Myth of GPS Employing the Nonsense of SR and GR
Koobee Wublee
special and the general theories of relativity (SR and GR). That
proved to be a mistake. The engineers involved in the design quickly
overturned the nonsense proposed by the physicists. For the ones who
are interested, read the references below.
http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/theory.htm
--- Researched and brought to us by Dirk Van de moortel
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
--- Researched and brought to us by Sam Wormley
Or for the layman's sake, just visit Androcles' website on GPS below.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
GPS now works without any of the nonsense introduced by SR and GR at a
fraction of cost originally intended by the physicists. Engineers
once again are proven to be orders of magnitudes more intelligent than
physicists. <shrug> In the meantime, the physicists are still crying
over spilled milk with Professor Taylor's and Professor Ahsby's BS
write-ups on GPS. <shrug>
Sue...
> The GPS was first designed with physicists as consultants using the
> special and the general theories of relativity (SR and GR). That
> proved to be a mistake. The engineers involved in the design quickly
> overturned the nonsense proposed by the physicists. For the ones who
> are interested, read the references below.
>
> http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/theory.htm
>
> --- Researched and brought to us by Dirk Van de moortel
>
>
> --- Researched and brought to us by Sam Wormley
>
> Or for the layman's sake, just visit Androcles' website on GPS below.
>
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
>
> GPS now works without any of the nonsense introduced by SR and GR at a
> fraction of cost originally intended by the physicists. Engineers
> once again are proven to be orders of magnitudes more intelligent than
> physicists. <shrug> In the meantime, the physicists are still crying
> over spilled milk with Professor Taylor's and Professor Ahsby's BS
> write-ups on GPS. <shrug>
Ashby's calculations for an early launch have to be taken as
anecdotal because subsequent launchs don't scientifically
alter parameters to look for system errors. That is OK with
me because I don't need a smart bomb on my garden shed.
If there is any value, it is the "more accurate clock"
required by Pound-Snider to discriminate between
a causality violating "falling photon" and a shift in
atomic resonance.
Okun's concern was justified.
"On the Interpretation of the Redshift in a
Static Gravitational Field"
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017
The designers of Sagnac devices don't AFAIK
make reference to the GPS system
so it doesn't seem to serve as any sort of benchmark
for that effect.
Sue...
Eric Gisse
[...]
> Or for the layman's sake, just visit Androcles' website on GPS below.
True or false:
Faraday's law is E = -dB/dt
[snip stupidity]
I Was A Teenage Queerwolf
> On Aug 2, 4:13 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The GPS was first designed with physicists as consultants using the
> > special and the general theories of relativity (SR and GR). That
> > proved to be a mistake. The engineers involved in the design quickly
> > overturned the nonsense proposed by the physicists. For the ones who
> > are interested, read the references below.
>
> >http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/theory.htm
>
> > --- Researched and brought to us by Dirk Van de moortel
>
>
> > --- Researched and brought to us by Sam Wormley
>
> > Or for the layman's sake, just visit Androcles' website on GPS below.
>
> >http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
>
> > GPS now works without any of the nonsense introduced by SR and GR at a
> > fraction of cost originally intended by the physicists. Engineers
> > once again are proven to be orders of magnitudes more intelligent than
> > physicists. <shrug> In the meantime, the physicists are still crying
> > over spilled milk with Professor Taylor's and Professor Ahsby's BS
> > write-ups on GPS. <shrug>
>
> Ashby's calculations for an early launch have to be taken as
> anecdotal because subsequent launchs don't scientifically
> alter parameters to look for system errors. That is OK with
> me because I don't need a smart bomb on my garden shed.
That'd make you smart. Ouch!
Randy Poe
> The GPS was first designed with physicists as consultants using the
> special and the general theories of relativity (SR and GR). That
> proved to be a mistake. The engineers involved in the design quickly
> overturned the nonsense proposed by the physicists. For the ones who
> are interested, read the references below.
The "nonsense" was, among other things, that the space clocks
should be set to tick at 38 us/day slower than the earth clocks.
Are you claiming that this was "overturned" and the satellite
clock frequency is set the same as the earth clock frequency?
- Randy
Dono
> Or for the layman's sake, just visit Androcles' website on GPS below.
>
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
>
>
the wbsite of another crank. Well done, KW!
Androcles
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1186060255....@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Your question is simply not relevant, the receiver operates solely on
satellite time to compute position. If it used local time then it would be
up to 24 * 3600 * 186,000 miles adrift, local time in California is 8
hours behind UTC.
Earth clock frequency not being used by the receiver (which doesn't
have an atomic clock anyway) renders your question non sequitur.
Engineers know that they have to keep all satellite clocks
in synch for the system to work, so they may as well upload
ground time regularly and under computer control to do so because
individual satellites have a different rate of clock drift as well as
different orbits. In other words, you are a stooopid fuckhead.
Sam Wormley
> The GPS was first designed with physicists as consultants using the
> special and the general theories of relativity (SR and GR). That
> proved to be a mistake. The engineers involved in the design quickly
> overturned the nonsense proposed by the physicists. For the ones who
> are interested, read the references below.
>
What a bunch of bullshit!
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html#Relativity
Randy Poe
> "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1186060255....@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> : On Aug 2, 3:13 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> : > The GPS was first designed with physicists as consultants using the
> : > special and the general theories of relativity (SR and GR). That
> : > proved to be a mistake. The engineers involved in the design quickly
> : > overturned the nonsense proposed by the physicists. For the ones who
> : > are interested, read the references below.
> :
> : The "nonsense" was, among other things, that the space clocks
> : should be set to tick at 38 us/day slower than the earth clocks.
> : Are you claiming that this was "overturned" and the satellite
> : clock frequency is set the same as the earth clock frequency?
> :
> Your question is simply not relevant, the receiver operates solely on
> satellite time to compute position.
Yes it does. No argument.
That's why all that money was spent in engineering the
satellite time-keeping and synchronizing it down to a
few nanoseconds with ground time, so that the user
doesn't have to worry about absolute time and can
trust the satellite time.
> If it used local time then it would be
> up to 24 * 3600 * 186,000 miles adrift, local time in California is 8
> hours behind UTC.
If it had access to the synchronized ground-station
time, it would be as accurate in position as the satellites
themselves are (cm or less). But that would be expensive.
So instead we give earth time to the satellites, and
the receivers can be cheap.
> Earth clock frequency not being used by the receiver (which doesn't
> have an atomic clock anyway) renders your question non sequitur.
> Engineers know that they have to keep all satellite clocks
> in synch for the system to work, so they may as well upload
> ground time regularly and under computer control to do so because
> individual satellites have a different rate of clock drift as well as
> different orbits.
Exactly. It is absolutely crucial for the whole system
that the satellites be in synch with ground time. That
in fact is part of how their position can be determined
with such accuracy.
> In other words, you are a stooopid fuckhead.
Involuntary Tourette's outburst ignored.
- Randy
Androcles
: On Aug 2, 10:25 am, "Androcles" <Engin...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
: > "Randy Poe" <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: >
: > news:1186060255....@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
: > : On Aug 2, 3:13 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
: > : > The GPS was first designed with physicists as consultants using the
: > : > special and the general theories of relativity (SR and GR). That
: > : > proved to be a mistake. The engineers involved in the design
quickly
: > : > overturned the nonsense proposed by the physicists. For the ones
who
: > : > are interested, read the references below.
: > :
: > : The "nonsense" was, among other things, that the space clocks
: > : should be set to tick at 38 us/day slower than the earth clocks.
: > : Are you claiming that this was "overturned" and the satellite
: > : clock frequency is set the same as the earth clock frequency?
: > :
: > Your question is simply not relevant, the receiver operates solely on
: > satellite time to compute position.
:
: Yes it does. No argument.
1.. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A
synchronizes with the clock at B.
2.. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the
clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
: That's why all that money was spent in engineering the
: satellite time-keeping and synchronizing it down to a
: few nanoseconds with ground time, so that the user
: doesn't have to worry about absolute time and can
: trust the satellite time.
HAHAHA!
But Blind Poe, satellite time is UTC. No American uses that, it
doesn't synchronise with wristwatch time.
So are you claiming that GPS receivers are gaining 38 usec a day over
wristwatch time on their readouts?
1.. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A
synchronizes with the clock at B.
2.. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the
clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
: > If it used local time then it would be
: > up to 24 * 3600 * 186,000 miles adrift, local time in California is 8
: > hours behind UTC.
:
: If it had access to the synchronized ground-station
: time, it would be as accurate in position as the satellites
: themselves are (cm or less). But that would be expensive.
The calculation in the receiver would be (satellite time - ground time)
* speed of light and according to fuckheads satellites gain 38 usec
over ground time.
: So instead we give earth time to the satellites, and
: the receivers can be cheap.
Yes, of course we do, but we have to keep correcting the satellite
clocks because fuckheads made them run slow deliberately.
1.. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A
synchronizes with the clock at B.
2.. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the
clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
:
: > Earth clock frequency not being used by the receiver (which doesn't
: > have an atomic clock anyway) renders your question non sequitur.
: > Engineers know that they have to keep all satellite clocks
: > in synch for the system to work, so they may as well upload
: > ground time regularly and under computer control to do so because
: > individual satellites have a different rate of clock drift as well as
: > different orbits.
:
: Exactly. It is absolutely crucial for the whole system
: that the satellites be in synch with ground time. That
: in fact is part of how their position can be determined
: with such accuracy.
In other words SR and GR have nothing to do with it.
The "such accuracy" is poor anyway, you can't land a plane
+/- 90 feet above/below the runway.
1.. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A
synchronizes with the clock at B.
2.. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the
clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
: > In other words, you are a stooopid fuckhead.
:
: Involuntary Tourette's outburst ignored.
:
You need to learn what "involuntary" means.
1.. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A
synchronizes with the clock at B.
2.. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the
clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
hagman
Do you claim that there was no leap second in the US on December 31,
2005?
Or that you use your Mickey Mouse wristwatch to determine GPS signal
arrival times?
In reality, it doesn't matter what your wristwatch tells you, the GPS
receiver
will deduce a good time from the satellite signals if at least four
are visible. Since it can adjust its simple internal clock almost
perpetually,
the receiver clock is always fairly precise.
How often do you want to sync the satellites from ground to make their
clocks
highly accurate?
The meaning of such words is usually tought in a lessen
much later than manners.
Igor
> special and the general theories of relativity (SR and GR). That
> proved to be a mistake. The engineers involved in the design quickly
> overturned the nonsense proposed by the physicists. For the ones who
> are interested, read the references below.
>
> http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/theory.htm
>
> --- Researched and brought to us by Dirk Van de moortel
>
>
> --- Researched and brought to us by Sam Wormley
>
> Or for the layman's sake, just visit Androcles' website on GPS below.
>
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
>
> GPS now works without any of the nonsense introduced by SR and GR at a
> fraction of cost originally intended by the physicists. Engineers
> once again are proven to be orders of magnitudes more intelligent than
> physicists. <shrug> In the meantime, the physicists are still crying
> over spilled milk with Professor Taylor's and Professor Ahsby's BS
> write-ups on GPS. <shrug>
By the way, did you ever learn the proper way to transform domains?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1186073595.5...@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
... AND provoked - well done ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Androcles
"hagman" <goo...@von-eitzen.de> wrote in message
news:1186077685.2...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Don't be so fucking stupid and irrelevant.
