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 7 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 22 Next page →
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 20:56 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nu0ihk$cfl$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #395820 |
On 16.10.2016 17:34, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 17/10/16 00:02, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 14.10.2016 20:06, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >>> Do you still believe that a satellite at 45 degrees has a radial >>> component of about 600 m/s? This is the context of the "radial component of about 600 m/s" to which Ralph Malcom Rabbidge is referring: On 09/10/16 07:02, Paul B. Andersen wrote: | For simplicity, let's assume that these two SVs are in | the same orbital plane, and that the receiver is in | the same plane. Let's further assume that the two SV's | are approximately 45 degrees from vertical on either side | of the receiver, see figure below. | | SV1-> SV2-> | \ / | \ / | \d1 /d2 | \ / | \ / | \ / | \/ | R | (For those who might miss the obvious: the orbits of SV1 and SV2 are right overhead of the receiver.) | | - The coordinates of the event "SV1 emits the signal" | are (t1,x1,y1,z1). | - The coordinates of the event "SV2 emits the signal" | are (t2,x2,y2,z2). | - The coordinates of the event "R receives the four signals" | are (t,x,y,z) | - d1 is the distance between the position of SV1 at the time t1, | and the position of the receiver at the time t. | - d2 is the distance between the position of SV2 at the time t2, | and the position of the receiver at the time t. | | All coordinates are in the ECI-frame. | | Since the GPS factually works, we know: | d1 = (t - t1)c d2 = (t - t2)c | | But according Ralph Malcom Rabbidge the two distances will be | calculated to be d1' and d1', where: | | d1' = (t - t1)(c+v) d2' = (t - t2)(c-v) | | where v is the radial speed of the SV's. | v ~= 600 m/s = 2E-6c | | d1' = d1(1 + 2E-6) d2' = d2(1 - 2E-6) | | Since d1 and d2 are in the order of 2.26E7m we get: | d1' = d1 + 45m d2'= d2 - 45m | | We know that d1 and d2 are correct (the GPS works), | so Ralph Malcom Rabbidge's "BaTh" give wrong distances. | This falsifies the"BaTh". >> It is 520.6 m/s. So we must modify the above slightly: v ~= 520 m/s ~= 1.7E-6c d1' = d1(1 + 1.7E-6) d2' = d2(1 - 1.7E-6) Since d1 and d2 are in the order of 2.17E7 m we get: d1' = d1 + 37m d2'= d2 - 37m We know that d1 and d2 are correct (the GPS works), so Ralph Malcom Rabbidge's "BaTh" give wrong distances. This falsifies the"BaTh". >> The velocity component towards the observer is: >> v = w r R sin(theta)/sqrt(R^2 +r^2 - 2r cos(theta)) >> where: >> w = 1.456E-4 rad/s, the angular velocity of the SV >> r = 2.66E7 m, the orbital radius of the SV >> R = 6.37E6 m, the radius of the Earth >> theta = the angle between a radius vector to the SV >> and the vertical of the observer >> >> phi = arctan(r sin(theta)/(r cos(theta)-R) >> where phi = the angle between the line of sight observer-SV >> and the vertical of the observer >> >> phi = -65.5 degrees, v_rad = -719.2 m/s >> phi = -60.5 degrees, v_rad = -675.2 m/s >> phi = -55.4 degrees, v_rad = -627.3 m/s >> phi = -50.3 degrees, v_rad = -575.6 m/s -------------------------------------------- >> phi = -45.0 degrees, v_rad = -520.6 m/s --------------------------------------------- >> phi = -39.6 degrees, v_rad = -462.4 m/s >> phi = -34.2 degrees, v_rad = -401.6 m/s >> phi = -28.6 degrees, v_rad = -338.3 m/s >> phi = -23.0 degrees, v_rad = -273.1 m/s >> phi = -17.3 degrees, v_rad = -206.3 m/s >> phi = -11.6 degrees, v_rad = -138.2 m/s >> phi = -5.8 degrees, v_rad = -69.3 m/s >> phi = 0.0 degrees, v_rad = 0.0 m/s >> phi = 5.8 degrees, v_rad = 69.3 m/s >> phi = 11.6 degrees, v_rad = 138.2 m/s >> phi = 17.3 degrees, v_rad = 206.3 m/s >> phi = 23.0 degrees, v_rad = 273.1 m/s >> phi = 28.6 degrees, v_rad = 338.3 m/s >> phi = 34.2 degrees, v_rad = 401.6 m/s >> phi = 39.6 degrees, v_rad = 462.4 m/s --------------------------------------------- >> phi = 45.0 degrees, v_rad = 520.6 m/s --------------------------------------------- >> phi = 50.3 degrees, v_rad = 575.6 m/s >> phi = 55.4 degrees, v_rad = 627.3 m/s >> phi = 60.5 degrees, v_rad = 675.2 m/s >> phi = 65.5 degrees, v_rad = 719.2 m/s > > HAHAHAHAHHAHHAHHA! > > Paul, draw a 45 degree cone vertically from a point on Earth....... > > It is on that cone that satellites will be seen at 45 degrees. Did you really figure this out all by yourself? Well done, Ralph! > > HAHAHHAHHAHAHHAAHAA! > Quite. The "BaTh" is indeed laughable. But I leave the hysterical laughter to you who do it so well. Well done, Ralph. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 08:06 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nu3eg1$1ltf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395841 |
