Moonbeams Shine on Einstein, Galileo and Newton

MEDIA RELATIONS OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109 TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov

Jane Platt (818) 354-0880
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

News Release: 2005-039
March 4, 2005

Moonbeams Shine on Einstein, Galileo and Newton

Thirty-five years after Moon-walking astronauts placed special
reflectors on the lunar surface, scientists have used these
devices to test Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity to
unprecedented accuracy. The findings, which also confirm
theories from Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton, may help to
explain physical laws of the universe and benefit future space
missions.

"Our research with the Lunar Laser Ranging experiment probes the
equivalence principle, a foundation of Einstein's general theory
of relativity, with extreme accuracy," said Dr. James Williams, a
research scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena,
Calif. Galileo established this principle in 1604 when he
dropped objects of various weights and composition from Italy's
Leaning Tower of Pisa. All the objects were affected equally by
gravity, so they fell at the same rate.

Newton published a supporting explanation in 1687 in his
Principia, and Einstein extended the principle nearly 100 years
ago. Einstein's premise, called the strong equivalence
principle, holds that all forms of matter accelerate at the same
rate in response to gravity. This principle became a foundation
of Einstein's general theory of relativity.

The Lunar Laser Ranging experiment confirms that the Moon and
Earth "fall toward" the Sun at the same rate, even though Earth
has a large iron core below its rocky mantle, while the Moon is
mostly rocky with a much smaller core. The findings by Williams
and Drs. Slava Turyshev and Dale Boggs, also of JPL, have been
published in the Physical Review Letters.

"Lunar laser ranging can conduct very accurate tests of gravity
and fundamental physics," said Williams, who pointed out that
small variations in gravity are difficult to study because the
force is weak, unless very large masses are used. The new
results of this experiment provide a bonanza for modern physics.

"An important property of gravity is its universal effect on
massive objects, despite their size and composition. This is
why, as we understand more about gravity in the solar system, we
learn a lot about gravitational and cosmological processes in the
entire universe," said Turyshev.

"In addition to providing the most accurate test yet of the
strong equivalence principle, our experiment also limits any
possible changes in Newton's gravitational constant," said
Turyshev. The gravitational constant deals with the attraction
between objects in space, and some theories suggest that this
attraction would change over time. If so, the general theory of
relativity would need modification.

"This latest research shows no evidence of such a change. Both
findings -- about the strong equivalence principle and the
gravitational constant -- boost Einstein's theory," added
Turyshev.

Great strides have been made over the past decade in refining the
theories of Einstein, Galileo and Newton. The latest findings
are twice as accurate as any previous results on the strong
equivalence principle, and 10 times as accurate as anything
previously published on the variation of Newton's gravitational
constant

The JPL team tested the theories by beaming laser pulses to four
Moon reflectors from McDonald Observatory in western Texas, and
an observatory in southern France. The lunar reflectors bounced
the laser beams straight back to Earth, where the roundtrip
travel time was measured. Three of the reflectors were installed
by the Apollo 11, 14 and 15 astronauts, and one built by France
was carried on the unmanned Soviet Lunokhod 2 rover.

The current Moon reflectors require no power and still work
perfectly after 35 years. As NASA pursues the vision of taking
humans back to the Moon, and eventually to Mars and beyond, new,
more precise laser ranging devices could be placed first on the
Moon and then on Mars. To guide a spacecraft to a precise
location on the Moon and to navigate trips on its surface, the
Moon's orbit, rotation and orientation must be accurately known.
Lunar laser ranging measurements are helping future human and
robotic missions to the Moon.

More information about the research is available online at
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113 or
http://funphysics.jpl.nasa.gov/physics/index.html .

The research was conducted under NASA's Astronomy and Physics
Research and Analysis program, part of the agency's Science
Mission Directorate, Washington, D.C. JPL, is a division of the
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena.

-end-

wrote:
MEDIA RELATIONS OFFICE
JET PROPULSION LABORATORY
CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
PASADENA, CALIF. 91109 TELEPHONE (818) 354-5011
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov

Jane Platt (818) 354-0880
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

News Release: 2005-039
March 4, 2005

Moonbeams Shine on Einstein, Galileo and Newton

Thirty-five years after Moon-walking astronauts placed special
reflectors on the lunar surface, scientists have used these
devices to test Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity to
unprecedented accuracy. The findings, which also confirm
theories from Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton, may help to
explain physical laws of the universe and benefit future space
missions.

