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 4 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 22 Next page →
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-10 05:36 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nte2mg$ris$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395280 |
On 10/10/16 04:43, Michael Moron-y wrote: > "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >> The differences in clock readings are included in their individual >> signals. It is a simple matter to software correct for each. > > So Doctor, I take it you can show the section of the GPS source code > that actually does this, correct? What, you can't? Because there > is no such software?? Idiot! Even Paul Andersen knows that every signal contains its source's drift away from absolute GPS time.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 04:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nthq89$c24$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #395282 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >On 10/10/16 04:43, Michael Moron-y wrote: >> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >>> The differences in clock readings are included in their individual >>> signals. It is a simple matter to software correct for each. >> >> So Doctor, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, I was not addressing any doctor, I was addressing you, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, you are no doctor and you know it, Ralph! >> I take it you can show the section of the GPS source code >> that actually does this, correct? What, you can't? Because there >> is no such software?? >Idiot! Even Paul Andersen knows that every signal contains its source's >drift away from absolute GPS time. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, the total drift is rather small compared to the lifetime of the satellites, Ralph. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, as you know, Ralph, the GPS satellite time is never adjusted, Ralph, instead the error is also broadcast, Ralph Rabbidge. Ralph, the 38 microsecond clock rate difference per day would cause the error to accumulate larger and larger, Ralph, but it does not do that, Ralph. So Ralph, what is your excuse why the GPS satellite time error doesn't grow larger and larger, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 23:07 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ntjkat$v39$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #395371 |
On 11.10.2016 06:36, Michael Moroney wrote:
> "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes:
>
>> Idiot! Even Paul Andersen knows that every signal contains its source's
>> drift away from absolute GPS time.
>
> Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, the total drift is rather small compared to the
> lifetime of the satellites, Ralph. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, as you know,
> Ralph, the GPS satellite time is never adjusted, Ralph, instead the error
> is also broadcast, Ralph Rabbidge. Ralph, the 38 microsecond clock rate
> difference per day would cause the error to accumulate larger and larger,
> Ralph, but it does not do that, Ralph. So Ralph, what is your excuse why
> the GPS satellite time error doesn't grow larger and larger, Ralph Malcolm
> Rabbidge?
>
As an apropos to what you write above, I have written
the following about the precision of the clocks in GPS satellites.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The satellites are monitored by 15 monitoring stations.
These stations will compare the time reported by the satellites
with the correct time, and calculate the error. This error
is the "clock offset" which is uploaded to the satellites
from one of four ground antennas.
Each satellite is tracked for 13 minutes 20 - 30 times every day,
but because of the positions of the ground stations and
the orbits of the satellites, each satellite will every day
have a period of at least 10 hours when no measurement is made,
and during which no update of the 'clock-offset' is possible.
The data measured by the monitoring stations can be found at:
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/gps_datafiles.html
This is a tiny excerpt of the measured data in the period
MJD57642(09-11-2016) to MJD57671(10-10-2016), that is 29 days.
I have shown two measurements for each SV, separated
by 29 days.
The first entry (PRN) identifies the SV by its PRN number,
the second entry (MJD) is the Julian day the measurement is done,
and the third entry (GPS-SATCL) is how much the SV clock is off sync
with GPS time, in nanoseconds. This is the "clock offset".
The fourth entry (SLOPE) is the average rate error of the SV clock
in parts per 10^12.
