Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #408329

Re: Apollo 11

From	Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Newsgroups	sci.physics.relativity
Subject	Re: Apollo 11
Date	2017-02-08 12:49 +1100
Message-ID	<efvbq6F5rrsU1@mid.individual.net> (permalink)
References	<39391af7-5bea-4ba2-99cf-4448ebb67f5b@googlegroups.com> <f4914a6c-bfb2-4e00-9961-5c674a861f23@googlegroups.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 8/02/2017 8:32 AM, numbernumber1964@gmail.com wrote:
> Sylvia,
>
> Could you elaborate more regarding  "From astronomical observations"
> in the derivation of the value of r1. Please show the derivation in
> determining the value of r1. Thank you.
>
>
> Ben.
>

One approach is to note that it is the barycentre that moves around the 
Sun in an elliptical orbit, with the Earth either leading that point, or 
lagging it, depending on the position of the Moon.

When the Moon is directly ahead of the Earth in the orbit, the Earth is 
lagging, and the sunrise times will be a bit earlier than would be the 
case of the centre of the Earth were at the barycentre. Similarly, when 
the Earth is leading, sunrise times will be a bit later.

The amount by which the sunrise times differ from what they'd have been 
if the Earth's centre were at the barycentre can be used to calculate 
how far the Earth's centre has been offset, thus giving r1.

But if that's too complicated, consider that before any manned craft was 
sent to the Moon, a number of unmanned craft were. Their trajectories 
can be used to calculate their accelerations. Since the acceleration is 
inversely proportional to the distance to the centre of the moon, the 
acceleration at any other distance can be calculated directly, without 
reference either to G or to the Moon's mass.

Lastly, I note that you're adopting a typical "nutter" position of 
questioning the results obtained by some experimenter in the past, 
without acknowledging that the experiments have been repeated and 
improved many times since, giving more accurate results. If Apollo had 
actually needed the value of G (which they didn't), they'd have used the 
most current value available, not the value obtained by Cavendish, so 
the accuracy of his value would have been irrelevant.

Sylvia.

Thread

Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-27 10:57 -0800
  Re: Apollo 11 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-27 16:05 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Juliana Auerbach <jaot@tognaenn.org> - 2017-01-28 00:18 +0000
      Re: Apollo 11 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-27 16:41 -0800
        Re: Apollo 11 Juliana Auerbach <jaot@tognaenn.org> - 2017-01-28 01:14 +0000
          Re: Apollo 11 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 11:33 -0800
            Re: Apollo 11 Juliana Auerbach <jaot@tognaenn.org> - 2017-01-28 20:22 +0000
          Re: Apollo 11 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 11:34 -0800
            Re: Apollo 11 Juliana Auerbach <jaot@tognaenn.org> - 2017-01-28 20:19 +0000
              Re: Apollo 11 JanPB <filmart@gmail.com> - 2017-01-28 17:21 -0800
                Re: Apollo 11 Juanita Forney <iatiet@oetnnrn.org> - 2017-01-30 12:33 +0000
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-27 16:46 -0800
  Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-28 12:48 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-28 13:16 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-29 13:04 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-10 17:08 -0800
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-28 13:24 -0800
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-28 13:34 -0800
  Re: Apollo 11 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-29 07:36 +0100
    Re: Apollo 11 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-29 03:20 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-01-29 20:16 +0100
        Re: Apollo 11 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-29 12:07 -0800
          Re: Apollo 11 Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de> - 2017-02-01 06:24 +0100
        Re: Apollo 11 "Paul B. Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no> - 2017-01-29 22:43 +0100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-29 12:05 -0800
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-29 15:27 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-01-29 15:40 -0800
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-30 12:37 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-31 11:18 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-30 15:58 -0800
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-30 16:18 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-31 11:22 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-30 16:42 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-01-31 12:13 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-31 10:01 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-01 12:14 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-01-31 14:51 -0800
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-01 12:24 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-02 12:11 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-01 21:35 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 "David (Lord Kronos Prime) Fuller" <fuller.david@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-01 22:05 -0800
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-01 15:39 -0800
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-02 11:37 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-03 09:40 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-02 15:22 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-03 11:52 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-03 11:55 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-04 11:44 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-03 15:25 -0800
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-04 12:49 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-05 12:07 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-05 12:16 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-06 08:35 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-06 11:49 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-07 10:58 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-07 13:32 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-08 12:49 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-08 11:13 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-09 12:34 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-09 11:11 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-10 10:53 +1100
    Re: Apollo 11 The Starmaker <starmaker@ix.netcom.com> - 2017-02-12 11:09 -0800
      Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-13 11:52 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-10 11:01 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-11 11:42 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-11 11:21 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-12 12:00 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 11:44 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-13 11:51 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-12 13:43 -0800
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-13 10:23 -0800
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-14 09:54 -0800
    Re: Apollo 11 Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-02-15 14:26 +1100
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-14 10:49 -0800
  Re: Apollo 11 numbernumber1964@gmail.com - 2017-02-14 10:52 -0800

csiph-web