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 11 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 22 Next page →
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 14:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d35aee65-6c95-464f-a019-221be25b6730@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395759 |
On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 3:58:25 PM UTC-5, al...@interia.pl wrote: > W dniu sobota, 15 października 2016 19:56:32 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > > On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 12:11:50 PM UTC-5, al...@interia.pl wrote: > > > W dniu sobota, 15 października 2016 17:32:05 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > > > > > > > *** HOW DO YOU SYNCHRONIZE THE GROUND CLOCKS WITH EACH OTHER??? *** > > > > > > That was never realised in fact. > > > The time standard is still based on the astronomy - namely: on the Earth rotation, rather on these atomic clocks.. > > > > UTC is based on atomic clocks, with leap seconds as necessary to bring it in > > line with the Earth's rotation. > > Indeed. these atomic clocs produce big errors, > thus the leap seconds must correct them to the rotation, which is perecisely determined. No, it is the other way around. The rotation of the Earth is non-constant, far less precise than atomic clocks. > > That has *nothing* to do with the question that I have asked. > > You are too stupid to ask any question.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 11:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <80128c02-35dc-4ff6-a516-4d52f8a9a189@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395761 |
W dniu sobota, 15 października 2016 23:02:18 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic > Indeed. these atomic clocs produce big errors, > > thus the leap seconds must correct them to the rotation, which is perecisely determined. > > No, it is the other way around. The rotation of the Earth is non-constant, > far less precise than atomic clocks. The 'other way' is stupid: any real atomic clock has worse precision than the Earth's rotation, which is precisely determined to the: 1.7 ms/cy per day = 86400s. deceleration of the tidal Earth rotation is equal to: -1.7ms / cy / 86400 = 6.2-18 / s !!!!!!!!!! There is no clock with the better precision in the world! But the situation is still better! This is not a precision of the earth rotation, but a deceleration only! So, we can easily correct the clock error: -1.7ms/cy/d; An error is probably thousands times less than the deceleration: err = 1e-21 s/s !!!!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ScottPN <Scott@oe0vgk3s.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 18:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nu0fmp$urs$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395834 |
alsor wrote: > The 'other way' is stupid: > any real atomic clock has worse precision than the Earth's rotation, > which is precisely determined to the: 1.7 ms/cy per day = 86400s. This is correct, since the earth's rotation has a larger resolution than any existent atomic tick. A small deviation at the level of an relativistic atomic tick will be huge as accumulated clock-seconds for a day or for a year and even more. Thanks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ScottPN <Scott@oe0vgk3s.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 18:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nu0foq$urs$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395835 |
ScottPN wrote: > alsor wrote: > >> The 'other way' is stupid: >> any real atomic clock has worse precision than the Earth's rotation, >> which is precisely determined to the: 1.7 ms/cy per day = 86400s. > > This is correct, since the earth's rotation has a larger resolution than I meant, smaller resolution. Of course. > any existent atomic tick. A small deviation at the level of an > relativistic atomic tick will be huge as accumulated clock-seconds for a > day or for a year and even more. Thanks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 19:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <epudneTe76EvhpnFnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #395834 |
On 10/16/16 10/16/16 1:00 PM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > any real atomic clock has worse precision than the Earth's rotation, > which is precisely determined to the: 1.7 ms/cy per day = 86400s. Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? Even after you have been told how wrong you are? The earth's rotation varies quite a lot. A few seconds with Google turned up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation Atomic clocks are ENORMOUSLY more stable and accurate than earth's rotation. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 00:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1cc6dafe-43f3-4be0-b7cb-d21c2cb26e83@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395857 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 17 października 2016 02:30:48 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > On 10/16/16 10/16/16 1:00 PM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > > any real atomic clock has worse precision than the Earth's rotation, > > which is precisely determined to the: 1.7 ms/cy per day = 86400s. > > Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? Even after you have been > told how wrong you are? > > The earth's rotation varies quite a lot. A few seconds with Google turned up: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation > > Atomic clocks are ENORMOUSLY more stable and accurate than earth's rotation. Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? Even after you have been told how wrong you are? Leap second - are we applying them to broke something or to correct something, how do you think?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 14:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nu2ohq$2ma$3@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #395879 |