"Our research with the Lunar Laser Ranging experiment probes the
equivalence principle, a foundation of Einstein's general theory
of relativity, with extreme accuracy," said Dr. James Williams, a
research scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena,
Calif. Galileo established this principle in 1604 when he
dropped objects of various weights and composition from Italy's
Leaning Tower of Pisa. All the objects were affected equally by
gravity, so they fell at the same rate.

Newton published a supporting explanation in 1687 in his
Principia, and Einstein extended the principle nearly 100 years
ago. Einstein's premise, called the strong equivalence
principle, holds that all forms of matter accelerate at the same
rate in response to gravity. This principle became a foundation
of Einstein's general theory of relativity.

The Lunar Laser Ranging experiment confirms that the Moon and
Earth "fall toward" the Sun at the same rate, even though Earth
has a large iron core below its rocky mantle, while the Moon is
mostly rocky with a much smaller core. The findings by Williams
and Drs. Slava Turyshev and Dale Boggs, also of JPL, have been
published in the Physical Review Letters.

"Lunar laser ranging can conduct very accurate tests of gravity
and fundamental physics," said Williams, who pointed out that
small variations in gravity are difficult to study because the
force is weak, unless very large masses are used. The new
results of this experiment provide a bonanza for modern physics.

"An important property of gravity is its universal effect on
massive objects, despite their size and composition. This is
why, as we understand more about gravity in the solar system, we
learn a lot about gravitational and cosmological processes in the
entire universe," said Turyshev.

"In addition to providing the most accurate test yet of the
strong equivalence principle, our experiment also limits any
possible changes in Newton's gravitational constant," said
Turyshev. The gravitational constant deals with the attraction
between objects in space, and some theories suggest that this
attraction would change over time. If so, the general theory of
relativity would need modification.

"This latest research shows no evidence of such a change. Both
findings -- about the strong equivalence principle and the
gravitational constant -- boost Einstein's theory," added
Turyshev.

Great strides have been made over the past decade in refining the
theories of Einstein, Galileo and Newton. The latest findings
are twice as accurate as any previous results on the strong
equivalence principle, and 10 times as accurate as anything
previously published on the variation of Newton's gravitational
constant

The JPL team tested the theories by beaming laser pulses to four
Moon reflectors from McDonald Observatory in western Texas, and
an observatory in southern France. The lunar reflectors bounced
the laser beams straight back to Earth, where the roundtrip
travel time was measured. Three of the reflectors were installed
by the Apollo 11, 14 and 15 astronauts, and one built by France
was carried on the unmanned Soviet Lunokhod 2 rover.

The current Moon reflectors require no power and still work
perfectly after 35 years. As NASA pursues the vision of taking
humans back to the Moon, and eventually to Mars and beyond, new,
more precise laser ranging devices could be placed first on the
Moon and then on Mars. To guide a spacecraft to a precise
location on the Moon and to navigate trips on its surface, the
Moon's orbit, rotation and orientation must be accurately known.
Lunar laser ranging measurements are helping future human and
robotic missions to the Moon.

More information about the research is available online at
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113 or
http://funphysics.jpl.nasa.gov/physics/index.html .

The research was conducted under NASA's Astronomy and Physics
Research and Analysis program, part of the agency's Science
Mission Directorate, Washington, D.C. JPL, is a division of the
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena.

-end-

xxein: Bssically says nothing at all except that they want more money
to confirm the confirmed with more ($) accuracy.

This is where we are not supposed to believe the intricate math of the
best theories of man's mind that go beyond the accuracy of the proposed
new experiments that they want more money for.

Gimme a break!

wrote:
wrote:

CHOP


xxein: Bssically says nothing at all except that they want more money
to confirm the confirmed with more ($) accuracy.

This is where we are not supposed to believe the intricate math of the
best theories of man's mind that go beyond the accuracy of the proposed
new experiments that they want more money for.

Gimme a break!

Physics requires experimental verification.

wrote in message oups.com...

wrote:

[snip]

More information about the research is available online at
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113 or
http://funphysics.jpl.nasa.gov/physics/index.html .

The research was conducted under NASA's Astronomy and Physics
Research and Analysis program, part of the agency's Science
Mission Directorate, Washington, D.C. JPL, is a division of the
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena.

-end-

xxein: Bssically says nothing at all except that they want more money
to confirm the confirmed with more ($) accuracy.

This is where we are not supposed to believe the intricate math of the
best theories of man's mind that go beyond the accuracy of the proposed
new experiments that they want more money for.

Gimme a break!