: Or that you use your Mickey Mouse wristwatch to determine GPS signal
: arrival times?
Don't be so fucking stupid, I specifically stated ground time as NOT
used in the receiver.
: In reality, it doesn't matter what your wristwatch tells you, the GPS
: receiver
: will deduce a good time from the satellite signals if at least four
: are visible. Since it can adjust its simple internal clock almost
: perpetually,
: the receiver clock is always fairly precise.
I know how GPS works, prat.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
: How often do you want to sync the satellites from ground to make their
: clocks
: highly accurate?
Never. Learn the difference between precision and accuracy,
GPS time is 8 hours ahead of California time and therefore highly
inaccurate but extremely precise.
: > So are you claiming that GPS receivers are gaining 38 usec a day over
You need to learn to spell "taught" and "lesson".
Now fuck off.
: >
: > 1.. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A
:
va...@icmf.inf.cu
> The GPS was first designed with physicists as consultants using the
> special and the general theories of relativity (SR and GR). That
> proved to be a mistake. The engineers involved in the design quickly
> overturned the nonsense proposed by the physicists. For the ones who
> are interested, read the references below.
>
> http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/theory.htm
>
> --- Researched and brought to us by Dirk Van de moortel
>
>
> --- Researched and brought to us by Sam Wormley
>
> Or for the layman's sake, just visit Androcles' website on GPS below.
>
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
>
> GPS now works without any of the nonsense introduced by SR and GR at a
> fraction of cost originally intended by the physicists. Engineers
> once again are proven to be orders of magnitudes more intelligent than
> physicists. <shrug> In the meantime, the physicists are still crying
> over spilled milk with Professor Taylor's and Professor Ahsby's BS
> write-ups on GPS. <shrug>
The time rate of a clock depends on velocity and gravitational
potential, and the formulas that express that dependence (used by GPS
engineers) were obtained with the help of SR and GR. I didn't find in
your links any reference supporting (or rejecting) this fact. From
where do you take the idea that SR and GR are not used in GPS?
Eric Gisse
> On 2 ago, 02:13, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > The GPS was first designed with physicists as consultants using the
> > special and the general theories of relativity (SR and GR). That
> > proved to be a mistake. The engineers involved in the design quickly
> > overturned the nonsense proposed by the physicists. For the ones who
> > are interested, read the references below.
>
> >http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/theory.htm
>
> > --- Researched and brought to us by Dirk Van de moortel
>
>
> > --- Researched and brought to us by Sam Wormley
>
> > Or for the layman's sake, just visit Androcles' website on GPS below.
>
> >http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
>
> > GPS now works without any of the nonsense introduced by SR and GR at a
> > fraction of cost originally intended by the physicists. Engineers
> > once again are proven to be orders of magnitudes more intelligent than
> > physicists. <shrug> In the meantime, the physicists are still crying
> > over spilled milk with Professor Taylor's and Professor Ahsby's BS
> > write-ups on GPS. <shrug>
>
> The time rate of a clock depends on velocity and gravitational
> potential, and the formulas that express that dependence (used by GPS
> engineers) were obtained with the help of SR and GR. I didn't find in
> your links any reference supporting (or rejecting) this fact. From
> where do you take the idea that SR and GR are not used in GPS?
Since the receivers don't have to worry about relativistic effects -
and it is explained as such in documentation - it has somehow been
twisted into "GPS doesn't use relativity".
Eric Gisse
Just like you know how Faraday's law works, prat?
E = -dB/dt...christ, if I used that I'd fail an E&M exam.
[...]
Cygnus X-1
(in article <1186038785.6...@q3g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
It is ridiculous to argue this.
It's my understanding that the entire computation is done in the
receiver. The satellite clock operates at some frequency that is just
a parameter in the calculation.
Build your own receiver with your algorithm and DEMONSTRATE it.
I suspect you could even purchase some components without the algorithm
installed so you wouldn't be building from scratch.
Tom
--
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1
cygn...@mac.com
"They're trained to believe, not to know. Belief can be manipulated.
Only knowledge is dangerous." --Frank Herbert, "Dune Messiah"
Koobee Wublee
There is no need to impose such a requirement on each satellite. The
satellites do not have to synchronize with the ground. The satellites
only have to synchronize among themselves. It is much simpler to
synchronize among themselves in which no nonsense of SR or GR is
employed to do so. <shrug>
The explanation is in the links I gave you. For a self-claimed PhD,
you are extremely mentally challenged. It seems to be a common trait
among the PhDs in these science newsgroups. <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
> What a bunch of bullshit [below]!
> http://edu-observatory.org/gps/gps_books.html#Relativity
I absolutely agree with you.
Koobee Wublee
> On 2 ago, 02:13, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The GPS was first designed with physicists as consultants using the
> > special and the general theories of relativity (SR and GR). That
> > proved to be a mistake. The engineers involved in the design quickly
> > overturned the nonsense proposed by the physicists. For the ones who
> > are interested, read the references below.
>
> >http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/theory.htm
>
> > --- Researched and brought to us by Dirk Van de moortel
>
> >http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdfhttp://www.nav...
>
> > --- Researched and brought to us by Sam Wormley
>
> > Or for the layman's sake, just visit Androcles' website on GPS below.
>
> >http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
>
> > GPS now works without any of the nonsense introduced by SR and GR at a
> > fraction of cost originally intended by the physicists. Engineers
> > once again are proven to be orders of magnitudes more intelligent than
> > physicists. <shrug> In the meantime, the physicists are still crying
> > over spilled milk with Professor Taylor's and Professor Ahsby's BS
> > write-ups on GPS. <shrug>
>
> The time rate of a clock depends on velocity and gravitational
> potential,
This is according to SR and GR, yes. Mathematically, they are pure
nonsense. <shrug>
> and the formulas that express that dependence (used by GPS
> engineers) were obtained with the help of SR and GR.
There is no need to synchronize the clocks of the satellites with the
receiver. Therefore, this lack of such requirement eliminates the
needs for the nonsense of SR and GR. <shrug>
> I didn't find in
> your links any reference supporting (or rejecting) this fact. From
> where do you take the idea that SR and GR are not used in GPS?
You must have a horrible learning skill. All I can say is to try
harder. <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
> Since the receivers don't have to worry about relativistic effects -
> and it is explained as such in documentation - it has somehow been
> twisted into "GPS doesn't use relativity".
The twistedness is in you, fat Gisse. You have failed at
understanding a very simple but fundamental concept again. <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 03:13:05 -0400, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > The GPS was first designed with physicists as consultants using the
> > special and the general theories of relativity (SR and GR). That
> > proved to be a mistake. The engineers involved in the design quickly
> > overturned the nonsense proposed by the physicists. For the ones who
> > are interested, read the references below.
>
> >http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/theory.htm
>
> > --- Researched and brought to us by Dirk Van de moortel
>
> >http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
> >http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
>
> > --- Researched and brought to us by Sam Wormley
>
> > Or for the layman's sake, just visit Androcles' website on GPS below.
>
> >http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
>
> > GPS now works without any of the nonsense introduced by SR and GR at a
> > fraction of cost originally intended by the physicists. Engineers
> > once again are proven to be orders of magnitudes more intelligent than
> > physicists. <shrug> In the meantime, the physicists are still crying
> > over spilled milk with Professor Taylor's and Professor Ahsby's BS
> > write-ups on GPS. <shrug>
>
> It is ridiculous to argue this.
I agree, but let's see how ridiculous you are making yourself out of.
> It's my understanding that the entire computation is done in the
> receiver.
To determine the position of the receiver, all you need is to solve a
matrix of four equations and four unknowns. The unknowns are time and
the three spatial components.
> The satellite clock operates at some frequency that is just
> a parameter in the calculation.
Since time is one of the unknown to be solved by each receiver, it is
utterly stupid to talk about the absolute time as long as all the
satellites are synchronized.
> Build your own receiver with your algorithm and DEMONSTRATE it.
Or better yet, read and understand Androcles' website below.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
> I suspect you could even purchase some components without the algorithm
> installed so you wouldn't be building from scratch.
You suspicion is indeed correct. <shrug> I have no time to
demonstrate your ignorance to yourself. <shrug> No hard feelings.
Eric Gisse
[...]
>
> To determine the position of the receiver, all you need is to solve a
> matrix of four equations and four unknowns. The unknowns are time and
> the three spatial components.
You are, of course, making the assumption that time runs at the same
rate at the source as at the receiver.
[snip remaining crap]
Faraday's law is not E = -dB/dt - yet Androcles thinks it is. If you
understand this simple fact, you might want to reconsider sourcing
someone who has trouble with the basics.
Eric Gisse
Those who criticize are volunteering. Tell us about /your/ education
and why it is superior to a PhD in physics.
Sue...
> On 2 ago, 02:13, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > The GPS was first designed with physicists as consultants using the
> > special and the general theories of relativity (SR and GR). That
> > proved to be a mistake. The engineers involved in the design quickly
> > overturned the nonsense proposed by the physicists. For the ones who
> > are interested, read the references below.
>
> >http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/theory.htm
>
> > --- Researched and brought to us by Dirk Van de moortel
>
>
> > --- Researched and brought to us by Sam Wormley
>
> > Or for the layman's sake, just visit Androcles' website on GPS below.
>
> >http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
>
> > GPS now works without any of the nonsense introduced by SR and GR at a
> > fraction of cost originally intended by the physicists. Engineers
> > once again are proven to be orders of magnitudes more intelligent than
> > physicists. <shrug> In the meantime, the physicists are still crying
> > over spilled milk with Professor Taylor's and Professor Ahsby's BS
> > write-ups on GPS. <shrug>
>
> The time rate of a clock depends on velocity and gravitational
> potential, and the formulas that express that dependence (used by GPS
> engineers) were obtained with the help of SR and GR. I didn't find in
> your links any reference supporting (or rejecting) this fact. From
If the winner of a automobile race was burning
Shell would you be confident blameing BP for
the cars that didn't win?
GR is not the only way to correct for Sagnac, Doppler
and nuclear resonance effects. GPS does more
for GR than GR does for GPS because when N. Ashby's
calculations were made there was considerable division
about how Pound-Rebka-Snider should be interpreted.
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9907017
GPS settles the issue and falling photons
are out of fashion.
If you put a planet near an atomic clock, the planet
will couple some energy out and slow the clock.
If the planet is spinning, it may couple a wee
bit more energy out. Those notions and a
Sagnac correction *could *give the same
factory preset that Ashby calculated.
Yes... Shell was in the winning car but that
does not prove that BP won't burn just as hot.
Sue...
Androcles
"Cygnus X-1" <cygn...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C2D7E2E1...@news.verizon.net...