mlwozniak@wp.pl writes: >> Atomic clocks are ENORMOUSLY more stable and accurate than earth's rotation. >Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? >Even after you have been told how wrong you are? >Leap second - are we applying them to broke something >or to correct something, how do you think? Atomic clocks ARE more stable than the earth's rotation. The earth's rotation is erratic at a small scale. Leap seconds are added (or removed, if necessary) as needed every so often once the measured accumulation of the rotational erratic changes add to a second. The earthquake that produced the huge tsunami in 2004 made a measurable change in the earth's rotation rate. There are even seasonal effects, the accumulation of ice/snow on the ground and falling of leaves in the Northern hemisphere fall/winter produces a measurable effect as well by changing the moment of inertia of the earth. (the seasonal effect is much larger than the equivalent effect in the southern hemisphere)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 10:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <210cfb9d-4a19-445e-9c52-7c478cbf9364@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395857 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 17 października 2016 02:30:48 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > On 10/16/16 10/16/16 1:00 PM, alsor@interia.pl wrote: > > any real atomic clock has worse precision than the Earth's rotation, > > which is precisely determined to the: 1.7 ms/cy per day = 86400s. > > Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? Even after you have been > told how wrong you are? This is just the decceleration of the Earth rotation: 1.7 ms / cy per day. > The earth's rotation varies quite a lot. A few seconds with Google turned up: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation > > Atomic clocks are ENORMOUSLY more stable and accurate than earth's rotation. You are talking nonsense. Even the Earth's rotation influences the atomic clock speed, due to the simple fact: a speed of the clock is: v = w x r and: T' = gamma(v) T Additionally: the gravity, the solar activity, galactic magnetic field, motion of the Moon and of the near stars too. 1.7ms / cy / day x 365.25 days = 0.62s / y thus the leap seconds: 1 per 1.61years on average.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 15:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <01990dbe-8f99-4b14-a99a-123e026d821e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395857 |
On Monday, 17 October 2016 00:30:48 UTC, tjrob137 wrote: > On 10/16/16 10/16/16 1:00 PM, > > any real atomic clock has worse precision than the Earth's rotation, > > which is precisely determined to the: 1.7 ms/cy per day = 86400s. > > Why do you just make stuff up and pretend it is true? Even after you have been > told how wrong you are? > > The earth's rotation varies quite a lot. A few seconds with Google turned up: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation > > Atomic clocks are ENORMOUSLY more stable and accurate than earth's rotation. GPS is not a time-keeping system but a positioning system, and because of the variable rotation rate of the earth, you are asking for trouble if you use space bound triangulation points for earth bound positionings. And as you can't correct the earth's rotation to be in synch with the atomic time, you can only adjust the atomic time to be in synch with the earth's rotation if you want to have correctly working GPS, however erratic the rotation may be. And that is obviously limited by how accurately you can determine the earth's rotation. VLBI observations of quasar positions are accurate to about 1 mas, an angle through which the earth rotates in about 10^-4 sec. So aiming for a higher clock accuracy is pointless anyway for GPS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 15:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1d3a27df-6fd0-4c10-9581-d1e37d0b6ac8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395956 |
On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 5:12:18 PM UTC-5, Thomas wrote: > GPS is not a time-keeping system but a positioning system, False. It is *both* a positioning system and a time-keeping system. Dissemination of accurate time worldwide is a vital function of GPS. http://www.nstb.tc.faa.gov/reports/PAN86_0714.pdf#page=22 > and because of the variable rotation rate of the earth, you are asking for trouble if you use space bound triangulation points for earth bound positionings. And as you can't correct the earth's rotation to be in synch with the atomic time, you can only adjust the atomic time to be in synch with the earth's rotation if you want to have correctly working GPS, however erratic the rotation may be. The graphs that you yourself have provided show that the earth's rotation is less erratic than you have claimed. And your calculation of how the variability of rotation translates into positioning error is demonstrably off. The proper functioning of GPS *as a system* depends on the world-wide network of Control Segment stations being accurately in sync with the Space Segment clocks. The Control Segment continuously monitors the satellites and the motions of the Earth so that such irregularities as you have pointed out can be detected and compensated for in regular updates to the satellite ephemerides.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 03:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <96b0020e-54a6-4c69-bd4d-69f49ae0a350@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395961 |
