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 13 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 22 Next page →
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-21 04:06 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nuatj0$14uc$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396218 |
On 21/10/16 02:22, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Thursday, October 20, 2016 at 1:07:15 AM UTC-5, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: >> > I should mention that even single-frequency receivers implementing a PPP > protocol (there are a number of competitive algorithms out there) show dramatic > accuracy improvements over receivers that depend only on satellite input. This > is not just because of the more accurate and up-to-date position/time data > available for each satellite, but because a detailed, up-to-date model of the > ionosphere is also downloaded to the receiver. Dual-frequency GPS receivers are > capable of modeling ionospheric signal propagation delays on their own. > Downloading a detailed model of the ionosphere to the receiver enables even a > single-frequency receiver to attain much improved accuracy over one dependent > solely on satellite input. The 'ionospheric delay' idea is a broad term used as a cover for lots of other errors that need correcting....eg., variable signal speed, acceleration while falling, orbit ephemeris, etc. The time taken for signals to reach the ground is obviously crucial and offers a multitude ways to avoid the truth...that the signals move at c+v.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-22 13:55 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <659f81e5-b0bb-466e-b113-ade3d26a07ad@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396184 |
On Thursday, 20 October 2016 06:07:15 UTC, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > (minor corrections to deleted post) > > On Wednesday, October 19, 2016 at 3:24:22 PM UTC-5, Thomas wrote: > > On Tuesday, 18 October 2016 22:49:44 UTC, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > > > > > *** YOUR MATH IS TOTALLY MESSED UP *** > > > > > > It is not true that "the rotation gets longer on average by about 1 ms/day". > > > Rather, the current length of day is about 1.5 ms longer than the SI day of > > > 86400 sec. In other words, the current length of day is approx. 864000.0015 sec. > > > > > > If it were true that "the rotation gets longer on average by about 1 ms/day", > > > then the length of day would be increasing by 1 second every three years, and > > > three years from now, leap seconds will have to be inserted on a daily basis. > > > > > > Yes OK, I formulated it incorrectly. Of course the average rotation rate does not get longer by 1 ms/day. I meant the related clock offset increases by 1 ms/day. This follows directly from the fact that, on average, every 18 months a leap second (positive or negative) is introduced ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second ): if in 18 months the clock offset has accumulated to 1 sec, this means that, again on average, the clock offset increases/decreases by 1000/548 = 1.8 ms each day. This would be for a linear accumulation i.e. the rotation rate would have exactly the same decreased/increased value for the whole period, but this is of course not realistic (and would be trivial to correct). If you look at http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/lodr2.png you can see indeed that the fluctuations are of the same magnitude as the average value, so at times the daily offset might well change by 3-4 ms. And the point is that these variations can not be modelled in advance. Otherwise, you would not find links to plots for the "Last 2 years" in http://toshi.nofs.navy.mil/plot-eop.html but links to plots for the "Next 2 years". These corrections are thus only retrospectively possible on the basis of observations. And if you would want to keep this offset within 100 nanoseconds (as you and others here keep on maintaining), you would have to make the corrections much more frequently than once a day, namely every 86400 *10^-7/1.8*10^-3 = 5 sec. But this is not possible as the required accuracy of the observed quasar position would have to be 1.5*10^-6 arcsec, a factor 1/1000 more accurate then presently possible ( there are 1.296*10^6 arcsec in 360 deg, so 1.296*10^6 *5/86400 = 75 arcsec is the rotation angle of the earth in 5 sec, and 75* 1.8*10^-3/86400 = 1.5*10^-6 arcsec would be the deviation we would have to observe. ) > > > > > From day to day, the unmodeled difference in day length amounts to MICROSECONDS. > > > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Deviation_of_day_length_from_SI_day.svg > > > > ms means milliseconds not microseconds. The total accumulated offset over the 44 years is 26 seconds (right scale) and 26/44/365 sec = 1.6 milliseconds. By their very nature these leap second adjustments all are corrections for