On 17/10/16 05:56, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 16.10.2016 17:34, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>> phi = -50.3 degrees, v_rad = -575.6 m/s > -------------------------------------------- >>> phi = -45.0 degrees, v_rad = -520.6 m/s > --------------------------------------------- >>> phi = -39.6 degrees, v_rad = -462.4 m/s >>> phi = -34.2 degrees, v_rad = -401.6 m/s >>> phi = -28.6 degrees, v_rad = -338.3 m/s >>> phi = -23.0 degrees, v_rad = -273.1 m/s >>> phi = -17.3 degrees, v_rad = -206.3 m/s >>> phi = -11.6 degrees, v_rad = -138.2 m/s >>> phi = -5.8 degrees, v_rad = -69.3 m/s >>> phi = 0.0 degrees, v_rad = 0.0 m/s >>> phi = 5.8 degrees, v_rad = 69.3 m/s >>> phi = 11.6 degrees, v_rad = 138.2 m/s >>> phi = 17.3 degrees, v_rad = 206.3 m/s >>> phi = 23.0 degrees, v_rad = 273.1 m/s >>> phi = 28.6 degrees, v_rad = 338.3 m/s >>> phi = 34.2 degrees, v_rad = 401.6 m/s >>> phi = 39.6 degrees, v_rad = 462.4 m/s > --------------------------------------------- >>> phi = 45.0 degrees, v_rad = 520.6 m/s > --------------------------------------------- >>> phi = 50.3 degrees, v_rad = 575.6 m/s >>> phi = 55.4 degrees, v_rad = 627.3 m/s >>> phi = 60.5 degrees, v_rad = 675.2 m/s >>> phi = 65.5 degrees, v_rad = 719.2 m/s >> >> HAHAHAHAHHAHHAHHA! >> >> Paul, draw a 45 degree cone vertically from a point on Earth....... >> >> It is on that cone that satellites will be seen at 45 degrees. > > Did you really figure this out all by yourself? > Well done, Henry! > >> >> HAHAHHAHHAHAHHAAHAA! >> > > Quite. > The "BaTh" is indeed laughable. > But I leave the hysterical laughter to you who do it so well. > Well done, Henry. HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHA! HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHA! HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHA! HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHA! Paul still hasn't realized how stupid he is. He thinks that every satellite viewed at 45 degrees lies in the observer's vertical plane angled 55 degrees off Earth's axis. HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHA! HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHA! > > --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 10:06 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nu4l6t$6p3$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #395949 |
On 17.10.2016 23:06, HGW wrote: > On 17/10/16 05:56, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 16.10.2016 17:34, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > >> On 17/10/16 00:02, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> On 14.10.2016 20:06, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >>>> >>>>> Do you still believe that a satellite at 45 degrees has a radial >>>>> component of about 600 m/s? Any particular reason why you snipped the following? :-D >> [unsnip] >> >> This is the context of the "radial component of about 600 m/s" >> to which Ralph Malcom Rabbidge is referring: >> >> On 09/10/16 07:02, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> | For simplicity, let's assume that these two SVs are in >> | the same orbital plane, and that the receiver is in >> | the same plane. Let's further assume that the two SV's >> | are approximately 45 degrees from vertical on either side >> | of the receiver, see figure below. >> | >> | SV1-> SV2-> >> | \ / >> | \ / >> | \d1 /d2 >> | \ / >> | \ / >> | \ / >> | \/ >> | R >> | >> >> (For those who might miss the obvious: >> the orbits of SV1 and SV2 are right overhead of the receiver.) >> >> | >> | - The coordinates of the event "SV1 emits the signal" >> | are (t1,x1,y1,z1). >> | - The coordinates of the event "SV2 emits the signal" >> | are (t2,x2,y2,z2). >> | - The coordinates of the event "R receives the four signals" >> | are (t,x,y,z) >> | - d1 is the distance between the position of SV1 at the time t1, >> | and the position of the receiver at the time t. >> | - d2 is the distance between the position of SV2 at the time t2, >> | and the position of the receiver at the time t. >> | >> | All coordinates are in the ECI-frame. >> | >> | Since the GPS factually works, we know: >> | d1 = (t - t1)c d2 = (t - t2)c >> | >> | But according Ralph Malcom Rabbidge the two distances will be >> | calculated to be d1' and d1', where: >> | >> | d1' = (t - t1)(c+v) d2' = (t - t2)(c-v) >> | >> | where v is the radial speed of the SV's. >> | v ~= 600 m/s = 2E-6c >> | >> | d1' = d1(1 + 2E-6) d2' = d2(1 - 2E-6) >> | >> | Since d1 and d2 are in the order of 2.26E7m we get: >> | d1' = d1 + 45m d2'= d2 - 45m >> | >> | We know that d1 and d2 are correct (the GPS works), >> | so Ralph Malcom Rabbidge's "BaTh" give wrong distances. >> | This falsifies the"BaTh". >> >>>> It is 520.6 m/s. >> >> So we must modify the above slightly: >> >> v ~= 520 m/s ~= 1.7E-6c >> >> d1' = d1(1 + 1.7E-6) d2' = d2(1 - 1.7E-6) >> >> Since d1 and d2 are in the order of 2.17E7 m we get: >> d1' = d1 + 37m d2'= d2 - 37m >> >> We know that d1 and d2 are correct (the GPS works), >> so Ralph Malcom Rabbidge's "BaTh" give wrong distances. >> This falsifies the"BaTh". >> It's obvious why Ralph Malcom Rabbidge snipped the above! :-D >>>> >>>> The velocity component towards the observer is: >>>> v_rad = w r R sin(theta)/sqrt(R^2 +r^2 - 2r cos(theta)) >>>> where: >>>> w = 1.456E-4 rad/s, the