On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 5:55:33 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 5:12:18 PM UTC-5, Thomas wrote: > > > GPS is not a time-keeping system but a positioning system, > > False. It is *both* a positioning system and a time-keeping system. > Dissemination of accurate time worldwide is a vital function of GPS. > http://www.nstb.tc.faa.gov/reports/PAN86_0714.pdf#page=22 > > > and because of the variable rotation rate of the earth, you are asking for trouble if you use space bound triangulation points for earth bound positionings. And as you can't correct the earth's rotation to be in synch with the atomic time, you can only adjust the atomic time to be in synch with the earth's rotation if you want to have correctly working GPS, however erratic the rotation may be. > > The graphs that you yourself have provided show that the earth's rotation is > less erratic than you have claimed. And your calculation of how the variability > of rotation translates into positioning error is demonstrably off. > > The proper functioning of GPS *as a system* depends on the world-wide network > of Control Segment stations being accurately in sync with the Space Segment > clocks. The Control Segment continuously monitors the satellites and the > motions of the Earth so that such irregularities as you have pointed out can > be detected and compensated for in regular updates to the satellite ephemerides. On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 5:55:33 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 5:12:18 PM UTC-5, Thomas wrote: > > > GPS is not a time-keeping system but a positioning system, > > False. It is *both* a positioning system and a time-keeping system. > Dissemination of accurate time worldwide is a vital function of GPS. > http://www.nstb.tc.faa.gov/reports/PAN86_0714.pdf#page=22 > > > and because of the variable rotation rate of the earth, you are asking for trouble if you use space bound triangulation points for earth bound positionings. And as you can't correct the earth's rotation to be in synch with the atomic time, you can only adjust the atomic time to be in synch with the earth's rotation if you want to have correctly working GPS, however erratic the rotation may be. > > The graphs that you yourself have provided show that the earth's rotation is > less erratic than you have claimed. And your calculation of how the variability > of rotation translates into positioning error is demonstrably off. > > The proper functioning of GPS *as a system* depends on the world-wide network > of Control Segment stations being accurately in sync with the Space Segment > clocks. The Control Segment continuously monitors the satellites and the > motions of the Earth so that such irregularities as you have pointed out can > be detected and compensated for in regular updates to the satellite ephemerides. Remember that GPS was, first and foremost, developed for military purposes. Although "common view" and "two-way" techniques exist for the transfer of time, common view time transfer requires the interchange of data between stations in addition to observations of the satellite clock, and two-way time transfer requires full duplex communications between the stations and the GPS satellites. http://tf.nist.gov/time/commonviewgps.htm http://tf.nist.gov/time/twoway.htm Multiple hops would be required to transfer time between the master control station at Schriever AFB and a remote ground station such as Diego Garcia. For such reasons, direct time transfer is preferred. Using multiple satellites to a determined position, and with an atomic clock at the determined position to integrate time over a 24 hour period, direct time transfer can be performed to 5 ns accuracy. Direct time transfer requires that the world wide system of GPS satellites use clocks that tick at the same rate as the Control Segment clocks. You can fantasize about GPS positioning requiring only that the satellite clocks being in sync with each other, so that the GR correction would be unnecessary (i.e. operating in continuous AUTONAV mode), but the fact remains that such factors as you have strenuously emphasized (irregularities in the rotation of the Earth) would prevent such a system from operating at its highest possible accuracy. Highest accuracy requires that the world wide network of ground stations of the Control Segment continuously monitor the satellite positions (which *also* allows them to detect irregularities in the Earth's rotation, your pet bugaboo) and to regularly update the satellites with the latest corrections. The GPS satellite correction is necessary for GPS to function *AS A SYSTEM*, Space Segment and Control Segment working together.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 04:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <02cd3d2f-67fe-4391-8870-bcb470a9dd5b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396011 |
W dniu wtorek, 18 października 2016 12:40:06 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > Direct time transfer requires that the world wide system of GPS satellites use > clocks that tick at the same rate as the Control Segment clocks. And that's too bad for your poor idiot guru, his brilliant idea of local time, your standards, your proper clocks and whole your Shit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 15:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f841d580-c851-49ed-8f07-b6ea047edadf@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396011 |