A break is not what you need.
A brain is what you need.

Dirk Vdm

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

[snip]

More information about the research is available online at
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113 or
http://funphysics.jpl.nasa.gov/physics/index.html .

The research was conducted under NASA's Astronomy and Physics
Research and Analysis program, part of the agency's Science
Mission Directorate, Washington, D.C. JPL, is a division of the
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena.

-end-

xxein: Bssically says nothing at all except that they want more
money
to confirm the confirmed with more ($) accuracy.

This is where we are not supposed to believe the intricate math of
the
best theories of man's mind that go beyond the accuracy of the
proposed
new experiments that they want more money for.

Gimme a break!

A break is not what you need.
A brain is what you need.

Dirk Vdm


xxein: Yah, let's send an intergalactic probe to prove
1+1=============2.

You can't expect G to change in decayears when we have hardly a hint
that it MIGHT change in billions of years with universal expansion.

So, ok, we can express some doubt in our theories. Where are you in
this? Do you allow the thought that some 'ether' theory may be correct
or do you say that we have proven to finality that 'ether' cannot
exist?

If the latter, then you have proven my point. If the former, then you
cannot profess anything except a belief with no completeness of
physical understanding.

It's your choice. Make it.

wrote in message oups.com...

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

[snip]

More information about the research is available online at
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113 or
http://funphysics.jpl.nasa.gov/physics/index.html .

The research was conducted under NASA's Astronomy and Physics
Research and Analysis program, part of the agency's Science
Mission Directorate, Washington, D.C. JPL, is a division of the
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena.

-end-

xxein: Bssically says nothing at all except that they want more
money
to confirm the confirmed with more ($) accuracy.

This is where we are not supposed to believe the intricate math of
the best theories of man's mind that go beyond the accuracy of the
proposed new experiments that they want more money for.

Gimme a break!

A break is not what you need.
A brain is what you need.

Dirk Vdm


xxein: Yah, let's send an intergalactic probe to prove
1+1=============2.

You can't expect G to change in decayears when we have hardly a hint
that it MIGHT change in billions of years with universal expansion.

So, ok, we can express some doubt in our theories. Where are you in
this? Do you allow the thought that some 'ether' theory may be correct
or do you say that we have proven to finality that 'ether' cannot
exist?

If the latter, then you have proven my point. If the former, then you
cannot profess anything except a belief with no completeness of
physical understanding.

It's your choice. Make it.

I think we will never reach completeness of physical understanding.
I also think that, even in (the possibly hypothetical) case an 'ether'
would stubbornly continue to have exactly all the right properties
to remain undetected (or by definition perhaps even undetectable),
there will always be people who cannot live without it. In short, I
think that religion and belief in the supernatural will never die out.
But I could be wrong.
I hope I'm wrong.

Dirk Vdm

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

[snip]

More information about the research is available online at
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113 or
http://funphysics.jpl.nasa.gov/physics/index.html .

The research was conducted under NASA's Astronomy and Physics
Research and Analysis program, part of the agency's Science
Mission Directorate, Washington, D.C. JPL, is a division of
the
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena.

-end-

xxein: Bssically says nothing at all except that they want
more
money
to confirm the confirmed with more ($) accuracy.

This is where we are not supposed to believe the intricate math
of
the best theories of man's mind that go beyond the accuracy of
the
proposed new experiments that they want more money for.

Gimme a break!

A break is not what you need.
A brain is what you need.

Dirk Vdm


xxein: Yah, let's send an intergalactic probe to prove
1+1=============2.

You can't expect G to change in decayears when we have hardly a
hint
that it MIGHT change in billions of years with universal expansion.

So, ok, we can express some doubt in our theories. Where are you
in
this? Do you allow the thought that some 'ether' theory may be
correct
or do you say that we have proven to finality that 'ether' cannot
exist?

If the latter, then you have proven my point. If the former, then
you
cannot profess anything except a belief with no completeness of
physical understanding.

It's your choice. Make it.

I think we will never reach completeness of physical understanding.
I also think that, even in (the possibly hypothetical) case an
'ether'
would stubbornly continue to have exactly all the right properties
to remain undetected (or by definition perhaps even undetectable),
there will always be people who cannot live without it. In short, I
think that religion and belief in the supernatural will never die
out.
But I could be wrong.
I hope I'm wrong.

Dirk Vdm

xxein: C'mon, you are being a hypocrite again. What is this bullcrap?
You are insinuating that an ether is a belief different than the
belief that light passes you at exactly c? They are in the same boat,
in the same sea, eating the same rations.

