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 21 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 19 20 [21] 22 Next page →
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-08 22:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ntbjco$ldh$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #395184 |
On 08.10.2016 12:44, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 07/10/16 18:59, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> On 07.10.2016 00:15, HGW wrote:
>>>
>>> In the frame of a satellite, the clock is at rest, the signal departs at
>>> speed c and the receiver is moving. The signal leaves at time t and
>>> arrives at t'. Both are recorded as numbers on presynched clocks. From
>>> the satellite's POV, the term c(t'-t) is the length of a line between it
>>> and the current position of the moving receiver.
>>> From the receiver's POV, the satellite has moved so the same line
>>> c(t'-t) must be the distance from IT to the CURRENT position of the
>>> satellite.
>>
>> The reason why the c(t'-t) is the distance between the satellite
>> and receiver at the time of reception is obviously based on
>> the assumptions that Galilean relativity applies and that
>> the speed of light is c in the source frame and thus c+/-v
>> in the receiver frame. (v is the radial speed)
The only known position of an SV is its position at the time
of emission of the signal. Since the SVs move >260 metres while
the signal is on its way, it wouldn't be much use in knowing
the distance to the SV at the time of reception of the signal.
>>
>> The fact that the GPS works when the equations I showed above
>> are used prove that c(t'-t) is the distance between the position
>> of the satellite at the time of emission and the position of
>> the receiver at the time of reception.
>> Your scenario is thus a falsification of the emission theory.
One would expect that the above would be obvious to
any thinking person who has the slightest idea of how
the GPS works.
Ralph Malcom Rabbidge doesn't seem to belong to said
class of people, though:
>
> Paul, four lines are effectively drawn from the clock coordinates at
> signal emission time and their arcs intersect on Earth. Their lengths
> are c(t'-t). The speed of the signals is c relative to the clocks. That
> is why the the GPS works. GPS prove BaTh.
Despite the fact that I have a hard time believing
that it is possible to be as stupid as you now appear to be,
I will accept that you really are that unique and explain
why what you are claiming is wrong.
Let's assume that the time and position of the receiver
(t,x,y,z) are determined by solving the four equations:
(t-tn) = sqrt((x_n - x)^2 + (y_n - y)^2 + (z_n - z)^2)/c
n = 1,2,3,4
where tn is the known time of transmission of the signal from SV n,
and (x_n, y_n, z_n) is its known position at the time t_n.
All coordinates are in the ECI-frame.
Let's have a closer look at two of the four equations:
For simplicity, let's assume that these two SVs are in
the same orbital plane, and that the receiver is in
the same plane. Let's further assume that the two SV's
are approximately 45 degrees from vertical on either side
of the receiver, see figure below.
SV1-> SV2->
\ /
\ /
\d1 /d2
\ /
\ /
\ /
\/
R
- The coordinates of the event "SV1 emits the signal"
are (t1,x1,y1,z1).
- The coordinates of the event "SV2 emits the signal"
are (t2,x2,y2,z2).
- The coordinates of the event "R receives the four signals"
are (t,x,y,z)
- d1 is the distance between the position of SV1 at the time t1,
and the position of the receiver at the time t.
- d2 is the distance between the position of SV2 at the time t2,
and the position of the receiver at the time t.
All coordinates are in the ECI-frame.
Since the GPS factually works, we know:
d1 = (t - t1)c d2 = (t - t2)c
But according Ralph Malcom Rabbidge the two distances will be
calculated to be d1' and d1', where:
d1' = (t - t1)(c+v) d2' = (t - t2)(c-v)
where v is the radial speed of the SV's.
v ~= 600 m/s = 2E-6c
d1' = d1(1 + 2E-6) d2' = d2(1 - 2E-6)
Since d1 and d2 are in the order of 2.26E7m we get:
d1' = d1 + 45m d2'= d2 - 45m
We know that d1 and d2 are correct (the GPS works),
so Ralph Malcom Rabbidge's "BaTh" give wrong distances.
This falsifies the"BaTh".
