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 16 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 22 Next page →
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 13:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6e22abc2-0a98-45ac-9c73-f503a9bffdf3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395732 |
On Saturday, 15 October 2016 17:05:21 UTC, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 11:22:21 AM UTC-5, Thomas wrote: > > > So the satellite clocks are allowed to drift up to 1ms from the clocks at the ground control stations. > Wrong. The satellite clocks may drift significantly from UTC, but the ground > control stations do not operate on the basis of UTC. They operate on the basis of > GPS time. Worldwide, the ground control stations and satellites maintain GPS time > sync to within nanoseconds. GPS time is currently ahead of UTC by 17 seconds. You have it the wrong way around. The GPS documentation clearly says that GPS time and UTC are kept within 100 ns, but GPS time is allowed to drift up to 1 ms with regard to the ground control stations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-15 13:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <086ee4b2-3710-42e5-beb8-85201325c504@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395756 |
On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 3:18:43 PM UTC-5, Thomas wrote: > On Saturday, 15 October 2016 17:05:21 UTC, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 11:22:21 AM UTC-5, Thomas wrote: > > > > > So the satellite clocks are allowed to drift up to 1ms from the clocks at the ground control stations. > > > Wrong. The satellite clocks may drift significantly from UTC, but the ground > > control stations do not operate on the basis of UTC. They operate on the basis of > > GPS time. Worldwide, the ground control stations and satellites maintain GPS time > > sync to within nanoseconds. GPS time is currently ahead of UTC by 17 seconds. > > You have it the wrong way around. The GPS documentation clearly says that GPS time and UTC are kept within 100 ns, but GPS time is allowed to drift up to 1 ms with regard to the ground control stations. GPS time is gradually steered towards (UTC modulo 1 second) so that the difference between GPS time and (UTC modulo 1 second) does not exceed 100 ns, but GPS time does not make any effort to track UTC leap seconds. The ground stations and satellite clocks operate under GPS time, not UTC time, and their clocks MUST be kept sync'ed to within a handful of nanoseconds, otherwise the ground stations CANNOT do their job of keeping the satellites in sync.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 01:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ntucdl$c05$1@node2.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #395760 |
Użytkownik "Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog" napisał w wiadomości grup dyskusyjnych:086ee4b2-3710-42e5-beb8-85201325c504@googlegroups.com... |GPS time is gradually steered towards (UTC modulo 1 second) so that the |difference between GPS time and (UTC modulo 1 second) does not exceed 100 ns, |but GPS time does not make any effort to track UTC leap seconds. That's right. GPS time has nothing in common with prophecies of your idiot guru.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 09:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <587b1e93-45b9-41c0-8631-9f2209c70eb0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395760 |
On Saturday, 15 October 2016 20:58:46 UTC, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 3:18:43 PM UTC-5, Thomas wrote: > > On Saturday, 15 October 2016 17:05:21 UTC, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 11:22:21 AM UTC-5, Thomas wrote: > > > > > > > So the satellite clocks are allowed to drift up to 1ms from the clocks at the ground control stations. > > > > > Wrong. The satellite clocks may drift significantly from UTC, but the ground > > > control stations do not operate on the basis of UTC. They operate on the basis of > > > GPS time. Worldwide, the ground control stations and satellites maintain GPS time > > > sync to within nanoseconds. GPS time is currently ahead of UTC by 17 seconds. > > > > You have it the wrong way around. The GPS documentation clearly says that GPS time and UTC are kept within 100 ns, but GPS time is allowed to drift up to 1 ms with regard to the ground control stations. > > GPS time is gradually steered towards (UTC modulo 1 second) so that the > difference between GPS time and (UTC modulo 1 second) does not exceed 100 ns, > but GPS time does not make any effort to track UTC leap seconds. > The ground stations and satellite clocks operate under GPS time, not UTC time, > and their clocks MUST be kept sync'ed to within a handful of nanoseconds, > otherwise the ground stations CANNOT do their job of keeping the satellites > in sync. Read Sect. 4.6. of the reference that I mentioned already several times http://www.georeferencial.com.br/old/material_didatico/entire_GPS.pdf , which proves that you are wrong with your claim.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 11:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ntvibl$g59$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #395756 |
On 15.10.2016 22:18, Thomas wrote:
> On Saturday, 15 October 2016 17:05:21 UTC, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
>> On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 11:22:21 AM UTC-5, Thomas wrote:
>>
>>> So the satellite clocks are allowed to drift up to 1ms from the clocks at the ground control stations.