PRN MJD GPS-SATCL SLOPE
NS PS/S
1 57642.1309 -33528.5
1 57671.5726 -36749.8 +1.3
2 57642.642 -554170.7
2 57671.8587 -541630.1 -5.0
3 57642.1976 +86403.0
3 57671.6281 +91750.5 -2.1
5 57642.7281 +91777.4
5 57671.9142 +85394.0 +2.5
6 57642.5865 -244939.7
6 57671.792 -257790.0 +5.1
7 57642.3642 -428138.1
7 57671.517 -420596.7 -3.0
8 57642.342 +31376.5
8 57671.5059 +34971.4 -1.4
9 57642.3087 -204107.7
9 57671.7476 -222531.6 +7.4
10 57642.0087 +95940.2
10 57671.992 +106590.8 -4.3
11 57642.1198 +663749.5
11 57671.5504 +666573.5 -1.1
12 57642.0642 -388530.9
12 57671.992 -389182.8 +0.3
13 57642.0087 +42981.2
13 57671.9476 +48637.4 -2.3
14 57642.0642 +34429.2
14 57671.992 +39449.0 -2.0
15 57642.0087 +326826.1
15 57671.992 +330410.4 -1.4
16 57642.2309 -5779.0
16 57671.4059 -10412.0 +1.8
17 57642.5087 +202575.8
17 57671.7142 +201220.5 +0.5
18 57642.0087 -556430.6
18 57671.992 -565822.2 +3.7
19 57642.5531 +523211.2
19 57671.7476 +521926.8 +0.5
20 57642.0087 -434952.7
20 57671.992 -440155.7 +2.1
21 57642.0087 +531767.8
21 57671.992 +532695.4 -0.4
22 57642.1642 -248372.6
22 57671.6059 -222427.0 -10.4
23 57642.2531 +189478.5
23 57671.7031 +192895.6 -1.4
24 57642.0087 +22956.3
24 57671.992 +24401.2 -0.6
25 57642.0976 +243472.1
25 57671.792 +261211.3 -7.1
26 57642.1865 +467119.3
26 57671.3504 +484295.0 -6.9
27 57642.0087 -137690.0
27 57671.9698 -150252.2 +5.0
28 57642.4531 -551216.5
28 57671.6281 -558292.4 +2.8
29 57642.2198 -651279.6
29 57671.9142 -648109.9 -1.3
30 57642.4087 -149821.6
30 57671.8587 -153629.8 +1.5
31 57642.1087 -248644.1
31 57671.3059 -243315.0 -2.1
32 57642.0087 +110775.6
32 57671.992 +149202.7 -15.3
--------------------------------------
Note the following: All the clocks are 'way off' sync.
some are more than half a millisecond off sync.
That is because the SV-clocks never are adjusted while
the SV is in service, it is the parameter "clock-offset"
that is corrected when needed. This parameter tells how much
the SV clock is off sync. The clock reading together
with the 'clock offset' are transmitted from the SVs,
and the correction is done in the receiver.
Since the SV clocks not are corrected, we can see how
stable they are by seeing how much the error has changed
during 29 days. This is shown in the fourth entry above.
Note that these are the _measured_ rate errors
of the clocks which are corrected by 4.4647E-10.
The average error for all the clocks is 0.54E-12,
the rms error is 4.63E-12.
This is as expected, given the precision of the clocks.
Since all the errors are less than 1% of the GR-correction,
we can conclude that this month of data show that the GR-correction
is correct well within 1%.
Since the average error is approximately 0.1% of the GR-correction
it could be tempting to claim that the GR-correction is correct
to within 0.1%. One month of data is probably not statistically
significant to make such a claim.
However, we have 35 years of data from the GPS, and these data
confirm the GR correction to be correct to much better than 0.1%.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott <Scott@oe0vgk3s.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 21:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ntjl26$1tm0$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395423 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> the GPS satellite time error doesn't grow larger and larger, Ralph >> Malcolm Rabbidge? >> >> > As an apropos to what you write above, I have written the following > about the precision of the clocks in GPS satellites. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The satellites are monitored by 15 monitoring stations. > These stations will compare the time reported by the satellites with the > correct time, and calculate the error. This error Too late. The Chinese GPS system, as specified, does not need performing fictive corrections for the sake of Relativity, a theory. https://www.wired.com/2016/06/rocket-launch-brings-china-one-step-closer-gps/ I beg you to reconsider.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 15:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7f630241-9728-4102-b6b4-e10162921164@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395426 |
El martes, 11 de octubre de 2016, 17:20:15 (UTC-4), Scott escribió: > Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > >> the GPS satellite time error doesn't grow larger and larger, Ralph > >> Malcolm Rabbidge? > >> > >> > > As an apropos to what you write above, I have written the following > > about the precision of the clocks in GPS satellites. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > The satellites are monitored by 15 monitoring stations. > > These stations will compare the time reported by the satellites with the > > correct time, and calculate the error. This error > > Too late. The Chinese GPS system, as specified, does not need performing > fictive corrections for the sake of Relativity, a theory. > https://www.wired.com/2016/06/rocket-launch-brings-china-one-step-closer-gps/ > > I beg you to reconsider. From where do you take that the Chinese GPS system does not make Relativity corrections? I read the whole article that you reference without finding in it any thing about Relativity. RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 09:16 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ntjoch$3q1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395429 |
On 12/10/16 09:00, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: >>> The satellites are monitored by 15 monitoring stations. >>> These stations will compare the time reported by the satellites >>> with the correct time, and calculate the error. This error >> >> Too late. The Chinese GPS system, as specified, does not need >> performing fictive corrections for the sake of Relativity, a >> theory. >> https://www.wired.com/2016/06/rocket-launch-brings-china-one-step-closer-gps/ >> >> >> I beg you to reconsider. > > From where do you take that the Chinese GPS system does not make > Relativity corrections? I read the whole article that you reference > without finding in it any thing about Relativity. Do you know why? The Chinese are far to smart to be fooled by Einstein. He never gets a mention in China. > RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato) > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 15:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ntlc5j$9kn$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #395430 |
On 12.10.2016 00:16, HGW wrote:
> On 12/10/16 09:00, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
>> El martes, 11 de octubre de 2016, 17:20:15 (UTC-4), Scott escribió:
>>>
>>> Too late. The Chinese GPS system, as specified, does not need
>>> performing fictive corrections for the sake of Relativity, a
>>> theory.
