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 6 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 22 Next page →
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 12:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ea12efab-6f10-4a4f-aaf9-da86b7c584b4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395745 |
Tom Roberts wrote: A combination of the Cs133 clock on board and the specifications and circuit diagrams of the on-board electronics. The Cs133 standard in the satellite defines 1 second as 9,192,631,770 cycles of its ground-state hyperfine transition radiation. But the divider that generates the P-code chip rate is based on a larger value, work out the circuit details and one finds that the P-code chip rate is measured to be 10.2299999954326 MHz by an on-board clock. > If a clock 'ticks' N times PER ORBIT, it ticks at N times per orbit NO MATTER > WHO COUNTS THE TICKS. Sure. But clock rates are not specified "per orbit", they are specified PER SECOND. You have no hope of defining the endpoints of an orbit with sufficient accuracy to make any sense of that at all. Tom Roberts 10.23/(1/(14983338500 * 299792458)^0.5+1) = 10.2299999952 Live Long & Prosper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 06:31 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ntu077$1j3b$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395745 |
On 16/10/16 06:06, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 10/15/16 10/15/16 - 1:16 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 15/10/16 16:45, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> On 10/14/16 10/14/16 10:09 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: >>> I believe the GPS specs require a satellite to use its P-code chip rate >>> clock as the basis of their carrier frequencies, with the integral >>> multiples given above; that clock is, of course, 10.2299999954326 MHz >>> when measured on board, and is approximately 10.23 MHz when measured on >>> the ground. If one corrects for the Doppler shift, the P-code chips are >>> received on the ground at exactly 10.23 MHz. >> >> Who measured it on board? > > A combination of the Cs133 clock on board and the specifications and > circuit diagrams of the on-board electronics. > > The Cs133 standard in the satellite defines 1 second as 9,192,631,770 > cycles of its ground-state hyperfine transition radiation. But the > divider that generates the P-code chip rate is based on a larger value, > work out the circuit details and one finds that the P-code chip rate is > measured to be 10.2299999954326 MHz by an on-board clock. > > >> If a clock 'ticks' N times PER ORBIT, it ticks at N times per orbit NO >> MATTER >> WHO COUNTS THE TICKS. > > Sure. But clock rates are not specified "per orbit", they are specified > PER SECOND. Are you suggesting that the NUMBER of ticks a clock emits PER ORBIT depends on who counts them? You must be mad! You have no hope of defining the endpoints of an orbit with > sufficient accuracy to make any sense of that at all. Don't worry about how it is done. It is the principle that matters. The orbit provides a common time reference for all observers. The number can be checked over hundreds of orbits. It is claimed that orbits are defined to within 3cm accuracy anyway. > Tom Roberts > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 12:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <917fc7d1-34ae-49d9-8f68-3619d2def7b2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395752 |
On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 2:31:55 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 16/10/16 06:06, Tom Roberts wrote: > > Sure. But clock rates are not specified "per orbit", they are specified > > PER SECOND. > > Are you suggesting that the NUMBER of ticks a clock emits PER ORBIT > depends on who counts them? You must be mad! Describe an operational procedure for counting the ticks per orbit. How do you know when a satellite has reached the same point in its orbit as the last time?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 10:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <1bOdnSUKjM76d5nFnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #395752 |