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-09 09:58 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ntbtmb$1s5g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395206 |
On 09/10/16 07:02, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 08.10.2016 12:44, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> >>> The reason why the c(t'-t) is the distance between the satellite >>> and receiver at the time of reception is obviously based on >>> the assumptions that Galilean relativity applies and that >>> the speed of light is c in the source frame and thus c+/-v >>> in the receiver frame. (v is the radial speed) > > The only known position of an SV is its position at the time > of emission of the signal. Since the SVs move >260 metres while > the signal is on its way, it wouldn't be much use in knowing > the distance to the SV at the time of reception of the signal. The signal contains the time it was sent and therefore the orbit coordinates. In the clock frame, the signal moves at c relative to the clock and the receiver is moving. Knowing the receiver's time , t', when the signal is received enables a vector of length c(t'-t) to be drawn from the clock's original coordinates to the receiver's current position. The use of c is valid because it is the signal speed relative to the coordinate point when the clock sent the signal. The clock is NOT MOVING in its own frame. It is near enough to being inertial over the short times involved. > One would expect that the above would be obvious to > any thinking person who has the slightest idea of how > the GPS works. > > Dr Wilson doesn't seem to belong to said > class of people, though: GPS works because the dingleberries who operate it can call on numerous excuses like ionospheric delay and sagnac to empirically correct for the errors resulting from their use of c rather than c+v. >> >> Paul, four lines are effectively drawn from the clock coordinates at >> signal emission time and their arcs intersect on Earth. Their lengths >> are c(t'-t). The speed of the signals is c relative to the clocks. That >> is why the the GPS works. GPS prove BaTh. > > Despite the fact that I have a hard time believing > that it is possible to be as stupid as you now appear to be, > I will accept that you really are that unique and explain > why what you are claiming is wrong. > > Let's assume that the time and position of the receiver > (t,x,y,z) are determined by solving the four equations: > > (t-tn) = sqrt((x_n - x)^2 + (y_n - y)^2 + (z_n - z)^2)/c > n = 1,2,3,4 > > where tn is the known time of transmission of the signal from SV n, > and (x_n, y_n, z_n) is its known position at the time t_n. > All coordinates are in the ECI-frame. > > Let's have a closer look at two of the four equations: > For simplicity, let's assume that these two SVs are in > the same orbital plane, and that the receiver is in > the same plane. Let's further assume that the two SV's > are approximately 45 degrees from vertical on either side > of the receiver, see figure below. > > > SV1-> SV2-> > \ / > \ / > \d1 /d2 > \ / > \ / > \ / > \/ > R > > - The coordinates of the event "SV1 emits the signal" > are (t1,x1,y1,z1). > - The coordinates of the event "SV2 emits the signal" > are (t2,x2,y2,z2). > - The coordinates of the event "R receives the four signals" > are (t,x,y,z) > - d1 is the distance between the position of SV1 at the time t1, > and the position of the receiver at the time t. > - d2 is the distance between the position of SV2 at the time t2, > and the position of the receiver at the time t. > > All coordinates are in the ECI-frame. > > Since the GPS factually works, we know: > d1 = (t - t1)c d2 = (t - t2)c > > But according Dr Wiklson, the two distances will be > calculated to be d1' and d1', where: > > d1' = (t - t1)(c+v) d2' = (t - t2)(c-v) You got it wrong again. I am saying your above equations are correct BUT ONLY because the 'c' refers to the signal speed relative to the clocks and not the receiver. I have shown you why.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-09 11:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ntd19r$l3m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #395223 |
On 09.10.2016 00:58, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 09/10/16 07:02, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> Let's assume that the time and position of the receiver >> (t,x,y,z) are determined by solving the four equations: >> >> (t-tn) = sqrt((x_n - x)^2 + (y_n - y)^2 + (z_n - z)^2)/c >> n = 1,2,3,4 >> >> where tn is the known time of transmission of the signal from SV n, >> and (x_n, y_n, z_n) is its known position at the time t_n. >> All coordinates are in the ECI-frame. >> >> Let's have a closer look at two of the four equations: >> For simplicity, let's assume that these two SVs are in >> the same orbital plane, and that the receiver is in >> the same plane. Let's further assume that the two SV's >> are approximately 45 degrees from vertical on either side >> of the receiver, see figure below. >> >> >> SV1-> SV2-> >> \ / >> \ / >> \d1 /d2 >> \ / >> \ / >> \ / >> \/ >> R >> >> - The coordinates of the event "SV1 emits the signal" >> are (t1,x1,y1,z1). >> - The coordinates of the event "SV2 emits the signal" >> are (t2,x2,y2,z2). >> - The coordinates of the event "R receives the four signals" >> are (t,x,y,z) >> - d1 is the distance between the position of SV1 at the time t1, >> and the position of the receiver at the time t. >> - d2 is the distance between the position of SV2 at the time t2, >> and the position of the receiver at the time t. >> >> All coordinates are in the ECI-frame. >> >> Since the GPS factually works, we know: >> d1 = (t - t1)c d2 = (t - t2)c Repeat: - d1 is the distance between the position of SV1 _in the ECI-frame_ at the GPS time t1, and the position of the receiver _in the ECI-frame_ at the GPS time t. - d2 is the distance between the position of SV2 _in the ECI-frame_ at the GPS time t2, and the position of the receiver _in the ECI-frame_ at the GPS time t. >> But according to Ralph Malcom Rabbidge, the two distances >> will be calculated to be d1' and d1', where: >> >> d1' = (t - t1)(c+v) d2' = (t - t2)(c-v) > > You got it wrong again. I am saying your above equations are correct BUT > ONLY because the 'c' refers to the signal speed relative to the clocks > and not the receiver. I have shown you why. Don't be ridiculous. You are now desperately claiming what you know is nonsense, because you must know that c in the equations above is the speed of light in the ECI-frame. You also know that according to emission theories and the "BaTh" the speed of the light from SV1 to R measured in the ECI frame is (c+v) and the speed of light from SV2 to R measured in the ECI frame is (c-v) where v is the radial speed measured in the ECI frame. 45 degrees from vertical v ~= 600 m/s = 2E-6c d1' = d1(1 + 2E-6) d2' = d2(1 - 2E-6) Since d1 and d2 are in the order of 2.26E7m we get: d1' = d1 + 45m d2'= d2 - 45m We know that d1 and d2 are correct (the GPS works), so Ralph Malcom Rabbidge's "BaTh" give wrong distances. This falsifies the"BaTh". -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-10 06:14 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nte4tn$vgg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395246 |
