🚀 go-pugleaf

On May 11, 8:20 am, Strich-Reply-To-Idiots <strich.9...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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.

Don't be silly. Sam and I are saying the same thing.
There ARE relativistic corrects. However, they are too small to USE in
the execution of the Apollo project.

You claimed that the fact that the Apollo project did not USE
relativistic correction proves that the corrections must be ZERO.

Which is of course a statement of such stupidity that only you would
make it.

PD