On 10/15/16 10/15/16 - 2:31 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 16/10/16 06:06, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 10/15/16 10/15/16 - 1:16 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> On 15/10/16 16:45, Tom Roberts wrote: >>>> On 10/14/16 10/14/16 10:09 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: >>>> I believe the GPS specs require a satellite to use its P-code chip rate >>>> clock as the basis of their carrier frequencies, with the integral >>>> multiples given above; that clock is, of course, 10.2299999954326 MHz >>>> when measured on board, and is approximately 10.23 MHz when measured on >>>> the ground. If one corrects for the Doppler shift, the P-code chips are >>>> received on the ground at exactly 10.23 MHz. >>> >>> Who measured it on board? >> >> A combination of the Cs133 clock on board and the specifications and >> circuit diagrams of the on-board electronics. >> >> The Cs133 standard in the satellite defines 1 second as 9,192,631,770 >> cycles of its ground-state hyperfine transition radiation. But the >> divider that generates the P-code chip rate is based on a larger value, >> work out the circuit details and one finds that the P-code chip rate is >> measured to be 10.2299999954326 MHz by an on-board clock. >> >> >>> If a clock 'ticks' N times PER ORBIT, it ticks at N times per orbit NO >>> MATTER >>> WHO COUNTS THE TICKS. >> >> Sure. But clock rates are not specified "per orbit", they are specified >> PER SECOND. > > Are you suggesting that the NUMBER of ticks a clock emits PER ORBIT depends on > who counts them? You must be mad! You need to READ WHAT I WRITE. You have a serious reading comprehension problem, as I answered your question in what I wrote. Go back and try again.... Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 09:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <371569a7-d7e3-44d9-a449-73b81de960f1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395912 |
On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 10:12:45 AM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote: > On 10/15/16 10/15/16 - 2:31 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > On 16/10/16 06:06, Tom Roberts wrote: > >> On 10/15/16 10/15/16 - 1:16 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >>> On 15/10/16 16:45, Tom Roberts wrote: > >>>> On 10/14/16 10/14/16 10:09 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>>> I believe the GPS specs require a satellite to use its P-code chip rate > >>>> clock as the basis of their carrier frequencies, with the integral > >>>> multiples given above; that clock is, of course, 10.2299999954326 MHz > >>>> when measured on board, and is approximately 10.23 MHz when measured on > >>>> the ground. If one corrects for the Doppler shift, the P-code chips are > >>>> received on the ground at exactly 10.23 MHz. > >>> > >>> Who measured it on board? > >> > >> A combination of the Cs133 clock on board and the specifications and > >> circuit diagrams of the on-board electronics. > >> > >> The Cs133 standard in the satellite defines 1 second as 9,192,631,770 > >> cycles of its ground-state hyperfine transition radiation. But the > >> divider that generates the P-code chip rate is based on a larger value, > >> work out the circuit details and one finds that the P-code chip rate is > >> measured to be 10.2299999954326 MHz by an on-board clock. > >> > >> > >>> If a clock 'ticks' N times PER ORBIT, it ticks at N times per orbit NO > >>> MATTER > >>> WHO COUNTS THE TICKS. > >> > >> Sure. But clock rates are not specified "per orbit", they are specified > >> PER SECOND. > > > > Are you suggesting that the NUMBER of ticks a clock emits PER ORBIT depends on > > who counts them? You must be mad! > > You need to READ WHAT I WRITE. You have a serious reading comprehension problem, > as I answered your question in what I wrote. Go back and try again.... > > Tom Roberts 1 / (10.2299999954326 megahertz) = 97.7517107 nanoseconds 1 / ((10 229 999.9954326 / 9 192 631 770)^0.5) = 29.9765822158 (1 / ((10 229 999.9954326 / 9 192 631 770)^0.5)) * (4 * pi) = 376.696841875 (((10 229 999.9954326 / 9 192 631 770)^0.5) / (4 * pi)) * 376.730313461 = 1.0000888555 1 / (((1.02300e+7 / 9 192 631 770)^0.5) / (4 * pi)) = 376.696841791 c * ((((1.02300e+7 / 9 192 631 770)^0.5) / (4 * pi)) * ((4 * pi) / (10^7))) = 1.00008886
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "David (Time Lord) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 10:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f1eb2143-c596-4843-9be4-387a1585c96f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395920 |
