🚀 go-pugleaf

On 5 mayo, 10:18, Strich-Reply-To-Idiots <iqgoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5 Maijs, 10:00, papa_r...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 5 mayo, 09:18, Dorn Strich <strich.9...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 5 Maijs, 06:34, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Do you know that Man went to the moon and back using basic Newtonian
> > > physics without the need for any relativity?
>
> > > Yes that is right.  Man went to the moon and back, using the very
> > > accurate physics of Newton and nothing else.
>
> > > I am sure if the NASA scientists had factored in relativity, the
> > > astronauts would have missed the moon by a LOOOOOOOOOONG shot.  Now
> > > that is an example of how relativity can kill people.
>
> > > > Pentcho Valev
> > > > pva...@yahoo.com
>
> > For sure, I don't need General Relativity to find my way to Walmart
> > either!
>
> Walmart is not the moon, Miguel eternal nitwit...
>
> Let me repeat that: Man went to the moon and back using only Newtonian
> physics.
>
> > Yeah you are right David!...and all these wacko NASA scientists
> > continue to do wacko things, like confirming Einstein theories with
> > their exploration vehicles!!!
>
> You mean like the negative Gravity Probe B.
>
> I'll snip the rest of your so-called lit search which will not stand
> up to scrutiny.  Let us not waste time with little experiments whose
> conclusions can be bent either way.  If the big experiment proved
> relativity wrong, all the little experiments will soon be bending the
> other way...

OK David, we all know you are unable to read, less to understand, and
much less accept that you are wrong.
You said Apollo missions did not use relativity corrections and, of
course you are wrong, since these corrections are currently done in a
satellite by satellite basis, as the following paper discusses.

(SC)RMI: A (S)emi-(C)lassical (R)elativistic (M)otion (I)ntegrator, to
model the orbits of space probes around the Earth and other planets

Sophie Pireauxa, Jean-Pierre Barriotb, Pascal Rosenblattc
Département ARTEMIS, Observatoire de la Côte d’Azur, Avenue de
Copernic, 06130 Grasse, France

Acta Astronautica, Volume 59, Issue 7, October 2006, Pages 517-523

Today, the motion of spacecrafts is still described according to the
classical Newtonian equations plus the so-called relativistic
corrections, computed with the required precision using the Post-
(Post-) Newtonian formalism. The current approach, with the increase
of tracking precision (Ka-Band Doppler, interplanetary lasers) and
clock stabilities (atomic fountains) is reaching its limits in terms
of complexity, and is furthermore error prone. In the appropriate
framework of general relativity, we study a method to numerically
integrate the native relativistic equations of motion for a weak
gravitational field, also taking into account small non-gravitational
forces. The latter are treated as perturbations, in the sense that we
assume that both the local structure of space–time is not modified by
these forces, and that the unperturbed satellite motion follows the
geodesics of the local space–time. The use of a symplectic integrator
to compute the unperturbed geodesic motion insures the constancy of
the norm of the proper velocity quadrivector. We further show how this
general relativistic framework relates to the classical one.

Table 1 below shows known effects on a higher orbit sattellite
(LAGEOS) and a low orbit satellite (CHAMP)

Gravitational and non-gravitational satellite accelerations
Cause (m/s2)	                    LAGEOS 1	CHAMP
G: Earth monopole	             2.8	8.6
G: Low order geopotential harmonics (e.g. l=2,m=2)	6.0×10-6	6.4×10-5
G: High order geopotential harmonics (e.g. l=18,m=18)	6.9×10-12
9.4×10-7
G: Moon	                           2.1×10-6	7.9×10-7
G: Sun	                           9.6×10-7	2.7×10-7
G: Other planets (e.g. Venus)	   1.3×10-10	9.8×10-13
G: Indirect oblation (Moon–Earth)  1.4×10-11	1.4×10-11
G: General relativistic corrections (total)	9.5×10-10	1.7×10-8
NG: Atmospheric drag	            3×10-12	3.5×10-7
NG: Solar radiation pressure	   3.2×10-9	3.2×10-8
NG: Earth albedo pressure	   3.4×10-10	3.3×10-9
NG: Thermal emission	           1.9×10-12	8.3×10-9

Miguel Rios