On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 10:40:06 UTC, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 5:55:33 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 5:12:18 PM UTC-5, Thomas wrote: > > > > > GPS is not a time-keeping system but a positioning system, > > > > False. It is *both* a positioning system and a time-keeping system. > > Dissemination of accurate time worldwide is a vital function of GPS. > > http://www.nstb.tc.faa.gov/reports/PAN86_0714.pdf#page=22 > > > > > and because of the variable rotation rate of the earth, you are asking for trouble if you use space bound triangulation points for earth bound positionings. And as you can't correct the earth's rotation to be in synch with the atomic time, you can only adjust the atomic time to be in synch with the earth's rotation if you want to have correctly working GPS, however erratic the rotation may be. > > > > The graphs that you yourself have provided show that the earth's rotation is > > less erratic than you have claimed. And your calculation of how the variability > > of rotation translates into positioning error is demonstrably off. > > > > The proper functioning of GPS *as a system* depends on the world-wide network > > of Control Segment stations being accurately in sync with the Space Segment > > clocks. The Control Segment continuously monitors the satellites and the > > motions of the Earth so that such irregularities as you have pointed out can > > be detected and compensated for in regular updates to the satellite ephemerides. > > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 5:55:33 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 5:12:18 PM UTC-5, Thomas wrote: > > > > > GPS is not a time-keeping system but a positioning system, > > > > False. It is *both* a positioning system and a time-keeping system. > > Dissemination of accurate time worldwide is a vital function of GPS. > > http://www.nstb.tc.faa.gov/reports/PAN86_0714.pdf#page=22 > > > > > and because of the variable rotation rate of the earth, you are asking for trouble if you use space bound triangulation points for earth bound positionings. And as you can't correct the earth's rotation to be in synch with the atomic time, you can only adjust the atomic time to be in synch with the earth's rotation if you want to have correctly working GPS, however erratic the rotation may be. > > > > The graphs that you yourself have provided show that the earth's rotation is > > less erratic than you have claimed. And your calculation of how the variability > > of rotation translates into positioning error is demonstrably off. > > > > The proper functioning of GPS *as a system* depends on the world-wide network > > of Control Segment stations being accurately in sync with the Space Segment > > clocks. The Control Segment continuously monitors the satellites and the > > motions of the Earth so that such irregularities as you have pointed out can > > be detected and compensated for in regular updates to the satellite ephemerides. > > Remember that GPS was, first and foremost, developed for military purposes. > Although "common view" and "two-way" techniques exist for the transfer of time, > common view time transfer requires the interchange of data between stations in > addition to observations of the satellite clock, and two-way time transfer > requires full duplex communications between the stations and the GPS satellites. > http://tf.nist.gov/time/commonviewgps.htm > http://tf.nist.gov/time/twoway.htm Your references are design concepts devised 10 years before GPS became operational and thus have little to do with the real GPS as it is today. > You can fantasize about GPS positioning requiring only that the satellite clocks > being in sync with each other, so that the GR correction would be unnecessary > (i.e. operating in continuous AUTONAV mode), but the fact remains that such > factors as you have strenuously emphasized (irregularities in the rotation of > the Earth) would prevent such a system from operating at its highest possible > accuracy. You haven't given any quantitative argument why the present GPS position accuracy of a few meters would require the satellite clocks to be in synch with the ground clocks within nanosseconds. > The GPS satellite correction is necessary for GPS to function *AS A SYSTEM*, > Space Segment and Control Segment working together. I don't see any statements to that effect in your references. You are just jumping to conclusions here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 16:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <44adff52-db22-4f33-a831-cb9494d60246@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396064 |
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 5:14:53 PM UTC-5, Thomas wrote: > On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 10:40:06 UTC, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > Remember that GPS was, first and foremost, developed for military purposes. > > Although "common view" and "two-way" techniques exist for the transfer of time, > > common view time transfer requires the interchange of data between stations in > > addition to observations of the satellite clock, and two-way time transfer > > requires full duplex communications between the stations and the GPS satellites. > > http://tf.nist.gov/time/commonviewgps.htm > > http://tf.nist.gov/time/twoway.htm > > Your references are design concepts devised 10 years before GPS became operational and thus have little to do with the real GPS as it is today. Common view and two way time transfer techniques offer the highest accuracy and are the means whereby national standards organizations communicate their times to Paris so that their contributions may be added to the weighted average that is UTC. The GPS system offers direct transfer of time, only slightly less accurate than common view and two way time transfer. They provide a globally distributed clock in space that ticks at the same rate as ground clocks because of the GR correction. > > You can fantasize about GPS positioning requiring only that the satellite clocks > > being in sync with each other, so that the GR correction would be unnecessary > > (i.e. operating in continuous AUTONAV mode), but the fact remains that such > > factors as you have strenuously emphasized (irregularities in the rotation of > > the Earth) would prevent such a system from operating at its highest possible > > accuracy. > > You haven't given any quantitative argument why the present GPS position accuracy of a few meters would require the satellite clocks to be in synch with the ground clocks within nanosseconds. Precise Point Positioning algorithms (PPP) supplement receiver data with highly accurate, regularly updated satellite position and