unmodelled variations. > > Your ability to interpret graphs is truly abysmal. > > *** CHECK THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCALES *** > > Let's examine the figure that you've referenced: > http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/lodr2.png > > Vertical Scale: 392 pixels/millisecond > Horizontal Scale: 541 pixels/year > > In 2016.453 (June 14, 2016), the length of day showed dramatic unmodeled changes > amounting to -45 pixels in the vertical axis per 2 pixels in the horizontal axis. > > (-45/392*1000)/(2/541*365) = -85 microseconds per day. > > 40,075*1000/24/60/60/1000000*(-85) = 0.0394 meters > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- First of all, 85 microseconds is not anywhere close to 100 nanoseconds; it is almost 0.1 ms, leading to ephemeris error of the satellite of about 40 cm (the distance a satellite travels in this time). Secondly, taking just one event from a rather limited data set does not give you a statistically valid general answer. The statistical fact is that not only does the deviation of the earth's rotation rate from the mean lead to an offset of about 1 sec over the course of 1-2 years, but the uncertainty in this value is also 1 sec over this period. That's why sometimes you have a leap second each year, and sometimes only every couple of years. And in order to have an uncertainty of 1 second over 1 year, you need an uncertainty of 1000/365 = 2.7 ms/day even for a linear increase (which would not really be an uncertainty) and 1000/sqrt(365) = 52 ms/day for a purely random daily fluctuation. > > Summary: > > In June 2016, the length of day showed dramatic unmodeled changes amounting to > -85 microseconds per day. If uncompensated for by updates to the GPS satellites, > these changes would result in errors of about 40 mm at the Equator. > > In reality, all orbiting GPS satellites receive position and time updates at > least once per day or up to three times per day on an as-needed basis. We can > presume that periods of rapid length-of-day changes would count as an "as-needed" > circumstance requiring multiple updates per day to all satellites. > > Therefore, we can presume that these unmodeled changes may result in East-West > errors at the Equator of up to about 15 millimeters. > > In contrast to the 1-3 times per day that the satellites are updated, real-time > PPP data is updated on a continuous basis. So if you own a two-frequency GPS > receiver capable of the PPP protocol and subscribe to a real-time update service, > you will barely notice any degradation of positioning even on bad days like > 2016.453 (June 14, 2016)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-22 15:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <27b3e331-7641-4fbe-b06c-50b7687406a6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396477 |
On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 3:55:45 PM UTC-5, Thomas wrote:
> On Thursday, 20 October 2016 06:07:15 UTC, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > Your ability to interpret graphs is truly abysmal.
> >
> > *** CHECK THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCALES ***
> >
> > Let's examine the figure that you've referenced:
> > http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/lodr2.png
> >
> > Vertical Scale: 392 pixels/millisecond
> > Horizontal Scale: 541 pixels/year
> >
> > In 2016.453 (June 14, 2016), the length of day showed dramatic unmodeled changes
> > amounting to -45 pixels in the vertical axis per 2 pixels in the horizontal axis.
> >
> > (-45/392*1000)/(2/541*365) = -85 microseconds per day.
> >
> > 40,075*1000/24/60/60/1000000*(-85) = 0.0394 meters
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> First of all, 85 microseconds is not anywhere close to 100 nanoseconds; it is almost 0.1 ms, leading to ephemeris error of the satellite of about 40 cm (the distance a satellite travels in this time).
Fluctuations in the rotation rate of the Earth
*** DO NOT CAUSE ANY UNCERTAINTY IN OUR KNOWLEDGE ***
*** OF THE POSITION OF A SATELLITE IN ITS ORBIT ***
If not taken into account, they *do* cause uncertainties our knowledge of the
position of a point on the Earth's surface relative to the satellite's orbit.
Uncertainties of the position of a satellite in its orbit at the time we receive
a signal from the satellite come from errors in the signal's TIMESTAMP, which
may be off by nanoseconds.
It is this nanoseconds uncertainty in reliability of the signal's timestamp
which we would multiply by the speed of the satellite.
If the timestamp of the signal is off by 10 ns, the error in satellite position
will be (assuming the speed of the satellite in its orbit is 14,000 km/hr)
14000*1000/60/60/1000000000*10 = 0.000038 meters, which is negligible.
However, if the timestamp of the signal is off by 10 ns, the error in satellite
pseudorange will be
300000*1000/1000000000*10 = 3 meters, a very significant number.