angular velocity of the SV >>>> r = 2.66E7 m, the orbital radius of the SV >>>> R = 6.37E6 m, the radius of the Earth >>>> theta = the angle between a radius vector to the SV >>>> and the vertical of the observer >>>> >>>> phi = arctan(r sin(theta)/(r cos(theta)-R) >>>> where phi = the angle between the line of sight observer-SV >>>> and the vertical of the observer >>>> >>>> phi = -45.0 degrees, v_rad = -520.6 m/s >>>> >>>> phi = 45.0 degrees, v_rad = 520.6 m/s >>>> >>> >>> HAHAHAHAHHAHHAHHA! >>> >>> Paul, draw a 45 degree cone vertically from a point on Earth....... >>> >>> It is on that cone that satellites will be seen at 45 degrees. >> >> Did you really figure this out all by yourself? >> Well done, Henry! >> >>> >>> HAHAHHAHHAHAHHAAHAA! >>> >> >> Quite. >> The "BaTh" is indeed laughable. >> But I leave the hysterical laughter to you who do it so well. >> Well done, Henry. > > HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHA! > HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHA! > HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHA! > HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHA! > > Paul still hasn't realized how stupid he is. He thinks that every > satellite viewed at 45 degrees lies in the observer's vertical plane > angled 55 degrees off Earth's axis. > > HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHA! > HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHA! Your hysterical laughter is indeed a convincing argument for ... what? Well done, Ralph! :-D -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 19:45 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nu4ng3$18i8$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #395996 |
On 18/10/16 19:06, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 17.10.2016 23:06, HGW wrote: >> On 17/10/16 05:56, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>>> >>>> >>>> HAHAHAHAHHAHHAHHA! >>>> >>>> Paul, draw a 45 degree cone vertically from a point on Earth....... >>>> >>>> It is on that cone that satellites will be seen at 45 degrees. >>> >>> Did you really figure this out all by yourself? >>> Well done, Henry! >>> >>>> >>>> HAHAHHAHHAHAHHAAHAA! >>>> >>> >>> Quite. >>> The "BaTh" is indeed laughable. >>> But I leave the hysterical laughter to you who do it so well. >>> Well done, Henry. >> >> HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHA! >> HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHA! >> HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHA! >> HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHA! >> >> Paul still hasn't realized how stupid he is. He thinks that every >> satellite viewed at 45 degrees lies in the observer's vertical plane >> angled 55 degrees off Earth's axis. >> >> HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHA! >> HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHA! > > Your hysterical laughter is indeed a convincing argument for ... what? > > Well done, Henry! :-D HAHAHHHAHA! He still can't see his massive blumder...can you? --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 13:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nu5157$sac$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #395998 |
On 18.10.2016 10:45, HGW wrote:
> On 18/10/16 19:06, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> On 17.10.2016 23:06, HGW wrote:
>>>
>>> HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHA!
>>> HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHA!
>>> HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHA!
>>> HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHA!
>>>
>>> Paul still hasn't realized how stupid he is. He thinks that every
>>> satellite viewed at 45 degrees lies in the observer's vertical plane
>>> angled 55 degrees off Earth's axis.
>>>
>>> HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHA!
>>> HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHA!
>>
>> Your hysterical laughter is indeed a convincing argument for ... what?
>>
>> Well done, Henry! :-D
>
> HAHAHHHAHA! He still can't see his massive blumder...can you?
>
It would indeed be interesting to see Ralph Malocon Rabbidge
explain exactly what my massive "blumder" is:
Let us consider two GPS SVs.
For simplicity, let's assume that these two SVs are in
the same orbital plane, and that the receiver is in
the same plane. Let's further assume that the two SV's
are approximately 45 degrees from vertical on either side
of the receiver, see figure below:
SV1-> SV2->
\ /
\ /
\d1 /d2
\ /
\ /
\ /
\/
R
(For those who might miss the obvious:
the orbits of SV1 and SV2 are right overhead of the receiver.)
- The coordinates of the event "SV1 emits the signal"
are (t1,x1,y1,z1).
- The coordinates of the event "SV2 emits the signal"
are (t2,x2,y2,z2).
- The coordinates of the event "R receives the four signals"
are (t,x,y,z)
- d1 is the distance between the position of SV1 at the time t1,
and the position of the receiver at the time t.
- d2 is the distance between the position of SV2 at the time t2,
and the position of the receiver at the time t.
All coordinates are in the ECI-frame.