>>> https://www.wired.com/2016/06/rocket-launch-brings-china-one-step-closer-gps/
>>>
>>> I beg you to reconsider.
>>
>> From where do you take that the Chinese GPS system does not make
>> Relativity corrections? I read the whole article that you reference
>> without finding in it any thing about Relativity.
>
> Do you know why? The Chinese are far to smart to be fooled by Einstein.
> He never gets a mention in China.
>
Han Chunhao, Cai Zhiwu, Lin Yuting, Liu Li,
Xiao Shenghong, Zhu Lingfeng, and Wang Xianglei:
"Time Synchronization and Performance of BeiDou
Satellite Clocks in Orbit"
http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/ijno/2013/371450.pdf
<<
2. Time Model of Satellite Clocks
---------------------------------
Considering the large-scale spacetime involved
(about 1 × 105 km in space and several days,
even several months or years in time) and
the precision requirements (1 m, even 1 cm,
1 mm level), the GNSS data process must be dealt
with under the framework of relativity and
quantum theory. . . .
>>
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 06:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d48274b3-4c1e-437d-acbb-7907efa7499d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395473 |
W dniu środa, 12 października 2016 15:00:38 UTC+2 użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał: > > Han Chunhao, Cai Zhiwu, Lin Yuting, Liu Li, > Xiao Shenghong, Zhu Lingfeng, and Wang Xianglei: > "Time Synchronization and Performance of BeiDou > Satellite Clocks in Orbit" > > http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/ijno/2013/371450.pdf > << > 2. Time Model of Satellite Clocks > --------------------------------- > Considering the large-scale spacetime involved > (about 1 × 105 km in space and several days, > even several months or years in time) and > the precision requirements (1 m, even 1 cm, > 1 mm level), the GNSS data process must be dealt > with under the framework of relativity and > quantum theory. . . . Surely, the shit assuming synchronization of clocks "unproper" is absolutely necessary to synchronize them properly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 23:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f57cd968-a363-4997-83c5-6d331b8c648d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395429 |
W dniu środa, 12 października 2016 00:00:19 UTC+2 użytkownik Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato napisał: > El martes, 11 de octubre de 2016, 17:20:15 (UTC-4), Scott escribió: > > Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > > > >> the GPS satellite time error doesn't grow larger and larger, Ralph > > >> Malcolm Rabbidge? > > >> > > >> > > > As an apropos to what you write above, I have written the following > > > about the precision of the clocks in GPS satellites. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > The satellites are monitored by 15 monitoring stations. > > > These stations will compare the time reported by the satellites with the > > > correct time, and calculate the error. This error > > > > Too late. The Chinese GPS system, as specified, does not need performing > > fictive corrections for the sake of Relativity, a theory. > > https://www.wired.com/2016/06/rocket-launch-brings-china-one-step-closer-gps/ > > > > I beg you to reconsider. > > From where do you take that the Chinese GPS system does not make Relativity corrections? RELATIVITY corrections? Tha MAIN assumptions of The Shit is - that unsynchronized clocks are proper clocks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 13:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b0c8656c-4022-4e0a-b898-9c4512888893@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395429 |
On Tuesday, 11 October 2016 22:00:19 UTC, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > El martes, 11 de octubre de 2016, 17:20:15 (UTC-4), Scott escribió: > > Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > > > >> the GPS satellite time error doesn't grow larger and larger, Ralph > > >> Malcolm Rabbidge? > > >> > > >> > > > As an apropos to what you write above, I have written the following > > > about the precision of the clocks in GPS satellites. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > The satellites are monitored by 15 monitoring stations. > > > These stations will compare the time reported by the satellites with the > > > correct time, and calculate the error. This error > > > > Too late. The Chinese GPS system, as specified, does not need performing > > fictive corrections for the sake of Relativity, a theory. > > https://www.wired.com/2016/06/rocket-launch-brings-china-one-step-closer-gps/ > > > > I beg you to reconsider. > > From where do you take that the Chinese GPS system does not make Relativity corrections? I read the whole article that you reference without finding in it any thing about Relativity. The official GPS(Navstar) documentation does not mention Relativity either http://www.georeferencial.com.br/old/material_didatico/entire_GPS.pdf
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 13:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ntnrdh$s1h$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #395509 |
On 12.10.2016 22:53, Thomas wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11 October 2016 22:00:19 UTC, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
>> El martes, 11 de octubre de 2016, 17:20:15 (UTC-4), Scott escribió:
>>>
>>> Too late. The Chinese GPS system, as specified, does not need performing
>>> fictive corrections for the sake of Relativity, a theory.