Do us a favor and measure the one-way speed of light so that we all may
quit the belief aspect of it and allow it to be physically true.

Btw, I was writing a post that did not take umbrage. It was lost. In
the meantime I changed my feeling of belief in what you are. I now
take clear umbrage. You, apparently, cannot separate physics from
belief.

wrote in message oups.com...

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

[snip]

More information about the research is available online at
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113 or
http://funphysics.jpl.nasa.gov/physics/index.html .

The research was conducted under NASA's Astronomy and Physics
Research and Analysis program, part of the agency's Science
Mission Directorate, Washington, D.C. JPL, is a division of
the
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena.

-end-

xxein: Bssically says nothing at all except that they want
more
money
to confirm the confirmed with more ($) accuracy.

This is where we are not supposed to believe the intricate math
of
the best theories of man's mind that go beyond the accuracy of
the
proposed new experiments that they want more money for.

Gimme a break!

A break is not what you need.
A brain is what you need.

Dirk Vdm


xxein: Yah, let's send an intergalactic probe to prove
1+1=============2.

You can't expect G to change in decayears when we have hardly a
hint
that it MIGHT change in billions of years with universal expansion.

So, ok, we can express some doubt in our theories. Where are you
in
this? Do you allow the thought that some 'ether' theory may be
correct
or do you say that we have proven to finality that 'ether' cannot
exist?

If the latter, then you have proven my point. If the former, then
you
cannot profess anything except a belief with no completeness of
physical understanding.

It's your choice. Make it.

I think we will never reach completeness of physical understanding.
I also think that, even in (the possibly hypothetical) case an
'ether'
would stubbornly continue to have exactly all the right properties
to remain undetected (or by definition perhaps even undetectable),
there will always be people who cannot live without it. In short, I
think that religion and belief in the supernatural will never die
out.
But I could be wrong.
I hope I'm wrong.

Dirk Vdm

xxein: C'mon, you are being a hypocrite again. What is this bullcrap?
You are insinuating that an ether is a belief different than the
belief that light passes you at exactly c?

They are in the same boat,
in the same sea, eating the same rations.

You are doing exactly the same as the creationist calling
main stream biologists "evolutionists with just another belief."


Do us a favor and measure the one-way speed of light so that we all may
quit the belief aspect of it and allow it to be physically true.

Btw, I was writing a post that did not take umbrage. It was lost. In
the meantime I changed my feeling of belief in what you are. I now
take clear umbrage. You, apparently, cannot separate physics from
belief.

I think we will never reach completeness of physical understanding.
I also think that, even in (the possibly hypothetical) case an 'ether'
would stubbornly continue to have exactly all the right properties
to remain undetected (or by definition perhaps even undetectable),
there will always be people who cannot live without it. In short, I
think that religion and belief in the supernatural will never die out.
But I could be wrong.
I hope I'm wrong.

In your case I'm obviously right.
You are a typical creationist.

Dirk Vdm

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

[snip]

More information about the research is available online
at
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113 or
http://funphysics.jpl.nasa.gov/physics/index.html .

The research was conducted under NASA's Astronomy and
Physics
Research and Analysis program, part of the agency's
Science
Mission Directorate, Washington, D.C. JPL, is a division
of
the
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena.

-end-

xxein: Bssically says nothing at all except that they want
more
money
to confirm the confirmed with more ($) accuracy.

This is where we are not supposed to believe the intricate
math
of
the best theories of man's mind that go beyond the accuracy
of
the
proposed new experiments that they want more money for.

Gimme a break!

A break is not what you need.
A brain is what you need.

Dirk Vdm


xxein: Yah, let's send an intergalactic probe to prove
1+1=============2.

You can't expect G to change in decayears when we have hardly a
hint
that it MIGHT change in billions of years with universal
expansion.

So, ok, we can express some doubt in our theories. Where are
you
in
this? Do you allow the thought that some 'ether' theory may be
correct
or do you say that we have proven to finality that 'ether'
cannot
exist?

If the latter, then you have proven my point. If the former,
then
you
cannot profess anything except a belief with no completeness of
physical understanding.

It's your choice. Make it.

I think we will never reach completeness of physical
understanding.
I also think that, even in (the possibly hypothetical) case an
'ether'
would stubbornly continue to have exactly all the right
properties
to remain undetected (or by definition perhaps even
undetectable),
there will always be people who cannot live without it. In short,
I
think that religion and belief in the supernatural will never die
out.
But I could be wrong.
I hope I'm wrong.