On 09/10/16 20:06, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 09.10.2016 00:58, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 09/10/16 07:02, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >> You got it wrong again. I am saying your above equations are correct BUT >> ONLY because the 'c' refers to the signal speed relative to the clocks >> and not the receiver. I have shown you why. > > Don't be ridiculous. > You are now desperately claiming what you know is nonsense, > because you must know that c in the equations above is > the speed of light in the ECI-frame. You also know that > according to emission theories and the "BaTh" the speed of > the light from SV1 to R measured in the ECI frame is (c+v) > and the speed of light from SV2 to R measured in the ECI frame > is (c-v) where v is the radial speed measured in the ECI frame. Paul, you are so indoctrinated with the idea that the ECI frame has the magic qualities of Einstein's personal aether that you seem to have lost all recognition of the Principle of relativity. EM has only one speed reference, its source. A GPS clock is the source of its own signals. They move at c relative to that source. In the frame of the source (which is near enough to inertial), the source is at rest and the receiver is moving. The signal contains the ECI coordinates at its emission time, 't'. It reaches the receiver about 85 ms after being sent, during which time the receiver has moved considerably. The receiver's time, , t', is in absolute synch with all the clocks so the term c(t'-t) is the true distance from the emission coordinate to the receiver's CURRENT position.....which is what is required. Get it now? You have been analysing the problem from the wrong frame. In the satellite frame, the receiver is moving. In the receiver frame, the satellite is moving. In both frames, the term c(t'-t) MUST give the same answer. You seem to be claiming that (c+v)(t'-t) = c(t'-t) Can you identify your error.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-10 08:21 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ntecd9$1c8g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395293 |
On 10/10/16 06:14, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 09/10/16 20:06, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Get it now? You have been analysing the problem from the wrong frame. > In the satellite frame, the receiver is moving. In the receiver frame, > the satellite is moving. In both frames, the term c(t'-t) MUST give the > same answer. > > You seem to be claiming that (c+v)(t'-t) = c(t'-t) > Can you identify your error. Just in case you cannot find it, I will tell you what it is and you might then understand why you, Roberts and the rest of the dingleberry ratpack have been making such big fools of yourselves. The clock sends a signal to your receiver at c+v. It reaches you t seconds later at common time t'. However, while the signal is in transit, the clock moves a distance vt. So (c+v)t is actually the true distance to the clock at the instant the signal reaches you. If you subtract the clock's movement, vt, you get 'ct' which is the distance to the point where the clock was when the signal was sent....which of course you knew already from the ephemeris. Your problem was that you have been assuming the FIXED ECI POINT sent the signal at c+v in the ECI frame. So GPS firmly supports BaTh and clearly... very clearly... refutes Einstein. I hope you don't lose too much sleep over your lifetime of self delusion.... --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-10 11:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ntfocl$ij5$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #395304 |
On 09.10.2016 23:21, HGW wrote: > On 10/10/16 06:14, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >> Get it now? You have been analysing the problem from the wrong frame. >> In the satellite frame, the receiver is moving. In the receiver frame, >> the satellite is moving. In both frames, the term c(t'-t) MUST give the >> same answer. >> >> You seem to be claiming that (c+v)(t'-t) = c(t'-t) >> Can you identify your error. > > Just in case you cannot find it, I will tell you what it is and you > might then understand why you, Roberts and the rest of the dingleberry > ratpack have been making such big fools of yourselves. > > The clock sends a signal to your receiver at c+v. It reaches you t > seconds later at common time t'. However, while the signal is in > transit, the clock moves a distance vt. So (c+v)t is actually the true > distance to the clock at the instant the signal reaches you. If you > subtract the clock's movement, vt, you get 'ct' which is the distance to > the point where the clock was when the signal was sent....which of > course you knew already from the ephemeris. Good grief, Ralph! As previously stated, I have a hard time believing that you really are as stupid as you now appear. I will however explain the obvious yet another time. This will be the last time: At the time of emission tn the position of the satellite in the ECI frame is (xn,yn,zn). This point is precisely known because it is given by the time tn. The receiver receive the signal at the time t. Since the speed of light is c in the ECI frame the distance from the FIXED ECI POINT (xn,yn,zn) to the position of the receiver at the reception of the signal is d = (t-tn)c. We know this is correct because the GPS works. > Your problem was that you have been assuming the FIXED ECI POINT sent > the signal at c+v in the ECI frame. No, I assume the speed of the signal is c in the ECI frame. But the 'BaTh' assumes the speed of the signal is (c+v) in the ECI frame. The satellite is moving at 3800 m/s in the ECI frame when it emits the signal as it passes through the FIXED ECI POINT. According to the "BaTh" the speed of the light towards the receiver in the ECI frame is (c+v) where v is the component of the satellite velocity towards the receiver. At 45 degrees from vertical v ~= 600 m/s = 2E-6c So according to the 'BaTh' the distance from the FIXED ECI POINT to the position of the receiver at the time of reception is: (tn-t)c(1+2E-6) = (tn-t)c + ~45m, which is wrong If the speed of the signal were dependent on the speed of the source, the GPS wouldn't work. The GPS falsifies the 'BaTh'. > > So GPS firmly supports BaTh and clearly... very clearly... refutes > Einstein. > > I hope you don't lose too much sleep over your lifetime of self > delusion.... Unless you are a complete moron, there is no way you now can fail to realize that you are wrong. I know you will never admit it, though. Case definitely closed. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 20:29 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ntibcp$1bta$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395328 |
On 10/10/16 20:52, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 09.10.2016 23:21, HGW wrote:
>> The clock sends a signal to your receiver at c+v. It reaches you t
>> seconds later at common time t'. However, while the signal is in
>> transit, the clock moves a distance vt. So (c+v)t is actually the true
>> distance to the clock at the instant the signal reaches you. If you
>> subtract the clock's movement, vt, you get 'ct' which is the distance to
>> the point where the clock was when the signal was sent....which of
>> course you knew already from the ephemeris.
