🚀 go-pugleaf

On 5 Maijs, 10:32, papa_r...@hotmail.com wrote:
> 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, eternal nitwit, you are trying to rewrite history.  The Manned
Missions to the Moon DID NOT use relativity.  If current missions do,
that still does not change the fact that the Manned Missions to the
Moon DID NOT use relativity.

But this is interesting.  We went to the Moon 3 decades ago without
using relativity.  Now all of a sudden we are using relativity.  Did
the universe change in the past 3 decades that space flight is
suddenly not possible without relativistic corrections?  How did the
astronauts manage so well in the past just with pure Newtonian
physics?

If I were an astronaut today, I'd be worried with all the relativistic
corrections.  Just look at all those GPS devices giving you wrong
turns and distances.  It must be the relativistic correction factors
creating the errors.

> Miguel Rios- Paslēpt citēto tekstu -
>
> - Rādīt citēto tekstu -