If the Earth's rotation rate shows an unmodeled decrease of -85 μs/day, then,
BETWEEN UPDATES OF THE SATELLITE EPHEMERIDES, the uncertainty in the position of
a point on the equator will accumulate at a rate of
40,075*1000/24/60/60/1000000*(-85) = 0.0394 meters/day, or approx 4 cm.
However, the satellite ephemerides are updated at least once a day, up to three
times a day, so we can presume that the errors from that source will be
significantly less than 4 cm.
Overall, the main errors in localization come from errors in the satellites'
clocks and signal propagation delays due to ionospheric conditions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have been multiplying the wrong timing errors by the wrong speeds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-23 07:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3451373c-c021-4e1e-8149-1a0e81a16457@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396482 |
W dniu niedziela, 23 października 2016 00:12:31 UTC+2 użytkownik Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog napisał: > On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 3:55:45 PM UTC-5, Thomas wrote: > > On Thursday, 20 October 2016 06:07:15 UTC, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > > Your ability to interpret graphs is truly abysmal. > > > > > > *** CHECK THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCALES *** > > > > > > Let's examine the figure that you've referenced: > > > http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/lodr2.png > > > > > > Vertical Scale: 392 pixels/millisecond > > > Horizontal Scale: 541 pixels/year > > > > > > In 2016.453 (June 14, 2016), the length of day showed dramatic unmodeled changes > > > amounting to -45 pixels in the vertical axis per 2 pixels in the horizontal axis. > > > > > > (-45/392*1000)/(2/541*365) = -85 microseconds per day. > > > > > > 40,075*1000/24/60/60/1000000*(-85) = 0.0394 meters > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > First of all, 85 microseconds is not anywhere close to 100 nanoseconds; it is almost 0.1 ms, leading to ephemeris error of the satellite of about 40 cm (the distance a satellite travels in this time). > > Fluctuations in the rotation rate of the Earth > *** DO NOT CAUSE ANY UNCERTAINTY IN OUR KNOWLEDGE *** > *** OF THE POSITION OF A SATELLITE IN ITS ORBIT *** > > If not taken into account, they *do* cause uncertainties our knowledge of the > position of a point on the Earth's surface relative to the satellite's orbit. > > Uncertainties of the position of a satellite in its orbit at the time we receive > a signal from the satellite come from errors in the signal's TIMESTAMP, which > may be off by nanoseconds. > > It is this nanoseconds uncertainty in reliability of the signal's timestamp > which we would multiply by the speed of the satellite. > > If the timestamp of the signal is off by 10 ns, the error in satellite position > will be (assuming the speed of the satellite in its orbit is 14,000 km/hr) > 14000*1000/60/60/1000000000*10 = 0.000038 meters, which is negligible. > > However, if the timestamp of the signal is off by 10 ns, the error in satellite > pseudorange will be > 300000*1000/1000000000*10 = 3 meters, a very significant number. > > If the Earth's rotation rate shows an unmodeled decrease of -85 μs/day, then, > BETWEEN UPDATES OF THE SATELLITE EPHEMERIDES, the uncertainty in the position of > a point on the equator will accumulate at a rate of > 40,075*1000/24/60/60/1000000*(-85) = 0.0394 meters/day, or approx 4 cm. The number -85 us / day is a total total nonsense! Actually the deccelearation is about: 0.17 us/year, thus: 0.17 us/365 / day = 0.45 ns / day thus: 85us / 0.45ns = 182500 =~ 0.2 millions !!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Thomas <thomas.smid@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-23 11:25 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e517448a-3ef0-430a-b287-dab806ce7a70@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396482 |
On Saturday, 22 October 2016 22:12:31 UTC, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > On Saturday, October 22, 2016 at 3:55:45 PM UTC-5, Thomas wrote: > > On Thursday, 20 October 2016 06:07:15 UTC, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > > > Your ability to interpret graphs is truly abysmal. > > > > > > *** CHECK THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL SCALES *** > > > > > > Let's examine the figure that you've referenced: > > > http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/lodr2.png > > > > > > Vertical Scale: 392 pixels/millisecond > > > Horizontal Scale: 541 pixels/year > > > > > > In 2016.453 (June 14, 2016), the length of day showed dramatic unmodeled changes > > > amounting to -45 pixels in the vertical axis per 2 pixels in the horizontal axis. > > > > > > (-45/392*1000)/(2/541*365) = -85 microseconds per day. > > > > > > 40,075*1000/24/60/60/1000000*(-85) = 0.0394 meters > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > First of all, 85 microseconds is not anywhere close to 100 nanoseconds; it is almost 0.1 ms, leading to ephemeris error