Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #710305 > unrolled thread

WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!??

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  WHY  NASSA   DOES NOT USE ' CURVED  SPACE ''!!?? yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-10-29 23:18 -0700
    Re:WHY  NASSA   DOES NOT USE ' CURVED  SPACE ''!!?? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-30 09:54 +0100
      Re: WHY  NASSA   DOES NOT USE ' CURVED  SPACE ''!!?? yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-10-30 04:53 -0700
        Re: WHY  NASSA   DOES NOT USE ' CURVED  SPACE ''!!?? Edward Prochak <edprochak@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 06:43 -0700
          Re: WHY  NASSA   DOES NOT USE ' CURVED  SPACE ''!!?? yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-10-30 07:53 -0700
        Re: WHY  NASSA   DOES NOT USE ' CURVED  SPACE ''!!?? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-30 14:56 +0100
          Re: WHY  NASSA   DOES NOT USE ' CURVED  SPACE ''!!?? yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-10-30 11:00 -0700
    Re:WHY  NASSA   DOES NOT USE ' CURVED  SPACE ''!!?? Libor Striz <poutnik4REMOVEnntp@CAPITALSgmail.com> - 2018-10-30 10:15 +0100
    Re: WHY NASSA  DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!?? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 14:04 +0000
      Re: WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!?? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-30 14:37 +0000
        Re: WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!?? yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-10-30 08:06 -0700
      Re: WHY NASSA  DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!?? yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-10-30 07:58 -0700
        Re: WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!?? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-10-30 15:13 +0000
        Re: WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!?? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 18:04 +0000
      Re: WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!?? benj <benj.fake@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 13:17 -0400
        Re: WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!?? yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-10-30 10:44 -0700
          Re: WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!?? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 18:04 +0000
      Re: WHY NASSA  DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!?? yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-10-30 10:51 -0700
        Re: WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!?? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 18:13 +0000
          Re: WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!?? yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-10-30 13:07 -0700
            Re: WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!?? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 21:48 +0000
    Re: WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!?? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-30 09:10 -0500
      Re: WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!?? yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-10-30 07:59 -0700
        Re: WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!?? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-10-30 10:14 -0500
      Re: WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!?? yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-10-30 08:02 -0700
      Re: WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!?? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 08:16 -0700
        Re: WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!?? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-10-30 15:57 -0700
          Re: WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!?? yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-10-30 23:59 -0700
            Re: WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!?? yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-10-31 00:08 -0700
              Re: WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!?? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-11-01 14:34 -0700
                Re: WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!?? yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-11-01 18:18 -0700
    Re: WHY  NASSA   DOES NOT USE ' CURVED  SPACE ''!!?? "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-10-30 08:10 -0700
      Re: WHY  NASSA   DOES NOT USE ' CURVED  SPACE ''!!?? Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-11-02 14:44 -0700
        Re: WHY  NASSA   DOES NOT USE ' CURVED  SPACE ''!!?? yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-11-02 22:02 -0700
          Re: WHY NASSA  DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!?? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 13:28 +0000
          Re: WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!?? moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com (Michael Moroney) - 2018-11-03 14:41 +0000
            Re: WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!?? yporat08@gmail.com - 2018-11-03 11:11 -0700
              Re: WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!?? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2018-11-03 18:32 +0000

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#710305 — WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!??

why''  NASSA 
DOES NOT USE  ''CUVED  SPACE '--
 in its interstellar  calculations ??!!

==================

TIA
Y.Porat
======================

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#710311

yporat08@gmail.com Wrote in message:
> why''  NASSA 
> DOES NOT USE  ''CUVED  SPACE '--
>  in its interstellar  calculations ??!!
> 
For similar reasons, why one does  not usually use Special
 relativity calculations in the every day life.

The calculation complexity in both cases is not balanced by
 accuracy gain, as differences are many orders smaller then
 accuracy of measurements.