Since the GPS factually works, we know:
d1 = (t - t1)c d2 = (t - t2)c
But according Ralph Malcom Rabbidge the two distances will be
calculated to be d1' and d1', where:
d1' = (t - t1)(c+v) d2' = (t - t2)(c-v)
where v is the velocity component towards the observer.
v = w r R sin(theta)/sqrt(R^2 +r^2 - 2r cos(theta))
where:
w = 1.456E-4 rad/s, the angular velocity of the SV
r = 2.66E7 m, the orbital radius of the SV
R = 6.37E6 m, the radius of the Earth
theta = the angle between a radius vector to the SV
and the vertical of the observer
phi = arctan(r sin(theta)/(r cos(theta)-R)
where phi = the angle between the line of sight observer-SV
and the vertical of the observer
These equations yield:
phi = -45.0 degrees, v = -520.6 m/s ~=-1.7E-6c
phi = 45.0 degrees, v = 520.6 m/s ~= 1.7E-6c
So according to Ralph Malcom Rabbidge the distances to
the two SVs will be:
d1' = (t - t1)c(1+v/c) d2' = (t - t2)(1+v/c)
d1' = d1(1 + 1.7E-6) d2' = d2(1 - 1.7E-6)
Since d1 and d2 are in the order of 2.17E7 m we get:
d1' = d1 + 37m d2'= d2 - 37m
We know that d1 and d2 are correct (the GPS works),
so Ralph Malcom Rabbidge's "BaTh" give wrong distances.
This falsifies the"BaTh".
---------------------------------------------
Well, Ralph? Did you have to snip it again? :-D
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 13:43 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nu51ti$tq3$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #396014 |
On 18.10.2016 13:30, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > So according to Ralph Malcom Rabbidge the distances to > the two SVs will be: > > d1' = (t - t1)c(1+v/c) d2' = (t - t2)(1+v/c) typo: d1' = (t - t1)c(1+v/c) d2' = (t - t2)c(1-v/c) -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | HGW <hw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 07:45 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nu61kh$1lhl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396015 |
On 18/10/16 22:43, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 18.10.2016 13:30, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> So according to Dr Wilson the distances to >> the two SVs will be: >> > typo: d1' = (t - t1)c(1+v/c) d2' = (t - t2)c(1-v/c) The following explains to Paul how the radial speed component of a GPS clock adds to the speed of its signals: Paul and a light source have absolutely synched clocks. Paul and Marker M are on a road along which the source is moving at v. In the source frame, the road and both M and P are moving at v. S--v<M-------------------t>c-----------------------------v<P When M is adjacent to S, it sends a signal, t, at speed c, which reaches Paul at t'. Paul is then c(t'-t) away from S and therefore (c+v)(t'-t) away from M. In Paul's frame, the source is moving at v When S passes M, it sends a time signal to Paul. S>v-M-------------------t>(c+v)-----------------P The signal moves at c+v and Paul receives it at t'. The distance between Paul and M is (c+v)(t'-t), as before. When a signal leaves a GPS satellite, it knows nothing about the Earth's ECI frame. It moves at c relative to the satellite. The consistency of these results in both frames proves conclusively that if light moves at c in the source frame, it moves at c+v in the frame of a relatively moving observer. In GPS, c+v must be used to avoid significant errors. Note, any error in synchronization of the receiver clock cancels out in the maths. Also note that the radial speed of a satellite seen at 45 degrees can can have any value between about -530 to + 530. --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 23:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nu6c2a$t4g$5@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #396059 |
HGW <hw@....> writes: >The following explains to Paul how the radial speed component of a GPS >clock adds to the speed of its signals: >Paul and a light source have absolutely synched clocks. First mistake, Ralph Rabbidge, no such thing as "absolutely synched clocks", Ralph Malcolm. >Paul is then c(t'-t) away from S and therefore (c+v)(t'-t) away from M. Second mistake, Ralph, you mistakenly assumed that light moves at c+v, Ralph M. Rabbidge. >The distance between Paul and M is (c+v)(t'-t), as before. Ralph Rabbidge, you made that same dumb mistake again, Ralph. >When a signal leaves a GPS satellite, it knows nothing about the Earth's >ECI frame. It moves at c relative to the satellite. Ralph Rabbidge, you forgot to mention that the signal also moves at c relative to the Earth's ECI frame, to Paul, and to you (Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge), and to me, and to every other inertial observer, Ralph. >In GPS, c+v must be used to avoid significant errors. Third mistake, Ralph, we already know that using c+v for the GPS would cause all kinds of errors, Mr. Rabbidge, and the GPS system would be useless, Ralph. >Also note that the radial speed of a satellite seen at 45 degrees can >can have any value between about -530 to + 530. Fourth mistake, Ralph, in Paul's scenario, Ralph, the satellites' orbit passes directly overhead, Ralph Rabbidge, so the satellites do move at -530 and +530, Ralph Rabbidge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 11:18 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nu7dob$48t$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #396059 |