>
> Good grief, Ralph!
>
> As previously stated, I have a hard time believing that you
> really are as stupid as you now appear.
> I will however explain the obvious yet another time.
> This will be the last time:
>
> At the time of emission tn the position of the satellite in
> the ECI frame is (xn,yn,zn). This point is precisely known
> because it is given by the time tn.
> The receiver receive the signal at the time t.
> Since the speed of light is c in the ECI frame the distance
> from the FIXED ECI POINT (xn,yn,zn) to the position
> of the receiver at the reception of the signal is d = (t-tn)c.
> We know this is correct because the GPS works.
>
>> Your problem was that you have been assuming the FIXED ECI POINT sent
>> the signal at c+v in the ECI frame.
>
> No, I assume the speed of the signal is c in the ECI frame.
> But the 'BaTh' assumes the speed of the signal is (c+v)
> in the ECI frame.
Why would the speed of the signal be c in the ECI frame and not c in the
sun's CI frame? The signal doesn't give a hoot about any ECI frames. It
just moves at c relative to its source.
> The satellite is moving at 3800 m/s in the ECI frame when
> it emits the signal as it passes through the FIXED ECI POINT.
> According to the "BaTh" the speed of the light towards
> the receiver in the ECI frame is (c+v) where v is the
> component of the satellite velocity towards the receiver.
>
> At 45 degrees from vertical v ~= 600 m/s = 2E-6c
> So according to the 'BaTh' the distance from the FIXED ECI POINT
> to the position of the receiver at the time of reception is:
> (tn-t)c(1+2E-6) = (tn-t)c + ~45m, which is wrong
>
> If the speed of the signal were dependent on the speed of the source,
> the GPS wouldn't work. The GPS falsifies the 'BaTh'.
The ECI frame does not determine the speed of the signals. How could it?
Their only reference is their own source.
We are referring to errors due to radial speeds only. Here is a linear
version of the problem.
Paul and a light source have clocks that are absolutely synched.
Paul and Marker M are on a road along which the source is moving at v.
S>v-M-------------------t>(c+v)-----------------P
When S passes M, it sends a time signal to Paul.
In Paul's frame, the signal moves at c+v and Paul receives it at t'.
The distance between Paul and M is (c+v)(t'-t).
In the source frame, both M and P are moving at v.
S--v<M-------------------t>c-----------------------------v<P
S sends a time signal, t, at speed c, when M is adjacent. It reaches
Paul at t'.
Paul is then c(t'-t) away from S and since M has moved v(t'-t) during
signal travel, Paul is (c+v)(t'-t) away from M.
If GPS used the the receiver frame and c rather than c+v in its
calculations for current distance to the ECI point where the signals
were sent, it would have big error.
>> So GPS firmly supports BaTh and clearly... very clearly... refutes
>> Einstein.
>>
>> I hope you don't lose too much sleep over your lifetime of self
>> delusion....
>
> Unless you are a complete moron, there is no way
> you now can fail to realize that you are wrong.
> I know you will never admit it, though.
>
>
> Case definitely closed.