-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710316

On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 10:54:59 AM UTC+2, Libor Striz wrote:
> yporat08@gmail.com Wrote in message:
> > why''  NASSA 
> > DOES NOT USE  ''CUVED  SPACE '--
> >  in its interstellar  calculations ??!!
> > 
> For similar reasons, why one does  not usually use Special
>  relativity calculations in the every day life.
>================================================


 
> The calculation complexity in both cases is not balanced by
>  accuracy gain,
==========================


not clear 
what 2 cases you are  talking about ??
=======


 as differences are many orders smaller then
  accuracy of measurements  .of what ?
=======
you can    imagine 
that to travel to Mars 
NEEDS A *****LOT OF ACURACY !!***
now
curved space""e gives us zero 
moreover 
A  A '' tells us that NASSA has zero **!math** information 
  needed for such traveling  in that space mission
to mars 
and may be even less complicated missions  !!! 
may be even   to any **mission??
MUCH    WORSE  !!

THE NEWTOINIAN PHTSICS !!
IS GOOD ENOUGH AND PROVING ITSELF AS GOOD ENOUTH!!
FOR THIER MISSIONS !!
2
is so 
just tell  us**another example***
on earth in which ''' curved space ''
will   help us 
better   than the Newtonian physics ??!!

3
please tell us WERE   SCHWARTZSHIELD   CALCULATION 
CAB  DO MORE THAN  NEWTINIAL CALCULATIONS   ??
--------------------------------------------------
TIA
Y.P
=======================

 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)
> 
> "Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
> Miloš Forman
> 
> 
> ----Android NewsGroup Reader----
> http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710321

On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 7:53:20 AM UTC-4, ypor...@gmail.com wrote:
[]
> 
> THE NEWTOINIAN PHTSICS !!
> IS GOOD ENOUGH AND PROVING ITSELF AS GOOD ENOUTH!!
> FOR THIER MISSIONS !!

Yes, what's wrong with that. Do you happen to measure your walls
using laser techniques accurate down to nanometers?


> 2
> is so 
> just tell  us**another example***
> on earth in which ''' curved space ''
> will   help us 
> better   than the Newtonian physics ??!!

Calculating the movements of stars and galaxies may need such accuracy.
> 
> 3
> please tell us WERE   SCHWARTZSHIELD   CALCULATION 
> CAB  DO MORE THAN  NEWTINIAL CALCULATIONS   ??

Obviously you mean calculations of motions near a black hole.
Such accuracy is needed for motions of stars orbiting near
the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy.

Thanks for the nice questions, Porat.
  Ed

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710341

On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 3:43:32 PM UTC+2, Edward Prochak wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 7:53:20 AM UTC-4, ypor...@gmail.com wrote:
> []
> > 
> > THE NEWTOINIAN PHTSICS !!
> > IS GOOD ENOUGH AND PROVING ITSELF AS GOOD ENOUTH!!
> > FOR THIER MISSIONS !!
> 
> Yes, what's wrong with that. Do you happen to measure your walls
> using laser techniques accurate down to nanometers?
>
==============================
 do you insist that I will''  push you to the wall??

lets take  a simple every day phenomenon
that A A brought 

the Galileo free fall'' 
of a big mass ****exactly*** as  small mass
side by side !
 exactly !!   the same free fall  ??!!!!!
can anyone on earth show it :by f en  curved space calculations ??!!

DID SCWARTZSHIELD   CALCULATIONS 
could do or   DID IT ??!!!!
if yes common do   it !!

===========================
TIA
Y.Porat
=========================

T =================

so simple and so automatically asked/demanded ??
for a basic theory ??!!!


 > > 2
> > is so 
> > just tell  us**another example***
> > on earth in which ''' curved space ''
> > will   help us 
> > better   than the Newtonian physics ??!!
> 
> Calculating the movements of stars and galaxies may need such accuracy.
> > 
> > 3
> > please tell us WERE   SCHWARTZSHIELD   CALCULATION 
> > CAB  DO MORE THAN  NEWTINIAL CALCULATIONS   ??
> 
> Obviously you mean calculations of motions near a black hole.
> Such accuracy is needed for motions of stars orbiting near
> the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy.
> 
> Thanks for the nice questions, Porat.
>===================
you are welcome 
we all want 
REAL    ADVANCE !!!
TIA
Y.Porat
====================   

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710324

yporat08@gmail.com Wrote in message:
> 
>  
>> The calculation complexity in both cases is not balanced by
>>  accuracy gain,
> ==========================
> 
> 
> not clear 
> what 2 cases you are  talking about ??
> =======
Using GR calculation in astronomy
And SR calculations in everyday  life.
I have thought it was clear.
> 
> 
>  as differences are many orders smaller then
>   accuracy of measurements  .of what ?