>>> https://www.wired.com/2016/06/rocket-launch-brings-china-one-step-closer-gps/
>>
>> From where do you take that the Chinese GPS system does not make Relativity corrections?
>
> I read the whole article that you reference without finding in it any thing about Relativity.
Han Chunhao, Cai Zhiwu, Lin Yuting, Liu Li,
Xiao Shenghong, Zhu Lingfeng, and Wang Xianglei:
"Time Synchronization and Performance of BeiDou
Satellite Clocks in Orbit"
http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/ijno/2013/371450.pdf
<<
2. Time Model of Satellite Clocks
---------------------------------
Considering the large-scale spacetime involved
(about 1 × 105 km in space and several days,
even several months or years in time) and
the precision requirements (1 m, even 1 cm,
1 mm level), the GNSS data process must be dealt
with under the framework of relativity and
quantum theory.
. . .
The relativistic effect must be taken into account
for the evaluation of clock performance. If not,
the stability of frequency will be influenced.
>>
>
> The official GPS(Navstar) documentation does not mention Relativity either
> http://www.georeferencial.com.br/old/material_didatico/entire_GPS.pdf
Why do you call this "official GPS documentation"?
It is a manual for GPS _surveying_ which is quite different
from common GPS positioning. There is no reason why the finer
points in the design of the SVs should be mentioned in a manual
for surveyors.
But the producers of the SVs must build the SVs in
accordance with the INTERFACE SPECIFICATION,
which _is_ "official GPS documentation".
http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200H.pdf
<<
3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan
----------------------
. . .
The SV carrier frequency and clock rates
- as they would appear to an observer located in the SV -
are offset to compensate for relativistic effects.
The clock rates are offset by ∆ f/f = - 4.4647E-10,
equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping rate of
10.23 MHz offset by a ∆ f = -4.5674E-3 Hz.
This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz.
The nominal carrier frequencies (f0) shall be
1575.42 MHz, and 1227.6 MHz for L1 and L2,
respectively.
>>
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 12:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3b63ba8c-aff9-40a8-8a33-e945716a9bf1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395560 |
On Thursday, 13 October 2016 11:33:09 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 12.10.2016 22:53, Thomas wrote: > > On Tuesday, 11 October 2016 22:00:19 UTC, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > >> El martes, 11 de octubre de 2016, 17:20:15 (UTC-4), Scott escribió: > >>> > >>> Too late. The Chinese GPS system, as specified, does not need performing > >>> fictive corrections for the sake of Relativity, a theory. > >>> https://www.wired.com/2016/06/rocket-launch-brings-china-one-step-closer-gps/ > >> > >> From where do you take that the Chinese GPS system does not make Relativity corrections? > > > > I read the whole article that you reference without finding in it any thing about Relativity. > > Han Chunhao, Cai Zhiwu, Lin Yuting, Liu Li, > Xiao Shenghong, Zhu Lingfeng, and Wang Xianglei: > "Time Synchronization and Performance of BeiDou > Satellite Clocks in Orbit" > > http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/ijno/2013/371450.pdf > << > 2. Time Model of Satellite Clocks > --------------------------------- > Considering the large-scale spacetime involved > (about 1 × 105 km in space and several days, > even several months or years in time) and > the precision requirements (1 m, even 1 cm, > 1 mm level), the GNSS data process must be dealt > with under the framework of relativity and > quantum theory. > . . . > The relativistic effect must be taken into account > for the evaluation of clock performance. If not, > the stability of frequency will be influenced. > >> > > The official GPS(Navstar) documentation does not mention Relativity either > > http://www.georeferencial.com.br/old/material_didatico/entire_GPS.pdf > > Why do you call this "official GPS documentation"? Because it is published by those who set up and maintain the GPS system, and who see to the clocks staying synchronized. And relativity does not appear to be any issue at all in this context.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 11:25 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ntq8b6$fck$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #395580 |
On 13.10.2016 21:04, Thomas wrote:
> On Thursday, 13 October 2016 11:33:09 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> On 12.10.2016 22:53, Thomas wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 11 October 2016 22:00:19 UTC, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote:
>>>> El martes, 11 de octubre de 2016, 17:20:15 (UTC-4), Scott escribió:
>>>>>
>>>>> Too late. The Chinese GPS system, as specified, does not need performing
>>>>> fictive corrections for the sake of Relativity, a theory.