That's a pity. What is written above would improve your knowledge
dramatically.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-10 10:23 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ntfj5l$91r$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #395293 |
On 09.10.2016 21:14, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 09/10/16 20:06, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 09.10.2016 00:58, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> On 09/10/16 07:02, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> Let's assume that the time and position of the receiver >>>> (t,x,y,z) are determined by solving the four equations: >>>> >>>> (t-tn) = sqrt((x_n - x)^2 + (y_n - y)^2 + (z_n - z)^2)/c >>>> n = 1,2,3,4 >>>> >>>> where tn is the known time of transmission of the signal from SV n, >>>> and (x_n, y_n, z_n) is its known position at the time t_n. >>>> All coordinates are in the ECI-frame. >>>> >>>> Let's have a closer look at two of the four equations: >>>> For simplicity, let's assume that these two SVs are in >>>> the same orbital plane, and that the receiver is in >>>> the same plane. Let's further assume that the two SV's >>>> are approximately 45 degrees from vertical on either side >>>> of the receiver, see figure below. >>>> >>>> >>>> SV1-> SV2-> >>>> \ / >>>> \ / >>>> \d1 /d2 >>>> \ / >>>> \ / >>>> \ / >>>> \/ >>>> R >>>> >>>> In _the ECI frame_ the coordinates of the events of interest are: >>>> >>>> - The coordinates of the event "SV1 emits the signal" >>>> are (t1,x1,y1,z1). >>>> - The coordinates of the event "SV2 emits the signal" >>>> are (t2,x2,y2,z2). >>>> - The coordinates of the event "R receives the four signals" >>>> are (t,x,y,z) >>>> - d1 is the distance between the position of SV1 at the time t1, >>>> and the position of the receiver at the time t. >>>> - d2 is the distance between the position of SV2 at the time t2, >>>> and the position of the receiver at the time t. >>>> >>>> Since the GPS factually works, we know: >>>> d1 = (t - t1)c d2 = (t - t2)c >>>> >>>> But according Ralph Malcom Rabbidge the two distances will be >>>> calculated to be d1' and d1', where: >>>> >>>> d1' = (t - t1)(c+v) d2' = (t - t2)(c-v) > >>> >>> You got it wrong again. I am saying your above equations are correct BUT >>> ONLY because the 'c' refers to the signal speed relative to the clocks >>> and not the receiver. I have shown you why. >> >> Don't be ridiculous. >> You are now desperately claiming what you know is nonsense, >> because you must know that c in the equations above is >> the speed of light in the ECI-frame. You also know that >> according to emission theories and the "BaTh" the speed of >> the light from SV1 to R measured in the ECI frame is (c+v) >> and the speed of light from SV2 to R measured in the ECI frame >> is (c-v) where v is the radial speed measured in the ECI frame. >> >> 45 degrees from vertical v ~= 600 m/s = 2E-6c >> >> d1' = d1(1 + 2E-6) d2' = d2(1 - 2E-6) >> >> Since d1 and d2 are in the order of 2.26E7m we get: >> d1' = d1 + 45m d2'= d2 - 45m >> >> We know that d1 and d2 are correct (the GPS works), >> so Ralph Malcom Rabbidge's "BaTh" give wrong distances. >> This falsifies the"BaTh". >> 'nuff said! > > Paul, you are so indoctrinated with the idea that the ECI frame has the > magic qualities of Einstein's personal aether that you seem to have lost > all recognition of the Principle of relativity. > > EM has only one speed reference, its source. A GPS clock is the source > of its own signals. They move at c relative to that source. In the frame > of the source (which is near enough to inertial), the source is at rest > and the receiver is moving. > > The signal contains the ECI coordinates at its emission time, 't'. It > reaches the receiver about 85 ms after being sent, during which time the > receiver has moved considerably. The receiver's time, > , t', is in absolute synch with all the clocks so the term c(t'-t) is > the true distance from the emission coordinate to the receiver's CURRENT > position.....which is what is required. > > Get it now? You have been analysing the problem from the wrong frame. > In the satellite frame, the receiver is moving. In the receiver frame, > the satellite is moving. In both frames, the term c(t'-t) MUST give the > same answer. > > You seem to be claiming that (c+v)(t'-t) = c(t'-t) > Can you identify your error. > :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 09:20 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nth46o$1pjk$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395327 |
On 10/10/16 19:23, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 09.10.2016 21:14, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: c(t'-t) gives the current position of the satellite. The receiver can instantly get the clock's coordinates at that instant. That is more useful than knowing what they were when the signal was sent. Besides, a person at the equator moves about 4 metres during the signal travel time. So you need four signals arriving at the same instant. Then all you need is their current coordinates and use D = c(t'-t) --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-10 19:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <3OKdnVrmV42esWHKnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #395354 |
On 10/10/16 10/10/16 5:20 PM, HGW wrote: > c(t'-t) gives the current position of the satellite. Not true. You used the same symbol "v" for TWO DIFFERENT QUANTITIES, and confused them. Here's an outline of your error: NOTE: my symbols have different meanings from yours, for the simple reason that yours are incomplete and ambiguous. Let v be the satellite's 3-velocity relative to the ECI; let p be a unit 3-vector pointing from the satellite to the receiver [#] at the instant the satellite transmits its time mark (a phase reversal); let that instant be t and its position be R (both in ECI coordinates; R is a 3-vector). The satellite never broadcasts R, but it broadcasts its ephemeris and t, and from those any receiver can compute R. [#] where the receiver will be when it receives the time mark. So according to "BaTh" the speed of the signal to the receiver is c + v.p = c + |v| cos(theta) If the signal arrives at the receiver at time t', the position of the satellite at time t' is Pos = R + v (t' - t) In your incorrect analysis yon confused |v| cos(theta) and |v| and thought they cancelled -- they don't. You also made repeated algebra errors. > The receiver can instantly get the clock's coordinates at that