Of whatever. It is general principle.


> =======
> you can    imagine 
> that to travel to Mars 
> NEEDS A *****LOT OF ACURACY !!***

Shouting is not necessary.
Yes, it needs a lot of accuracy, which still many orders above GR
 related differences.


> MUCH    WORSE  !!

Stop shouting .
> 
> THE NEWTOINIAN PHTSICS !!
> IS GOOD ENOUGH AND PROVING ITSELF AS GOOD ENOUTH!!
> FOR THIER MISSIONS !!

Take your pills.
> 2
> is so 
> just tell  us**another example***
> on earth in which ''' curved space ''
> will   help us 
> better   than the Newtonian physics ??!!

Anywhere where prediction difference is comparable  with
 experimental resolution, there is need to involve SR or GR
 calculations.

BTW, The flat space does not mean Newtonian physics.


-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710404

On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 3:56:26 PM UTC+2, Libor Striz wrote:
> yporat08@gmail.com Wrote in message:
> > 
> >  
> >> The calculation complexity in both cases is not balanced by
> >>  accuracy gain,
> > ==========================
> > 
> > 
> > not clear 
> > what 2 cases you are  talking about ??
> > =======
> Using GR calculation in astronomy
> And SR calculations in everyday  life.
> I have thought it was clear.
> > 
> > 
> >  as differences are many orders smaller then
> >   accuracy of measurements  .of what ?
> 
> Of whatever. It is general principle.
> 
> 
> > =======
> > you can    imagine 
> > that to travel to Mars 
> > NEEDS A *****LOT OF ACURACY !!***
> 
> Shouting is not necessary.
> Yes, it needs a lot of accuracy, which still many orders above GR
>  related differences.
> 
> 
> > MUCH    WORSE  !!
> 
> Stop shouting .
> > 
> > THE NEWTOINIAN PHTSICS !!
> > IS GOOD ENOUGH AND PROVING ITSELF AS GOOD ENOUTH!!
> > FOR THIER MISSIONS !!
> 
> Take your pills.
> > 2
> > is so 
> > just tell  us**another example***
> > on earth in which ''' curved space ''
> > will   help us 
> > better   than the Newtonian physics ??!!
> 
> Anywhere where prediction difference is comparable  with
>  experimental resolution, there is need to involve SR or GR
>  calculations.
> 
> BTW, The flat space does not mean Newtonian physics.
> 
>

=================================
space is not flat and not schmat  
IT IS BIG    NOTHING !!
AND CAM DO NOTHING !!!

that is boggling our balls
for too   long
wasting    precious human resources
for too long ===
iow
a big damage !
==================================
TIA
Y.P
===============================

  
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710314

yporat08@gmail.com Wrote in message:
> why''  NASSA 
> DOES NOT USE  ''CUVED  SPACE '--
>  in its interstellar  calculations ??!!

Imagine a scientific measurement of relation  of 2 parameters,
 that  is by theory known to be a quadratic curve, being near
 linear with a small quadratic term

A scientist evaluates the exoerimental data by the least mean
 square approximation method to get the coefficients of the
 quadratic function.

But the data are so inaccurate, that the quadratic  term can have
 any small enough positive or  negative value, including
 zero.(confidential interval includes zero)

Therefore the scientist abandons the quadratic approximation and 
 uses linear aporoximation, even if it is known it is not
 linear.

The similar things happens for SR in everyday life, of for GR in
 most of astronomical calculations. More exact solution does not
 bring  any gain for not enough accurate data.


-- 
Libor Striz aka Poutnik ( a pilgrim/wanderer/wayfarer)

"Humour is the only effective weapon against stupidity."
Miloš Forman


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710327 — Re: WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!??