>
>> Wrong. The satellite clocks may drift significantly from UTC, but the ground
>> control stations do not operate on the basis of UTC. They operate on the basis of
>> GPS time. Worldwide, the ground control stations and satellites maintain GPS time
>> sync to within nanoseconds. GPS time is currently ahead of UTC by 17 seconds.
>
> You have it the wrong way around.
> The GPS documentation clearly says that GPS time and UTC are kept within 100 ns,
> but GPS time is allowed to drift up to 1 ms with regard to the ground control stations.
This is plain wrong, which yet again demonstrates that you
misinterpret the imprecise and ambiguous information in
the manual for GPS surveying.
The "GPS documentation" clearly says that GPS time and UTC are kept
within 1us + a number of whole seconds from UTC.
(Currently 17 seconds)
The number of whole seconds is the number of
leap seconds inserted in the UTC since
the beginning of GPS operation.
Leap seconds are NOT inserted in GPS time.
ftp://tycho.usno.navy.mil/pub/gps/gpstt.txt
<<
GPS TIME STEERING
=================
GPS time is automatically steered to UTC(USNO) on a daily
basis to keep system time within one microsecond of UTC(USNO),
but during the last several years has been within 50 nanoseconds.
The rate of steer being applied was +/-1.0E-19 seconds per second
squared from March 1994 until 2300 GPS Time on January 12th, 2011
when it was changed to +/-5.0E-20 seconds per seconds squared.
>>
The current offset can be found here:
ftp://tycho.usno.navy.mil/pub/gps/utcgps30.dat
Note that the offset GPS-UTC doesn't matter
at all for the positioning precision of the GPS,
because all calculations are made with GPS-time.
But the offset is transmitted from the SV so
the receiver can calculate the precise UTC time,
which obviously is more interesting for the user
than GPS-time. (Who would want a GPS clock that is
wrong by 17 seconds?)
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 19:35 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <epudnefe76EogZnFnZ2dnUU7_8xi4p2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #395805 |
On 10/16/16 10/16/16 4:47 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > The "GPS documentation" clearly says that GPS time and UTC are kept > within 1us + a number of whole seconds from UTC. > (Currently 17 seconds) Certainly the original GPS specified that. But I believe this is old, and the spec was revised to require GPS time to be within 100 ns of UTC modulo leap seconds. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 11:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nu255e$d8e$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #395858 |
On 17.10.2016 02:35, Tom Roberts wrote:
> On 10/16/16 10/16/16 4:47 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> The "GPS documentation" clearly says that GPS time and UTC are kept
>> within 1us + a number of whole seconds from UTC.
>> (Currently 17 seconds)
>
> Certainly the original GPS specified that. But I believe this is old,
> and the spec was revised to require GPS time to be within 100 ns of UTC
> modulo leap seconds.
>
>
> Tom Roberts
>
OK.
In that case I think USNO should update their files!
ftp://tycho.usno.navy.mil/pub/gps/gpstt.txt
<<
GPS TIME STEERING
=================
GPS time is automatically steered to UTC(USNO) on a daily
basis to keep system time within one microsecond of UTC(USNO),
but during the last several years has been within 50 nanoseconds.
The rate of steer being applied was ±1.0E-19 seconds per second
squared from March 1994 until 2300 GPS Time on January 12th, 2011
when it was changed to ±5.0E-20 seconds per seconds squared.