instant. Not true. The receiver must first COMPUTE t' before it can do that, because the receiver's clock is not accurate enough. The only way it can compute t' is to COMPUTE ITS POSITION AND TIME (t'), which according to you needs the satellite position at t'. For instance, how could it compute theta without knowing its position? You never understood the "catch 22" here. Competent physicists and software experts can figure out how this could be solved. But it is a significantly harder problem than what the GPS actually does. Worse, this approach will have larger errorbars on the position&time because the ephemeris must be differentiated to determine v, (and that is a numerically error-inducing calculation) [$]. Based on his writings around here, I doubt HGW has an inkling of what is involved. [$] Here is a GREAT BIG HINT: if GPS receivers needed the value of v, the satellite ephemeris would include it, as that would be the only way to avoid the additional contribution to the errorbars. It doesn't. Actual GPS receivers do no such thing. They compute the satellite position at t from the ephemeris, and compute their position and t' by fitting to those two quantities from 4 or more satellites. They of course use c for the speed of the signal. If you ever bothered to look at the code links that were posted, you would see this IN THE CODE. > That is more useful than knowing what they were when the signal was sent. Nonsense! The position of the satellite when the signal is received is USELESS. For the simple reason that the receiver knows the speed of the signal, and that connects the time&position of transmission with the time&position of reception. (This is so regardless of using c or c+v for the speed of the signal.) You REALLY don't understand this. It seems your fantasies get in the way. > [... further confusion indicating a complete lack of understanding of the GPS] Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 19:04 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nti6em$134c$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395359 |
On 11/10/16 11:02, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 10/10/16 10/10/16 5:20 PM, HGW wrote: >> c(t'-t) gives the current position of the satellite. > > Not true. You used the same symbol "v" for TWO DIFFERENT QUANTITIES, and > confused them. Here's an outline of your error: > > NOTE: my symbols have different meanings from yours, for the > simple reason that yours are incomplete and ambiguous. > > Let v be the satellite's 3-velocity relative to the ECI; let p be a unit > 3-vector pointing from the satellite to the receiver [#] at the instant > the satellite transmits its time mark (a phase reversal); let that > instant be t and its position be R (both in ECI coordinates; R is a > 3-vector). The satellite never broadcasts R, but it broadcasts its > ephemeris and t, and from those any receiver can compute R. > > [#] where the receiver will be when it receives the time mark. > > So according to "BaTh" the speed of the signal to the receiver is > c + v.p = c + |v| cos(theta) > > If the signal arrives at the receiver at time t', the position of the > satellite at time t' is > Pos = R + v (t' - t) > > In your incorrect analysis yon confused |v| cos(theta) and |v| and > thought they cancelled -- they don't. You also made repeated algebra > errors. I made it clear in an earlier post that v normally referred to the radial component only. >> The receiver can instantly get the clock's coordinates at that instant. > > Not true. The receiver must first COMPUTE t' before it can do that, > because the receiver's clock is not accurate enough. The only way it can > compute t' is to COMPUTE ITS POSITION AND TIME (t'), which according to > you needs the satellite position at t'. For instance, how could it > compute theta without knowing its position? You never understood the > "catch 22" here. > > Competent physicists and software experts can figure out > how this could be solved. But it is a significantly harder > problem than what the GPS actually does. Worse, this > approach will have larger errorbars on the position&time > because the ephemeris must be differentiated to determine > v, (and that is a numerically error-inducing calculation) > [$]. Based on his writings around here, I doubt HGW has an > inkling of what is involved. > > [$] Here is a GREAT BIG HINT: if GPS receivers needed the > value of v, the satellite ephemeris would include it, as > that would be the only way to avoid the additional > contribution to the errorbars. It doesn't. Assume the receiver is at rest on the ground. IN THE FRAME OF THE SATELLITE, the signal is sent at speed c at time t. Both the point P in space representing the ECI coordinate at that instant and the ground receiver are moving RADIALLY at v in the same direction in that frame. The signal reaches the receiver at time t'. The distance between the satellite and the receiver at that instant is c(t'-t). However the point P has moved v(t'-t) during the signal transit time. Therefore point P is (c+v)(t'-t) away from the receiver at that instant. Therefore it is correct to use c+v rather than c. > Actual GPS receivers do no such thing. They compute the satellite > position at t from the ephemeris, and compute their position and t' by > fitting to those two quantities from 4 or more satellites. They of > course use c for the speed of the signal. If you ever bothered to look > at the code links that were posted, you would see this IN THE CODE. > > >> That is more useful than knowing what they were when the signal was sent. > > Nonsense! The position of the satellite when the signal is received is > USELESS. For the simple reason that the receiver knows the speed of the > signal, and that connects the time&position of transmission with the > time&position of reception. (This is so regardless of using c or c+v for > the speed of the signal.) > > You REALLY don't understand this. It seems your fantasies get in the way. The receiver needs to know its distance to fixed ECI points at the instant it receives the signal. It can use the point from which the signal was sent As I showed above. c+v is therefore the correct speed to use when calculating in the receiver frame. >> [... further confusion indicating a complete lack of understanding of >> the GPS] > > Tom Roberts > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 00:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nthd6n$r0f$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #395354 |