: On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 03:13:05 -0400, Koobee Wublee wrote
Ok, so Einstein's Dingleberries are ridiculous and should be
ridiculed. <shrug>
The demonstration has been done:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
If the satellites gained an hour a day the receiver would gain it also
and still compute position correctly. GR "correction" is hocus pocus.
va...@icmf.inf.cu
successful function is based on the very precise synchronization of
all atomic clocks (in satellites and in Earth). Here is where SR and
GR are used.
> > I didn't find in
> > your links any reference supporting (or rejecting) this fact. From
> > where do you take the idea that SR and GR are not used in GPS?
>
> You must have a horrible learning skill. All I can say is to try
> harder. <shrug>
precise reference to where in your links is addressed the use (or not
use) of SR and GR in the prediction of clock time rate changes. If you
can't do that, I must suspect that you even don't read your own links.
> - Ocultar texto de la cita -
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
va...@icmf.inf.cu
> GPS settles the issue and falling photons
> are out of fashion.
>
> If you put a planet near an atomic clock, the planet
> will couple some energy out and slow the clock.
> If the planet is spinning, it may couple a wee
> bit more energy out. Those notions and a
> Sagnac correction *could *give the same
> factory preset that Ashby calculated.
>
or not of SR and GR in GPS, not if SR and GR are the unique theories
(or the best) that can be used for it. You must remember that I had
derived the basic formulas for clock time rate changes on velocity and
gravitational potential using only 1905 Relativity. For the benefit of
interesting readers I will put here a link to support that.
Gravitational time effects explained with Einstein's 1905 Relativity
http://groups.google.com.cu/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/21961de826abb587/2889a8d9c4d72ac4?hl=es#2889a8d9c4d72ac4
> Yes... Shell was in the winning car but that
> does not prove that BP won't burn just as hot.
>
I am almost claiming that 1905 Relativity can burn more hot than SR
and GR.
> Sue...- Ocultar texto de la cita -
va...@icmf.inf.cu
>
> - Mostrar texto de la cita -
Sure. The users don't need to know about the very delicate processes
to put and maintain synchronized the GPS atomic clocks.
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
Sam Wormley
>
> There is no need to synchronize the clocks of the satellites with the
> receiver. Therefore, this lack of such requirement eliminates the
> needs for the nonsense of SR and GR. <shrug>
GPS is a Satellite Navigation System
http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/notes/gps/gps_f.html
Pseudo-Range Navigation Solution Example
http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/notes/gps/gif/navigate.gif
Ephemeris Data Set Used in Pseudo-Range Navigation Solution Example
http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/notes/gps/gps_f.html
Randy Poe
> On Aug 2, 6:10 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 2, 3:13 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The GPS was first designed with physicists as consultants using the
> > > special and the general theories of relativity (SR and GR). That
> > > proved to be a mistake. The engineers involved in the design quickly
> > > overturned the nonsense proposed by the physicists. For the ones who
> > > are interested, read the references below.
>
> > The "nonsense" was, among other things, that the space clocks
> > should be set to tick at 38 us/day slower than the earth clocks.
> > Are you claiming that this was "overturned" and the satellite
> > clock frequency is set the same as the earth clock frequency?
>
> There is no need to impose such a requirement on each satellite.
Whether there is or not, you have made a claim.
1. The physicists said the clocks should be slowed down by
38 us/day.
2. The engineers ignored them.
Do you stand by your claim? Are the clocks slowed down or
not? The topic isn't what SHOULD be done, the topic is
what actually WAS done. You made a statement. Do you stand
by it?
- Randy
Randy Poe
> The explanation is in the links I gave you. For a self-claimed PhD,
A second claim in the same thread. Again, do you stand
by your claims or do you just say anything you want
whether you think it's true or not?
When did I make this "self-claim", and what did I say
the PhD was in?
- Randy
Dono
>The satellites do not have to synchronize with the ground. The satellites
> only have to synchronize among themselves.
I can see that you have been very busy lately further demonstrating
your continuing ignorance. Just a question, if the
"satellites do not have to synchronize with the ground", how does the
moving GPS receiver in your car synchronize with any of the
satellites?
Don't tell me, it is a telepathic wave :-)
This is why you have been missing turns by a mile?
hanson
news:dnGsi.50159$Fc.35180@attbi_s21...
>
Koobee Wublee wrote:
There is no need to synchronize the clocks of the satellites with the
receiver. Therefore, this lack of such requirement eliminates the
needs for the nonsense of SR and GR. <shrug>
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
>
GPS now works without any of the nonsense introduced by SR and
GR at a fraction of cost originally intended by the physicists. Engineers
once again are proven to be orders of magnitudes more intelligent than
physicists. <shrug> In the meantime, the physicists are still crying
over spilled milk with Professor Taylor's and Professor Ashby's BS
write-ups on GPS. <shrug>
>
[Sam]
GPS is a Satellite Navigation System
http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/notes/gps/gps_f.html
>
Pseudo-Range Navigation Solution Example
http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/notes/gps/gif/navigate.gif
>
Ephemeris Data Set Used in Pseudo-Range Navigation Solution Example
> http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/notes/gps/gps_f.html
>
>
[hanson]
The entire discussion about/over GPS & REL is split along
along the lines of the doers = engineers vs. the lamentators,
where these jonny-come-lately story tellers, being students,
teachers and academics/theorists do feel the need to garner
some belated glory of having contributed to the success of GPS.
The belated "me-too" whining of these story tellers is
understandable given human beings what they are.. ...
As can been seen the theorists have convinced themselves of
their artificial glory mission and they seem to hope to achieve that
goal by their vociferous repetations of singing their theoretical tales
about GPS, an event/system that was already here,... conceived-
designed-produced-tested and operated WITHOUT any need
nor use for SR nor GR whatsoever.... ahahaha...
This is just another sordid example of the bankruptcy of REL
(=SR/GR) in the use/application of/in the real world where
== mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL shit"
== *.edu and grantology ..................."does need REL - No shit"
== Promo, Sales & Movies..............."loves REL by the shitload"
== Jews protect it as cultural heritage whether "REL is shit or not".
See, there is nothing wrong with relativity if and when it is exercised
in those places where Einstein Dingleberries love to congregate.
.... ahahaha... AHAHAHA.... ahahanson
Traveler
>This is just another sordid example of the bankruptcy of REL
>(=SR/GR) in the use/application of/in the real world where
>
>== mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL shit"
>== *.edu and grantology ..................."does need REL - No shit"
>== Promo, Sales & Movies..............."loves REL by the shitload"
>== Jews protect it as cultural heritage whether "REL is shit or not".
>
>See, there is nothing wrong with relativity if and when it is exercised
>in those places where Einstein Dingleberries love to congregate.
>.... ahahaha... AHAHAHA.... ahahanson
ahahaha... This debate is funny as hell. Hanson is to be credited for
always hitting where it hurts the most. Can the Einstein Dingleberries
name one technological application other than the GPS (arguable) where
relativity is being used? For example, does NASA (or anybody else) use
GR to send spacecrafts to Mars or to any of the other bodies in the
solar system? Or is it all good old Newtonian physics? ahahaha...
Nasty Little Truth About Space:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm#Space
Louis Savain
Dirk Van de moortel
"Dono" <sa...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1186155010.0...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
His particular receiver gets its time from the quartz clock of his car.
Dirk Vdm
Dono
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Dono" <sa...@comcast.net> wrote in messagenews:1186155010.0...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
You topped me again :-) :-)
I think that you shoul add a webpage entitled something like "Deadly
answers to immortal fumbles". What do you say?
Dirk Van de moortel
"Dono" <sa...@comcast.net> wrote in message news:1186157864.0...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
um...
I am *much* too modest for that ;-)
Dirk Vdm
Dono
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Dono" <sa...@comcast.net> wrote in messagenews:1186157864.0...@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
> - Show quoted text -
The stuff with the dashboard clock is worthy an anthology. I posted it
in my office, I am still laughing :-)
.-- .- -... -. .. --. @.-----.DOT.-- H. Wabnig
So there IS one application of RT, now you demand ANOTHER ONE?
Stupid, stupid Lois.
Stick your ass together with the notorious liar hanson,
who denies EVERY RT application, in spite of all evidence.
This is the manufacturer and originator of GPS:
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/
Here is what the manufacturer says:
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/gpssps1.pdf
hanson has the chuzpe to accuse his own governement
of telling fraudulent lies.
Now comes the part for you, Lois,
answer the following question which hanson did not answer:
What is the GPS carrier frequency:
[ ] 1.023000000000 MHz theor. unaffected
[ ] 1.022999999543 MHz rel. corrected
Androcles, hanson, Pentcho Valve, they all refused to answer.
How about you, Lois?
Because you have been a good boy so far,
I offer you a little additional present:
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
Did you know that synchronizing clocks between fast
and high flying airplanes is a difficult task?
Now you know, I told you.
w.
--
What is the GPS carrier frequency:
[ ] 1.023000000000 MHz theor. unaffected
[ ] 1.022999999543 MHz rel. corrected
Sam Wormley
> Just a question, if the
> "satellites do not have to synchronize with the ground", how does the
> moving GPS receiver in your car synchronize with any of the satellites?
All GPS receivers are in constant motion with respect to GPS satellites.
From the perspective of a GPS receiver, each satellite has a different
and continually changing motion.
The satellite are essentially atomic clocks in orbit that additionally
transmit information about their orbits and where the are in those
orbits.
Dono
:-) :-)
Koobee Wublee
> On 3 ago, 00:01, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > There is no need to synchronize the clocks of the satellites with the
> > receiver. Therefore, this lack of such requirement eliminates the
> > needs for the nonsense of SR and GR. <shrug>
>
> Of course that we haven't atomic clocks in the receivers, but the GPS
> successful function is based on the very precise synchronization of
> all atomic clocks (in satellites and in Earth).
Each satellite broadcasts its time and three spatial positions.
Picking up the signals from four satellites allow you to solve a
matrix with four equations and four unknowns. These unknowns are the
receiver's time and three spatial positions relative to all the four
satellites. Therefore, there is no need to synchronize satellite time
with the ground if all satellites are synchronized among themselves.
Of course, the GPS can build in information about universal time, and
the precision of this time does not have to be as precise as what is
mistakenly claimed.
> Here is where SR and GR are used.
So, where does SR or GR come in?
> > You must have a horrible learning skill. All I can say is to try
> > harder. <shrug>
>
> I took the work to revise your links, trusting in you.
What do you mean by revising links?
> Make the
> precise reference to where in your links is addressed the use (or not
> use) of SR and GR in the prediction of clock time rate changes.
As I said, there still is no need for the nonsense of SR or GR in
GPS. <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
> Whether there is or not, you have made a claim.
>
> 1. The physicists said the clocks should be slowed down by
> 38 us/day.
>
> 2. The engineers ignored them.
>
> Do you stand by your claim?
Yes.
> Are the clocks slowed down or not?
That is a different subject of matter. <shrug>
> The topic isn't what SHOULD be done, the topic is
> what actually WAS done. You made a statement. Do you stand
> by it?
Yes.
Koobee Wublee
> On Aug 2, 9:33 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> The
> >The satellites do not have to synchronize with the ground. The satellites
> > only have to synchronize among themselves.