of the satellite of about 40 cm (the distance a satellite travels in this time). > > Fluctuations in the rotation rate of the Earth > *** DO NOT CAUSE ANY UNCERTAINTY IN OUR KNOWLEDGE *** > *** OF THE POSITION OF A SATELLITE IN ITS ORBIT *** > If not taken into account, they *do* cause uncertainties our knowledge of the > position of a point on the Earth's surface relative to the satellite's orbit. > That's what I meant. The satellite clocks can be as stable and accurate as you want, if the earth orientation varies unpredictably, the position determination can not be accurate. > Uncertainties of the position of a satellite in its orbit at the time we receive > a signal from the satellite come from errors in the signal's TIMESTAMP, which > may be off by nanoseconds. > > It is this nanoseconds uncertainty in reliability of the signal's timestamp > which we would multiply by the speed of the satellite. > > If the timestamp of the signal is off by 10 ns, the error in satellite position > will be (assuming the speed of the satellite in its orbit is 14,000 km/hr) > 14000*1000/60/60/1000000000*10 = 0.000038 meters, which is negligible. > > However, if the timestamp of the signal is off by 10 ns, the error in satellite > pseudorange will be > 300000*1000/1000000000*10 = 3 meters, a very significant number. That's why the satellite clocks are kept within 10 ns of each other. The collective drift of all the satellite clocks has much larger margins however a) because only differences between time stamps are used, and b) because the earth's rotation has these random fluctuations. > > If the Earth's rotation rate shows an unmodeled decrease of -85 μs/day, then, > BETWEEN UPDATES OF THE SATELLITE EPHEMERIDES, the uncertainty in the position of > a point on the equator will accumulate at a rate of > 40,075*1000/24/60/60/1000000*(-85) = 0.0394 meters/day, or approx 4 cm. Which is more than twice the amount of the daily drift attributed to the relativistic time dilation. > > However, the satellite ephemerides are updated at least once a day, up to three > times a day, so we can presume that the errors from that source will be > significantly less than 4 cm. > > Overall, the main errors in localization come from errors in the satellites' > clocks and signal propagation delays due to ionospheric conditions. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > You have been multiplying the wrong timing errors by the wrong speeds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 09:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <4b500af9-c2f8-4b17-b5e9-f05830ceb241@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396536 |
On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 1:26:02 PM UTC-5, Thomas wrote: > On Saturday, 22 October 2016 22:12:31 UTC, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > If the Earth's rotation rate shows an unmodeled decrease of -85 μs/day, then, > > BETWEEN UPDATES OF THE SATELLITE EPHEMERIDES, the uncertainty in the position of > > a point on the equator will accumulate at a rate of > > 40,075*1000/24/60/60/1000000*(-85) = 0.0394 meters/day, or approx 4 cm. > > Which is more than twice the amount of the daily drift attributed to the relativistic time dilation. ???? What does this have to do with the price of eggs ???? The major point that I have been hammering at in multiple posts, is that the GR adjustment to the satellite clocks is necessary for the Space Segment and Control Segment to work together *AS A SYSTEM*. The Control Segment needs the Space Segment to distribute accurate time to all of its ground stations. The Space Segment requires accurately sync'ed ground stations to monitor and to upload regular updates to its satellites. Satellites of the Space Segment have their orbits perturbed by irregularities in the Earth's gravitational field and by the gravitational attractions of the Moon and Sun; they are also pushed off course by the solar wind. The Earth's motions are subject to tidal influences, earthquakes, weather and so forth. GPS satellite also get uploaded updates to the Klobuchar Ionospheric Model for use by single- frequency receivers. Although it is *conceivable* using modern computer technology for the Space Segment and Control Segment to run on clocks that tick at different rates, this possibility was totally *inconceivable* in the 1970s when GPS was designed and first implemented.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 14:28 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <wbKdnVefq4xr_ZPFnZ2dnUU7_8zNnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #396654 |