HGW <hw@....> writes: >On 10/10/16 19:23, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 09.10.2016 21:14, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >c(t'-t) gives the current position of the satellite. >The receiver can instantly get the clock's coordinates at that instant. Ralph, if that were true, it would only be an estimate, which would depend on the estimate of v. The real GPS knows _exactly_ the position of the satellite since it broadcast _exactly_ where and when it is. From the multiple (xn,yn,zn,tn) values received, the receiver can calculate its position rather than guess as you would have it. And besides, as Paul pointed out, the positions would be ~45 meters off for a satellite at an angle of 45 degrees. >That is more useful than knowing what they were when the signal was sent. Definitely not! The signal has an _exact_ (x,y,z,t) coordinate when broadcast, while the current position of the satellite (assuming Dirty BaThwater were true, which it has been proven false) would be an estimate. >Besides, a person at the equator moves about 4 metres during the signal >travel time. So you need four signals arriving at the same instant. No, there is a translation from the ECI frame to the rotating earth coordinate. Once the longitude is known, it is just a subtraction of a velocity value that is dependant on the longitude.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 20:14 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ntiahk$1ak1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395362 |
On 11/10/16 11:53, Michael Moroney wrote: > HGW <hw@....> writes: > > > No, there is a translation from the ECI frame to the rotating earth > coordinate. Once the longitude is known, it is just a subtraction of a > velocity value that is dependant on the longitude. The ECI frame does not determine the speed of the signals. Their only reference is their own source. We are referring to errors due to radial speeds only. Here is a linear version of the problem. Paul and a light source have clocks that are absolutely synched. Paul and Marker M are on a road along which the source is moving at v. S>v-M-------------------t>(c+v)-----------------P When S passes M, it sends a time signal to Paul. In Paul's frame, the signal moves at c+v and Paul receives it at t'. The distance between Paul and M is (c+v)(t'-t). In the source frame, both M and P are moving at v. S--v<M-------------------t>c-----------------------------v<P S sends a time signal, t, at speed c, when M is adjacent. It reaches Paul at t'. Paul is then c(t'-t) away from S and since M has moved v(t'-t) in the signal travel time, Paul is (c+v)(t'-t) away from M. If GPS used c rather than c+v in its calculations for the receiver frame, it would have big error.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 08:28 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nt3r9d$h99$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394902 |
On 05/10/16 20:23, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 04.10.2016 22:50, HGW wrote: >> >> ".. all GPS 1.00.000000am time signals >> did NOT arrive at a ground receiver at the same instant. They might be > > The GPS signals are continuous, so the receiver is at any time > simultaneously receiving the times of transmission of the signals > from several satellites (>=4). > > Each satellite is transmitting the time signal at regular intervals, > but the PRN signal is synced to this time and is transmitted > continuously. Since the satellites are identified by the PRN > signals which are known by the receiver, and is locked to the PRN > in a phase locked loop, the receiver will by counting the PRN bits > always know the time of transmission of the signal it is receiving > now. Even so, 'now' is never the same for each signal. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 03:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nt4i5q$j3e$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #394955 |
HGW <hw@....> writes: >On 05/10/16 20:23, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 04.10.2016 22:50, HGW wrote: >>> >>> ".. all GPS 1.00.000000am time signals >>> did NOT arrive at a ground receiver at the same instant. They might be >> >> The GPS signals are continuous, so the receiver is at any time >> simultaneously receiving the times of transmission of the signals >> from several satellites (>=4). >> >> Each satellite is transmitting the time signal at regular intervals, >> but the PRN signal is synced to this time and is transmitted >> continuously. Since the satellites are identified by the PRN >> signals which are known by the receiver, and is locked to the PRN >> in a phase locked loop, the receiver will by counting the PRN bits >> always know the time of transmission of the signal it is receiving >> now. >Even so, 'now' is never the same for each signal. Ralph, Paul just got through explaining (in what you quoted) how tracking the PRN bit is used to make 'now' the same for all signals.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 19:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nsu5km$ac1$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #394306 |
On 30.09.2016 02:17, HGW wrote: > On 29/09/16 21:35, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >> >> The GPS code does not extrapolate satellite positions and it does not >> need to. That is because c+v is nonsense. > > What are you talking about? The GPS has to know precisely where each > satellite is at the instant a time signal is received....not when it was > sent. One can but wonder how it is possible to discuss the GPS for so many years and still be so utterly ignorant about how it works. I have seen many versions of Ralph Malcom Rabbidge's wrong claims about the GPS, but this is one of the most stupid. It isn't even funny, only sad. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-03 19:50 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nsucqs$ka3$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #394723 |
"Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> writes: >On 30.09.2016 02:17, HGW wrote: >> On 29/09/16 21:35, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>> >>> The GPS code does not extrapolate satellite positions and it does not >>> need to. That is because c+v is nonsense. >> >> What are you talking about? The GPS has to know precisely where each >> satellite is at the instant a time signal is received....not when it was >> sent. >One can but wonder how it is possible to discuss the GPS >for so many years and still be so utterly ignorant about how it works. >I have seen many versions of Ralph Malcom Rabbidge's wrong claims >about the GPS, but this is one of the most stupid. >It isn't even funny, only sad. Exactly. What Ralph Rabbidge doesn't realize is it's the (x,y,z,t) coordinates of an exact position/time of the satellite that the GPS receiver needs to know. An event, using the physicists' definition. Why would its position at some possibly unknown time later be at all helpful? We don't have any signal from the new position.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 09:06 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nt194l$k6e$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394723 |
On 04/10/16 04:48, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 30.09.2016 02:17, HGW wrote: >> On 29/09/16 21:35, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>> >>> The GPS code does not extrapolate satellite positions and it does not >>> need to. That is because c+v is nonsense. >> >> What are you talking about? The GPS has to know precisely where each >> satellite is at the instant a time signal is received....not when it was >> sent. > > One can but wonder how it is possible to discuss the GPS > for so many years and still be so utterly ignorant about how it works. > > I have seen many versions of the good Doctor's wrong claims > about the GPS, but this is one of the most stupid. > > It isn't even funny, only sad. Paul, you just cannot understand this. Each signal contains the time it was sent and indirectly the fixed ECI coordinates of the satellite at that instant. In the ECI frame, the signal moves at c+vn relative to each point, where vn is each clock's radial velocity. While the signal is traveling, the receiver moves radial distance vntn RELATIVE TO EACH POINT. When the signal reaches the receiver, it has to calculate where it now is relative to where the satellite was. However, identical time signals DO NOT arrive at the same instant. In the fixed points frame, the receiver moves radially v1t1,v2t2,v3t3 and v4t4, where the t's are the respective signal travel times. It should now be obvious to you that subtracting vtn from the respective (c+v)tn will give the receiver distances from the fixed points at the time encoded on the signal (good enough for most situations). How else could it be done? So, the use of c rather than c+v is an automatic correction and a clever diversion. (note, my statement that the receiver needed to know where the satellite IS rather than WAS is misleading because it relates to the receiver frame. The use of the 'fixed points' implies that the satellite is only EFFECTIVELY at those locations.) Of course it would be more sensible to use four time signals that arrive over the shortest time interval, in which case the 'vt' corrections are much smaller. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-05 10:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nt2feb$bik$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #394853 |
On 05.10.2016 00:06, HGW wrote: > On 04/10/16 04:48, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 30.09.2016 02:17, HGW wrote: >>> On 29/09/16 21:35, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>>> >>>> The GPS code does not extrapolate satellite positions and it does not >>>> need to. That is because c+v is nonsense. >>> >>> What are you talking about? The GPS has to know precisely where each >>> satellite is at the instant a time signal is received....not when it was >>> sent. >> >> One can but wonder how it is possible to discuss the GPS >> for so many years and still be so utterly ignorant about how it works. >> >> I have seen many versions of Ralph Malcom Rabbidge's wrong claims >> about the GPS, but this is one of the most stupid. >> >> It isn't even funny, only sad. > > Paul, you just cannot understand this. > Each signal contains the time it was sent and indirectly the fixed ECI > coordinates of the satellite at that instant. In the ECI frame, the > signal moves at c+vn relative to each point, where vn is each clock's > radial velocity. While the signal is traveling, the receiver moves > radial distance vntn RELATIVE TO EACH POINT. When the signal reaches the > receiver, it has to calculate where it now is relative to where the > satellite was. > However, identical time signals DO NOT arrive at the same instant. In > the fixed points frame, the receiver moves radially v1t1,v2t2,v3t3 and > v4t4, where the t's are the respective signal travel times. > > It should now be obvious to you that subtracting vtn from the respective > (c+v)tn will give the receiver distances from the fixed points at the > time encoded on the signal (good enough for most situations). How else > could it be done? So, the use of c rather than c+v is an automatic > correction and a clever diversion. > > (note, my statement that the receiver needed to know where the satellite > IS rather than WAS is misleading because it relates to the receiver > frame. The use of the 'fixed points' implies that the satellite is only > EFFECTIVELY at those locations.) > > Of course it would be more sensible to use four time signals that arrive > over the shortest time interval, in which case the 'vt' corrections are > much smaller. > > Defending an idiotic claim can only make it worse. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-06 20:13 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nt54ja$7p6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #394723 |
On 04/10/16 04:48, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 30.09.2016 02:17, HGW wrote: >> On 29/09/16 21:35, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >>> >>> The GPS code does not extrapolate satellite positions and it does not >>> need to. That is because c+v is nonsense. >> >> What are you talking about? The GPS has to know precisely where each >> satellite is at the instant a time signal is received....not when it was >> sent. > > One can but wonder how it is possible to discuss the GPS > for so many years and still be so utterly ignorant about how it works. > > I have seen many versions of Dr. Wilson's wrong claims > about the GPS, but this is one of the most stupid. > > It isn't even funny, only sad. ...and another error exists because the satellite orbit ephemerides are wrongly assessed through using c rather than c+v.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 21 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 19 20 [21] 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web