>
> I can see that you have been very busy lately further demonstrating
> your continuing ignorance. Just a question, if the
> "satellites do not have to synchronize with the ground", how does the
> moving GPS receiver in your car synchronize with any of the
> satellites?
Your answer can be found in the links below.
http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/theory.htm
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
> Don't tell me, it is a telepathic wave :-)
No, sorry to disappoint you. <shrug>
> This is why you have been missing turns by a mile?
Nonsense. <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
> On Aug 2, 9:09 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > To determine the position of the receiver, all you need is to solve a
> > matrix of four equations and four unknowns. The unknowns are time and
> > the three spatial components.
>
> You are, of course, making the assumption that time runs at the same
> rate at the source as at the receiver.
No, even if the flow of time is at a different rate, the receiver
always receives a signal instance in time and in position of the
satellite.
Sam Wormley
> Each satellite broadcasts its time and three spatial positions.
Wrong again Koobee...
Interface Control Document ICD-GPS-200D
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/IS-GPS-200D.pdf
Here--I put on the server some setail of the broadcast navigation message
http://edu-observatory.org/gps/ICD-GPS-200C_Fig20-1
Androcles
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:v%Hsi.1699$ug3.1094@trnddc06...
: "Sam Wormley" <swor...@mchsi.com> wrote in message
What is really funny is that if the constellation gained an hour or two
a day the receiver would still find its position with the same accuracy
because it only uses satellite time, having no atomic clock of its own.
As Uncle Stooopid says:
"1) GPS works.
2) Idiot. "
Little does he realise he's the idiot.
What's his other favourite unconnected irrelevancy?
The speed of light is finite, therefore time exists.
Time exists, therefore Schwartz is an idiot.
SR is correct in its domain of applicability. -- Roberts.
It's domain of applicability is the empty set.
What I'd like to know is how much time a geostationary
satellite gains/loses according to GR and SR.
Sam Wormley
_____________________________
All GPS receivers are in relative motion with respect to GPS satellites.
From the perspective of a GPS receiver, each satellite has a different
and continually changing relative velocity.
The satellite are essentially atomic clocks in orbit that additionally
transmit information about their orbits and where the are in those
orbits.
Pseudo-Range Navigation Solution Example
http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/notes/gps/gif/navigate.gif
Interface Control Document ICD-GPS-200D
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/IS-GPS-200D.pdf
Traveler
Hey, Wabnig. There's no need for you to get on your mighty horse. I
(unlike some of the others participating in this "debate", ahahaha...)
personally believe that clocks do run slower in a gravitational field
or under acceleration. And I actually do understand the reason that
they do. You and the Einstein dingleberries don't. And no, it's not
because Einstein said so and it's not because the equations say so.
What bothers me is that you assholes in the relativity community have
made many claims in the last century, which turned out to be complete
crackpottery.
The first bullshit claim that gets under my skin is the one where you
insisted that, unlike Newton, you understand the mechanism of gravity.
It's the one where mass curves spacetime and, as a result, curved
spacetime affects the motion of bodies. Problem is, nothing can move
in spacetime. Brian Green, the superstring crackpot at Columbia
University, is still repeating this crap, to this day. Nobody tells
the moron to shut the fuck up because you are all kissing each other's
ass. ahahaha...
The second bullshit claim is the one where clock slowing is equated
with time itself slowing down when anybody and their stupid uncle know
that time cannot vary by definition. I'm sure this will go over your
pointy head. ahahaha...
But what really pisses me off is that all this crap is used by
prominent physicists (e.g., Kip Thorne, Stephen Hawking, Richard
Feynman, David Deutsche, etc...) to claim that time travel is not
forbidden in GR even though GR uses spacetime, which is a block
universe model where nothing happens. Not even Einstein understood
this and that's supposedly his own fucking theory, for crying out
loud! ahahaha...
Heck, Einstein made a big deal out of entangled particles and FTL
propagation because he was too stupid to understand that space is an
illusion, even though Leibniz had explained it to everybody centuries
ago. Some genius, this Einstein god that you all worship. ahahaha...
AHAHAHA... ahahaha...
The_Man
Thanks, Sam.
On page 88 of the first link, it shows clearly both THAT there is a
relativisitc corrrection necessary and it shows how it is computed.
Anyone who knows ANYTHING about how the government works, it is this -
if the engineers "disregarded" anything in the specification, they
wouldn't get paid, and they would never get another government
contract.
They aren't paid to free-lance; they are paid to do EXACTLY what it
tells them to do in the specs.
Androcles
"Traveler" <trav...@noasskissers.net> wrote in message
news:o9o6b3t2fjb1k7r97...@4ax.com...
: On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:43:44 +0200, H. Wabnig <.... .-- .- -...
That's ok, in WW II the Brits told the Krauts our pilots could
see in the dark because they ate carrots, not because of radar.
Being dumb krauts like Wabnigga they believed it and coleslaw was
invented from sauerkraut and carrots.
: >Now comes the part for you, Lois,
Randy Poe
In fact, it is a point constantly driven in around here
with regard to specs, that every time you write a "should",
a statement about what something is supposed to do, then
there is going to be someone who has to test and certify
that it does exactly that.
- Randy
.-- .- -... -. .. --. @.-----.DOT.-- H. Wabnig
<trav...@noasskissers.net> wrote:
>........
> Problem is, nothing can move
>in spacetime.
I have seen that statement a while ago here,
wondering whether there is a hidden play on words.
It's a rather linguistic problem, is it?
Me remembers having heard that phrase very often,
in conjunction with a hand moving a piece of chalk
across a blackboard.
So what.
When you say that phrase is illegal or uncorrect,
you are just narrowing down on a restricted definition
of "moving in spacetime" meaning actual bodies.
Does a train move in spacetime or not?
Everything moves in spacetime, when movement is
represented by lines on the blackboard.
I don't want to steal your time, but what is your reasoning
behind your definitions, if you would care explaining.
If not, who cares.
w.
--
>What is the GPS carrier frequency:
>[ ] 1.023000000000 MHz theor. unaffected
>[ ] 1.022999999543 MHz rel. corrected
>
>Androcles, hanson, Pentcho Valev, they all refused to answer.
hanson
if you feel cranked from what follows *******]
>
>
"Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> tutored Wabnig in
news:MZJsi.17922$7c.1...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Traveler" <trav...@noasskissers.net> tutored Wabnig in
> news:o9o6b3t2fjb1k7r97...@4ax.com...
> :
H. Wabnig <.... .-- .- -... : -. .. --. @ .- --- -. DOT .- ->
>
Louis Savain Traveler <trav...@noasskissers.net> wrote:
> : >
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/180e00a6ecde00af?hl=en&
>
This is just another sordid example of the bankruptcy of REL
>
== mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL shit"
== *.edu and grantology ..................."does need REL - No shit"
== Promo, Sales & Movies..............."loves REL by the shitload"
== Jews protect it as cultural heritage whether "REL is shit or not".
> : >>>
See, there is nothing wrong with relativity if and when it is exercised
in those places where Einstein Dingleberries love to congregate.
.... ahahaha... AHAHAHA.... ahahanson
> : >>
ahahaha... This debate is funny as hell. Hanson is to be credited for
always hitting where it hurts the most. Can the Einstein Dingleberries
name one technological application other than the GPS (arguable) where
relativity is being used? For example, does NASA (or anybody else) use
GR to send spacecrafts to Mars or to any of the other bodies in the
solar system? Or is it all good old Newtonian physics? ahahaha...
> : >>
Nasty Little Truth About Space:
http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/nasty.htm#Space
Louis Savain
> : >
So there IS one application of RT, now you demand ANOTHER ONE?
Stupid, stupid Lois.
Stick your ass together with the notorious liar hanson,
who denies EVERY RT application, in spite of all evidence.
This is the manufacturer and originator of GPS:
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/
Here is what the manufacturer says:
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/gpssps1.pdf
hanson has the chuzpe to accuse his own governement
of telling fraudulent lies.
> : >
That's ok, in WW II the Brits told the Krauts our pilots could
see in the dark because they ate carrots, not because of radar.
Being dumb krauts like Wabnigga they believed it and coleslaw
was invented from sauerkraut and carrots.
>
... AHAHAHA... right on. Good analog, Andro. .... Wabbie has
that inner need to *believe* & to follow the sound of the bunch of
Einstein Dingleberries who are clanking around Albert's sphincter.
See, Wabie said : "Thank God that I am an atheist" & "Nobody
on the internet knows that I, Wabnig, am a dog"....ahahaha...
... Right Wabie?, or do YOU need references posted for you to
remember your own lamentations.... ahahahaha....
>
[Wabnigger to Louis]
Now comes the part for you, Lois,
answer the following question which hanson did not answer:
What is the GPS carrier frequency:
[ ] 1.023000000000 MHz theor. unaffected
[ ] 1.022999999543 MHz rel. corrected
Androcles, hanson, Pentcho Valve, they all refused to answer.
How about you, Lois?
Because you have been a good boy so far,
I offer you a little additional present:
http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ptti/ptti2002/paper20.pdf
Did you know that synchronizing clocks between fast
and high flying airplanes is a difficult task?
Now you know, I told you.
> :
ahahaha... Louis, listen.. of course it went over Wabnigger's head.
What do you expect. Wabie is an Kindergarten school teacher with
a hard-on to lament. Wabie does exactly what I pointed to initially.
First he thinks that what Einstein Dingleberries.... (who constantly
accuse each other of/for being wrong and stupid)... lament on the
internet about is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
and then (2) when he has creeping doubts he recites his Kindergarten
"Erfahrungen" and calls, of all pplaces, for the truth... the Government!
ahahahaha... The government which gave itself the legal right to lie.
ahahahaha... ahahaha...
>
ahahahaha.... "Now comes the part for you", Wabie.
Here is what you may not have no seen in my original post:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/180e00a6ecde00af?hl=en&
>
[hanson original; start]
The entire discussion about/over GPS & REL is split along
along the lines of the doers = engineers vs. the lamentators,
where these jonny-come-lately story tellers, being students,
teachers and academics/theorists do feel the need to garner
some belated glory of having contributed to the success of GPS.
The belated "me-too" whining of these story tellers is
understandable given human beings what they are.. ...
As can been seen the theorists have convinced themselves of
their artificial glory mission and they seem to hope to achieve that
goal by their vociferous repetations of singing their theoretical tales
about GPS, an event/system that was already here,... conceived-
designed-produced-tested and operated WITHOUT any need
nor use for SR nor GR whatsoever.... ahahaha...
This is just another sordid example of the bankruptcy of REL
(=SR/GR) in the use/application of/in the real world where
== mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL shit"
== *.edu and grantology ..................."does need REL - No shit"
== Promo, Sales & Movies..............."loves REL by the shitload"
== Jews protect it as cultural heritage whether "REL is shit or not".
See, there is nothing wrong with relativity if and when it is exercised
in those places where Einstein Dingleberries love to congregate.
.... ahahaha... AHAHAHA.... ahahanson
[hanson original; end]
>
So Wabbie,
why do you not lament "in those places where Einstein Dingleberries
love to congregate."? --- You will find your yearned for REL glory with
much more easily amongst them.... ahahaha... And then be also
grateful that you have been tutored by 3 posters who were nice enough
to have had fun on your account.