On 10/24/16 10/24/16 - 11:39 AM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > [...] > Although it is *conceivable* using modern computer technology for the Space > Segment and Control Segment to run on clocks that tick at different rates, > this possibility was totally *inconceivable* in the 1970s when GPS was > designed and first implemented. More to the point: the GPS specifications do not permit that. The GPS was implemented according to its specifications, not according to guesses and fantasies of fools and idiots around here. Anyone who thinks that the GR correction is not needed in the GPS satellite clocks is just plain wrong. While it is conceivable that SOME OTHER SYSTEM could be designed to omit that correction, THAT IS NOT THE GPS. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | alsor@interia.pl |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 13:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <76c54303-7cdf-4ff5-a3d9-21d618988732@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396669 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 24 października 2016 21:29:01 UTC+2 użytkownik tjrob137 napisał: > On 10/24/16 10/24/16 - 11:39 AM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote: > > [...] > > Although it is *conceivable* using modern computer technology for the Space > > Segment and Control Segment to run on clocks that tick at different rates, > > this possibility was totally *inconceivable* in the 1970s when GPS was > > designed and first implemented. > > More to the point: the GPS specifications do not permit that. > > The GPS was implemented according to its specifications, not according to > guesses and fantasies of fools and idiots around here. > > Anyone who thinks that the GR correction is not needed in > the GPS satellite clocks is just plain wrong. While it is > conceivable that SOME OTHER SYSTEM could be designed to > omit that correction, THAT IS NOT THE GPS. > > Tom Roberts The so-called 'relativistic time correction' in the GPS's satelites is just nothing! You get the same result using the standard - typical clocks in the GPS, but now the same corrections must be applied in the ground: t'-GPS = k * t-ground. k = constant, it's a scale factor, due to the standard, the physical, slow-down/speed-up effect of any machine under some special conditions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 20:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nulpmn$1i87$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396669 |
W dniu poniedziałek, Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:28:54 -0500 użytkownik Tom Roberts napisał: > Anyone who thinks that the GR correction is not needed in the GPS > satellite clocks is just plain wrong. While it is conceivable that SOME > OTHER SYSTEM could be designed to omit that correction, THAT IS NOT THE > GPS. Good point. This explain the reason for which they had a "relativity correction switch (on/off)" embedded into each of the satellites.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tom Roberts <tjroberts137@sbcglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 15:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <CaCdnf5xx4Er8JPFnZ2dnUU7_83NnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #396672 |
On 10/24/16 10/24/16 - 3:07 PM, Edgar König wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:28:54 -0500 użytkownik Tom > Roberts napisał: >> Anyone who thinks that the GR correction is not needed in the GPS >> satellite clocks is just plain wrong. While it is conceivable that SOME >> OTHER SYSTEM could be designed to omit that correction, THAT IS NOT THE >> GPS. > > Good point. This explain the reason for which they had a "relativity > correction switch (on/off)" embedded into each of the satellites. There was such a switch in the FIRST satellite, and possibly in others of the same generation, but not in later generations of satellites -- no need. Tom Roberts
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 20:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nulr7u$1lko$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396675 |
W dniu poniedziałek, Mon, 24 Oct 2016 15:23:18 -0500 użytkownik Tom Roberts napisał: >>> Anyone who thinks that the GR correction is not needed in the GPS >>> satellite clocks is just plain wrong. While it is conceivable that >>> SOME OTHER SYSTEM could be designed to omit that correction, THAT IS >>> NOT THE >>> GPS. >> >> Good point. This explain the reason for which they had a "relativity >> correction switch (on/off)" embedded into each of the satellites. > > There was such a switch in the FIRST satellite, and possibly in others > of the same generation, but not in later generations of satellites -- no > need. You must be definitely right, but it takes nothing in Hardware to embed a such a Switch. In fact I bet, it is done in Software, but I don't know. One thing I know, that would unsafe not to have it present, if for nothing, for a Debugging state point of view. I always embed Debugging points in my algorithms. Thanks.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 07:09 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nuoe5b$1l5e$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396678 |