<yporat08@gmail.com> wrote:
> why''  NASSA 
> DOES NOT USE  ''CUVED  SPACE '--
>  in its interstellar  calculations ??!!
> 
> ==================
> 
> TIA
> Y.Porat
> ======================
> 

NASA trajectories are all in regions of weak gravity, and there Newtonian
physics, though an approximation, is generally adequate to high precision.
Other applications in higher gravitational fields or to even higher
precision than what NASA requires might well require GR. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710337 — Re: WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!??

Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:

><yporat08@gmail.com> wrote:
>> why''  NASSA 
>> DOES NOT USE  ''CUVED  SPACE '--
>>  in its interstellar  calculations ??!!
>> 
>> ==================
>> 
>> TIA
>> Y.Porat
>> ======================
>> 

>NASA trajectories are all in regions of weak gravity, and there Newtonian
>physics, though an approximation, is generally adequate to high precision.
>Other applications in higher gravitational fields or to even higher
>precision than what NASA requires might well require GR. 

Also, the fastest spacecraft ever, the Parker Solar Probe, set a 
speed record of 246,960 km/hr, just today, as it grazes the sun.
This is just 0.0002288 times the speed of light. I'll let you do the math
to calculate the difference between what SR predicts for calculations and
what Newtonian mechanics predicts. The answer to that will explain why
SR isn't used for spacecraft trajectories.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710350 — Re: WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!??

On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 4:37:10 PM UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> ><yporat08@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> why''  NASSA 
> >> DOES NOT USE  ''CUVED  SPACE '--
> >>  in its interstellar  calculations ??!!
> >> 
> >> ==================
> >> 
> >> TIA
> >> Y.Porat
> >> ======================
> >> 
> 
> >NASA trajectories are all in regions of weak gravity, and there Newtonian
> >physics, though an approximation, is generally adequate to high precision.
> >Other applications in higher gravitational fields or to even higher
> >precision than what NASA requires might well require GR. 
> 
> Also, the fastest spacecraft ever, the Parker Solar Probe, set a 
> speed record of 246,960 km/hr, just today, as it grazes the sun.
> This is just 0.0002288 times the speed of light. I'll let you do the math
> to calculate the difference between what SR predicts for calculations and
> what Newtonian mechanics predicts. The answer to that will explain why
> SR isn't used for spacecraft trajectories.
========================
please   don t mix us !!

I am not talking scout 
s r that  is right 

we ae talkin bout 
f en curved space'' 
that is   '' GR''
===
TIA
Y.Porat
========================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710344 — Re: WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!??

On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 4:04:10 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <yporat08@gmail.com> wrote:
> > why''  NASSA 
> > DOES NOT USE  ''CUVED  SPACE '--
> >  in its interstellar  calculations ??!!
> > 
> > ==================
> > 
> > TIA
> > Y.Porat
> > ======================
> > 
> 
> NASA trajectories are all in regions of weak gravity, and there Newtonian
> physics, though an approximation, is generally adequate to high precision.
> Other applications in higher gravitational fields or to even higher
> precision than what NASA requires might well require GR. 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
=====================
COMMON   super  SMARTY !!

Nassa does not need the** highest  ** responsible **precision
in sending human beings to Mars ???!!
======
TIA
Y.Porat
==========================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710354 — Re: WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!??

yporat08@gmail.com writes:

>On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 4:04:10 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:

>> NASA trajectories are all in regions of weak gravity, and there Newtonian
>> physics, though an approximation, is generally adequate to high precision.
>> Other applications in higher gravitational fields or to even higher
>> precision than what NASA requires might well require GR.

>COMMON   super  SMARTY !!

>Nassa does not need the** highest  ** responsible **precision
>in sending human beings to Mars ???!!

Calculate the percent difference of measurements using GR and the masses
of Mars and the earth, and the velocity of a spaceship taking 6 months
to get there, and Newtonian calculations for the same.

Compare that to the various measurement errors.

You claimed to have been an engineer that designed many bridges, so as an
engineer you should know all about this. I haven't heard of any news
stories about many bridges in Israel collapsing, so I guess you got
something right at one time.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710406 — Re: WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!??