> > 1 / (10.2299999954326 megahertz) = 97.7517107 nanoseconds > > 1 / ((10 229 999.9954326 / 9 192 631 770)^0.5) = 29.9765822158 > > > (1 / ((10 229 999.9954326 / 9 192 631 770)^0.5)) * (4 * pi) = 376.696841875 > > (((10 229 999.9954326 / 9 192 631 770)^0.5) / (4 * pi)) * 376.730313461 = 1.0000888555 > > 1 / (((1.02300e+7 / 9 192 631 770)^0.5) / (4 * pi)) = 376.696841791 > > c * ((((1.02300e+7 / 9 192 631 770)^0.5) / (4 * pi)) * ((4 * pi) / (10^7))) = 1.00008886 (29.9792458^4) * ((4 * pi) / (10^7)) = 1.01506224766
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 08:32 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nu3g0p$1obu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395912 |
On 18/10/16 02:12, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 10/15/16 10/15/16 - 2:31 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> >>> The Cs133 standard in the satellite defines 1 second as >>> 9,192,631,770 cycles of its ground-state hyperfine transition >>> radiation. But the divider that generates the P-code chip rate is >>> based on a larger value, work out the circuit details and one >>> finds that the P-code chip rate is measured to be >>> 10.2299999954326 MHz by an on-board clock. >>> >>> >>>> If a clock 'ticks' N times PER ORBIT, it ticks at N times per >>>> orbit NO MATTER WHO COUNTS THE TICKS. >>> >>> Sure. But clock rates are not specified "per orbit", they are >>> specified PER SECOND. >> >> Are you suggesting that the NUMBER of ticks a clock emits PER ORBIT >> depends on who counts them? You must be mad! > > You need to READ WHAT I WRITE. You have a serious reading > comprehension problem, as I answered your question in what I wrote. > Go back and try again.... You are the one with the problem. The number of chips emitted PER ORBIT must be the same as the number RECEIVED per orbit, irrespective of any Doppler shift or observer ideology. > Tom Roberts --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 03:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nu4674$eih$6@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #395951 |
HGW <hw@....> writes: >On 18/10/16 02:12, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 10/15/16 10/15/16 - 2:31 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>> >>>> The Cs133 standard in the satellite defines 1 second as >>>> 9,192,631,770 cycles of its ground-state hyperfine transition >>>> radiation. But the divider that generates the P-code chip rate is >>>> based on a larger value, work out the circuit details and one >>>> finds that the P-code chip rate is measured to be >>>> 10.2299999954326 MHz by an on-board clock. >>>> >>>> >>>>> If a clock 'ticks' N times PER ORBIT, it ticks at N times per >>>>> orbit NO MATTER WHO COUNTS THE TICKS. >>>> >>>> Sure. But clock rates are not specified "per orbit", they are >>>> specified PER SECOND. >>> >>> Are you suggesting that the NUMBER of ticks a clock emits PER ORBIT >>> depends on who counts them? You must be mad! >> >> You need to READ WHAT I WRITE. You have a serious reading >> comprehension problem, as I answered your question in what I wrote. >> Go back and try again.... >You are the one with the problem. >The number of chips emitted PER ORBIT must be the same as the number >RECEIVED per orbit, irrespective of any Doppler shift or observer ideology. Ralph, but what is an orbit, Ralph, in the slightly distorted spacetime of the satellite environment vs. the ground environment, Ralph. Ralph Rabbidge, you falsely assume a 100% flat Newtonian landscape, Ralph M. Rabbidge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 19:48 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nu4nle$18i8$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395981 |
On 18/10/16 14:51, Michael Moroney wrote: > HGW <hw@....> writes: >>>> Are you suggesting that the NUMBER of ticks a clock emits PER ORBIT >>>> depends on who counts them? You must be mad! >>> >>> You need to READ WHAT I WRITE. You have a serious reading >>> comprehension problem, as I answered your question in what I wrote. >>> Go back and try again.... > >> You are the one with the problem. >> The number of chips emitted PER ORBIT must be the same as the number >> RECEIVED per orbit, irrespective of any Doppler shift or observer ideology. > > Dr., but what is an orbit, Henry, in the slightly distorted spacetime > of the satellite environment vs. the ground environment, Henry. Henry > Wilson DSc., you falsely assume a 100% flat Newtonian landscape, Henry > Wilson DSc. ....and how many leprechauns have you spoken to today? --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 23:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nu6bdu$t4g$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #396000 |