On 25/10/16 07:34, Edgar König wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, Mon, 24 Oct 2016 15:23:18 -0500 użytkownik Tom > Roberts napisał: >>> >>> Good point. This explain the reason for which they had a "relativity >>> correction switch (on/off)" embedded into each of the satellites. >> >> There was such a switch in the FIRST satellite, and possibly in others >> of the same generation, but not in later generations of satellites -- no >> need. > > You must be definitely right, but it takes nothing in Hardware to embed a > such a Switch. In fact I bet, it is done in Software, but I don't know. > You blokes really are a joke. Why don't you just accept the fact that every clock is equipped with hardware facility for software adjusting its rate after launch to bring it precisely into line with the ground clocks. The infamous 'GR correction' is nothing but an advertisement for the Einsteinian church and just more evidence of the Grand Conspiracy. > One thing I know, that would unsafe not to have it present, if for > nothing, for a Debugging state point of view. I always embed Debugging > points in my algorithms. Thanks. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-25 20:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nuoeja$1lnl$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396783 |
W dniu poniedziałek, Wed, 26 Oct 2016 07:09:19 +1100 użytkownik HGWilson, DSc. napisał: > You blokes really are a joke. Why don't you just accept the fact that > every clock is equipped with hardware facility for software adjusting > its rate after launch to bring it precisely into line with the ground > clocks. You can't adjust a Natural Rate, my friend. All you can do is to adjust an output of a circuitry driven by such rate. Divided, multiply, Shift Left/ Right etc, also Addition and Subtraction might be available, but it costs more Cycles. Believe me, I am a professional. In short, the Natural Frequency stays. Its output can be modified. > The infamous 'GR correction' is nothing but an advertisement for the > Einsteinian church and just more evidence of the Grand Conspiracy. We probably agree.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 19:50 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nupqoc$1d8r$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396785 |
On 26/10/16 07:16, Edgar König wrote: > W dniu poniedziałek, Wed, 26 Oct 2016 07:09:19 +1100 użytkownik HGWilson, > DSc. napisał: > >> You blokes really are a joke. Why don't you just accept the fact that >> every clock is equipped with hardware facility for software adjusting >> its rate after launch to bring it precisely into line with the ground >> clocks. > > You can't adjust a Natural Rate, my friend. All you can do is to adjust an > output of a circuitry driven by such rate. Divided, multiply, Shift Left/ > Right etc, also Addition and Subtraction might be available, but it costs > more Cycles. Believe me, I am a professional. Professional bullshitter, maybe. We have plenty of 'experts' on this NG. You virtually told us that the GER correction is useless.. > In short, the Natural Frequency stays. Its output can be modified. > >> The infamous 'GR correction' is nothing but an advertisemen t for the >> Einsteinian church and just more evidence of the Grand Conspiracy. > > We probably agree. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-26 14:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nuqefa$ir9$1@pcls7.std.com> |
| In reply to | #396813 |
"HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: >>> You blokes really are a joke. Why don't you just accept the fact that >>> every clock is equipped with hardware facility for software adjusting >>> its rate after launch to bring it precisely into line with the ground >>> clocks. Ralph Malcolm, there is no need for such a hardware facility, Ralph. Why would something that was useless and never would be used, Ralph, be added to the satellites, Ralph Malcolm? Ralph, remember, Ralph, it costs thousands of dollars per kilogram to launch anything into orbit, Ralph. Ralph, in addition, if such a facility existed, you could point to the related software in the source code that activated it, Ralph. Of course, Mr. Rabbidge, you can't, Ralph, because it doesn't exist, Ralph Malcolm. >> You can't adjust a Natural Rate, my friend. All you can do is to adjust an >> output of a circuitry driven by such rate. Divided, multiply, Shift Left/ >> Right etc, also Addition and Subtraction might be available, but it costs >> more Cycles. Believe me, I am a professional. >Professional bullshitter, maybe. We have plenty of 'experts' on this NG. Such as yourself, Ralph Malcolm, pretending that you are some sort of expert, Ralph, and pretending to be some sort of "doctor", Ralph Malcolm. You're no doctor, Ralph Malcolm Rabbidge.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 05:00 +1100 |
| Message-ID | <nuqr0b$1e9k$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396835 |
On 27/10/16 01:26, Michael Moroney wrote: > "HGWilson, DSc." <hgw@....> writes: > >>>> You blokes really are a joke. Why don't you just accept the fact that >>>> every clock is equipped with hardware facility for software adjusting >>>> its rate after launch to bring it precisely into line with the ground >>>> clocks. > > Doctor, there is no need for such a hardware facility, Doctor. Why > would something that was useless and never would be used, be added > to the satellites? Poor fool! these guys just said they are already added. Argue with them, not me. >>> Believe me, I am a professional. > >> Professional bullshitter, maybe. We have plenty of 'experts' on this NG. Like poor little Irish clown, Moron-y.....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-27 16:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <nutql7$vao$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396783 |