>>
I also wrote:
The current offset can be found here:
ftp://tycho.usno.navy.mil/pub/gps/utcgps30.dat
which show that the current (10-16-2016) offset UTC-GPS is -4.98ns.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ScottPN <Scott@oe0vgk3s.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 09:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nu26l0$1bi5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395883 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Certainly the original GPS specified that. But I believe this is old, >> and the spec was revised to require GPS time to be within 100 ns of UTC >> modulo leap seconds. Tom Roberts >> > OK. > In that case I think USNO should update their files! Haahahaha, thank you Mr. Paul, excellent point, rarely to be seen in Relativity.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 14:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nu2h21$3qp$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #395884 |
On 17.10.2016 11:46, ScottPN wrote: > Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >>> Certainly the original GPS specified that. But I believe this is old, >>> and the spec was revised to require GPS time to be within 100 ns of UTC >>> modulo leap seconds. Tom Roberts >>> >> OK. >> In that case I think USNO should update their files! > > Haahahaha, thank you Mr. Paul, excellent point, rarely to be seen in > Relativity. > I have read most of you postings today, and you show all the signs of being a troll. You are writing to provoke, and don't try to make sense. plonk -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 14:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nu2os9$2ma$4@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #395899 |
"Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> writes: >On 17.10.2016 11:46, ScottPN wrote: >> Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >>>> Certainly the original GPS specified that. But I believe this is old, >>>> and the spec was revised to require GPS time to be within 100 ns of UTC >>>> modulo leap seconds. Tom Roberts >>>> >>> OK. >>> In that case I think USNO should update their files! >> >> Haahahaha, thank you Mr. Paul, excellent point, rarely to be seen in >> Relativity. >> >I have read most of you postings today, >and you show all the signs of being a troll. >You are writing to provoke, and don't try >to make sense. >plonk It's the nymshifter troll, back after an absense.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Scott <scott@oe0vgk3s.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 15:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nu2ro9$kp5$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395899 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 17.10.2016 11:46, ScottPN wrote: >> Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> >>>> Certainly the original GPS specified that. But I believe this is old, >>>> and the spec was revised to require GPS time to be within 100 ns of >>>> UTC modulo leap seconds. Tom Roberts >>>> >>> OK.In that case I think USNO should update their files! >> >> Haahahaha, thank you Mr. Paul, excellent point, rarely to be seen in >> Relativity. >> > I have read most of you postings today, > and you show all the signs of being a troll. > You are writing to provoke, and don't try to make sense. plonk Breaks my heart seen you feeling like that. Which is unfortunate. Actually you are the one being the troll. Obvious to every one reading your trollish reactions you exhibit.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | mlwozniak@wp.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 02:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e1e7c4aa-7acb-4c46-8c13-c4169ffbda8f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395883 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 17 października 2016 11:20:48 UTC+2 użytkownik Paul B. Andersen napisał: > On 17.10.2016 02:35, Tom Roberts wrote: > > On 10/16/16 10/16/16 4:47 AM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> The "GPS documentation" clearly says that GPS time and UTC are kept > >> within 1us + a number of whole seconds from UTC. > >> (Currently 17 seconds) > > > > Certainly the original GPS specified that. But I believe this is old, > > and the spec was revised to require GPS time to be within 100 ns of UTC > > modulo leap seconds. > > > > > > Tom Roberts > > > > OK. > In that case I think USNO should update their files! > > ftp://tycho.usno.navy.mil/pub/gps/gpstt.txt > << > GPS TIME STEERING > ================= > GPS time is automatically steered to UTC(USNO) on a daily > basis to keep system time within one microsecond of UTC(USNO), > but during the last several years has been within 50 nanoseconds. > The rate of steer being applied was ±1.0E-19 seconds per second > squared from March 1994 until 2300 GPS Time on January 12th, 2011 > when it was changed to ±5.0E-20 seconds per seconds squared. > >> > > I also wrote: > The current offset can be found here: > ftp://tycho.usno.navy.mil/pub/gps/utcgps30.dat > which show that the current (10-16-2016) offset UTC-GPS is -4.98ns. Oh, it doesn't matter. Anyway, the clocks of GPS keep t'=t with good precision.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 11:42 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ntvi2r$fku$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #395727 |