HGW <hw@....> writes: >On 18/10/16 14:51, Michael Moroney wrote: >> HGW <hw@....> writes: >> Dr., but what is an orbit, Henry, in the slightly distorted spacetime >> of the satellite environment vs. the ground environment, Henry. Henry >> Wilson DSc., you falsely assume a 100% flat Newtonian landscape, Henry >> Wilson DSc. >....and how many leprechauns have you spoken to today? Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge, your hallucinations are really bad today, Ralph, aren't they, Ralph? First you see flying green elephants, then you hallucinate that I am addressing some doctor somewhere, then you imagine light moves at c+v, and now you are hallucinating about leprechauns, Ralph! Ralph Malcolm, you need to see a real doctor, Ralph, and soon!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 00:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ntuc75$bqs$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #395745 |
Użytkownik "Tom Roberts" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:HPSdnUKOX_as45_FnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com... |The Cs133 standard in the satellite defines 1 second as 9,192,631,770 cycles of A bunch of idiots screaming "STANDARD!!!! STANDARD!!! is not enough to create a standard, and GPS clocks are an example. No, GPS standard is different, than yours.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 01:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ntujop$a4q$2@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #395741 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >On 15/10/16 16:45, Tom Roberts wrote: >> On 10/14/16 10/14/16 10:09 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: >> >> I believe the GPS specs require a satellite to use its P-code chip rate >> clock as the basis of their carrier frequencies, with the integral >> multiples given above; that clock is, of course, 10.2299999954326 MHz >> when measured on board, and is approximately 10.23 MHz when measured on >> the ground. If one corrects for the Doppler shift, the P-code chips are >> received on the ground at exactly 10.23 MHz. >Who measured it on board? Known by design, since BY DEFINITION a second is 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom. They divide that known 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs by a known divisor so the frequency is 10.2299999954326 MHz practically by definition. It could also be tested on the ground, just for yucks. >If a clock 'ticks' N times PER ORBIT, it ticks at N times per orbit NO >MATTER WHO COUNTS THE TICKS. Perhaps, Ralph, but the time for each orbit will be different for the satellite and the ground observer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 21:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3f1edadf-aada-411e-8987-dd217c71d1cf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395775 |
On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 8:05:35 PM UTC-5, Michael Moroney wrote: > "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: > > >On 15/10/16 16:45, Tom Roberts wrote: > >> On 10/14/16 10/14/16 10:09 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > > >> > >> I believe the GPS specs require a satellite to use its P-code chip rate > >> clock as the basis of their carrier frequencies, with the integral > >> multiples given above; that clock is, of course, 10.2299999954326 MHz > >> when measured on board, and is approximately 10.23 MHz when measured on > >> the ground. If one corrects for the Doppler shift, the P-code chips are > >> received on the ground at exactly 10.23 MHz. > > >Who measured it on board? > > Known by design, since BY DEFINITION a second is 9,192,631,770 periods of > the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine > levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom. They divide that known > 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs by a known divisor so the frequency is > 10.2299999954326 MHz practically by definition. It could also be tested > on the ground, just for yucks. No simple integer divisor will do. Instead: 1) Use a ÷16 ECL prescaler to bring the 9192631770 Hz frequency output of the cesium atomic frequency standard (CAFS) down to 574539485.625 Hz 2) Pass the 574539485.625 Hz output of the prescaler through a ÷316553004 counter to generate a 1.814986679529346 Hz target signal 3) Pass the nominal 10.23 MHz output of a voltage controlled crystal oscillator (VCXO) through a ÷5636405 counter to generate a nominal 1.815 Hz signal. 4) Use the outputs from (2) and (3) as inputs to a phase comparator. If the frequency from (3) is lower than the frequency from (2) adjust the VCXO to a higher frequency. If the frequency from (3) is higher than the frequency from (2) adjust the VCXO to a lower frequency. 5) The feedback-controlled output of the VCXO will be 10.2299999954326 MHz. 6) Proof: 5636405*1.814986679529346 = 10.2299999954326 MHz 56.162217583725837008006782790848