Thanks for the laughs, Einstein Dingleberry Wabnig.... ahahaha...
ahahaha... ahahanson
------- PS: for old times sake, Wabie... ahahaha... ---------
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/ae39ced850472741?hl=en&
>
wherein Helmut Wabnigsays:
"Who studies what Einstein said a hundred
years ago? It is not really relevant"
>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/msg/96c1fde68777bc9f
>
See ==3 == wherein
... Einstein himself, close to the end of his life in 1954 ,
said to Besso:
"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based
on the field concept, i. e., on continuous structures. In that
case nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation
theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics." -- A.E.
Therefore again, the best that can be said about Wabnig is that
he is a very bad teacher in his Kindergarten environment... ahaha...
Helmut, don't get mad and bent out of shape like you usually do.
Don't take it personally. Your nym here merely serves as an
example to demo the vile and rampant Einstein Dingleberryism.
You yourself are of course not important to begin with... ahahaha...
Thanks for the laughs... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... ahahahanson
hanson
news:OxJsi.17758$7c....@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
[Andro]
What is really funny is that if the constellation gained an hour or two
a day the receiver would still find its position with the same accuracy
because it only uses satellite time, having no atomic clock of its own.
>
As Uncle Stooopid [aka rect-Al Schwartz] says:
"1) GPS works.
2) Idiot. "
Little does he, [rect-Al], realise he's the idiot.
What's his other favourite unconnected irrelevancy?
The speed of light is finite, therefore time exists.
Time exists, therefore Schwartz is an idiot.
>
"SR is correct in its domain of applicability." -by- Roberts.
It's domain of applicability is the empty set.
What I'd like to know is how much time a geostationary
satellite gains/loses according to GR and SR.
>
[hanson]
.... ahahaha... The "government" knows... The government
which rect-Al hates and Tom Roberts worked for... and
to which Wabnigger has taken refuge to, to find the "thruth".
The only truth that government has is that it gives itself the
legal right to lie... ahahahaha... See here how he did it.
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/11de8b918ae17a01?hl=en&
>
BTW, Andro, your carrots / radar vignette in here is superb.
>
ahahaha.... ahahahanson
Cygnus X-1
(in article <1186117788....@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>):
> On Aug 2, 4:37 pm, Cygnus X-1 <cygnu...@mac.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 2 Aug 2007 03:13:05 -0400, Koobee Wublee wrote:
>
>>> The GPS was first designed with physicists as consultants using the
>>> special and the general theories of relativity (SR and GR). That
>>> proved to be a mistake. The engineers involved in the design quickly
>>> overturned the nonsense proposed by the physicists. For the ones who
>>> are interested, read the references below.
>>
>>> http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/theory.htm
>>
>>> --- Researched and brought to us by Dirk Van de moortel
>>
>>> http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
>>> http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
>>
>>> --- Researched and brought to us by Sam Wormley
>>
>>> Or for the layman's sake, just visit Androcles' website on GPS below.
>>
>>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
>>
>>> GPS now works without any of the nonsense introduced by SR and GR at a
>>> fraction of cost originally intended by the physicists. Engineers
>>> once again are proven to be orders of magnitudes more intelligent than
>>> physicists. <shrug> In the meantime, the physicists are still crying
>>> over spilled milk with Professor Taylor's and Professor Ahsby's BS
>>> write-ups on GPS. <shrug>
>>
>> It is ridiculous to argue this.
>
> I agree, but let's see how ridiculous you are making yourself out of.
>
>> It's my understanding that the entire computation is done in the
>> receiver.
>
> To determine the position of the receiver, all you need is to solve a
> matrix of four equations and four unknowns. The unknowns are time and
> the three spatial components.
>
>> The satellite clock operates at some frequency that is just
>> a parameter in the calculation.
>
> Since time is one of the unknown to be solved by each receiver, it is
> utterly stupid to talk about the absolute time as long as all the
> satellites are synchronized.
>
>> Build your own receiver with your algorithm and DEMONSTRATE it.
>
> Or better yet, read and understand Androcles' website below.
>
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
This is not a demonstration. At best it is an hypothesis. An actual
experiment is the final arbiter.
>
>> I suspect you could even purchase some components without the algorithm
>> installed so you wouldn't be building from scratch.
>
> You suspicion is indeed correct. <shrug> I have no time to
> demonstrate your ignorance to yourself. <shrug> No hard feelings.
>
The burden of the demonstration is on you and/or your supporters.
There are many more demonstrations in the published literature that you
are wrong.
Tom
--
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1
cygn...@mac.com
"They're trained to believe, not to know. Belief can be manipulated.
Only knowledge is dangerous." --Frank Herbert, "Dune Messiah"
Androcles
:[ ******* TEST: you are one of Einstein's Dingleberries
I don't refuse to answer Wabnigga, I ignore the stupid prat.
Androcles
: "Androcles" <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote in message
One of my favourite gems:
http://xkcd.com/258/
Androcles
"Cygnus X-1" <cygn...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C2D9151D...@news.verizon.net...
: On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 01:09:48 -0400, Koobee Wublee wrote
: (in article <1186117788....@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>):
: > Or better yet, read and understand Androcles' website below.
: >
: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
:
: This is not a demonstration. At best it is an hypothesis. An actual
: experiment is the final arbiter.
Time dilation is an hypothesis, and a disproven one at that.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
If you want an actual experiment, Cassini runs on UTC.
http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/saturn-time.cfm
Now call that a hypothesis, you wanker.
Eric Gisse
SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>
> um...
> I am *much* too modest for that ;-)
>
> Dirk Vdm
Though the idea remains. I am at the point where I could just start
copying and pasting responses to the repeated idiocy.
Eric Gisse
> On Aug 3, 1:21 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
>
> > Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > > Each satellite broadcasts its time and three spatial positions.
>
> > Wrong again Koobee...
>
> > Interface Control Document ICD-GPS-200D
> > http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/IS-GPS-200D.pdf
>
> > Here--I put on the server some setail of the broadcast navigation message
> > http://edu-observatory.org/gps/ICD-GPS-200C_Fig20-1
>
> Thanks, Sam.
>
> On page 88 of the first link, it shows clearly both THAT there is a
> relativisitc corrrection necessary and it shows how it is computed.
It is funny that Koobee Wublee looks at the GPS spec hosted on a US
government server and sees exactly what we have been telling him for
months and years, and that instead of admitting he is wrong he simply
covers himself with another layer of denial.
I have no idea what he thinks he is going to accomplish, but I'm sure
there is a psychology PhD thesis lurking around here somewhere.
[...]
Dono
> On Aug 3, 8:28 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> > um...
> > I am *much* too modest for that ;-)
>
> > Dirk Vdm
>
> Though the idea remains. I am at the point where I could just start
> copying and pasting responses to the repeated idiocy.
What you want is the very funny ones, like Dirk lates answer to KW's
idiocy.
Cygnus X-1
(in article <vzOsi.19232$7c.1...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>):
From the Cassini web site:
otherwise noted, all times on this website have been converted to U.S.
Pacific Time - the time zone of Cassini mission control at NASA's Jet
Propulsion
1) The times on the WEB SITE are reported in UTC.
2) They are CONVERTED from other time systems. Makes it easier for the
controllers to show up at work at the correct time for spacecraft
events.
3) If the time on the spacecraft was UTC, why do they need these other
time systems?
>
> Now call that a hypothesis, you wanker.
>
--
The_Man
Maybe he can take after Androcles, and try to screw up Maxwell's
equations, too....
>
> [...]- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Cygnus X-1
(in article <vzOsi.19232$7c.1...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>):
>
while the relativistic effects are not significant long-term for
Cassini clocks, they nonetheless can detect relativistic effects:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003Natur.425..374B
Eric Gisse
I've asked him if he really believes that Faraday's law is E = -dB/dt,
and he has yet to respond to the question.
Eric Gisse
I really don't see why you think your method is simpler than simply
tweaking the onboard clocks a little before launch.
va...@icmf.inf.cu
> On Aug 3, 5:05 am, va...@icmf.inf.cu wrote:
>
> > On 3 ago, 00:01, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > There is no need to synchronize the clocks of the satellites with the
> > > receiver. Therefore, this lack of such requirement eliminates the
> > > needs for the nonsense of SR and GR. <shrug>
>
> > successful function is based on the very precise synchronization of
> > all atomic clocks (in satellites and in Earth).
>
> Each satellite broadcasts its time and three spatial positions.
> matrix with four equations and four unknowns. These unknowns are the
> receiver's time and three spatial positions relative to all the four
> satellites. Therefore, there is no need to synchronize satellite time
> with the ground if all satellites are synchronized among themselves.
>
When I mentioned clocks in Earth I am not refering to the GPS
receptors, but to the GPS control stations in Earth. You didn't know
that they exist? Surely you also don't know how the very precise
synchronization of atomic clocks are obtained. Here is where SR and GR
is used. Previous to its launching to orbit every atomic clock is
adjusted taking into account the predictions of SR and GR about its
time rate change when in orbit. The opposite change is made in Earth
(this is the adjust I mentioned before) obtained the final result of a
clock with the time correspondig to the unique inertial system used in
GPS, the correspondig to the centre of mass of all bodies involved
(the centre of Earth).
> Of course, the GPS can build in information about universal time, and
> the precision of this time does not have to be as precise as what is
> mistakenly claimed.
>
The problem is not the access to any time, the problem is to maintain
atomic clocks time rate corresponding to the unique inertial system
mentioned above. And SR and GR predictions are used for this, as I
explained above.
> > Here is where SR and GR are used.
>
> So, where does SR or GR come in?
>
Read above.
> > > You must have a horrible learning skill. All I can say is to try
> > > harder. <shrug>
>
> > I took the work to revise your links, trusting in you.
>
> What do you mean by revising links?
>
To read the materials pointed by the links (included Androcles one!)
> > Make the
> > precise reference to where in your links is addressed the use (or not
> > use) of SR and GR in the prediction of clock time rate changes.
>
> As I said, there still is no need for the nonsense of SR or GR in
> GPS. <shrug>
As I suspected, you don't read yourself what you recommend others to
read. Read Asby's papers if you want really to know all about GPS
related with Relativity. But don't think that all is OK between GPS
and Relativity. Many nonsense of SR and GR is really not used in GPS!
Ask to an orthodox relativist how it is posible that SR predictions,
that correspond to a flat space-time can be so successful in the
warped by Earth space-time. Ask also them how it is possible that the
inertial frame used is the UNIQUE compatible with the time rate
behavior of all clocks in the GPS. Ask also them why all relative
velocities between clocks are totally useless in GPS. As you see, I am
just now helping you, at least in part.
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
va...@icmf.inf.cu
> "hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
>
> news:v%Hsi.1699$ug3.1094@trnddc06...
Hello Androcles. Starting with v and r as the velocity and position of
a geostacionary satellite in the inertial system corresponding to the
centre of mass of bodies involved (centre of Earth)(that surely you
can compute easily), apply the following factor
sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)/(1+ (GM)/(r(c^2)))
G:Newtonian gravitation constant; c:VACUUM light speed; M:Earth mass.
to the time rate of any clock at rest in that inertial system.
