = 'clock time' - 'clock offset'. | | Even you must understand that a new 'clock offset' | can't be uploaded more often than the ground stations | have measured what it should be. | | Each satellite is tracked by the ground stations for | 13 minutes several times a day. | But because of the positions of the ground stations and | the orbits of the satellites, there will always be a rather | large time gap when no measurement can be made. | Each satellite will every day have a period of at least | 12 hours when no measurement is made, and during which | no update of the 'clock-offset' | is possible. April 20011 Ralph Malcom Rabbidge was challenged to answer the question: | | By how much would the time reported by the satellite | drift off sync between each update of the 'clock offset' | if the clock rate weren't corrected by the -4.4647E-10 | correction factor? About time you tried to meet the challenge, Ralph? -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 09:06 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nth3d1$1oe0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395349 |
On 11/10/16 03:55, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 09.10.2016 20:32, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > April 20011 Dr Wilson was challenged to answer the question: > | > | By how much would the time reported by the satellite > | drift off sync between each update of the 'clock offset' > | if the clock rate weren't corrected by the -4.4647E-10 > | correction factor? > > About time you tried to meet the challenge, Henry? All the clock rates and readings are adjusted after launch and maintained empirically thereafter so they will all remain in absolute synch. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 01:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nthdo6$r0f$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #395353 |
HGW <hw@....> writes: >All the clock rates and readings are adjusted after launch and >maintained empirically thereafter so they will all remain in absolute synch. Ralph, there is no such thing as "absolute synch". How could there be? If A and B are separated, A sees B in the past, and B sees A in the past. Satellites in different orbits get closer to and further apart from each other as they orbit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 18:24 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nti43v$v1p$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395363 |
On 11/10/16 12:03, Michael Moroney wrote: > HGW <hw@....> writes: > >> All the clock rates and readings are adjusted after launch and >> maintained empirically thereafter so they will all remain in absolute synch. > > Doctor, there is no such thing as "absolute synch". How could there be? > If A and B are separated, A sees B in the past, and B sees A in the past. > Satellites in different orbits get closer to and further apart from each > other as they orbit. Clock synchronization has got nothing to do with what humans see, idiot! --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-09 17:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ntdvkh$u1k$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #395221 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >On 09/10/16 00:28, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> For several years Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge has been repeating >> the incredible stupidity that the fact that no precise clock >> in the receiver is needed proves that the SV clock rates do >> not have to be adjusted by the factor 4.4647E-10. >> What kind of down-under upside-down logic is behind this >> nonsensical conclusion? :-D >The differences in clock readings are included in their individual >signals. It is a simple matter to software correct for each. So Ralph, I take it you can show the section of the GPS source code that actually does this, correct? What, you can't? Because there is no such software?? >> The simple fact is that for the GPS to work, all the SV clocks >> have to be synchronous to the GPS coordinated time to within 100ns. >> (The sync error is generally much less than 100ns). >> It is an irrefutable fact that if the SV clock rate weren't >> adjusted down by 4.4647E-10, they would drift off sync by >> more than 100ns few minutes after each correction, which is >> done typically once a day. >It is not a fact at all. Every clock is software fine tuned after being >snet into orbit. >Only a fool would believe otherwise. So Ralph, again show us the section of software that does this. What? You can't do that, either, Ralph? Because it also doesn't exist???
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web