<yporat08@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 4:04:10 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> <yporat08@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> why''  NASSA 
>>> DOES NOT USE  ''CUVED  SPACE '--
>>> in its interstellar  calculations ??!!
>>> 
>>> =================> > 
>>> TIA
>>> Y.Porat
>>> =====================> > 
>> 
>> NASA trajectories are all in regions of weak gravity, and there Newtonian
>> physics, though an approximation, is generally adequate to high precision.
>> Other applications in higher gravitational fields or to even higher
>> precision than what NASA requires might well require GR. 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin  Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> ====================COMMON   super  SMARTY !!
> 
> Nassa does not need the** highest  ** responsible **precision
> in sending human beings to Mars ???!!
> =====TIA
> Y.Porat
> =========================

That’s right. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710389 — Re: WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!??

On 10/30/2018 10:04 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <yporat08@gmail.com> wrote:
>> why''  NASSA
>> DOES NOT USE  ''CUVED  SPACE '--
>>   in its interstellar  calculations ??!!
>>
>> ==================
>>
>> TIA
>> Y.Porat
>> ======================
>>
> 
> NASA trajectories are all in regions of weak gravity, and there Newtonian
> physics, though an approximation, is generally adequate to high precision.
> Other applications in higher gravitational fields or to even higher
> precision than what NASA requires might well require GR.
> 
You are right Odd. Once Earth civilization develops "warp drive" all 
calculations will be done the way Porat wants.

Star Trek science is real, Odd!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710398 — Re: WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!??

On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 7:17:43 PM UTC+2, benj wrote:
> On 10/30/2018 10:04 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> > <yporat08@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> why''  NASSA
> >> DOES NOT USE  ''CUVED  SPACE '--
> >>   in its interstellar  calculations ??!!
> >>
> >> ==================
> >>
> >> TIA
> >> Y.Porat
> >> ======================
> >>
> > 
> > NASA trajectories are all in regions of weak gravity, and there Newtonian
> > physics, though an approximation, is generally adequate to high precision.
> > Other applications in higher gravitational fields or to even higher
> > precision than what NASA requires might well require GR.
> > 
> You are right Odd. Once Earth civilization develops "warp drive" all 
==========================
not  clear what you   say:
''warp drive'' ???
why not say loud and clear:

is ''curved space'' 
right 

AN USEFULL ???
OR NOT ??

=======================
> calculations will be done the way Porat wants.
> 
> Star Trek science is real, Odd!
===================
????
==============
TIA
Y.P
==================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710407 — Re: WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!??

<yporat08@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 7:17:43 PM UTC+2, benj wrote:
>> On 10/30/2018 10:04 AM, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>> <yporat08@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> why''  NASSA
>>>> DOES NOT USE  ''CUVED  SPACE '--
>>>> in its interstellar  calculations ??!!
>>>> 
>>>> ==================
>>>> 
>>>> TIA
>>>> Y.Porat
>>>> ======================
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> NASA trajectories are all in regions of weak gravity, and there Newtonian
>>> physics, though an approximation, is generally adequate to high precision.
>>> Other applications in higher gravitational fields or to even higher
>>> precision than what NASA requires might well require GR.
>>> 
>> You are right Odd. Once Earth civilization develops "warp drive" all 
> ==========================
> not  clear what you   say:
> ''warp drive'' ???
> why not say loud and clear:
> 
> is ''curved space'' 
> right 
> 
> AN USEFULL ???
> OR NOT ??

You are speaking as an engineer where the value of an idea is based on its
utility. That’s not what basic physics is about. The value of ideas is
physics is whether they describe how nature works, not whether they are
useful. 

> 
> =======================
>> calculations will be done the way Porat wants.
>> 
>> Star Trek science is real, Odd!
> ===================
> ????
> ==============
> TIA
> Y.P
> ==================
> 
> 



-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710400 — Re: WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!??

On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 4:04:10 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <yporat08@gmail.com> wrote:
> > why''  NASSA 
> > DOES NOT USE  ''CUVED  SPACE '--
> >  in its interstellar  calculations ??!!
> > 
> > ==================
> > 
> > TIA
> > Y.Porat
> > ======================
> > 
> 
> NASA trajectories are all in regions of weak gravity, and there Newtonian
> physics, though an approximation, is generally adequate to high precision.
> Other applications in higher gravitational fields or to even higher
> precision than what NASA requires might well require GR. 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
======================
not clear!!
Does to  send a human  being to mars
-does snot mean :

USING THE BEST ACURATE    CALCULATIONS
that ARE AVALABLE ???!!!