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 11:16 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ntvghs$dbe$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #395775 |
Użytkownik "Michael Moroney" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:ntujop$a4q$2@pcls7.std.com... |Known by design, since BY DEFINITION a second is 9,192,631,770 periods of A lie, as expected from relativistic trash. REAL definition of second is related to Earth cycle. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/second
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 07:49 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nu3dha$1ka9$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395775 |
On 16/10/16 12:05, Michael Moroney wrote: > "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: > >> On 15/10/16 16:45, Tom Roberts wrote: >>> On 10/14/16 10/14/16 10:09 AM, Michael Moroney wrote: > >>> >>> I believe the GPS specs require a satellite to use its P-code chip rate >>> clock as the basis of their carrier frequencies, with the integral >>> multiples given above; that clock is, of course, 10.2299999954326 MHz >>> when measured on board, and is approximately 10.23 MHz when measured on >>> the ground. If one corrects for the Doppler shift, the P-code chips are >>> received on the ground at exactly 10.23 MHz. > >> Who measured it on board? > > Known by design, since BY DEFINITION a second is 9,192,631,770 periods of > the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine > levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom. They divide that known > 9,192,631,770 periods of Cs by a known divisor so the frequency is > 10.2299999954326 MHz practically by definition. It could also be tested > on the ground, just for yucks. > >> If a clock 'ticks' N times PER ORBIT, it ticks at N times per orbit NO >> MATTER WHO COUNTS THE TICKS. > > Perhaps, Ralph, but the time for each orbit will be different for the > satellite and the ground observer. HAHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHHA! poor little moron-y still believes in Gremlins and Leprechauns....http://www.fairyist.com/fairy-types/ --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 19:57 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ntr6b1$a16$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #395632 |
On 14.10.2016 16:03, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > El viernes, 14 de octubre de 2016, 5:26:00 (UTC-4), Paul B. Andersen escribió: >> >> But the producers of the SVs must build the SVs in >> accordance with the INTERFACE SPECIFICATION, >> which _is_ "official GPS documentation" "published >> by those who set up and maintain the GPS system, >> and who see to the clocks staying synchronized". >> >> http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200H.pdf >> << >> 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan >> ---------------------- >> . . . >> The SV carrier frequency and clock rates >> - as they would appear to an observer located in the SV - >> are offset to compensate for relativistic effects. >> The clock rates are offset by ∆ f/f = - 4.4647E-10, >> equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping rate of >> 10.23 MHz offset by a ∆ f = -4.5674E-3 Hz. >> This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz. > > 10.2299999954326 MHz is NOT the GPS ECI operative frequency - as they would > appear to an observer located in the SV – WHEN THE SV IS STILL NOT OPERATIVE AT > GROUND BEFORE THE LAUNCHING. When the satellite is already operative after the > launching, the frequency - as they would appear to an observer located in the > SV – is 10.23 MHz, the designed value for all GPS operative clocks when already > synchronized showing the same time according to the 1905 Einstein relative time > definition to any 1686NM Center of Mass system (as the GPS ECI one is). > >> The nominal carrier frequencies (f0) shall be >> 1575.42 MHz, and 1227.6 MHz for L1 and L2, >> respectively. > > See how those data correspond to the INTEGER multiplication factors 154 and 120: > > L1 (10.23)(154)=(1575.42) > L2 (10.23)(120)=(1227.6) > > The GPS ECI time is then (without any possible at all doubt) the 1905R defined > one, relative to a 1686NM Center of Mass system; being also a 1905 Einstein > stationary system where 1686NM equations hold good, INCLUDING the gravitational > ones. > This is what GR predicts for clocks in GPS orbit: https://paulba.no/pdf/GPS_clock_rate.