On 18.10.2016 22:45, HGW wrote: > On 18/10/16 22:43, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> On 18.10.2016 10:45, HGW wrote: >>> On 18/10/16 19:06, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >>>> On 17.10.2016 23:06, HGW wrote: >>>>> >>>>> HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHA! >>>>> HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHA! >>>>> HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHA! >>>>> HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHA! >>>>> >>>>> Paul still hasn't realized how stupid he is. He thinks that every >>>>> satellite viewed at 45 degrees lies in the observer's vertical plane >>>>> angled 55 degrees off Earth's axis. >>>>> >>>>> HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHA! >>>>> HAHAHHAHHAHHAHHHAHHAHA! >>>> >>>> Your hysterical laughter is indeed a convincing argument for ... what? >>>> >>>> Well done, Ralph! >>> >>> HAHAHHHAHA! He still can't see his massive blumder...can you? >>> >> >> It would indeed be interesting to see Ralph Malcom Rabbidge >> explain exactly what my massive "blumder" is: >> >> >> Let us consider two GPS SVs. >> For simplicity, let's assume that these two SVs are in >> the same orbital plane, and that the receiver is in >> the same plane. Let's further assume that the two SV's >> are approximately 45 degrees from vertical on either side >> of the receiver, see figure below: >> >> SV1-> SV2-> >> \ / >> \ / >> \d1 /d2 >> \ / >> \ / >> \ / >> \/ >> R >> >> (For those who might miss the obvious: >> the orbits of SV1 and SV2 are right overhead of the receiver.) >> >> - The coordinates of the event "SV1 emits the signal" >> are (t1,x1,y1,z1). >> - The coordinates of the event "SV2 emits the signal" >> are (t2,x2,y2,z2). >> - The coordinates of the event "R receives the four signals" >> are (t,x,y,z) >> - d1 is the distance between the position of SV1 at the time t1, >> and the position of the receiver at the time t. >> - d2 is the distance between the position of SV2 at the time t2, >> and the position of the receiver at the time t. >> >> All coordinates are in the ECI-frame. >> >> Since the GPS factually works, we know: >> d1 = (t - t1)c d2 = (t - t2)c >> >> But according Ralph Malcom Rabbidge the two distances will be >> calculated to be d1' and d1', where: >> >> d1' = (t - t1)(c+v) d2' = (t - t2)(c-v) >> >> where v is the velocity component towards the observer. >> >> v = w r R sin(theta)/sqrt(R^2 +r^2 - 2r cos(theta)) >> >> where: >> w = 1.456E-4 rad/s, the angular velocity of the SV >> r = 2.66E7 m, the orbital radius of the SV >> R = 6.37E6 m, the radius of the Earth >> theta = the angle between a radius vector to the SV >> and the vertical of the observer >> >> phi = arctan(r sin(theta)/(r cos(theta)-R) >> where phi = the angle between the line of sight observer-SV >> and the vertical of the observer >> >> These equations yield: >> >> phi = -45.0 degrees, v = -520.6 m/s ~=-1.7E-6c >> phi = 45.0 degrees, v = 520.6 m/s ~= 1.7E-6c >> >> So according to Ralph Malcom Rabbidge the distances to >> the two SVs will be: >> >> d1' = (t - t1)c(1+v/c) d2' = (t - t2)c(1-v/c)) >> >> d1' = d1(1 + 1.7E-6) d2' = d2(1 - 1.7E-6) >> >> Since d1 and d2 are in the order of 2.17E7 m we get: >> d1' = d1 + 37m d2'= d2 - 37m >> >> We know that d1 and d2 are correct (the GPS works), >> so Ralph Malcom Rabbidge's "BaTh" give wrong distances. >> This falsifies the"BaTh". >> >> --------------------------------------------- >> >> >> Well, Ralph? Did you have to snip it again? He didn't even snip it, he just didn't quote it! Ralph Malcom Rabbidge made no attempt to point out my "massive blumder", and neither made he any attempt to refute the fact that the GPS falsifies the "BaTh". The following irrelevant nonsense written to divert the attention from the fact that he can't find any error in the above is ignored. > The following explains to Paul how the radial speed component of a GPS > clock adds to the speed of its signals: > > Paul and a light source have absolutely synched clocks. > > Paul and Marker M are on a road along which the source is moving at v. > In the source frame, the road and both M and P are moving at v. > S--v<M-------------------t>c-----------------------------v<P > When M is adjacent to S, it sends a signal, t, at speed c, which reaches > Paul at t'. > Paul is then c(t'-t) away from S and therefore (c+v)(t'-t) away from M. > > In Paul's frame, the source is moving at v > When S passes M, it sends a time signal to Paul. > S>v-M-------------------t>(c+v)-----------------P > The signal moves at c+v and Paul receives it at t'. > > The distance between Paul and M is (c+v)(t'-t), as before. > > When a signal leaves a GPS satellite, it knows nothing about the Earth's > ECI frame. It moves at c relative to the satellite. > The consistency of these results in both frames proves conclusively that > if light moves at c in the source frame, it moves at c+v in the frame of > a relatively moving observer. > > In GPS, c+v must be used to avoid significant errors. > > Note, any error in synchronization of the receiver clock cancels out in > the maths. > > Also note that the radial speed of a satellite seen at 45 degrees can > can have any value between about -530 to + 530. Ralph, if you will prove that my falsification of the "BaTh" is wrong you must address my maths and show exactly where it is wrong. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-20 03:48 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nu8850$11kb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396102 |