On 15.10.2016 18:22, Thomas wrote: > On Saturday, 15 October 2016 13:16:27 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> Thomas wrote: >>> If you do the sums, then you find that a constant clock offset of >>> ∆ f/f = - 4.4647E-10 for all satellites has next to no effect on the GPS accuracy ( http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/gps.htm ). >> >> Which demonstrates that you do not know what you are talking about. The following facts are just that. You should read them and try to understand what you read. >> Fact 1: The reported time from the SVs must be in sync with >> each other within 100ns for the GPS to work. >> Fact 2: Each individual SV is synced as required by uploading >> of the "clock offset" from the ground. >> Fact 3: The above implies that each individual SV >> must be in sync with GPS time within 100ns. >> Fact 4: Every day there will be a period of at least 10 hours >> when no upload of the "clock offset" is possible. >> Fact 5: The SV clock rate error must be so small that the sync >> error will be less than 100ns 10 hours after the previous >> upload of the "clock offset". >> Fact 6: If "you do the sums" correctly, you will find that >> if the SV clock rate weren't corrected by -4.4647E-10 >> it would drift more than 100 ns off sync after a time >> t = 100ns/4.4647E-10 = 224 seconds < 4 minutes which >> is a lot less than 10 hours. >> Fact 7: The GPS wouldn't work without the GR-correction. > > You are having it the wrong way around. The facts above are just that. > The GPS document http://www.georeferencial.com.br/old/material_didatico/entire_GPS.pdf says > > "The second-order polynomial determined by the ground control station to model the time > drift is included in the broadcast message in an effort to keep this drift to within 1 millisecond (ms). > The time synchronization between the GPS satellite clocks is kept to within 20 nanoseconds (ns) through > the broadcast clock corrections as determined by the ground control stations and the synchronization of > GPS standard time to the Universal Time Coordinated (UTC) to within 100 ns" And the apparent self contradiction in the statements above doesn't puzzle you? Are the SV clocks kept in sync with each other to within 1ms or 20 ns? And what is kept in sync to within 100ns? I suspect that those who wrote the above didn't understand their source, because it is so imprecise and ambiguous that it is bordering to be plain wrong. > > So the satellite clocks are allowed to drift up to 1ms from the clocks at the ground control stations. > As per my above argument, this should still allow an accuracy of about 20 cm, but an error of 1 ms > would get the ephemeris location of the satellite wrong by about 5 m (the distance the satellite travels in 1 ms), > so GPS results would be wrong by the same amount. Good grief! :-D If the reported time from an SV were off GPS time by 1 ms, the receiver would calculate the distance to the SV wrong by c*(1ms) = 30000 metres! So when the receiver calculates the distances to four SVs with an uncertainty of +/-30 km in each distance, it doesn't help much to know the positions of the SVs to a precision of 4 metres. No usable positioning would be possible. What I wrote and you snipped is correct: | All the clocks in the GPS system - the SV clocks, | the ground clocks in monitoring stations and the | master control station are kept in sync with | GPS-time to within < 100ns (in practice better, ~20ns). Within 100ns means 30m uncertainty in the distance to the SV. Within 20ns means 6m uncertainty in the distance to the SV. > The limit of 1 ms is most likely related to the fact that the earth's > rotation shows an unmodelled random drift > of about 1ms/day (the very reason why occasionally leap seconds are added). > So for this reason, the accuracy could not be improved to much better than 5m > anyway because the satellite positions could be wrong by 5m within hours. This is nonsense. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 05:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <b3ceb00d-65e6-412d-9a8c-1b5600efdffb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395804 |
On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 4:42:53 AM UTC-5, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> On 15.10.2016 18:22, Thomas wrote:
> > The limit of 1 ms is most likely related to the fact that the earth's
> > rotation shows an unmodelled random drift
> > of about 1ms/day (the very reason why occasionally leap seconds are added).
> > So for this reason, the accuracy could not be improved to much better than 5m
> > anyway because the satellite positions could be wrong by 5m within hours.
>
> This is nonsense.
"The maximum of total diurnal and semidiurnal variations are within one
milli-arcseconds (mas) in Polar Motion (PM) and 0.5 milli-seconds (ms)
in UT1-UTC."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4367342/
These are modeled, diurnal and semidiurnal variations in the Earth's rotation
rate.
"In addition, some larger crustal activities may also affect Earth's
rotation....the Sumatra earthquake....made the Earth's rotation rate
change by several microseconds..." (ibid)
In other words, unmodeled variations are much smaller than Thomas maintains.
Even assuming Thomas' worst case assumption of 1 ms unmodeled variation, he is
off by an order of magnitude. An unmodeled 1 ms variation would cause at most
0.5m inaccuracy at the Earth's equator.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 11:50 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bf7f4e60-f262-458d-829e-9f4f1414c213@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395804 |
