Real Rocket Motion against Relativity!

[martillo]

The real equations of motion rockets follows Classical Physics (F=ma) and not Relativity Theory (F=dp/dt) !!!

Please take a look at: The real equation of force is F=ma (http://www.geocities.com/anewlightinphysics/new_evidence/The_real_equation_of_force.htm)

[ati3414]

Looks like you think that the emission theory is right and relativity is wrong. Too bad. for you.

[Epsilon=One]

Looks like you think that the emission theory is right and relativity is wrong. Too bad. for you.I believe that you will find that Jet Propulsion Laboratory and NASA depend upon Newton gravitational formulae rather than relativity's formulas.

[martillo]

Yes I believe that.

[Albers]

I believe it too!!! My brother works at the Nat. Oceanographic and Atmospheric Admin. in Boulder, and he worked for NASA actually digitally processing the first color images from our first landing in 1976(or so). I worked for NASA in my soph yr at Princeton as a research assistant doing computer simulation to optimize orbit transfer of a low-thrust ion rocket going to an outer planet, then a hope! The fact is, we don't go very fast compared to light.

[Epsilon=One]

I believe it too!!! My brother works at the Nat. Oceanographic and Atmospheric Admin. in Boulder, and he worked for NASA...The source of my info was a conversation with David A. Paige (http://www.ess.ucla.edu/faculty/paige/index.asp), chief editor, The Mars Journal (http://themarsjournal.org/contents/2005/0001/).

[HallsofIvy]

Did you understand Alber's point? That NASA and NOAA use Newtonian physics, not because relativity is wrong, but because the speeds involved are not high enough to make the difference important.

[Albers]

In fact we are analyzing hard the older data from Pioneer spacecraft that some think show anomaly (look up 'Pioneer anomaly') in its path. It is tough because you're estimating radiation pressure from the reactor and such, very small quantities.

[Epsilon=One]

Did you understand Alber's point? That NASA and NOAA use Newtonian physics, not because relativity is wrong, but because the speeds involved are not high enough to make the difference important.Yes. In fact those were about the very words that Dave used.

[Epsilon=One]

In fact we are analyzing hard the older data from Pioneer spacecraft that some think show anomaly (look up 'Pioneer anomaly') in its path. It is tough because you're estimating radiation pressure from the reactor and such, very small quantities.I am anticipating that the European's will launch a spacecraft next year that will verify "dark" matter (as "space" quanta) as the primary cause of the Pioneer anomaly. American researchers and theorists have shown little, or negative, interest.

During the late 80s, I thought the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) would quickly usher in a "new" physics by verifying accelerating galactic recession. More than ten years has passed and the theorists are still huddled behind their closed doors. Hopefully, it will be the Pioneer anomaly that will show them a way to new theory.

[OfficeShredder]

Nobody's mentioned that....

The real equations of motion rockets follows Classical Physics (F=ma) and not Relativity Theory (F=dp/dt) !!!

F=dp/dt IS classical physics, and in fact is the very equation Newton himself wrote down (well, he actually wrote d(mv)/dt = F, but mv is p so it counts).

And you can't actually use F=ma to calculate rocket motion

[Albers]

Yes we are finally to Rocket Science! This makes me sad I finally threw out the 2,000 computer cards of my Masters thesis and also the Runge-Kutta integration deck I did for Nasa as a research assistant. Dang. I could heat my house with them now.

[Epsilon=One]

Nobody's mentioned that....

F=dp/dt IS classical physics, and in fact is the very equation Newton himself wrote down (well, he actually wrote d(mv)/dt = F, but mv is p so it counts).

And you can't actually use F=ma to calculate rocket motionThis makes me sad I finally threw out the 2,000 computer cards of my Masters thesis and also the Runge-Kutta integration deck I did for Nasa as a research assistant. Dang. I could heat my house with them now.Double the fun. LOL!!

[HarleQuin]

I believe it too!!! My brother works at the Nat. Oceanographic and Atmospheric Admin. in Boulder, and he worked for NASA actually digitally processing the first color images from our first landing in 1976(or so). I worked for NASA in my soph yr at Princeton as a research assistant doing computer simulation to optimize orbit transfer of a low-thrust ion rocket going to an outer planet, then a hope! The fact is, we don't go very fast compared to light.

Hi,i was interested,if i may,in your interpretation of the double-slit experiment.