On 10/25/2016 3:09 PM, HGWilson, DSc. wrote: > You blokes really are a joke. Why don't you just accept the fact that > every clock is equipped with hardware facility for software adjusting > its rate after launch to bring it precisely into line with the ground > clocks. > The infamous 'GR correction' is nothing but an advertisement for the > Einsteinian church and just more evidence of the Grand Conspiracy. "Yes, the GPS clock is software corrected to match the ground clock." Henry: "Exactly, it's what I've been saying all along!" "Well, yes, and others before you. As it turns out the amount of the correction is exactly that that general relativity predicts, and so we call it a general relativity correction." Henry: "No, no no! Don't do that! You're just giving relativity credit, and we don't want to do that ever! Just say it's an ad hoc correction!" "But, actually it isn't ad hoc. It's a feature to address known physics." Henry: "I don't CARE! All you're going to do is encourage the Einsteinian rabble! Call it something else! Call it a Wilson effect if you have to. Anything but relativity! It makes me gag!" "But it IS relativ--" Henry: "LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU! GO AWAY!" -- Odd Bodkin --- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Woźniak <mlwozniak@wp.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 22:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nulra5$8ve$1@node1.news.atman.pl> |
| In reply to | #396675 |
> W dniu poniedziałek, Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:28:54 -0500 użytkownik Tom > Roberts napisał: >> Anyone who thinks that the GR correction is not needed in the GPS >> satellite clocks is just plain wrong. A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. Your Shit forbids these corrections directly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Edgar König <edgko@edgarkoenig.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 20:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <nuls19$1mnp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #396679 |
W dniu poniedziałek, Mon, 24 Oct 2016 22:35:09 +0200 użytkownik Maciej Woźniak napisał: >> W dniu poniedziałek, Mon, 24 Oct 2016 14:28:54 -0500 użytkownik Tom >> Roberts napisał: >>> Anyone who thinks that the GR correction is not needed in the GPS >>> satellite clocks is just plain wrong. > > A lie, as expected from fanatic trash. Your Shit forbids these > corrections directly. You are wrong. It takes nothing to implement such a simple thing. Corrections are present, whether you call them something or not.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog <prokaryotic.caspase.homolog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-24 15:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <292c11f0-bd37-4009-a571-ed8540fc7e35@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #396669 |
On Monday, October 24, 2016 at 2:29:01 PM UTC-5, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 10/24/16 10/24/16 - 11:39 AM, Prokaryotic Caspase Homolog wrote:
> > [...]
> > Although it is *conceivable* using modern computer technology for the Space
> > Segment and Control Segment to run on clocks that tick at different rates,
> > this possibility was totally *inconceivable* in the 1970s when GPS was
> > designed and first implemented.
>
> More to the point: the GPS specifications do not permit that.
>
> The GPS was implemented according to its specifications, not according to
> guesses and fantasies of fools and idiots around here.
>
> Anyone who thinks that the GR correction is not needed in
> the GPS satellite clocks is just plain wrong. While it is
> conceivable that SOME OTHER SYSTEM could be designed to
> omit that correction, THAT IS NOT THE GPS.
Nowadays, software carries out a lot of functions that used to require
complex hardware.
For example, Ashby states:
"GALILEO is a project of the European Space Agency, intended to put
about 30 satellites carrying atomic clocks in orbit. In contrast to
GPS which is free to users, the GALILEO system ultimately will be
funded by user fees. Information released in 2006 by the GALILEO
project [25] states that relativistic corrections will be the
responsibility of the users (that is, the receivers). This means that
GNSS devices capable of receiving both GPS and GALILEO signals will
have to contain additional relativity software to process GALILEO
signals. Since no “factory frequency offset” is applied to atomic
clocks in the GALILEO satellites, relativity effects will cause
satellite clock time to ramp away from TAI and will require large
correction terms to be transmitted to users."
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2003-1/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web