On Sunday, 16 October 2016 09:42:53 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 15.10.2016 18:22, Thomas wrote: > > On Saturday, 15 October 2016 13:16:27 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> Thomas wrote: > >>> If you do the sums, then you find that a constant clock offset of > >>> ∆ f/f = - 4.4647E-10 for all satellites has next to no effect on the GPS accuracy ( http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/gps.htm ). > >> > >> Which demonstrates that you do not know what you are talking about. > > The following facts are just that. > You should read them and try to understand what you read. > > >> Fact 1: The reported time from the SVs must be in sync with > >> each other within 100ns for the GPS to work. > >> Fact 2: Each individual SV is synced as required by uploading > >> of the "clock offset" from the ground. > >> Fact 3: The above implies that each individual SV > >> must be in sync with GPS time within 100ns. > >> Fact 4: Every day there will be a period of at least 10 hours > >> when no upload of the "clock offset" is possible. > >> Fact 5: The SV clock rate error must be so small that the sync > >> error will be less than 100ns 10 hours after the previous > >> upload of the "clock offset". > >> Fact 6: If "you do the sums" correctly, you will find that > >> if the SV clock rate weren't corrected by -4.4647E-10 > >> it would drift more than 100 ns off sync after a time > >> t = 100ns/4.4647E-10 = 224 seconds < 4 minutes which > >> is a lot less than 10 hours. > >> Fact 7: The GPS wouldn't work without the GR-correction. > > > > You are having it the wrong way around. > > The facts above are just that. > > > The GPS document http://www.georeferencial.com.br/old/material_didatico/entire_GPS.pdf says > > > > "The second-order polynomial determined by the ground control station to model the time > > drift is included in the broadcast message in an effort to keep this drift to within 1 millisecond (ms). > > The time synchronization between the GPS satellite clocks is kept to within 20 nanoseconds (ns) through > > the broadcast clock corrections as determined by the ground control stations and the synchronization of > > GPS standard time to the Universal Time Coordinated (UTC) to within 100 ns" > > And the apparent self contradiction in the statements > above doesn't puzzle you? > Are the SV clocks kept in sync with each other to within 1ms or 20 ns? > And what is kept in sync to within 100ns? > > I suspect that those who wrote the above didn't understand their source, > because it is so imprecise and ambiguous that it is bordering to be > plain wrong. There are no contradictions, The text clearly says GPS-GPS : 20ns GPS-UTC : 100ns GPS-Ground control : 1ms I repeat: on offset of ALL GPS clock rates by the same amount < 1 ms/day is irrelevant for the accuracy of GPS in its normal operational mode as only differences of satellite clocks are involved in the position determination. The effect is the same as having the speed of light wrong by the same relative amount. Given the length of the signal path, this only leads to a constant (non-accumulating) error of <5m. > > > > > So the satellite clocks are allowed to drift up to 1ms from the clocks at the ground control stations. > > As per my above argument, this should still allow an accuracy of about 20 cm, but an error of 1 ms > > would get the ephemeris location of the satellite wrong by about 5 m (the distance the satellite travels in 1 ms), > > so GPS results would be wrong by the same amount. > > Good grief! :-D > If the reported time from an SV were off GPS time by 1 ms, the receiver > would calculate the distance to the SV wrong by c*(1ms) = 30000 metres! > So when the receiver calculates the distances to four SVs with > an uncertainty of +/-30 km in each distance, it doesn't help much > to know the positions of the SVs to a precision of 4 metres. > No usable positioning would be possible. > > What I wrote and you snipped is correct: > | All the clocks in the GPS system - the SV clocks, > | the ground clocks in monitoring stations and the > | master control station are kept in sync with > | GPS-time to within < 100ns (in practice better, ~20ns). > > Within 100ns means 30m uncertainty in the distance to the SV. > Within 20ns means 6m uncertainty in the distance to the SV. > > > > The limit of 1 ms is most likely related to the fact that the earth's > > rotation shows an unmodelled random drift > > of about 1ms/day (the very reason why occasionally leap seconds are added). > > So for this reason, the accuracy could not be improved to much better than 5m > > anyway because the satellite positions could be wrong by 5m within hours. > > This is nonsense. It is not nonsense. An umodelled drift of 1 ms/day for the length of the day is consistent with the fact that every couple of years a leap second is introduced (and that is added only to UTC not the GPS ground clocks). The fact that the leap second is only introduced retrospectively, proves that the drift is indeed unmodelled (and thus can not be a part of the GPS model). The random nature of the drift is apparent from these diagrams http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/lodr1.gif http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/lodr2.png
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 12:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <26b6f47f-689f-46a9-b11f-5627be6494eb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395840 |