clock data that can be downloaded from the International GNSS Service (IGS) or obtained in real time from various service providers. For a fixed position, dual frequency GPS receivers using PPP can ascertain position to within centimeters. http://www.insidegnss.com/node/3125 Does that answer your question? > > The GPS satellite correction is necessary for GPS to function *AS A SYSTEM*, > > Space Segment and Control Segment working together. > > I don't see any statements to that effect in your references. You are just jumping to conclusions here. Well, describe a means whereby GPS can disseminate time worldwide without the clocks being corrected for GR effects. Please limit yourself to 1970s technology, since that is when GPS was designed and began to be implemented. (I imagine that nowadays, you can do all sorts of things with sophisticated computer algorithms, but that is not the point here.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 15:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7334b708-abd7-4170-a294-1fc1aeca2679@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395961 |
On Monday, 17 October 2016 22:55:33 UTC, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 5:12:18 PM UTC-5, Thomas wrote: > > > GPS is not a time-keeping system but a positioning system, > > False. It is *both* a positioning system and a time-keeping system. > Dissemination of accurate time worldwide is a vital function of GPS. > http://www.nstb.tc.faa.gov/reports/PAN86_0714.pdf#page=22 > > > and because of the variable rotation rate of the earth, you are asking for trouble if you use space bound triangulation points for earth bound positionings. And as you can't correct the earth's rotation to be in synch with the atomic time, you can only adjust the atomic time to be in synch with the earth's rotation if you want to have correctly working GPS, however erratic the rotation may be. > > The graphs that you yourself have provided show that the earth's rotation is > less erratic than you have claimed. And your calculation of how the variability > of rotation translates into positioning error is demonstrably off. The graph http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/lodr2.png a) shows only a rather limited time period and b) does not tell the whole story as rotation changes due to the solid and ocean tides have already been subtracted here (the same applies to http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/lodr1.gif ) The shown variation is solely due to the atmosphere ( http://toshi.nofs.navy.mil/plot-eop.html ). Still this variation (the 'reduced' length of day variation) is in the ms range. If you consider that overall the rotation gets longer on average by about 1 ms/day and that leap seconds (to compensate for this) have been introduced over the last 40+ years in irregular intervals between 1-7 years, this shoes that even the overall fluctuation (including solid and ocean tides) is a rather random one. Even if you take the uncertainty of the leap second period very conservatively as 1 year, this means that the uncertainty is 1000 ms/year = 2.7 ms/day, so actually considerably larger than the variations of the plots for the atmospheric contribution alone.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 15:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1ca45bd8-5161-4692-ba41-c447c3440860@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396062 |
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 5:04:26 PM UTC-5, Thomas wrote:
> On Monday, 17 October 2016 22:55:33 UTC, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 5:12:18 PM UTC-5, Thomas wrote:
> >
> > > GPS is not a time-keeping system but a positioning system,
> >
> > False. It is *both* a positioning system and a time-keeping system.
> > Dissemination of accurate time worldwide is a vital function of GPS.
> > http://www.nstb.tc.faa.gov/reports/PAN86_0714.pdf#page=22
> >
> > > and because of the variable rotation rate of the earth, you are asking for trouble if you use space bound triangulation points for earth bound positionings. And as you can't correct the earth's rotation to be in synch with the atomic time, you can only adjust the atomic time to be in synch with the earth's rotation if you want to have correctly working GPS, however erratic the rotation may be.
> >
> > The graphs that you yourself have provided show that the earth's rotation is
> > less erratic than you have claimed. And your calculation of how the variability
> > of rotation translates into positioning error is demonstrably off.
>
>
> The graph http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/lodr2.png a) shows only a rather limited time period and b) does not tell the whole story as rotation changes due to the solid and ocean tides have already been subtracted here (the same applies to http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/lodr1.gif ) The shown variation is solely due to the atmosphere ( http://toshi.nofs.navy.mil/plot-eop.html ). Still this variation (the 'reduced' length of day variation) is in the ms range. If you consider that overall the rotation gets longer on average by about 1 ms/day and that leap seconds (to compensate for this) have been introduced over the last 40+ years in irregular intervals between 1-7 years, this shoes that even the overall fluctuation (including solid and ocean tides) is a rather random one.
*** YOUR MATH IS TOTALLY MESSED UP ***
It is not true that "the rotation gets longer on average by about 1 ms/day".
Rather, the current length of day is about 1.5 ms longer than the SI day of
86400 sec. In other words, the current length of day is approx. 864000.0015 sec.
If it were true that "the rotation gets longer on average by about 1 ms/day",
then the length of day would be increasing by 1 second every three years, and
three years from now, leap seconds will have to be inserted on a daily basis.
Do you know the difference between rate of change and an absolute rate?