The formula is only aproximate up to an homogeneous, static and
spherical Earth. GPS exactitude is better, taking into account more
exact Earth's form and rotation.
I obtained that formula using only 1905 Relativity, with space
separated from time, with Euclidean Geometry, without tensors...and
applying Newton's laws! Do you know what is an Inertial System for
1905 Einstein? A system of co-ordinates where the equations of
Newtonian mechanics hold good.
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
va...@icmf.inf.cu
the time rate of a clock at rest in the inertial system, but I forgot
to say on the Earth's centre modelled by a material point.
RVHG (Rafael Valls Hidalgo-Gato)
Androcles
: On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 19:08:11 -0400, Androcles wrote
: (in article <vzOsi.19232$7c.1...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>):
:
: >
: > "Cygnus X-1" <cygn...@mac.com> wrote in message
: > news:0001HW.C2D9151D...@news.verizon.net...
: >> On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 01:09:48 -0400, Koobee Wublee wrote
: >> (in article <1186117788....@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>):
: >
: >>> Or better yet, read and understand Androcles' website below.
: >>>
: >>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
: >>
: >> This is not a demonstration. At best it is an hypothesis. An actual
: >> experiment is the final arbiter.
: >
: >
: > Time dilation is an hypothesis, and a disproven one at that.
: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
:
: > If you want an actual experiment, Cassini runs on UTC.
: > http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/saturn-time.cfm
:
: From the Cassini web site:
: otherwise noted, all times on this website have been converted to U.S.
: Pacific Time - the time zone of Cassini mission control at NASA's Jet
: Propulsion
: 1) The times on the WEB SITE are reported in UTC.
: 2) They are CONVERTED from other time systems. Makes it easier for the
: controllers to show up at work at the correct time for spacecraft
: events.
"For example, Cassini begins transmitting data from its first close Titan
flyby at 00:16 Orbiter UTC on Oct. 27. The first signal arrives at Earth one
hour and 14 minutes later at 01:30 Ground UTC on Oct. 27.
Adjusting for local time, the signals arrive on the screens at mission
control in Pasadena, Calif. at 6:30 p.m. PDT"
Which are you, fucking stupid or fucking blind?
: 3) If the time on the spacecraft was UTC, why do they need these other
: time systems?
That answers my question, you don't even know what time zone you live in.
Carry on jerking off.
: >
: > Now call that a hypothesis, you wanker.
: >
Eric Gisse
Wow, doubly wrong.
1) Special relativity does not contain G.
2) Special relativity is not Euclidean.
You don't know what you are talking about, and it shows.
[...]
Androcles
: On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 19:08:11 -0400, Androcles wrote
: (in article <vzOsi.19232$7c.1...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>):
:
: >
: > "Cygnus X-1" <cygn...@mac.com> wrote in message
: > news:0001HW.C2D9151D...@news.verizon.net...
: >> On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 01:09:48 -0400, Koobee Wublee wrote
: >> (in article <1186117788....@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>):
: >
: >>> Or better yet, read and understand Androcles' website below.
: >>>
: >>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
: >>
: >> This is not a demonstration. At best it is an hypothesis. An actual
: >> experiment is the final arbiter.
: >
: >
: > Time dilation is an hypothesis, and a disproven one at that.
: > http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
: > If you want an actual experiment, Cassini runs on UTC.
: > http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/saturn-time.cfm
: >
: > Now call that a hypothesis, you wanker.
: >
: >
: while the relativistic effects are not significant long-term for
: Cassini clocks, they nonetheless can detect relativistic effects:
:
: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003Natur.425..374B
"the parameter gamma is unity in general relativity but zero in the
newtonian
model of gravity."
That's a downright fucking lie, typical Harvard bullshit.
"Our result, gamma = 1 + (2.1 +/- 2.3) в 10-5, agrees with the predictions
of
standard general relativity with a sensitivity that approaches the level at
which, theoretically, deviations are expected in some cosmological models."
Now come on, fuckhead, (2.1 +/- 2.3) is -0.2 to 4.4.
"Officer, I was not travelling at 44 mph in a 25 mph zone, I was going
backwards
at 2 mph in some cosmological models."
A wanker like you who doesn't even know what time zone he lives in
could detect flying pink elephants when everyone else knows they
are bright green. Carry on jerking off.
hanson
>
Cygnut aka "Cygnus X-1" <cygn...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C2D94273...@news.verizon.net...
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 19:08:11 -0400, Androcles wrote
> (in article <vzOsi.19232$7c.1...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk>):
>> "Cygnus X-1" <cygn...@mac.com> wrote in message
>> news:0001HW.C2D9151D...@news.verizon.net...
>>
>>> (in article <1186117788....@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com>):
>>>> Or better yet, read and understand Androcles' website below.
>>>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
>>>
>>> This is not a demonstration. At best it is an hypothesis.
>>> An actual experiment is the final arbiter.
>>
>> Time dilation is an hypothesis, and a disproven one at that.
>> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
>> If you want an actual experiment, Cassini runs on UTC.
>> http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/operations/saturn-time.cfm
>> Now call that a hypothesis, you wanker.
>>
> while the relativistic effects are not significant long-term for
> Cassini clocks, they nonetheless can detect relativistic effects:
> http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003Natur.425..374B
> Tom -- Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy
> http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1
>
ahahaha... So, Andro got you by the balls and almost made
you lose your beytsim because you have admitted that "the
relativistic effects are not significant"... So, why then are you
Einstein Dingleberries making the such a big deal about it?
Thanks for the laughs, Tom.... ahahaha... ahahahanson
>
>
PS:
Here is the broader picture, analog to your very noble crusade to
teach the bible beaters the religion of physics.... hahahahaha:
>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/96a0fddc717775d7?hl=en&
>
wherein it says:
This is just another sordid example of the bankruptcy of REL
(=SR/GR) in the use/application of/in the real world where
> :
== mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL shit"
== *.edu and grantology ..................."does need REL - No shit"
== Promo, Sales & Movies..............."loves REL by the shitload"
== Jews protect it as cultural heritage whether "REL is shit or not".
>
See, there is nothing wrong with relativity if and when it is exercised
in those places where Einstein Dingleberries love to congregate.
>
Now take the Einstein Dingleberry test:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/11de8b918ae17a01?hl=en&
.... ahahaha... AHAHAHA.... ahahanson
Koobee Wublee
> On Aug 3, 1:21 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
> > Interface Control Document ICD-GPS-200D
> > http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/IS-GPS-200D.pdf
>
> > Here--I put on the server some setail of the broadcast navigation message
> > http://edu-observatory.org/gps/ICD-GPS-200C_Fig20-1
>
> On page 88 of the first link, it shows clearly both THAT there is a
> relativisitc corrrection necessary and it shows how it is computed.
No, this is recommended correction. This section talks about fine-
tuning in obtaining information broadcasted by the satellite. The SR
and GR corrections vigorously treated by professors Taylor and Ashby
does not come in here. This particular relativistic effect is dynamic
in nature in which no synchronization is required. As I told Mr. Poe,
discussion gravitational time dilation is another subject of matter.
In the meantime, you need to stay with what proposed SR and GR
corrections are championed academically by professors Taylor and Ashby
--- none found in GPS designs. <shrug>
The fact remains that you only need to solve a 4-by-4 matrix to obtain
your receiver's relative time and position with respect to each
satellite. <shrug>
> Anyone who knows ANYTHING about how the government works, it is this -
> if the engineers "disregarded" anything in the specification, they
> wouldn't get paid, and they would never get another government
> contract.
Engineers will find ways to make the product work with the lowest cost
and lowest effort. For example, Intel reference design for the
motherboard would always go through redesign by Dell and other OEMs to
squeeze the last cent out of the design.
> They aren't paid to free-lance; they are paid to do EXACTLY what it
> tells them to do in the specs.
Engineers are paid to produce the product according to specification
with the lowest cost and the shortest amount of time. <shrug>
Koobee Wublee
> On 3 ago, 12:06, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Each satellite broadcasts its time and three spatial positions.
> > Picking up the signals from four satellites allow you to solve a
> > matrix with four equations and four unknowns. These unknowns are the
> > receiver's time and three spatial positions relative to all the four
> > satellites. Therefore, there is no need to synchronize satellite time
> > with the ground if all satellites are synchronized among themselves.
>
> When I mentioned clocks in Earth I am not refering to the GPS
> receptors, but to the GPS control stations in Earth. You didn't know
> that they exist?
You are hopelessly ignorant.
He who know not and does not knows he knows not is a fool. Shun
Hidalgo-Gato.
Eric Gisse
[...]
> Engineers will find ways to make the product work with the lowest cost
> and lowest effort. For example, Intel reference design for the
> motherboard would always go through redesign by Dell and other OEMs to
> squeeze the last cent out of the design.
But they still obey the specs.
Which is the point you are missing: the relativistic corrections are a
part of the specs, not your matrix crap.
Koobee Wublee
> On Aug 3, 7:46 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Engineers will find ways to make the product work with the lowest cost
> > and lowest effort. For example, Intel reference design for the
> > motherboard would always go through redesign by Dell and other OEMs to
> > squeeze the last cent out of the design.
>
> But they still obey the specs.
Yes, the following is not really a spec, but a reference procedure to
obtain the signal timing.
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/IS-GPS-200D.pdf
> Which is the point you are missing: the relativistic corrections are a
> part of the specs, not your matrix crap.
These are very strong words. Well, the 'matrix crap' is used in the
GPS receiver design as described by the following article dug up by
your buddy moortel. Read it, and ask yourself where the SR and GR
corrections are.
http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/theory.htm
For someone without even a BS degree nor any experience, you are just
really throwing your sh*t all over the place. <shrug>
Sam Wormley
Perhaps Dale can give you some insight, Koobee Wublee.
Eric Gisse
> On Aug 3, 8:53 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 3, 7:46 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Engineers will find ways to make the product work with the lowest cost
> > > and lowest effort. For example, Intel reference design for the
> > > motherboard would always go through redesign by Dell and other OEMs to
> > > squeeze the last cent out of the design.
>
> > But they still obey the specs.
>
> Yes, the following is not really a spec, but a reference procedure to
> obtain the signal timing.
>
> http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/gps/geninfo/IS-GPS-200D.pdf
>
> > Which is the point you are missing: the relativistic corrections are a
> > part of the specs, not your matrix crap.
>
> These are very strong words. Well, the 'matrix crap' is used in the
> GPS receiver design as described by the following article dug up by
> your buddy moortel. Read it, and ask yourself where the SR and GR
> corrections are.
>
> http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/theory.htm
...and how is this an authoritative resource?
Apparently you never learned how to do proper research, as evidenced
by referencing this site and Androcles in support of your arguments.
Not once have you pointed *US* to the GPS specs in support of your
arguments.
>
> For someone without even a BS degree nor any experience, you are just
> really throwing your sh*t all over the place. <shrug>
Your degree is in what, again? Your experience is what, again?