>>>>> https://www.wired.com/2016/06/rocket-launch-brings-china-one-step-closer-gps/
>>>>
>>>> From where do you take that the Chinese GPS system does not make Relativity corrections?
>>>
>>> I read the whole article that you reference without finding in it any thing about Relativity.
>>
>> Han Chunhao, Cai Zhiwu, Lin Yuting, Liu Li,
>> Xiao Shenghong, Zhu Lingfeng, and Wang Xianglei:
>> "Time Synchronization and Performance of BeiDou
>> Satellite Clocks in Orbit"
>>
>> http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/ijno/2013/371450.pdf
>> <<
>> 2. Time Model of Satellite Clocks
>> ---------------------------------
>> Considering the large-scale spacetime involved
>> (about 1 × 105 km in space and several days,
>> even several months or years in time) and
>> the precision requirements (1 m, even 1 cm,
>> 1 mm level), the GNSS data process must be dealt
>> with under the framework of relativity and
>> quantum theory.
>> . . .
>> The relativistic effect must be taken into account
>> for the evaluation of clock performance. If not,
>> the stability of frequency will be influenced.
>> >>
Do you still believe that the Chinese GNSS system does
not make Relativity corrections? :-D
>>> The official GPS(Navstar) documentation does not mention Relativity either
>>> http://www.georeferencial.com.br/old/material_didatico/entire_GPS.pdf
>>
>> Why do you call this "official GPS documentation"?
>
> Because it is published by those who set up and maintain the GPS system,
> and who see to the clocks staying synchronized.
No, it is not.
It is published by US Army Corps of Engineers, who are
building bridges, roads and buildings, and have nothing
to do with the maintenance of the GPS.
It is a manual for surveyors.
<<
It is intended for use by engineering, planning, operations,
real estate, and construction personnel performing georeferenced
feature mapping or accurate or control surveys for civil works
and military construction projects.
>>
> And relativity does not appear to be any issue at all in this context.
Of course not.
GPS surveying equipment is the modern version of the theodolite.
There is no reason why the finer points in the design of
the SVs should be mentioned in a manual for surveyors.
Relativity will of the same reason not appear
in the manual for the GPS in your car.
I note with interest that you snipped the following.
Did you think that the GPS wouldn't make Relativity
corrections if you snipped it? :-D
But the producers of the SVs must build the SVs in
accordance with the INTERFACE SPECIFICATION,
which _is_ "official GPS documentation" "published
by those who set up and maintain the GPS system,
and who see to the clocks staying synchronized".
http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200H.pdf
<<
3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan
----------------------
. . .
The SV carrier frequency and clock rates
- as they would appear to an observer located in the SV -
are offset to compensate for relativistic effects.
The clock rates are offset by ∆ f/f = - 4.4647E-10,
equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping rate of
10.23 MHz offset by a ∆ f = -4.5674E-3 Hz.
This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz.
The nominal carrier frequencies (f0) shall be
1575.42 MHz, and 1227.6 MHz for L1 and L2,
respectively.