TIA
Y.P
====================

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710411 — Re: WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!??

<yporat08@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 4:04:10 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> <yporat08@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> why''  NASSA 
>>> DOES NOT USE  ''CUVED  SPACE '--
>>> in its interstellar  calculations ??!!
>>> 
>>> =================> > 
>>> TIA
>>> Y.Porat
>>> =====================> > 
>> 
>> NASA trajectories are all in regions of weak gravity, and there Newtonian
>> physics, though an approximation, is generally adequate to high precision.
>> Other applications in higher gravitational fields or to even higher
>> precision than what NASA requires might well require GR. 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Odd Bodkin  Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> =====================not clear!!
> Does to  send a human  being to mars
> -does snot mean :
> 
> USING THE BEST ACURATE    CALCULATIONS
> that ARE AVALABLE ???!!!
> 
> TIA
> Y.P
> ===================
> 

No, it’s simply not necessary. 
As an engineer should know, you use calculations that are as good as you
need them to be. Engineers do this all the time. 

-- 
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#710432 — Re: WHY NASSA DOES NOT USE ' CURVED SPACE ''!!??

On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 8:13:49 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <yporat08@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 30, 2018 at 4:04:10 PM UTC+2, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> <yporat08@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> why''  NASSA 
> >>> DOES NOT USE  ''CUVED  SPACE '--
> >>> in its interstellar  calculations ??!!
> >>> 
> >>> =================> > 
> >>> TIA
> >>> Y.Porat
> >>> =====================> > 
> >> 
> >> NASA trajectories are all in regions of weak gravity, and there Newtonian
> >> physics, though an approximation, is generally adequate to high precision.
> >> Other applications in higher gravitational fields or to even higher
> >> precision than what NASA requires might well require GR. 
> >> 
> >> -- 
> >> Odd Bodkin   Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> > =====================not clear!!
> > Does to  send a human  being to mars
> > -does snot mean :
> > 
> > USING THE BEST ACURATE    CALCULATIONS
> > that ARE AVALABLE ???!!!
> > 
> > TIA
> > Y.P
> > ===================
> > 
> 
> No, it’s simply not necessary. 
> As an engineer should know, you use calculations that are as good as you
> need them to be. Engineers do this all the time. 
> 
> -- 
> Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
====================
common   Bodkin

to send a human   being to mars 
is not  a   ''''as you like it program'' 
is done  and should be  by 
the   highest 
MOST RELIABLE CALCULATION AND VALIDITY DATA ::

it is the most **RESPONSIBLE* task that can be 
lif or dead !!
and anyone who do it with  responsibility
will choose    the beast theory or practice available !!
as abridge engineer 
please dont teach me how a serious reliable 
manager of a mission should do 
he would chose 
the ''best available ! ::
similar as a responsible Doctor of medicine 
would behave to do    the best !!
not a   children game 
not a gambler game

AND  IF NASSA ****DOES NOT** USE 'CURVES SPACE' 
BUT NEWTONIAM  PHYSICS 
it tells he 
through situation of 'curved space'
as a reliable theory !!
in  our case a good more than indication 
that curved space 
is a poor wrong guess 
foe me 
it is an idiotic harmful theory 
because !!!
preventing ***the real  theory/reality  
to come  out and develop  real advance
that is so badly needed 

AND ***PREVENTING**WAIST OF PRECIOUS HUMAN RESOURCESS !!
on nonsense    curved  space  is   doing !!   

usefulness** is only one among many indications
that is telling you which is the 
first priority that you should invest your
limited  resources !!
not to mansion that  we have already !!other possible alternatives
like
good experimental  indications  that

MASS** IS THE CREATOR OF ALL  FORCES !!!
and please   don t forget
who  told you that first !!!
==================================
TIA
Y.Porat
===================
 
     

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web