On 19/10/16 20:18, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > On 18.10.2016 22:45, HGW wrote: >>> >>> These equations yield: >>> >>> phi = -45.0 degrees, v = -520.6 m/s ~=-1.7E-6c phi = 45.0 >>> degrees, v = 520.6 m/s ~= 1.7E-6c >>> >>> So according to Dr Wilson the distances to the two SVs will be: >>> >>> d1' = (t - t1)c(1+v/c) d2' = (t - t2)c(1-v/c)) >>> >>> d1' = d1(1 + 1.7E-6) d2' = d2(1 - 1.7E-6) >>> >>> Since d1 and d2 are in the order of 2.17E7 m we get: d1' = d1 + >>> 37m d2'= d2 - 37m >>> >>> We know that d1 and d2 are correct (the GPS works), so Dr >>> Wilson's "BaTh" give wrong distances. This falsifies the"BaTh". >>> >>> --------------------------------------------- >>> >>> > >> The following explains to Paul how the radial speed component of a >> GPS clock adds to the speed of its signals: >> >> Paul and a light source have absolutely synched clocks. >> >> Paul and Marker M are on a road along which the source is moving at >> v. In the source frame, the road and both M and P are moving at v. >> S--v<M-------------------t>c-----------------------------v<P When M >> is adjacent to S, it sends a signal, t, at speed c, which reaches >> Paul at t'. Paul is then c(t'-t) away from S and therefore >> (c+v)(t'-t) away from M. >> >> In Paul's frame, the source is moving at v When S passes M, it >> sends a time signal to Paul. >> S>v-M-------------------t>(c+v)-----------------P The signal moves >> at c+v and Paul receives it at t'. >> >> The distance between Paul and M is (c+v)(t'-t), as before. >> >> When a signal leaves a GPS satellite, it knows nothing about the >> Earth's ECI frame. It moves at c relative to the satellite. The >> consistency of these results in both frames proves conclusively >> that if light moves at c in the source frame, it moves at c+v in >> the frame of a relatively moving observer. >> >> In GPS, c+v must be used to avoid significant errors. >> >> Note, any error in synchronization of the receiver clock cancels >> out in the maths. >> >> Also note that the radial speed of a satellite seen at 45 degrees >> can can have any value between about -530 to + 530. > > Henry, if you will prove that my falsification of the "BaTh" is wrong > you must address my maths and show exactly where it is wrong. Can't you understand maths any more? I just explained how GPS works. It assumes the signal moves at c relative to the satellite, which after all is its only speed reference. ...and...are you aware of your other blunder yet?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-19 21:22 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nu8h4v$eh0$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #396137 |
On 19.10.2016 18:48, HGWilson, DSc. wrote:
> On 19/10/16 20:18, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> On 18.10.2016 22:45, HGW wrote:
>>> The following explains to Paul how the radial speed component of a
>>> GPS clock adds to the speed of its signals:
>>>
>>> Paul and a light source have absolutely synched clocks.
>>>
>>> Paul and Marker M are on a road along which the source is moving at
>>> v. In the source frame, the road and both M and P are moving at v.
>>> S--v<M-------------------t>c-----------------------------v<P When M
>>> is adjacent to S, it sends a signal, t, at speed c, which reaches
>>> Paul at t'. Paul is then c(t'-t) away from S and therefore
>>> (c+v)(t'-t) away from M.
>>>
>>> In Paul's frame, the source is moving at v When S passes M, it
>>> sends a time signal to Paul.
>>> S>v-M-------------------t>(c+v)-----------------P The signal moves
>>> at c+v and Paul receives it at t'.
>>>
>>> The distance between Paul and M is (c+v)(t'-t), as before.
>>>
>>> When a signal leaves a GPS satellite, it knows nothing about the
>>> Earth's ECI frame. It moves at c relative to the satellite. The
>>> consistency of these results in both frames proves conclusively
>>> that if light moves at c in the source frame, it moves at c+v in
>>> the frame of a relatively moving observer.
>>>
>> Henry, if you will prove that my falsification of the "BaTh" is wrong
>> you must address my maths and show exactly where it is wrong.
An alternative is of course to confirm that my calculation
of the predictions of the "BaTh" is correct.
Thanks for doing just that! :-D
>
> Can't you understand maths any more?
Sure. I understand that your maths confirm my calculation:
Let us consider two GPS SVs.
For simplicity, let's assume that these two SVs are in
the same orbital plane, and that the receiver is in
the same plane. Let's further assume that the two SV's
are approximately 45 degrees from vertical on either side
of the receiver, see figure below:
SV1-> SV2->
\ /
\ /
\d1 /d2
\ /
\ /
\ /
\/
R
(For those who might miss the obvious:
the orbits of SV1 and SV2 are right overhead of the receiver.)
- The coordinates of the event "SV1 emits the signal"
are (t1,x1,y1,z1).
- The coordinates of the event "SV2 emits the signal"
are (t2,x2,y2,z2).
- The coordinates of the event "R receives the four signals"
are (t,x,y,z)
- d1 is the distance between the position of SV1 at the time t1,
and the position of the receiver at the time t.
- d2 is the distance between the position of SV2 at the time t2,
and the position of the receiver at the time t.
All coordinates are in the ECI-frame.