*** OBVIOUSLY NOT ****
> Even if you take the uncertainty of the leap second period very conservatively as 1 year, this means that the uncertainty is 1000 ms/year = 2.7 ms/day, so actually considerably larger than the variations of the plots for the atmospheric contribution alone.
From day to day, the unmodeled difference in day length amounts to MICROSECONDS.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Deviation_of_day_length_from_SI_day.svg
Do you know how to read graphs?
*** OBVIOUSLY NOT ****
Diurnal and semidiurnal variations *do* amount to about 1 mas in polar motion
and about 0.5 ms in UT1-UTC. These are *modeled and understood* variations:
The circumference of the Earth is about 40,075 km
1 mas polar motion represents 40,075*1000/360/60/60/1000 = 0.031 meters
0.5 ms time represents 40,075*1000/24/60/1000*0.5 = 0.232 meters at the Equator.
Can you do simple arithmetic?
*** OBVIOUSLY NOT ****
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 20:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6330c915-db51-405d-8954-e6312b200ed9@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396068 |
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 5:49:44 PM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > 0.5 ms time represents 40,075*1000/24/60/1000*0.5 = 0.232 meters at the Equator. Accidentally omitted a "60", final answer unchanged: 0.5 ms time represents 40,075*1000/24/60/60/1000*0.5 = 0.232 meters at the Equator.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 13:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b5d2a2c9-29f3-4543-9941-abbc5888379c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396068 |
W dniu środa, 19 października 2016 00:49:44 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 5:04:26 PM UTC-5, Thomas wrote: > > On Monday, 17 October 2016 22:55:33 UTC, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 5:12:18 PM UTC-5, Thomas wrote: > > > > > > > GPS is not a time-keeping system but a positioning system, > > > > > > False. It is *both* a positioning system and a time-keeping system. > > > Dissemination of accurate time worldwide is a vital function of GPS. > > > http://www.nstb.tc.faa.gov/reports/PAN86_0714.pdf#page=22 > > > > > > > and because of the variable rotation rate of the earth, you are asking for trouble if you use space bound triangulation points for earth bound positionings. And as you can't correct the earth's rotation to be in synch with the atomic time, you can only adjust the atomic time to be in synch with the earth's rotation if you want to have correctly working GPS, however erratic the rotation may be. > > > > > > The graphs that you yourself have provided show that the earth's rotation is > > > less erratic than you have claimed. And your calculation of how the variability > > > of rotation translates into positioning error is demonstrably off. > > > > > > The graph http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/lodr2.png a) shows only a rather limited time period and b) does not tell the whole story as rotation changes due to the solid and ocean tides have already been subtracted here (the same applies to http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/lodr1.gif ) The shown variation is solely due to the atmosphere ( http://toshi.nofs.navy.mil/plot-eop.html ). Still this variation (the 'reduced' length of day variation) is in the ms range. If you consider that overall the rotation gets longer on average by about 1 ms/day and that leap seconds (to compensate for this) have been introduced over the last 40+ years in irregular intervals between 1-7 years, this shoes that even the overall fluctuation (including solid and ocean tides) is a rather random one. > > *** YOUR MATH IS TOTALLY MESSED UP *** > > It is not true that "the rotation gets longer on average by about 1 ms/day". > Rather, the current length of day is about 1.5 ms longer than the SI day of > 86400 sec. In other words, the current length of day is approx. 864000.0015 sec. > > If it were true that "the rotation gets longer on average by about 1 ms/day", > then the length of day would be increasing by 1 second every three years, and > three years from now, leap seconds will have to be inserted on a daily basis. > > Do you know the difference between rate of change and an absolute rate? > > *** OBVIOUSLY NOT **** > > > Even if you take the uncertainty of the leap second period very conservatively as 1 year, this means that the uncertainty is 1000 ms/year = 2.7 ms/day, so actually considerably larger than the variations of the plots for the atmospheric contribution alone. > > From day to day, the unmodeled difference in day length amounts to MICROSECONDS. > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Deviation_of_day_length_from_SI_day.svg > > Do you know how to read graphs? > > *** OBVIOUSLY NOT **** > > Diurnal and semidiurnal variations *do* amount to about 1 mas in polar motion > and about 0.5 ms in UT1-UTC. These are *modeled and understood* variations: > > The circumference of the Earth is about 40,075 km > 1 mas polar motion represents 40,075*1000/360/60/60/1000 = 0.031 meters > 0.5 ms time represents 40,075*1000/24/60/1000*0.5 = 0.232 meters at the Equator. > > Can you do simple arithmetic? > > *** OBVIOUSLY NOT **** Good, almost perfect.. but You must still to remember the one fact: you are extraordinarily stupid in general.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 13:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <73df79ec-4147-42c7-991d-b3b818ca9b89@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396068 |