Dirk Vdm

xxein: C'mon, you are being a hypocrite again. What is this
bullcrap?
You are insinuating that an ether is a belief different than the
belief that light passes you at exactly c?

They are in the same boat,
in the same sea, eating the same rations.

You are doing exactly the same as the creationist calling
main stream biologists "evolutionists with just another belief."


Do us a favor and measure the one-way speed of light so that we all
may
quit the belief aspect of it and allow it to be physically true.

Btw, I was writing a post that did not take umbrage. It was lost.
In
the meantime I changed my feeling of belief in what you are. I now
take clear umbrage. You, apparently, cannot separate physics from
belief.

I think we will never reach completeness of physical understanding.
I also think that, even in (the possibly hypothetical) case an
'ether'
would stubbornly continue to have exactly all the right properties
to remain undetected (or by definition perhaps even undetectable),
there will always be people who cannot live without it. In short, I
think that religion and belief in the supernatural will never die
out.
But I could be wrong.
I hope I'm wrong.

In your case I'm obviously right.
You are a typical creationist.

Dirk Vdm

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

Dirk Van de moortel wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...

wrote:

[snip]

More information about the research is available online
at
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411113 or
http://funphysics.jpl.nasa.gov/physics/index.html .

The research was conducted under NASA's Astronomy and
Physics
Research and Analysis program, part of the agency's
Science
Mission Directorate, Washington, D.C. JPL, is a division
of
the
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena.

-end-

xxein: Bssically says nothing at all except that they want
more
money
to confirm the confirmed with more ($) accuracy.

This is where we are not supposed to believe the intricate
math
of
the best theories of man's mind that go beyond the accuracy
of
the
proposed new experiments that they want more money for.

Gimme a break!

A break is not what you need.
A brain is what you need.

Dirk Vdm


xxein: Yah, let's send an intergalactic probe to prove
1+1=============2.

You can't expect G to change in decayears when we have hardly a
hint
that it MIGHT change in billions of years with universal
expansion.

So, ok, we can express some doubt in our theories. Where are
you
in
this? Do you allow the thought that some 'ether' theory may be
correct
or do you say that we have proven to finality that 'ether'
cannot
exist?

If the latter, then you have proven my point. If the former,
then
you
cannot profess anything except a belief with no completeness of
physical understanding.

It's your choice. Make it.

I think we will never reach completeness of physical
understanding.
I also think that, even in (the possibly hypothetical) case an
'ether'
would stubbornly continue to have exactly all the right
properties
to remain undetected (or by definition perhaps even
undetectable),
there will always be people who cannot live without it. In short,
I
think that religion and belief in the supernatural will never die
out.
But I could be wrong.
I hope I'm wrong.

Dirk Vdm

xxein: C'mon, you are being a hypocrite again. What is this
bullcrap?
You are insinuating that an ether is a belief different than the
belief that light passes you at exactly c?

They are in the same boat,
in the same sea, eating the same rations.

You are doing exactly the same as the creationist calling
main stream biologists "evolutionists with just another belief."


Do us a favor and measure the one-way speed of light so that we all
may
quit the belief aspect of it and allow it to be physically true.

Btw, I was writing a post that did not take umbrage. It was lost.
In
the meantime I changed my feeling of belief in what you are. I now
take clear umbrage. You, apparently, cannot separate physics from
belief.

I think we will never reach completeness of physical understanding.
I also think that, even in (the possibly hypothetical) case an
'ether'
would stubbornly continue to have exactly all the right properties
to remain undetected (or by definition perhaps even undetectable),
there will always be people who cannot live without it. In short, I
think that religion and belief in the supernatural will never die
out.
But I could be wrong.
I hope I'm wrong.

In your case I'm obviously right.
You are a typical creationist.

Dirk Vdm

xxein: When you are so wrong about me being a creationist, how can I
or anybody else have any credence in whatever you write/post?

Let's put it this way. I am right because you let your "belief"
dictate, not only physics, but the way you judge all people. Snip-snap
he/she is what you immediately think they are. No additional thinking
required.

Your credibility is zero. You are nothing but a classroom snitch
trying to gain points with your teacher (from whom you will never learn
anything).

Creationist? That is so antithetical to my thinking. Do you ever read
my posts that are not threaded to you?

And to climax it all, who would create a goof site if they didn't have
such a strong belief? Even your underware fails to hide you. Freud
has you nailed.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing (especially when combined with
impertinent belief).

Go preach on alt.dvm.phys.