>>
Now you know better.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 02:44 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a8ac0f95-fa0a-4860-bf04-e4128ef24215@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395617 |
W dniu piątek, 14 października 2016 11:26:00 UTC+2 użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał: > Do you still believe that the Chinese GNSS system does > not make Relativity corrections? :-D The moronic standards of The Shit forbid these corrections directly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 07:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f0dbeb00-2bb9-43f4-96db-84e83c057eeb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395617 |
El viernes, 14 de octubre de 2016, 5:26:00 (UTC-4), Paul B. Andersen escribió: > On 13.10.2016 21:04, Thomas wrote: > > On Thursday, 13 October 2016 11:33:09 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> On 12.10.2016 22:53, Thomas wrote: > >>> On Tuesday, 11 October 2016 22:00:19 UTC, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > >>>> El martes, 11 de octubre de 2016, 17:20:15 (UTC-4), Scott escribió: > >>>>> > >>>>> Too late. The Chinese GPS system, as specified, does not need performing > >>>>> fictive corrections for the sake of Relativity, a theory. > >>>>> https://www.wired.com/2016/06/rocket-launch-brings-china-one-step-closer-gps/ > >>>> > >>>> From where do you take that the Chinese GPS system does not make Relativity corrections? > >>> > >>> I read the whole article that you reference without finding in it any thing about Relativity. > >> > >> Han Chunhao, Cai Zhiwu, Lin Yuting, Liu Li, > >> Xiao Shenghong, Zhu Lingfeng, and Wang Xianglei: > >> "Time Synchronization and Performance of BeiDou > >> Satellite Clocks in Orbit" > >> > >> http://downloads.hindawi.com/journals/ijno/2013/371450.pdf > >> << > >> 2. Time Model of Satellite Clocks > >> --------------------------------- > >> Considering the large-scale spacetime involved > >> (about 1 × 105 km in space and several days, > >> even several months or years in time) and > >> the precision requirements (1 m, even 1 cm, > >> 1 mm level), the GNSS data process must be dealt > >> with under the framework of relativity and > >> quantum theory. > >> . . . > >> The relativistic effect must be taken into account > >> for the evaluation of clock performance. If not, > >> the stability of frequency will be influenced. > >> >> > > Do you still believe that the Chinese GNSS system does > not make Relativity corrections? :-D > > >>> The official GPS(Navstar) documentation does not mention Relativity either > >>> http://www.georeferencial.com.br/old/material_didatico/entire_GPS.pdf > >> > >> Why do you call this "official GPS documentation"? > > > > Because it is published by those who set up and maintain the GPS system, > > and who see to the clocks staying synchronized. > > No, it is not. > It is published by US Army Corps of Engineers, who are > building bridges, roads and buildings, and have nothing > to do with the maintenance of the GPS. > It is a manual for surveyors. > << > It is intended for use by engineering, planning, operations, > real estate, and construction personnel performing georeferenced > feature mapping or accurate or control surveys for civil works > and military construction projects. > >> > > > And relativity does not appear to be any issue at all in this context. > > Of course not. > GPS surveying equipment is the modern version of the theodolite. > There is no reason why the finer points in the design of > the SVs should be mentioned in a manual for surveyors. > > Relativity will of the same reason not appear > in the manual for the GPS in your car. > > > I note with interest that you snipped the following. > Did you think that the GPS wouldn't make Relativity > corrections if you snipped it? :-D > > But the producers of the SVs must build the SVs in > accordance with the INTERFACE SPECIFICATION, > which _is_ "official GPS documentation" "published > by those who set up and maintain the GPS system, > and who see to the clocks staying synchronized". > > http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200H.pdf > << > 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan > ---------------------- > . . . > The SV carrier frequency and clock rates > - as they would appear to an observer located in the SV - > are offset to compensate for relativistic effects. > The clock rates are offset by ∆ f/f = - 4.4647E-10, > equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping rate of > 10.23 MHz offset by a ∆ f = -4.5674E-3 Hz. > This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz. 10.2299999954326 MHz is NOT the GPS ECI operative frequency - as they would appear to an observer located in the SV – WHEN THE SV IS STILL NOT OPERATIVE AT GROUND BEFORE THE LAUNCHING. When the satellite is already operative after the launching, the frequency - as they would appear to an observer located in the SV – is 10.23 MHz, the designed value for all GPS operative clocks when already synchronized showing the same time according to the 1905 Einstein relative time definition to any 1686NM Center of Mass system (as the GPS ECI one is). > The nominal carrier frequencies (f0) shall be > 1575.42 MHz, and 1227.6 MHz for L1 and L2, > respectively. See how those data correspond to the INTEGER multiplication factors 154 and 120: L1 (10.23)(154)=(1575.42) L2 (10.23)(120)=(1227.6) The GPS ECI time is then (without any possible at all doubt) the 1905R defined one, relative to a 1686NM Center of Mass system; being also a 1905 Einstein stationary system where 1686NM equations hold good, INCLUDING the gravitational ones. > >> > > Now you know better. > Thomas probably yes, but I hope that we also. > -- > Paul > > https://paulba.no/ RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 15:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ntqsf8$tfh$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #395632 |
Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> writes: >El viernes, 14 de octubre de 2016, 5:26:00 (UTC-4), Paul B. Andersen escribió: >> http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200H.pdf >> << >> 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan >> ---------------------- >> . . . >> The SV carrier frequency and clock rates >> - as they would appear to an observer located in the SV - >> are offset to compensate for relativistic effects. >> The clock rates are offset by ∆ f/f = - 4.4647E-10, >> equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping rate of >> 10.23 MHz offset by a ∆ f = -4.5674E-3 Hz. >> This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz. >10.2299999954326 MHz is NOT the GPS ECI operative frequency - as they would >appear to an observer located in the SV – WHEN THE SV IS STILL NOT >OPERATIVE AT >GROUND BEFORE THE LAUNCHING. When the satellite is already operative after the >launching, the frequency - as they would appear to an observer located in the >SV – is 10.23 MHz, the designed value for all GPS operative clocks >when already synchronized showing the same time according to the 1905 Einstein >relative time definition to any 1686NM Center of Mass system (as the GPS ECI >one is). No. The GPS frequency to someone local to the satellite (whether on the ground before launch or co-moving with it in space) will measure its frequency as 10.2299999954326 MHz. Relativistic effects don't apply to it there. It is only when the receiver is in orbit and a ground receiver measures its frequency do you get 10.23 MHz exactly, because the GPS now has a substantial gravitational potential distance and high velocity, thus making GR effects relevant. >> The nominal carrier frequencies (f0) shall be >> 1575.42 MHz, and 1227.6 MHz for L1 and L2, >> respectively. >See how those data correspond to the INTEGER multiplication factors 154 and 120: >L1 (10.23)(154)=(1575.42) >L2 (10.23)(120)=(1227.6) Irrelevant. Those are carrier frequencies and don't have to be specified to 15 decimal places like the 10.23 MHz signal is. However, since those signals will also be subject to the GR effect, if they do use the source of the 10.2299999954326 MHz signal for those carriers, and it is almost certain that they do, they will be received at exactly 1575.42 MHz and 1227.6 MHz by an earth-bound receiver, because as you stated, they are exact integer multiples of the 10.2299999954326 MHz satellite signal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 05:04 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ntr6nm$1qm2$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395642 |
On 15/10/16 02:09, Michael Moroney wrote: > Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> writes: > > No. The GPS frequency to someone local to the satellite (whether on the ground > before launch or co-moving with it in space) will measure its frequency as > 10.2299999954326 MHz. Relativistic effects don't apply to it there. > It is only when the receiver is in orbit and a ground receiver measures its > frequency do you get 10.23 MHz exactly, because the GPS now has a substantial > gravitational potential distance and high velocity, thus making GR effects > relevant. That is what dingleberries are taught. It is not part of the real world. The clock rate is totally irrelevant as long as it is the same for all the clocks. What really happens is that clocks sent into orbit change slightly, as one would expect. Their rates are carefully monitored and software adjusted after launch as a permanent correction. This has nothing to do with any silly theory that claims TIME is a function of speed. >>> The nominal carrier frequencies (f0) shall be >>> 1575.42 MHz, and 1227.6 MHz for L1 and L2, >>> respectively. > >> See how those data correspond to the INTEGER multiplication factors 154 and 120: > >> L1 (10.23)(154)=(1575.42) >> L2 (10.23)(120)=(1227.6) > > Irrelevant. Those are carrier frequencies and don't have to be specified > to 15 decimal places like the 10.23 MHz signal is. However, since those > signals will also be subject to the GR effect, if they do use the source > of the 10.2299999954326 MHz signal for those carriers, and it is almost > certain that they do, they will be received at exactly 1575.42 MHz and > 1227.6 MHz by an earth-bound receiver, because as you stated, they are > exact integer multiples of the 10.2299999954326 MHz satellite signal. Load of crap! Did you know that a falling photon increases speed by 0.1598 m/s while falling from 26560km to Earth. In fractional terms: 0.1583/2.997E8 = 5.28E-10 ..Which is identical to 'gravitational component' of the infamous 'GR correction factor'. equivalent to 45.2 us/day......or approximately 5.23E-10