Since the GPS factually works, we know:
d1 = (t - t1)c d2 = (t - t2)c
============= NOTE ==========================================
| Ralph Malcom Rabbidge wrote:
| "The distance between Paul and M is (c+v)(t'-t), as before."
| where M is the position of the source (SV) at the time of
| emission t. t' is the time of reception.
==============================================================
So according Ralph Malcom Rabbidge the two distances will be
calculated to be d1' and d1', where:
d1' = (t - t1)(c+v) d2' = (t - t2)(c-v)
where v is the velocity component towards the observer.
v = w r R sin(theta)/sqrt(R^2 +r^2 - 2r cos(theta))
where:
w = 1.456E-4 rad/s, the angular velocity of the SV
r = 2.66E7 m, the orbital radius of the SV
R = 6.37E6 m, the radius of the Earth
theta = the angle between a radius vector to the SV
and the vertical of the observer
phi = arctan(r sin(theta)/(r cos(theta)-R)
where phi = the angle between the line of sight observer-SV
and the vertical of the observer
These equations yield:
phi = -45.0 degrees, v = -520.6 m/s ~=-1.7E-6c
phi = 45.0 degrees, v = 520.6 m/s ~= 1.7E-6c
So according to Ralph Malcom Rabbidge the distances to
the two SVs will be:
d1' = (t - t1)c(1+v/c) d2' = (t - t2)c(1-v/c)
d1' = d1(1 + 1.7E-6) d2' = d2(1 - 1.7E-6)
Since d1 and d2 are in the order of 2.17E7 m we get:
d1' = d1 + 37m d2'= d2 - 37m
We know that d1 and d2 are correct (the GPS works),
so Ralph Malcom Rabbidge's "BaTh" give wrong distances.
This falsifies the"BaTh".
Thanks for your confirmation of the correctness of my
calculation. Do we now agree that the "BaTh" is falsified,
or do you still claim that the GPS doesn't work?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-20 09:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <xdadndaG7f07RpXFnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #396148 |
On 10/19/16 10/19/16 - 2:22 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > An alternative is of course to confirm that my calculation > of the predictions of the "BaTh" is correct. That a laugh! It simply is not possible to compute ANYTHING using "BaTh", because it is not a scientific theory at all. It is merely a bunch of guesses and fantasies by Wilson, WHICH CHANGE AT HIS WHIM. He just keeps adding more and more special pleads whenever any problem is pointed out; such problems must be blatant enough for him to recognize them, as he is too stupid and ignorant to understand most of the relevant experiments, so he ignores or rejects them out-of-hand. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 03:36 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nuarph$120k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396214 |
On 21/10/16 01:58, Tom Roberts wrote: > On 10/19/16 10/19/16 - 2:22 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote: >> An alternative is of course to confirm that my calculation >> of the predictions of the "BaTh" is correct. > > That a laugh! > > It simply is not possible to compute ANYTHING using "BaTh", because it > is not a scientific theory at all. It is merely a bunch of guesses and > fantasies by Wilson, WHICH CHANGE AT HIS WHIM. He just keeps adding more > and more special pleads whenever any problem is pointed out; such > problems must be blatant enough for him to recognize them, as he is too > stupid and ignorant to understand most of the relevant experiments, so > he ignores or rejects them out-of-hand. Tom, you seem to be under the impression that a signal from an orbiting satellite will leave its source at c relative to the ECI frame rather than to its source. Do you really think light is smart enough to be able to discriminate between the Earth's, the Sun's or any other inertial frame in the universe? Of course it isn't. Tom there is no aether or magic medium. Light has only one speed reference, its own source. The signals move at c relative to the satellite and travel to a ground receiver that is moving in the satellite's frame. The signal obviously travels at c+v in the receiver's frame. > Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-20 09:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <506758f3-8e44-47bc-808a-95b5969afe97@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396229 |
On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 11:36:04 AM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 21/10/16 01:58, Tom Roberts wrote: > > It simply is not possible to compute ANYTHING using "BaTh", because it > > is not a scientific theory at all. It is merely a bunch of guesses and > > fantasies by Wilson, WHICH CHANGE AT HIS WHIM. He just keeps adding more > > and more special pleads whenever any problem is pointed out; such > > problems must be blatant enough for him to recognize them, as he is too > > stupid and ignorant to understand most of the relevant experiments, so > > he ignores or rejects them out-of-hand. > > Tom, you seem to be under the impression that a signal from an orbiting > satellite will leave its source at c relative to the ECI frame rather > than to its source. Do you really think light is smart enough to be able > to discriminate between the Earth's, the Sun's or any other inertial > frame in the universe? Of course it isn't. > Tom there is no aether or magic medium. Light has only one speed > reference, its own source. The signals move at c relative to the > satellite and travel to a ground receiver that is moving in the > satellite's frame. The signal obviously travels at c+v in the receiver's > frame. Again you bring up your bogus objection.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 04:24 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nuaujc$16iv$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396230 |
On 21/10/16 03:42, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 11:36:04 AM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 21/10/16 01:58, Tom Roberts wrote: > >>> It simply is not possible to compute ANYTHING using "BaTh", because it >>> is not a scientific theory at all. It is merely a bunch of guesses and >>> fantasies by Wilson, WHICH CHANGE AT HIS WHIM. He just keeps adding more >>> and more special pleads whenever any problem is pointed out; such >>> problems must be blatant enough for him to recognize them, as he is too >>> stupid and ignorant to understand most of the relevant experiments, so >>> he ignores or rejects them out-of-hand. >> >> Tom, you seem to be under the impression that a signal from an orbiting >> satellite will leave its source at c relative to the ECI frame rather >> than to its source. Do you really think light is smart enough to be able >> to discriminate between the Earth's, the Sun's or any other inertial >> frame in the universe? Of course it isn't. >> Tom there is no aether or magic medium. Light has only one speed >> reference, its own source. The signals move at c relative to the >> satellite and travel to a ground receiver that is moving in the >> satellite's frame. The signal obviously travels at c+v in the receiver's >> frame. > > Again you bring up your bogus objection. But you can't say WHY it is bogus.... GPS signal don't care about ECI frames. They have only one speed reference.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-20 17:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nuaurk$16he$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396236 |
HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > But you can't say WHY it is bogus.... > GPS signal don't care about ECI frames. They have only one speed > reference. However, what you can say, out of a received modulated EM signal, is at most it Carrier Frequency. NOT its speed. To derive the Speed you need an additional piece of Information. Those relativists, saying that they can pull out the speed from an EM signal, are newbeginners wannabes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-20 10:32 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bcf9a942-8b7b-41d5-861c-722a0f2ced6c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396236 |
On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 12:24:00 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > On 21/10/16 03:42, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > Again you bring up your bogus objection. > > But you can't say WHY it is bogus.... > GPS signal don't care about ECI frames. They have only one speed reference. It has been explained to many times why you are wrong. But you close your mind to the truth. It is futile to try to explain anything to you, since you are convinced that all of the abundant evidence proving that you are wrong is made-up evidence, part of a massive conspiracy that has been going on for over a century.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 20:05 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nuclob$1quc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396238 |
On 21/10/16 04:32, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 12:24:00 PM UTC-5, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: >> On 21/10/16 03:42, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > >>> Again you bring up your bogus objection. >> >> But you can't say WHY it is bogus.... >> GPS signal don't care about ECI frames. They have only one speed reference. > > It has been explained to many times why you are wrong. But you close your mind > to the truth. It is futile to try to explain anything to you, since you are > convinced that all of the abundant evidence proving that you are wrong is > made-up evidence, part of a massive conspiracy that has been going on for over > a century. Well it is quite obvious from the unscientific attitude of all Einstein supporters here that something is going on. For instance, I'm sure any real scientist would be extremely interested in my variable star findings. You'd have to be a real idiot to believe any of the experiments that are supposed to support Einstein's ridiculous theory. Not one of them is worth the paper it was written on. They are all riddled with vague estimates, wild assumptions and ambiguities that make them wide open to misinterpretation. They all have one thing in common, the authors are all Einstein worshippers and know the answer they want beforehand.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 14:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nud1rk$7el$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #396275 |
On 21.10.2016 11:05, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > > Well it is quite obvious from the unscientific attitude of all Einstein > supporters here that something is going on. For instance, I'm sure any > real scientist would be extremely interested in my variable star findings. Of course any real scientist is extremely interested in the findings of the only real scientist Doctor Ralph Malcom Rabbidge! > You'd have to be a real idiot to believe any of the experiments that are > supposed to support Einstein's ridiculous theory. Not one of them is > worth the paper it was written on. They are all riddled with vague > estimates, wild assumptions and ambiguities that make them wide open to > misinterpretation. They all have one thing in common, the authors are > all Einstein worshippers and know the answer they want beforehand. > How true! Just look at these stupid experiments: https://paulba.no/paper/Will.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1887.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell_II.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Clemence.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Rebka.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Frisch_Smith.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1964.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Alley.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Brillet_Hall.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Pollock.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Liu.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/GravDeflection.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/GravityProbeB.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Remmen_McCreary.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_GravitationalWaves.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_TestOfGR.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_GravitationalWaves_2.pdf The results of the experiments above are incompatible with what Doctor Ralph Malcom Rabbidge knows must be true because he thinks it is, so any real scientist will see that all the experiments must be faked! End of story! -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jim Barthel <jimbart@portlanportal.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 13:51 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nud6g9$oe3$7@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396290 |
Paul B. Andersen wrote: > Just look at these stupid experiments: How true. > https://paulba.no/paper/Will.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Michelson_1887.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Fizeau_by_Michelson.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Kennedy_Thorndike.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Ives_Stilwell_II.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Clemence.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Pound&Rebka.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Babcock_Bergman.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Frisch_Smith.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Alvager_et_al.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Beckmann_Mandics.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Filippas_Fox.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_1964.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Hafele.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Alley.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Brecher.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Initial_results_of_GPS_satellite_1977.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Brillet_Hall.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Vessot.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Pollock.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf https://paulba.no/paper/Liu.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/GravDeflection.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/GravityProbeB.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/Remmen_McCreary.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_GravitationalWaves.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_TestOfGR.pdf > https://paulba.no/paper/LIGO_GravitationalWaves_2.pdf A substrate directed by the Divergent Matter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web