🚀 go-pugleaf

On 8 Maj, 15:23, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 8, 2:15 pm, Strich-Reply-To-Idiots <iqgoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8 Maj, 14:54, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 8, 12:45 pm, Strich-Reply-To-Idiots <strich.9...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On 8 Maj, 12:45, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 8, 8:59 am, Dorn Strich <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 7 Maj, 10:49, PD <TheDraperFam...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On May 7, 8:52 am, Dorn Strich <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > You must have missed that one huh.  Here is the point: "The Manned
> > > > > > > > > > Mission to the Moon did not use relativity.  It was a complete
> > > > > > > > > > SUCCESS."  I can see how you missed that one.
>
> > > > > > > > Perhaps if the Manned Mission to the Moon used relativity, that may
> > > > > > > > have been a complete disaster.
>
> > > > > > > Why would you think that?
>
> > > > > > Well, it was a complete success without relativity.  So if
> > > > > > relativistic corrections really change the calculations, then the
> > > > > > Manned Mission may have been a disaster with these added relativistic
> > > > > > corrections.
>
> > > > > "...may have been..."
> > > > > But you certainly don't know until you do the calculations to
> > > > > determine the size of those relativistic corrections, do you?
>
> > > > > I do 10,000 things a day that don't require relativistic corrections.
> > > > > This in no way implies that relativity is wrong.- Dölj citerad text -
>
> > > > Schizo, what made your mind wander to 10000 things you do?
>
> > > > We were talking about the Manned Mission to the Moon and how it was
> > > > accomplished without a single relativistic effect factored in.
>
> > > Yes, so?
> > > "...may have been..."
> > > But you certainly don't know until you do the calculations to
> > > determine the size of those relativistic corrections, do you?
>
> > Do not use my kind words "may have been" as an argument against me.  I
> > was only allowing for LUCK that relativistic corrections would still
> > have allowed a successful moon landing.
>
> > Mathematically, the relativistic corrections are deduced to be ZERO,
> > since the Manned Mission reached the moon and back accurately and
> > successfully without them.
>
> Don't be ridiculous. You don't have any idea how big the relativistic
> corrections are.
>
> Is it your contention that a correction, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, *must*
> be applied in practice or the validity of the physics behind that
> correction is nullified?
>
> Yes or no?
> Your answer here:______________________________
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > We were talking about the Manned Mission to the Moon and how it was
> > > > accomplished without a single relativistic effect factored in.
>
> > > > We were talking about the Manned Mission to the Moon and how it was
> > > > accomplished without a single relativistic effect factored in.- Dölj citerad text -
>
> > > - Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text -
>
> > > - Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text -
>
> - Visa citerad text -- Dölj citerad text -
>
> - Visa citerad text -

So you say there are corrections and Sam denies there are.  Get your
heads together idiots.