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 19:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ntra7h$emt$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #395655 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >On 15/10/16 02:09, Michael Moroney wrote: >> Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> writes: >> >> No. The GPS frequency to someone local to the satellite (whether on the ground >> before launch or co-moving with it in space) will measure its frequency as >> 10.2299999954326 MHz. Relativistic effects don't apply to it there. >> It is only when the receiver is in orbit and a ground receiver measures its >> frequency do you get 10.23 MHz exactly, because the GPS now has a substantial >> gravitational potential distance and high velocity, thus making GR effects >> relevant. >That is what dingleberries are taught. Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, why would followers of Herbert Dingle, such as yourself, try to learn how relativity works, Ralph? Dingleberries such as yourself don't even believe in relativity, Ralph, since Mr. Dingle didn't believe that, Ralph. > It is not part of the real world. Ralph Malcolm, the real world is not what you see when you have your head buried in the sand, Ralph Rabbidge. Ralph, you do realize, don't you, Ralph, that denying reality is a symptom of delusional thinking, which could indicate a serious mental health disorder, Ralph Rabbidge. >The clock rate is totally irrelevant as long as it is the same for all >the clocks. No, Ralph, the drift would be substantial every day. It is true that everything could be redesigned somewhat, such as the satellites transmitting at exactly 10.23 MHz, and the receivers expecting the signal at ~10.230000005 MHz, Ralph, moving the relativity correction to the receiver, Ralph, but you still have to factor in what GR does. >What really happens is that clocks sent into orbit change slightly, as >one would expect. No, Ralph, cesium clocks use cesium atoms in freefall deliberately to be sure gravity does not affect them, Ralph. The resonant frequency is not affected by gravity, Ralph Malcolm. Ralph, these are not spring wound clocks or pendulum clocks, Ralph, so you would not expect gravity to affect them, Ralph Rabbidge. >Their rates are carefully monitored and software >adjusted after launch as a permanent correction. No, Ralph, there is no such ability, Ralph. As you would know if you looked at the source code, but you won't, Ralph, since you are too busy burying your head in the sand (or elsewhere), Ralph Rabbidge. >>>> The nominal carrier frequencies (f0) shall be >>>> 1575.42 MHz, and 1227.6 MHz for L1 and L2, >>>> respectively. >> >>> See how those data correspond to the INTEGER multiplication factors 154 and 120: >> >>> L1 (10.23)(154)=(1575.42) >>> L2 (10.23)(120)=(1227.6) >> >> Irrelevant. Those are carrier frequencies and don't have to be specified >> to 15 decimal places like the 10.23 MHz signal is. However, since those >> signals will also be subject to the GR effect, if they do use the source >> of the 10.2299999954326 MHz signal for those carriers, and it is almost >> certain that they do, they will be received at exactly 1575.42 MHz and >> 1227.6 MHz by an earth-bound receiver, because as you stated, they are >> exact integer multiples of the 10.2299999954326 MHz satellite signal. >Load of crap! No, Ralph. As you would know if you bothered to read the reports of the first prototype GPS, where they switched the signal between 10.23 MHz and 10.2299999954326 MHz, Ralph. Read all about it here: https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf Oh wait, Ralph, you refuse to read scientific papers (or more likely can't read), in order so that you can continue to claim "No known (to you, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge) scientific experiments prove GR", Ralph. >Did you know that a falling photon increases speed by 0.1598 m/s while >falling from 26560km to Earth. No, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, it does not, Ralph. It has been proven since 1959, Ralph, that it does not, Ralph. The photon will increase its frequency and decrease its wavelength, Ralph Malcolm, and still be traveling at c upon arrival, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge. Read about it here: https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Rebka.pdf Oh yeah, again, you refuse to look at anything on Paul's site, since you prefer to keep your head buried...there, Ralph.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 06:31 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ntrbqn$3en$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395662 |
On 15/10/16 06:04, Michael Moroney wrote: ...a lot of snipworthy crap... Moron- y, do you really believe the US defence department is going to make highly classified information about the GPS available to mental Irish midgets like you? The GPS clearly uses c+v...but the Yanks aren't going to tell everybody about that, are they... ...even Donald Trump will probably have the sense to keep his mouth shut...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 12:01 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ntvj4u$ho2$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #395667 |
On 14.10.2016 21:31, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > Moron- y, do you really believe the US defence department is going to > make highly classified information about the GPS available to mental > Irish midgets like you? > The GPS clearly uses c+v...but the Yanks aren't going to tell everybody > about that, are they... > ...even Donald Trump will probably have the sense to keep his mouth shut... Sad or hilarious? A bit of both. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web