On Sunday, October 16, 2016 at 1:50:22 PM UTC-5, Thomas wrote: > It is not nonsense. An umodelled drift of 1 ms/day for the length of the day is consistent with the fact that every couple of years a leap second is introduced (and that is added only to UTC not the GPS ground clocks). The fact that the leap second is only introduced retrospectively, proves that the drift is indeed unmodelled (and thus can not be a part of the GPS model). The random nature of the drift is apparent from these diagrams > http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/lodr1.gif > http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/lodr2.png Please look at the horizontal time scales of the graphs that you present. Nowhere do I see justification for your claim that length of day can change by 1 msec in a single day. Over a period of half a year, yes. Over a day, no.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 23:31 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nu0rim$t1t$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #395840 |
On 16.10.2016 20:50, Thomas wrote: > On Sunday, 16 October 2016 09:42:53 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 15.10.2016 18:22, Thomas wrote: >>> On Saturday, 15 October 2016 13:16:27 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> Thomas wrote: >>>>> If you do the sums, then you find that a constant clock offset of >>>>> ∆ f/f = - 4.4647E-10 for all satellites has next to no effect on the GPS accuracy ( http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/gps.htm ). >>>> >>>> Which demonstrates that you do not know what you are talking about. >> >> The following facts are just that. >> You should read them and try to understand what you read. >> >>>> Fact 1: The reported time from the SVs must be in sync with >>>> each other within 100ns for the GPS to work. >>>> Fact 2: Each individual SV is synced as required by uploading >>>> of the "clock offset" from the ground. >>>> Fact 3: The above implies that each individual SV >>>> must be in sync with GPS time within 100ns. >>>> Fact 4: Every day there will be a period of at least 10 hours >>>> when no upload of the "clock offset" is possible. >>>> Fact 5: The SV clock rate error must be so small that the sync >>>> error will be less than 100ns 10 hours after the previous >>>> upload of the "clock offset". >>>> Fact 6: If "you do the sums" correctly, you will find that >>>> if the SV clock rate weren't corrected by -4.4647E-10 >>>> it would drift more than 100 ns off sync after a time >>>> t = 100ns/4.4647E-10 = 224 seconds < 4 minutes which >>>> is a lot less than 10 hours. >>>> Fact 7: The GPS wouldn't work without the GR-correction. >>> >>> You are having it the wrong way around. >> >> The facts above are just that. >> >>> The GPS document http://www.georeferencial.com.br/old/material_didatico/entire_GPS.pdf says >>> >>> "The second-order polynomial determined by the ground control station to model the time >>> drift is included in the broadcast message in an effort to keep this drift to within 1 millisecond (ms). >>> The time synchronization between the GPS satellite clocks is kept to within 20 nanoseconds (ns) through >>> the broadcast clock corrections as determined by the ground control stations and the synchronization of >>> GPS standard time to the Universal Time Coordinated (UTC) to within 100 ns" >> >> And the apparent self contradiction in the statements >> above doesn't puzzle you? >> Are the SV clocks kept in sync with each other to within 1ms or 20 ns? >> And what is kept in sync to within 100ns? >> >> I suspect that those who wrote the above didn't understand their source, >> because it is so imprecise and ambiguous that it is bordering to be >> plain wrong. > > There are no contradictions, The text clearly says > > GPS-GPS : 20ns > GPS-UTC : 100ns > GPS-Ground control : 1ms It is plain wrong. > > I repeat: on offset of ALL GPS clock rates by the same amount < 1 ms/day is irrelevant for the accuracy of GPS in its normal operational mode as only differences of satellite clocks are involved in the position determination. The effect is the same as having the speed of light wrong by the same relative amount. Given the length of the signal path, this only leads to a constant (non-accumulating) error of <5m. Repeating it doesn't make it right. >>> >>> So the satellite clocks are allowed to drift up to 1ms from the clocks at the ground control stations. >>> As per my above argument, this should still allow an accuracy of about 20 cm, but an error of 1 ms >>> would get the ephemeris location of the satellite wrong by about 5 m (the distance the satellite travels in 1 ms), >>> so GPS results would be wrong by the same amount. >> >> Good grief! :-D >> If the reported time from an SV were off GPS time by 1 ms, the receiver >> would calculate the distance to the SV wrong by c*(1ms) = 300000 metres! >> So when the receiver calculates the distances to four SVs with >> an uncertainty of +/-300 km in each distance, it doesn't help much >> to know the positions of the SVs to a precision of 4 metres. >> No usable positioning would be possible. Was this too hard for you to understand? If you still don't understand that if the reported times from the SVs were 1 ms off sync with GPS-time, then the positioning error would be hundreds of kilometres and not a couple of meters, it can only be because you don't read what I write and allow yourself to think while you read it. >> >> What I wrote and you snipped is correct: >> | All the clocks in the GPS system - the SV clocks, >> | the ground clocks in