On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 22:49:44 UTC, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 5:04:26 PM UTC-5, Thomas wrote: > > On Monday, 17 October 2016 22:55:33 UTC, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 5:12:18 PM UTC-5, Thomas wrote: > > > > > > > GPS is not a time-keeping system but a positioning system, > > > > > > False. It is *both* a positioning system and a time-keeping system. > > > Dissemination of accurate time worldwide is a vital function of GPS. > > > http://www.nstb.tc.faa.gov/reports/PAN86_0714.pdf#page=22 > > > > > > > and because of the variable rotation rate of the earth, you are asking for trouble if you use space bound triangulation points for earth bound positionings. And as you can't correct the earth's rotation to be in synch with the atomic time, you can only adjust the atomic time to be in synch with the earth's rotation if you want to have correctly working GPS, however erratic the rotation may be. > > > > > > The graphs that you yourself have provided show that the earth's rotation is > > > less erratic than you have claimed. And your calculation of how the variability > > > of rotation translates into positioning error is demonstrably off. > > > > > > The graph http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/lodr2.png a) shows only a rather limited time period and b) does not tell the whole story as rotation changes due to the solid and ocean tides have already been subtracted here (the same applies to http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/lodr1.gif ) The shown variation is solely due to the atmosphere ( http://toshi.nofs.navy.mil/plot-eop.html ). Still this variation (the 'reduced' length of day variation) is in the ms range. If you consider that overall the rotation gets longer on average by about 1 ms/day and that leap seconds (to compensate for this) have been introduced over the last 40+ years in irregular intervals between 1-7 years, this shoes that even the overall fluctuation (including solid and ocean tides) is a rather random one. > > *** YOUR MATH IS TOTALLY MESSED UP *** > > It is not true that "the rotation gets longer on average by about 1 ms/day". > Rather, the current length of day is about 1.5 ms longer than the SI day of > 86400 sec. In other words, the current length of day is approx. 864000.0015 sec. > > If it were true that "the rotation gets longer on average by about 1 ms/day", > then the length of day would be increasing by 1 second every three years, and > three years from now, leap seconds will have to be inserted on a daily basis. Yes OK, I formulated it incorrectly. Of course the average rotation rate does not get longer by 1 ms/day. I meant the related clock offset increases by 1 ms/day. This follows directly from the fact that, on average, every 18 months a leap second (positive or negative) is introduced ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second ): if in 18 months the clock offset has accumulated to 1 sec, this means that, again on average, the clock offset increases/decreases by 1000/548 = 1.8 ms each day. This would be for a linear accumulation i.e. the rotation rate would have exactly the same decreased/increased value for the whole period, but this is of course not realistic (and would be trivial to correct). If you look at http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/lodr2.png you can see indeed that the fluctuations are of the same magnitude as the average value, so at times the daily offset might well change by 3-4 ms. And the point is that these variations can not be modelled in advance. Otherwise, you would not find links to plots for the "Last 2 years" in http://toshi.nofs.navy.mil/plot-eop.html but links to plots for the "Next 2 years". These corrections are thus only retrospectively possible on the basis of observations. And if you would want to keep this offset within 100 nanoseconds (as you and others here keep on maintaining), you would have to make the corrections much more frequently than once a day, namely every 86400 *10^-7/1.8*10^-3 = 5 sec. But this is not possible as the required accuracy of the observed quasar position would have to be 1.5*10^-6 arcsec, a factor 1/1000 more accurate then presently possible ( there are 1.296*10^6 arcsec in 360 deg, so 1.296*10^6 *5/86400 = 75 arcsec is the rotation angle of the earth in 5 sec, and 75* 1.8*10^-3/86400 = 1.5*10^-6 arcsec would be the deviation we would have to observe. ) > From day to day, the unmodeled difference in day length amounts to MICROSECONDS. > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Deviation_of_day_length_from_SI_day.svg ms means milliseconds not microseconds. The total accumulated offset over the 44 years is 26 seconds (right scale) and 26/44/365 sec = 1.6 milliseconds. By their very nature these leap second adjustments all are corrections for unmodelled variations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 14:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7bd4c395-21f1-4865-8bc3-b813dcf76e2b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396160 |