Androcles, the guy you continually cite, thinks that Faraday's law is
E = -dB/dt and you are OK with it. Androcles is stupid for saying it,
and you are stupid for agreeing with what he says.
Y.Porat
> On Aug 2, 6:10 am, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 2, 3:13 am, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > The GPS was first designed with physicists as consultants using the
> > > special and the general theories of relativity (SR and GR). That
> > > proved to be a mistake. The engineers involved in the design quickly
> > > overturned the nonsense proposed by the physicists. For the ones who
> > > are interested, read the references below.
>
> > should be set to tick at 38 us/day slower than the earth clocks.
> > Are you claiming that this was "overturned" and the satellite
> > clock frequency is set the same as the earth clock frequency?
>
> There is no need to impose such a requirement on each satellite. The
> satellites do not have to synchronize with the ground. The satellites
> only have to synchronize among themselves. It is much simpler to
> synchronize among themselves in which no nonsense of SR or GR is
> employed to do so. <shrug>
>
> The explanation is in the links I gave you. For a self-claimed PhD,
> you are extremely mentally challenged. It seems to be a common trait
> among the PhDs in these science newsgroups. <shrug>
---------------
the contribution of engineers to the GPS
is ways moreimportant than of qm scientists
and thr GR is completely negliagble
(if at all needed) for GPS
ATB
Y.Porat
---------------------
Koobee Wublee
Yes, Mr. Porat. You are very wise unlike these clowns who cannot even
understand the concept of solving four unknowns with four independent
equations where each equation contains all the data needed from one
GPS satellite.
Koobee Wublee
> On Aug 3, 8:11 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > These are very strong words. Well, the 'matrix crap' is used in the
> > GPS receiver design as described by the following article dug up by
> > your buddy moortel. Read it, and ask yourself where the SR and GR
> > corrections are.
>
> >http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/theory.htm
>
> ...and how is this an authoritative resource?
The above link should be very professionally intuitive. For the
layman, Androcles' website is a very good place to start.
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
Or one of the ubiquitous links brought to you by Wormlike also
contains the ranging equation that explains how to apply the data
received from four satellites to solve the unknown of the receiver's
relative time and position to the four satellites.
> Apparently you never learned how to do proper research, as evidenced
> by referencing this site and Androcles in support of your arguments.
> Not once have you pointed *US* to the GPS specs in support of your
> arguments.
After all, you have no college degree and no experience. How can you
criticize anyone with degrees and many years of experience? Your
statements above do not make just any sense.
> Your degree is in what, again? Your experience is what, again?
Well, it is none of your concern. You should have figured that out by
now if you have any intelligence. <shrug>
> Androcles, the guy you continually cite, thinks that Faraday's law is
> E = -dB/dt and you are OK with it. Androcles is stupid for saying it,
> and you are stupid for agreeing with what he says.
Well, I don't really care what Androcles' position is on other
subject. After all, he agrees with you on the Apollo moon landing
claim in which I find way too many fallacies. However, on the subject
of GPS, I support his position. <shrug>
Eric Gisse
hahahahahahhahahaah
HE CANNOT EVEN GRASP BASIC ELECTROMAGNETIC THEORY AND YOU TREAT HIM AS
AN AUTHORITATIVE RESOURCE ON THE GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM!
GOD I love this newsgroup. Sure, folks like Lewis Black or Bill Mahr
can make me laugh pretty damn hard but you guys...holy fucking shit.
Eric Gisse
BZZT! WRONG!
Atomic clocks do not work according to classical rules.
>
> and thr GR is completely negliagble
> (if at all needed) for GPS
BZZT! WRONG!
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/gpssps1.pdf
>
> ATB
> Y.Porat
> ---------------------
.-- .- -... -. .. --. @.-----.DOT.-- H. Wabnig
<Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
snip crap
>
>
>I don't refuse to answer Wabnigga, I ignore the stupid prat.
>
BAAAAhahahaa (your sheep laughing at you, Andro)
Just answer ONE single question, Andro, just set one x
Mettette una crocetta
> A Question for the anti-relativists:
> What is the GPS carrier frequency?
>[ ] 1.023000000000 MHz (theor. unaffected)
>[ ] 1.022999999543 MHz (rel. corrected)
You cannot answer, Andro?
Total brain blockade?
Oh shit, it's bad to be trapped, is it, Andro?
hanson, come on, help him.
You don't need to spew a 100 lines just make one x.
Eat the humble pie, crouch to the cross,
in case you are deficient of x-es, here is one for you
to cut and paste
x
Now, hanson, Andro, Pentcho,
This is the the moment of truth.
w.
--
> A Question for the anti-relativists:
> What is the GPS carrier frequency?
>[ ] 1.023000000000 MHz (theor. unaffected)
>[ ] 1.022999999543 MHz (rel. corrected)
.-- .- -... -. .. --. @.-----.DOT.-- H. Wabnig
wrote:
>---------------
>the contribution of engineers to the GPS
>is ways moreimportant than of qm scientists
Nice statement.
Ahhhh... me s'n engineer.
I like you, Porat.
hanson and Androcles like you too.
(They are engineers, ya now?)
>
>and thr GR is completely negliagble
>(if at all needed) for GPS
>
>ATB
>Y.Porat
>---------------------
Oh, shit, Porrie, you spoiled it.
Cygnus X-1
(in article <WzSsi.74$zg3.50@trnddc04>):
The fact that they don't need to record spacecraft events to that high
precision does not mean that relativistic effects are not measurable.
*Competent* engineers can actually build things that work based on
their knowledge of the physical world. 'Andro' has refused to
demonstrate this.
Without you or 'Andro' presenting such a demonstration or experiment,
spewing your claims around online are the intellectual equivalent of
'wanking' (Andro's term).
I'll keep an eye out for when you can actually DO something with your
alleged knowledge.
Tom
--
Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy
http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1
Androcles
: On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 23:41:42 -0400, hanson wrote
Go on then, measure it, fuckhead.
: *Competent* engineers can actually build things that work based on
: their knowledge of the physical world.
Yeah, I help build this submarine,
http://www.chdt.org.uk/images/ZZ_1160137781_Ocelot2.jpg
this plane,
http://tinyurl.com/2772tn
this flight simulator,
http://www.link-miles.co.uk/images/picright.jpg
was QA manager for this arm in 1984-87,
http://www.americanrobot.com/products_merlin_robots.html
and a lot of other things besides.
What have you built, fuckhead?
'Andro' has refused to
: demonstrate this.
Bullshit, you lying cunt, you only had to ask and I gave a demonstration
here:
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Smart/Smart.htm
:
: Without you or 'Andro' presenting such a demonstration or experiment,
: spewing your claims around online are the intellectual equivalent of
: 'wanking' (Andro's term).
You've had the demonstration, wanker. What have you or the prat
Einstein got to offer? A fucking "thought experiment", you stooopid cunt?
: I'll keep an eye out for when you can actually DO something with your
: alleged knowledge.
We are waiting to see what you've done, little boy.
'Cygnut' is trained to believe, not to know. Belief can be manipulated.
Only knowledge is dangerous and he doesn't have any."
Keep on pulling your pudding, wanker.
[Andro 5 -- Cygnut 0]
hanson
> which starts with
>
a) [ ******* TEST: you are one of Einstein's Dingleberries
if you feel cranked from what follows *******]
> -----------
b) [ *** RESULT: Wabnig is one of Einstein's Dingleberries
since he cranked himself and keeps lamenting ***]
>
"H. Wabnig" <.... .-- .- -... -. .. --. @ .- --- -. DOT .- -> wabniggered in
message news:q9a8b3toqelo0bvoa...@4ax.com...
> "Androcles" > <Engi...@hogwarts.physics> wrote:
> snip Wabnig's crap
I don't refuse to answer Wabnigga, I ignore the stupid prat.
>>
[Wabnigger]
> BAAAAhahahaa (your sheep laughing at you, Andro)
>
[hanson]
So, Wabie, you now admit to be sheep, a herd animal
that mindlessly follows his shepard Albert... ahahaha...
Figures!.... Bad scene, Wabie... ahahaha...
>
[Wabnigger]
> Just answer ONE single question, Andro, just set one x
> Mettette una crocetta
>
[hanson]
Why should Andro, nor anyone else for that matter, answer
... ahahaha... Wabie, one of the reasons why nobody does
maybe that you give the answer to your own question and
you ask others to make up your feeble mind for yourself.
... To boot, Helm, you did NOT have to post your 4 liner below
if you had studied and comprehended Andro's website which
answers and explains your quandary LONG before you had
even read that Dingleberry 4-liner which you have read
somewhere & decide to pasted it... ahaha... Your 4-stranded
Dingleberry is nothing but a useless lamentation by an Einstein
Dingleberry teacher... But, here's the beef, Wabie, FACTS:
>
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
>
[Wabnigger]
>> A Question for the anti-relativists:
>> What is the GPS carrier frequency?
>>[ ] 1.023000000000 MHz (theor. unaffected)
>>[ ] 1.022999999543 MHz (rel. corrected)
>
[hanson]
Do you how dense you are, Wabie, to post that choice?
Hint:... Well, never mind. You are not equipped with
your mentality in your Kindergarten environment to
comprehend it, since you can't even take the hint that
there must be good reason why NO Einstein Dingleberry
cohort of yours came to your aid. ... See, they, unlike
you, Wabie, do not want to embarrass themselves so
blatantly in public, like you constantly do... ahahaha....
>
[Wabbie]
> You cannot answer, Andro?
> Total brain blockade?
> Oh shit, it's bad to be trapped, is it, Andro?
> hanson, come on, help him.
>
[hanson]
Andro needs no help. Unlike you Andro knows how to take
care himself, and he does not need my help like you do.
So, first thing first, Wabbie, LEARN from Andro who was
professionally and instrumentally involved in the use and
applications of how GPS works, not like you who is nothing
but a lamenter & citer of websites... Here's the beef:
>
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
>
[Wabbie]
> You don't need to spew a 100 lines just make one x.
> Eat the humble pie, crouch to the cross,
> in case you are deficient of x-es, here is one for you
> to cut and paste
> x
>
[hanson]
OK, as you wish, Wabbie. Here is your "x" unfolded
>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/11de8b918ae17a01?hl=en&
wherein it has all been explained to you... even the crucial
background of the issue which is.. "that this is just another
sordid example of the bankruptcy of REL (=SR/GR) in the
use/application of/in the real world where
>
== mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL shit"
== *.edu and grantology ..................."does need REL - No shit"
== Promo, Sales & Movies..............."loves REL by the shitload"
== Jews protect it as cultural heritage whether "REL is shit or not".
>
[Wabbie]
> Now, hanson, Andro, Pentcho,
> This is the the moment of truth.
>
[hanson]
Of course it's your own Einstein Dingleberry truth... ahaha..
about which you are two faced to boot, because you also
said:
>
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/11de8b918ae17a01?hl=en&
>
::: Wabnig::: "Who studies what Einstein said a hundred
::: Wabnig::: years ago? It is not really relevant"
>
See, how you are wabniggering with a vengeance?