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Ashby.pdf This is what is measured: https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf ..which is confirmed by 35+ years of operation of the GPS. You are proven wrong. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato <rvalls162@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-14 14:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0143c3a5-4c22-4601-9626-54e42d098c83@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395654 |
El viernes, 14 de octubre de 2016, 13:57:55 (UTC-4), Paul B. Andersen escribió: > On 14.10.2016 16:03, Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato wrote: > > El viernes, 14 de octubre de 2016, 5:26:00 (UTC-4), Paul B. Andersen escribió: > >> > >> But the producers of the SVs must build the SVs in > >> accordance with the INTERFACE SPECIFICATION, > >> which _is_ "official GPS documentation" "published > >> by those who set up and maintain the GPS system, > >> and who see to the clocks staying synchronized". > >> > >> http://www.gps.gov/technical/icwg/IS-GPS-200H.pdf > >> << > >> 3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan > >> ---------------------- > >> . . . > >> The SV carrier frequency and clock rates > >> - as they would appear to an observer located in the SV - > >> are offset to compensate for relativistic effects. > >> The clock rates are offset by ∆ f/f = - 4.4647E-10, > >> equivalent to a change in the P-code chipping rate of > >> 10.23 MHz offset by a ∆ f = -4.5674E-3 Hz. > >> This is equal to 10.2299999954326 MHz. > > > > 10.2299999954326 MHz is NOT the GPS ECI operative frequency - as they would > > appear to an observer located in the SV – WHEN THE SV IS STILL NOT OPERATIVE AT > > GROUND BEFORE THE LAUNCHING. When the satellite is already operative after the > > launching, the frequency - as they would appear to an observer located in the > > SV – is 10.23 MHz, the designed value for all GPS operative clocks when already > > synchronized showing the same time according to the 1905 Einstein relative time > > definition to any 1686NM Center of Mass system (as the GPS ECI one is). > > > >> The nominal carrier frequencies (f0) shall be > >> 1575.42 MHz, and 1227.6 MHz for L1 and L2, > >> respectively. > > > > See how those data correspond to the INTEGER multiplication factors 154 and 120: > > > > L1 (10.23)(154)=(1575.42) > > L2 (10.23)(120)=(1227.6) > > > > The GPS ECI time is then (without any possible at all doubt) the 1905R defined > > one, relative to a 1686NM Center of Mass system; being also a 1905 Einstein > > stationary system where 1686NM equations hold good, INCLUDING the gravitational > > ones. > > > > This is what GR predicts for clocks in GPS orbit: > https://paulba.no/pdf/GPS_clock_rate.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Ashby.pdf > > This is what is measured: > https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf > ..which is confirmed by 35+ years of operation of the GPS. > > You are proven wrong. > We are using the same GPS information and referring to the same GPS operation experimental evidence. Then, following you, saying what I am proven wrong? > -- > Paul > > https://paulba.no/ RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 05:06 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <ntr6r3$1qm2$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395617 |
On 14/10/16 20:25, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 13.10.2016 21:04, Thomas wrote: > Do you still believe that the Chinese GNSS system does > not make Relativity corrections? :-D Do you still believe that a satellite at 45 degrees has a radial component of about 600 m/s?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 15:02 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ntvtq2$55l$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #395656 |
On 14.10.2016 20:06, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 14/10/16 20:25, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>>
>> Do you still believe that the Chinese GNSS system does
>> not make Relativity corrections? :-D
Do you?
> Do you still believe that a satellite at 45 degrees has a radial
> component of about 600 m/s?
It is 520.6 m/s.