monitoring stations and the >> | master control station are kept in sync with >> | GPS-time to within < 100ns (in practice better, ~20ns). >> >> Within 100ns means 30m uncertainty in the distance to the SV. >> Within 20ns means 6m uncertainty in the distance to the SV. >> >> >>> The limit of 1 ms is most likely related to the fact that the earth's >>> rotation shows an unmodelled random drift >>> of about 1ms/day (the very reason why occasionally leap seconds are added). >>> So for this reason, the accuracy could not be improved to much better than 5m >>> anyway because the satellite positions could be wrong by 5m within hours. >> >> This is nonsense. > > It is not nonsense. An umodelled drift of 1 ms/day for the length of the day is consistent with the fact that every couple of years a leap second is introduced (and that is added only to UTC not the GPS ground clocks). The fact that the leap second is only introduced retrospectively, proves that the drift is indeed unmodelled (and thus can not be a part of the GPS model). The random nature of the drift is apparent from these diagrams > http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/lodr1.gif > http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/lodr2.png It is utterly irrelevant! The nonsense is that 1 ms would give an error <5m in the positioning. The error would be hundreds of kilometres. The GPS wouldn't work. The error in the position of the SV (<4m) is negligible compared to error in the calculated distance to the SV (300 km). The latter must be used to calculate the position of the receiver. Unless you are stupid, you can't fail to understand this if you allow yourself to think. End of my patience! -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 14:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4ad1ebd8-7e22-4b3b-a8ee-03b3f24097a8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #395850 |
On Sunday, 16 October 2016 21:31:04 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 16.10.2016 20:50, Thomas wrote: > > On Sunday, 16 October 2016 09:42:53 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >> On 15.10.2016 18:22, Thomas wrote: > >>> On Saturday, 15 October 2016 13:16:27 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > >>>> Thomas wrote: > >>>>> If you do the sums, then you find that a constant clock offset of > >>>>> ∆ f/f = - 4.4647E-10 for all satellites has next to no effect on the GPS accuracy ( http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/gps.htm ). > >>>> > >>>> Which demonstrates that you do not know what you are talking about. > >> > >> The following facts are just that. > >> You should read them and try to understand what you read. > >> > >>>> Fact 1: The reported time from the SVs must be in sync with > >>>> each other within 100ns for the GPS to work. > >>>> Fact 2: Each individual SV is synced as required by uploading > >>>> of the "clock offset" from the ground. > >>>> Fact 3: The above implies that each individual SV > >>>> must be in sync with GPS time within 100ns. > >>>> Fact 4: Every day there will be a period of at least 10 hours > >>>> when no upload of the "clock offset" is possible. > >>>> Fact 5: The SV clock rate error must be so small that the sync > >>>> error will be less than 100ns 10 hours after the previous > >>>> upload of the "clock offset". > >>>> Fact 6: If "you do the sums" correctly, you will find that > >>>> if the SV clock rate weren't corrected by -4.4647E-10 > >>>> it would drift more than 100 ns off sync after a time > >>>> t = 100ns/4.4647E-10 = 224 seconds < 4 minutes which > >>>> is a lot less than 10 hours. > >>>> Fact 7: The GPS wouldn't work without the GR-correction. > >>> > >>> You are having it the wrong way around. > >> > >> The facts above are just that. > >> > >>> The GPS document http://www.georeferencial.com.br/old/material_didatico/entire_GPS.pdf says > >>> > >>> "The second-order polynomial determined by the ground control station to model the time > >>> drift is included in the broadcast message in an effort to keep this drift to within 1 millisecond (ms). > >>> The time synchronization between the GPS satellite clocks is kept to within 20 nanoseconds (ns) through > >>> the broadcast clock corrections as determined by the ground control stations and the synchronization of > >>> GPS standard time to the Universal Time Coordinated (UTC) to within 100 ns" > >> > >> And the apparent self contradiction in the statements > >> above doesn't puzzle you? > >> Are the SV clocks kept in sync with each other to within 1ms or 20 ns? > >> And what is kept in sync to within 100ns? > >> > >> I suspect that those who wrote the above didn't understand their source, > >> because it is so imprecise and ambiguous that it is bordering to be > >> plain wrong. > > > > There are no contradictions, The text clearly says > > > > GPS-GPS : 20ns > > GPS-UTC : 100ns > > GPS-Ground control : 1ms > > > It is plain wrong. > > > > > I repeat: on offset of ALL GPS clock rates by the same amount < 1 ms/day is irrelevant for the accuracy of GPS in its normal operational mode as only differences of satellite clocks are involved in the position determination. The effect is the same as having the speed of light wrong by the same relative amount. Given the length of the signal path, this only leads to a constant (non-accumulating) error of <5m. > Repeating it doesn't make it right. I didn't say that repeating it makes it right. It is right already. > > >>> > >>> So the satellite clocks are allowed to drift up to 1ms from