>
Therefore again, the best that can be said about Wabnig is that
he is a very bad teacher in his Kindergarten environment... ahaha...
Helmut, don't get mad and bent out of shape like you usually do.
Don't take it personally. Your nym here merely serves as an
example to demo the vile and rampant Einstein Dingleberryism.
You yourself are of course not important to begin with... ahahaha...
But you obviuosly go mad.. since you passed the test with flying
colors, and you now vociferously keep barking & baahing in the
hope to cover up that you are one of Einstein's Dingleberries...
Thanks for the laughs... AHAHAHA... ahahaha... ahahahanson
Paul B. Andersen
> "Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1186060255....@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> : The "nonsense" was, among other things, that the space clocks
> : should be set to tick at 38 us/day slower than the earth clocks.
> : Are you claiming that this was "overturned" and the satellite
> : clock frequency is set the same as the earth clock frequency?
> Engineers know that they have to keep all satellite clocks
> in synch for the system to work, so they may as well upload
> ground time regularly and under computer control to do so because
> individual satellites have a different rate of clock drift as well as
> different orbits.
This is actually correct!
The satellite clock drift is less than 10^-12, which will keep the clocks in synch
within the required 100 ns between each time the clock offset is uploaded,
- provided that the clocks are pre adjusted with the 4.4647*10^-10 GR-correction.
If they weren't, they would drift off sync after few minutes and it would be impossible
to keep all satellite clocks in synch (within 100ns), as Androcles so correctly point
out they must be.
Paul
Dirk Van de moortel
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@guesswhathia.no> wrote in message news:46B4DBBB...@guesswhathia.no...
> Androcles wrote:
>> "Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1186060255....@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>> : The "nonsense" was, among other things, that the space clocks
>> : should be set to tick at 38 us/day slower than the earth clocks.
>> : Are you claiming that this was "overturned" and the satellite
>> : clock frequency is set the same as the earth clock frequency?
>
>> Engineers know that they have to keep all satellite clocks
>> in synch for the system to work, so they may as well upload
>> ground time regularly and under computer control to do so because
>> individual satellites have a different rate of clock drift as well as
>> different orbits.
>
> This is actually correct!
A dangerous thing to say to an insane person.
> The satellite clock drift is less than 10^-12, which will keep the clocks in synch
> within the required 100 ns between each time the clock offset is uploaded,
> - provided that the clocks are pre adjusted with the 4.4647*10^-10 GR-correction.
> If they weren't, they would drift off sync after few minutes and it would be impossible
> to keep all satellite clocks in synch (within 100ns), as Androcles so correctly point
> out they must be.
An even more dangerous thing to say to an insane person :-O
Duck & Cover!
Dirk Vdm
hanson
> which starts with
>
a) [ ******* TEST: you are one of Einstein's Dingleberries
if you feel cranked from what follows *******]
> -----------
b) [ *** RESULT: Tom is one of Einstein's Dingleberries
since he cranked himself and keeps lamenting ***]
>
Tom, "Cygnus X-1" <cygn...@mac.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C2DA1F08...@news.verizon.net...
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/11de8b918ae17a01?hl=en&
>> .... ahahaha... AHAHAHA.... ahahanson
>
[Cygnut cranked himself and weasels now
after test showed him to be an Einstein Dingleberry]]
>
The fact that they don't need to record spacecraft events to that high
precision does not mean that relativistic effects are not measurable.
*Competent* engineers can actually build things that work based on
their knowledge of the physical world. 'Andro' has refused to
demonstrate this.
Without you or 'Andro' presenting such a demonstration or experiment,
spewing your claims around online are the intellectual equivalent of
'wanking' (Andro's term).
>
I'll keep an eye out for when you can actually DO something with your
> alleged knowledge.
> Tom
> --
[hanson]
.... ahahaha... yeah, yeah, yeah... keep an eye on me, Tom...
it will benefit you greatly... At least, once you get on my band
wagon it will make you accept into which group you do belong
to, which you obviously have not realizes yet. Here is the
template, for your enefit, which says that in the real world....
>>
== mil/indust. Eng, R&D....................."does not need REL shit"
== *.edu and grantology ..................."does need REL - No shit"
== Promo, Sales & Movies..............."loves REL by the shitload"
== Jews protect it as cultural heritage whether "REL is shit or not".
>>
See you around and thanks for the laughs, ED-Tom.... ahahaha...
ahahaha... ahahanson
>
Androcles
"Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b....@guesswhathia.no> wrote in message
news:46B4DBBB...@guesswhathia.no...
: > "Randy Poe" <poespa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
: > news:1186060255....@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
: > : The "nonsense" was, among other things, that the space clocks
: > : should be set to tick at 38 us/day slower than the earth clocks.
: > : Are you claiming that this was "overturned" and the satellite
: > : clock frequency is set the same as the earth clock frequency?
:
: > Engineers know that they have to keep all satellite clocks
: > in synch for the system to work, so they may as well upload
: > ground time regularly and under computer control to do so because
: > individual satellites have a different rate of clock drift as well as
: > different orbits.
:
: This is actually correct!
Of course. Everything I say is correct.
: The satellite clock drift is less than 10^-12, which will keep the clocks
in synch
: within the required 100 ns between each time the clock offset is uploaded,
: - provided that the clocks are pre adjusted with the 4.4647*10^-10
GR-correction.
Even if the constellation clocks drifted an hour or two a day the receiver
would still
not change in its accuracy, it has no atomic clock and relies solely on the
constellation
time.
Hence GR is moot and no preadjustment is required.
Hint 1: (This is actually correct!)
Hint 2: You are an idiot.
: If they weren't, they would drift off sync after few minutes and it would
be impossible
: to keep all satellite clocks in synch (within 100ns), as Androcles so
correctly point
: out they must be.
1.. If the clock at B synchronizes with the clock at A, the clock at A
synchronizes with the clock at B.
2.. If the clock at A synchronizes with the clock at B and also with the
clock at C, the clocks at B and C also synchronize with each other.
as Einstein so correctly point out they must be.
Hint 3: You are still an idiot.
http://xkcd.com/258/
Paul B. Andersen
> The GPS was first designed with physicists as consultants using the
> special and the general theories of relativity (SR and GR). That
> proved to be a mistake. The engineers involved in the design quickly
> overturned the nonsense proposed by the physicists. For the ones who
> are interested, read the references below.
>
>
> --- Researched and brought to us by Dirk Van de moortel
>
> http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/gpsuser/gpsuser.pdf
> http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/sigspec/default.htm
>
> --- Researched and brought to us by Sam Wormley
>
> Or for the layman's sake, just visit Androcles' website on GPS below.
>
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
>
> GPS now works without any of the nonsense introduced by SR and GR at a
> fraction of cost originally intended by the physicists. Engineers
> once again are proven to be orders of magnitudes more intelligent than
> physicists. <shrug> In the meantime, the physicists are still crying
> write-ups on GPS. <shrug>
>
This is a official specification document which
the builders of the satellites must comply to.
http://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pubs/gps/icd200/icd200cw1234.pdf
I quote section 3.3.1.1 from this document:
<<
3.3.1.1 Frequency Plan.
The L-band signals shall be contained within two 20.46-MHz bands
centred about L1 and L2. The carrier frequencies for the L1 and L2
signals shall be coherently derived from a common frequency source
within the SV. The nominal frequency of this source -- as it appears
to an observer on the ground -- is 10.23 MHz. The SV carrier frequency
and clock rates -- as they would appear to an observer located in
the SV -- are offset to compensate for relativistic effects. The clock
rates are offset by delta_f/f = -4.4647E-10, equivalent to a change in
the P-code shipping rate of 10.23 MHz offset by a delta_f = -4.5674E-3 Hz.
This is equal to 10.22999999543 MHz. The nominal carrier frequencies (fo)
shall be 1575.42 MHz, and 1227.6 MHz for L1 and L2, respectively.
>>
There is nothing to discuss. It is an indisputable fact that
the -4.4647E-10 correction calculated by Ahsby is built into
each and every GPS-satellite, which prove that the GPS works
with the corrections introduced by GR.
BTW, why should it be a "fraction of the cost" to build the frequency
standards (Cesium and Rubidium atomis clocks) to the frequency
10.23000000000 MHz in stead of 10.22999999543 MHz ?
You have no clue whatsoever, have you? :-)
Paul
Paul B. Andersen
>
>>> The GPS was first designed with physicists as consultants using the
>>> special and the general theories of relativity (SR and GR). That
>>> proved to be a mistake. The engineers involved in the design quickly
>>> overturned the nonsense proposed by the physicists. For the ones who
>>> are interested, read the references below.
>> should be set to tick at 38 us/day slower than the earth clocks.
>> Are you claiming that this was "overturned" and the satellite
>> clock frequency is set the same as the earth clock frequency?
>
> satellites do not have to synchronize with the ground. The satellites
> only have to synchronize among themselves. It is much simpler to
> synchronize among themselves in which no nonsense of SR or GR is
> employed to do so. <shrug>
You are obviously completely ignorant of how the GPS actually is operated.
"The satellites synchronize themselves to each other", eh? :-)
> The explanation is in the links I gave you. For a self-claimed PhD,
> you are extremely mentally challenged. It seems to be a common trait
> among the PhDs in these science newsgroups. <shrug>
It isn't very smart to say so much nonsense about
something you know so little about as the GPS.
Could it be because you are extremely mentally challenged? :-)
It seems to be a common trait by the "GPS works without GR" cranks.
Paul
The_Man
> On Aug 3, 10:00 pm, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 3, 8:11 pm, Koobee Wublee <koobee.wub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > These are very strong words. Well, the 'matrix crap' is used in the
> > > GPS receiver design as described by the following article dug up by
> > > your buddy moortel. Read it, and ask yourself where the SR and GR
> > > corrections are.
>
> > >http://www.gpsinformation.org/dale/theory.htm
>
> > ...and how is this an authoritative resource?
>
> The above link should be very professionally intuitive. For the
> layman, Androcles' website is a very good place to start.
It is a good place to start for hysterical mirth.
"Take my Androcles, please!"
>
> http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/GPS/GPS.htm
>
> Or one of the ubiquitous links brought to you by Wormlike also
> contains the ranging equation that explains how to apply the data
> received from four satellites to solve the unknown of the receiver's
> relative time and position to the four satellites.
>
> > Apparently you never learned how to do proper research, as evidenced
> > by referencing this site and Androcles in support of your arguments.
> > Not once have you pointed *US* to the GPS specs in support of your
> > arguments.
>
> After all, you have no college degree and no experience. How can you
> criticize anyone with degrees and many years of experience? Your
> statements above do not make just any sense.
Eric's statements make perfect sense.
I have a Ph.D. in chemistry, which I guess qualifies ME to criticize
YOU.
>
> > Your degree is in what, again? Your experience is what, again?
>
> Well, it is none of your concern. You should have figured that out by
> now if you have any intelligence. <shrug>
He probably HAS figured it out. You were maybe lucky to graduate from
middle school.
Dirk Van de moortel
"The_Man" <me_so_h...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1186264058.7...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
Koobee Wublee is a retired aerospace engineer of the
highly demented kind.
Dirk Vdm