The velocity component towards the observer is:
v = w r R sin(theta)/sqrt(R^2 +r^2 - 2r cos(theta))
where:
w = 1.456E-4 rad/s, the angular velocity of the SV
r = 2.66E7 m, the orbital radius of the SV
R = 6.37E6 m, the radius of the Earth
theta = the angle between a radius vector to the SV
and the vertical of the observer
phi = arctan(r sin(theta)/(r cos(theta)-R)
where phi = the angle between the line of sight observer-SV
and the vertical of the observer
phi = -65.5 degrees, v_rad = -719.2 m/s
phi = -60.5 degrees, v_rad = -675.2 m/s
phi = -55.4 degrees, v_rad = -627.3 m/s
phi = -50.3 degrees, v_rad = -575.6 m/s
phi = -45.0 degrees, v_rad = -520.6 m/s
phi = -39.6 degrees, v_rad = -462.4 m/s
phi = -34.2 degrees, v_rad = -401.6 m/s
phi = -28.6 degrees, v_rad = -338.3 m/s
phi = -23.0 degrees, v_rad = -273.1 m/s
phi = -17.3 degrees, v_rad = -206.3 m/s
phi = -11.6 degrees, v_rad = -138.2 m/s
phi = -5.8 degrees, v_rad = -69.3 m/s
phi = 0.0 degrees, v_rad = 0.0 m/s
phi = 5.8 degrees, v_rad = 69.3 m/s
phi = 11.6 degrees, v_rad = 138.2 m/s
phi = 17.3 degrees, v_rad = 206.3 m/s
phi = 23.0 degrees, v_rad = 273.1 m/s
phi = 28.6 degrees, v_rad = 338.3 m/s
phi = 34.2 degrees, v_rad = 401.6 m/s
phi = 39.6 degrees, v_rad = 462.4 m/s
phi = 45.0 degrees, v_rad = 520.6 m/s
phi = 50.3 degrees, v_rad = 575.6 m/s
phi = 55.4 degrees, v_rad = 627.3 m/s
phi = 60.5 degrees, v_rad = 675.2 m/s
phi = 65.5 degrees, v_rad = 719.2 m/s
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 02:34 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nu06m1$fdq$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395813 |
On 17/10/16 00:02, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 14.10.2016 20:06, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> Do you still believe that a satellite at 45 degrees has a radial >> component of about 600 m/s? > > It is 520.6 m/s. > > The velocity component towards the observer is: > v = w r R sin(theta)/sqrt(R^2 +r^2 - 2r cos(theta)) > where: > w = 1.456E-4 rad/s, the angular velocity of the SV > r = 2.66E7 m, the orbital radius of the SV > R = 6.37E6 m, the radius of the Earth > theta = the angle between a radius vector to the SV > and the vertical of the observer > > phi = arctan(r sin(theta)/(r cos(theta)-R) > where phi = the angle between the line of sight observer-SV > and the vertical of the observer > > phi = -65.5 degrees, v_rad = -719.2 m/s > phi = -60.5 degrees, v_rad = -675.2 m/s > phi = -55.4 degrees, v_rad = -627.3 m/s > phi = -50.3 degrees, v_rad = -575.6 m/s > phi = -45.0 degrees, v_rad = -520.6 m/s > phi = -39.6 degrees, v_rad = -462.4 m/s > phi = -34.2 degrees, v_rad = -401.6 m/s > phi = -28.6 degrees, v_rad = -338.3 m/s > phi = -23.0 degrees, v_rad = -273.1 m/s > phi = -17.3 degrees, v_rad = -206.3 m/s > phi = -11.6 degrees, v_rad = -138.2 m/s > phi = -5.8 degrees, v_rad = -69.3 m/s > phi = 0.0 degrees, v_rad = 0.0 m/s > phi = 5.8 degrees, v_rad = 69.3 m/s > phi = 11.6 degrees, v_rad = 138.2 m/s > phi = 17.3 degrees, v_rad = 206.3 m/s > phi = 23.0 degrees, v_rad = 273.1 m/s > phi = 28.6 degrees, v_rad = 338.3 m/s > phi = 34.2 degrees, v_rad = 401.6 m/s > phi = 39.6 degrees, v_rad = 462.4 m/s > phi = 45.0 degrees, v_rad = 520.6 m/s > phi = 50.3 degrees, v_rad = 575.6 m/s > phi = 55.4 degrees, v_rad = 627.3 m/s > phi = 60.5 degrees, v_rad = 675.2 m/s > phi = 65.5 degrees, v_rad = 719.2 m/s HAHAHAHAHHAHHAHHA! Paul, draw a 45 degree cone vertically from a point on Earth....... It is on that cone that satellites will be seen at 45 degrees. HAHAHHAHHAHAHHAAHAA!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 6 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web