the clocks at the ground control stations. > >> If the reported time from an SV were off GPS time by 1 ms, the receiver > >> would calculate the distance to the SV wrong by c*(1ms) = 300000 metres! > >> So when the receiver calculates the distances to four SVs with > >> an uncertainty of +/-300 km in each distance, it doesn't help much > >> to know the positions of the SVs to a precision of 4 metres. > >> No usable positioning would be possible. > The receiver doesn't calculate the position wrong. You are. The position is calculated by using timing DIFFERENCES to different satellites. If you have two timings t1 and t2 wrong by the same relative factor df/f then the associated path difference x1-x2=c*(t1-t2) is also wrong by the same factor df/f. For the GPS satellites, the path is of the order of 20000 km. So for a drift of 1ms/day (10^-3/86400 = 1.16*10^-8) the position will be wrong by 20000*1.16*10^-8 km = 23 cm. Even this is well within the GPS accuracy of about 5m (which, as I mentioned earlier, is not determined by the ranging error but by the ephemeris error associated with a 1 ms clock error (the satellite moves about 5m in 1 ms). You should really make an effort to learn how GPS actually works, rather than insisting on making false claims here just because it suits your ideology.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 12:34 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nu4trr$lvn$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #395953 |
On 17.10.2016 23:45, Thomas wrote: > On Sunday, 16 October 2016 21:31:04 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 16.10.2016 20:50, Thomas wrote: >>> On Sunday, 16 October 2016 09:42:53 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> On 15.10.2016 18:22, Thomas wrote: >>>>> >>>>> So the satellite clocks are allowed to drift up to 1ms from the clocks at the ground control stations. >>>>> As per my above argument, this should still allow an accuracy of about 20 cm, but an error of 1 ms >>>>> would get the ephemeris location of the satellite wrong by about 5 m (the distance the satellite travels in 1 ms), >>>>> so GPS results would be wrong by the same amount. >>>> >>>> Good grief! >>>> If the reported time from an SV were off GPS time by 1 ms, the receiver >>>> would calculate the distance to the SV wrong by c*(1ms) = 300000 metres! >>>> So when the receiver calculates the distances to four SVs with >>>> an uncertainty of ±300 km in each distance, it doesn't help much >>>> to know the positions of the SVs to a precision of 4 metres. >>>> No usable positioning would be possible. >> >> Was this too hard for you to understand? >> >> If you still don't understand that if the reported times from >> the SVs were 1 ms off sync with GPS-time, then the positioning >> error would be hundreds of kilometres and not a couple of meters, >> it can only be because you don't read what I write and allow yourself >> to think while you read it. - or the reason could be plain stupidity, which is confirmed by the following: > The receiver doesn't calculate the position wrong. You are. The position > is calculated by using timing DIFFERENCES to different satellites. > If you have two timings t1 and t2 wrong by the same relative factor df/f > then the associated path difference x1-x2=c*(t1-t2) is also wrong by > the same factor df/f. For the GPS satellites, the path is of the order > of 20000 km. So for a drift of 1ms/day (10^-3/86400 = 1.16*10^-8) > the position will be wrong by 20000*1.16*10^-8 km = 23 cm. Even this > is well within the GPS accuracy of about 5m (which, as I mentioned earlier, > is not determined by the ranging error but by the ephemeris error associated > with a 1 ms clock error (the satellite moves about 5m in 1 ms). :-D I won't even bother to comment on this. Everybody but you will see for themselves how nonsensical it is, and you have proven to be a a crank who will never listen to reason. > You should really make an effort to learn how GPS actually works, rather than > insisting on making false claims here just because it suits your ideology. SIC!!!! :-D 'nuff said! -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 15:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5e41cfe8-c4f1-4ad6-871d-f128e83e9222@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396010 |
On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 10:34:36 UTC, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 17.10.2016 23:45, Thomas wrote: > > The receiver doesn't calculate the position wrong. You are. The position > > is calculated by using timing DIFFERENCES to different satellites. > > If you have two timings t1 and t2 wrong by the same relative factor df/f > > then the associated path difference x1-x2=c*(t1-t2) is also wrong by > > the same factor df/f. For the GPS satellites, the path is of the order > > of 20000 km. So for a drift of 1ms/day (10^-3/86400 = 1.16*10^-8) > > the position will be wrong by 20000*1.16*10^-8 km = 23 cm. Even this > > is well within the GPS accuracy of about 5m (which, as I mentioned earlier, > > is not determined by the ranging error but by the ephemeris error associated > > with a 1 ms clock error (the satellite moves about 5m in 1 ms). > I won't even bother to comment on this. Your non-comment speaks for itself. As soon as somebody proves you wrong you are lost for words.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 16 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 14 15 [16] 17 18 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web