W dniu środa, 19 października 2016 22:24:22 UTC+2 użytkownik Thomas napisał: > On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 22:49:44 UTC, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 5:04:26 PM UTC-5, Thomas wrote: > > > On Monday, 17 October 2016 22:55:33 UTC, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 5:12:18 PM UTC-5, Thomas wrote: > > > > > > > > > GPS is not a time-keeping system but a positioning system, > > > > > > > > False. It is *both* a positioning system and a time-keeping system. > > > > Dissemination of accurate time worldwide is a vital function of GPS. > > > > http://www.nstb.tc.faa.gov/reports/PAN86_0714.pdf#page=22 > > > > > > > > > and because of the variable rotation rate of the earth, you are asking for trouble if you use space bound triangulation points for earth bound positionings. And as you can't correct the earth's rotation to be in synch with the atomic time, you can only adjust the atomic time to be in synch with the earth's rotation if you want to have correctly working GPS, however erratic the rotation may be. > > > > > > > > The graphs that you yourself have provided show that the earth's rotation is > > > > less erratic than you have claimed. And your calculation of how the variability > > > > of rotation translates into positioning error is demonstrably off. > > > > > > > > > The graph http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/lodr2.png a) shows only a rather limited time period and b) does not tell the whole story as rotation changes due to the solid and ocean tides have already been subtracted here (the same applies to http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/lodr1.gif ) The shown variation is solely due to the atmosphere ( http://toshi.nofs.navy.mil/plot-eop.html ). Still this variation (the 'reduced' length of day variation) is in the ms range. If you consider that overall the rotation gets longer on average by about 1 ms/day and that leap seconds (to compensate for this) have been introduced over the last 40+ years in irregular intervals between 1-7 years, this shoes that even the overall fluctuation (including solid and ocean tides) is a rather random one. > > > > *** YOUR MATH IS TOTALLY MESSED UP *** > > > > It is not true that "the rotation gets longer on average by about 1 ms/day". > > Rather, the current length of day is about 1.5 ms longer than the SI day of > > 86400 sec. In other words, the current length of day is approx. 864000.0015 sec. > > > > If it were true that "the rotation gets longer on average by about 1 ms/day", > > then the length of day would be increasing by 1 second every three years, and > > three years from now, leap seconds will have to be inserted on a daily basis. > > > Yes OK, I formulated it incorrectly. Of course the average rotation rate does not get longer by 1 ms/day. I meant the related clock offset increases by 1 ms/day. This follows directly from the fact that, on average, every 18 months a leap second (positive or negative) is introduced ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second ): if in 18 months the clock offset has accumulated to 1 sec, this means that, again on average, the clock offset increases/decreases by 1000/548 = 1.8 ms each day. This would be for a linear accumulation i.e. the rotation rate would have exactly the same decreased/increased value for the whole period, but this is of course not realistic (and would be trivial to correct). If you look at http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/lodr2.png you can see indeed that the fluctuations are of the same magnitude as the average value, so at times the daily offset might well change by 3-4 ms. And the point is that these variations can not be modelled in advance. Otherwise, you would not find links to plots for the "Last 2 years" in http://toshi.nofs.navy.mil/plot-eop.html but links to plots for the "Next 2 years". These corrections are thus only retrospectively possible on the basis of observations. And if you would want to keep this offset within 100 nanoseconds (as you and others here keep on maintaining), you would have to make the corrections much more frequently than once a day, namely every 86400 *10^-7/1.8*10^-3 = 5 sec. But this is not possible as the required accuracy of the observed quasar position would have to be 1.5*10^-6 arcsec, a factor 1/1000 more accurate then presently possible ( there are 1.296*10^6 arcsec in 360 deg, so 1.296*10^6 *5/86400 = 75 arcsec is the rotation angle of the earth in 5 sec, and 75* 1.8*10^-3/86400 = 1.5*10^-6 arcsec would be the deviation we would have to observe. ) 1.7ms/cy = 1.7 ms /y / 100^2 = 0.00000017/y = 0.17ms/y > > From day to day, the unmodeled difference in day length amounts to MICROSECONDS. > > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Deviation_of_day_length_from_SI_day.svg > ms means milliseconds not microseconds. The total accumulated offset over the 44 years is 26 seconds (right scale) and 26/44/365 sec = 1.6 milliseconds. By their very nature these leap second adjustments all are corrections for unmodelled variations. That is of an atomic clock deviation wrt the Earth's rotation speed! I. the Earth mass/inertia is gigantic, so its rotation can't change rapidly II. an atomic clock is a tiny gadget, so it is very susceptible to any disturbances
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web