Gravity Without Mass - Disproves E=MC2

[Sayonara]

When I was reading all these articles in the scientific journals, with most of them now available on the internet, I did not realize that the authors names and addresses printed on the papers were putting them in danger of Identity Theft. You call yourself 'Physics Expert,' so obviously people are interested in your biography.

If DH does not want to publicise his details, that is his choice. I somehow doubt you will be getting his address.

 

Incidentally he has the user title "Physics Expert" because he has been given it by the forum administrators to identify him as a Resident Expert specialising in physics. A user title on an internet forum is not actually a summary of all that a person sees themselves as, strangely enough.

[Pari Spolter]

Dear Swansot:

The correct interpretation of r^3/t^2 is acceleration times the area. Please see Chapter 5 of my book Gravitational Force of the Sun and Section 1 of "New Concepts in Gravitation" published in PHYSICS ESSAYS http://www.physicsessays.com Volume 18, Number 1, pages 37-38.

Roy's book Orbital Motion is copyrighted material. I believe that what I have copied falls under Fair Use. For more details please see Chapter 6 of the book. The book is availabe in the University Libraries, or you can go to a public library near you and ask the librarian to get it on an interlibrary loan program.

 

Dear D.H.

I am sorry you are refuting the correct interpretation of the Kepler's third law without looking at the considerable recent data I have presented to support it. The unit you give: mass times length/time^2 is the unit of Weight, and Weight is not equal to Force. I have defined correct units for Force, for Energy, and for Weight.

The data for all the planets and two asteroids calculated using the correct interpretation of Kepler's third law is given in Table I of "New Concepts in Gravitation" published in PHYSICS ESSAYS http://www.physicsessays.com Volume 18, Number 1, page 39. In the 1960s several artificial satellites were placed in heliocentric orbits by NASA and by the former Soviet Union. Using the correct interpretation of Kepler's third law data for 12 of these artificial satellites are presented in Table II. I have also calculated data for the planets (Table III) and for the 12 artificial satellites (Table IV) using Newton's Second Law or Universal Law on page 40.

Data for the planets using Kepler's third law vary from 4.1636*10^20 m/s^2 . m^2 for Uranus to 4.1646*10^20 m/s^2 . m^2 for 6 of the planets. Data for the 12 artificial satellites vary from 4.15 to 4.17*10^20 m/s^2 . m^2. The gravitational force of the sun calculated using either of Newton's equarions (the Second Law or the Universal Law) varies from 4.16*10^23 Newtons for Jupiter to only 0.31 Newton for Pioneer 5, with a different value for each of the other bodies listed in the two Tables.

You are contradicting yourself. There are no perturbations by other bodies according to Kepler's Laws. Perturbations do however arise in Newton's law of gravitation (and in general relativity, which surpassed Newtonian theory almost 100 years ago).

There is no contradiction. Kepler's third law is the law of gravitation and perturbations are correctly explained using his law. Your statement about Newton's law and about General Relativity is based on faith, not fact.

 

The Horizontal Parallax in The American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac for the year 1969 on July 19.5 gives the Earth-Moon distance of 395,362,477.4 m equal to 245,666.85 miles. The spaceship was moving and the exact time of the day when it passed the Neutral Point is not mentioned. Time states "some 200,000 miles." There is no contradiction. Your argument sound like desperate nitpicking.

 

Both the Infinite Energy Magazine and Physics Essays are peer reviewed journals. Physics Essays has very tough reviewing procedure. It was indexed in all the indexing engines. If they have been dropped, it is because the editors of Physics Essays have the courage to judge a manuscript on its merit, without prejudice. Science does not advance by censorship of opposing argument and suppression of contrary evidence. The editors of the mainstream journals reject without review any manuscript that does not conform to the accepted dogma. They publish insignificant data by authors from the prestigious institutions, but refuse to publish any criticism of their data. The distinguish British Physicist Louis Essen (1908-1997), the inventor of the atomic clock and a fellow of the Royal Society, the most qualified person to comment on the Hafele and Keating paper, could not get his criticism published in a mainstream journal. Please see attachment. Please also see my two rejected letters by the editors of the Science Magazine.

You are saying that reliable sources, including Wernher von Braun and Frederick I Ordway III, the most autoritative persons to quote on this subject, who have actually explained in no uncertain terms what they mean by Neutral Point, did not know what they were saying and a person with just initials D.H., with no name and no address, says they were wrong and they have confused the Legendre Point with the Neutral Point. NASA has had 5 more lunar landings with the Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 after the Apollo 11. They must have the distances at both the Legendre Point and at the Neutral Point on all these 6 flights. Do you know if, and how, I may be able to get these data? Or maybe NASA would publish these data themselves. This would bring a satisfactory solution to solving this problem.

Louis Essen.pdf

Binary Pulsar Tests of General Relativity.pdf

Science letter.pdf

[D H]

I am sorry you are refuting the correct interpretation of the Kepler's third law without looking at the considerable recent data I have presented to support it.

You have presented no evidence here. I presented evidence in post #25 that shows that Kepler's Laws are only approximately correct. Believe it or not, science has progressed just a bit in the 399 years that have passed since Kepler published his laws.

 

The unit you give: mass times length/time^2 is the unit of Weight, and Weight is not equal to Force. I have defined correct units for Force, for Energy, and for Weight.

You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Fact: Force is mass times acceleration (or more generally, dp/dt) and thus has units of mass times length/time^2. This is not just a fact, it is the definition of force. Weight is tautologically defined as the force due to gravitation only. BTW, the concept of force has much broader application than just gravitational force.

 

The data for all the planets and two asteroids calculated using the correct interpretation of Kepler's third law is given in Table I of "New Concepts in Gravitation" published in PHYSICS ESSAYS http://www.physicsessays.com Volume 18, Number 1, page 39.

Did you include the Moon, perchance? The Moon, for example, does not obey Kepler's Laws. With time expressed in units of years and distance expressed in units of astronomical units, the planets have P²/a³ approximately equal to 1 (to a paltry 2 or 3 decimal places of accuracy). The ratio for the Moon: 329648 years²/AU³.

 

The gravitational force of the sun calculated using either of Newton's equarions (the Second Law or the Universal Law) varies from 4.16*10^23 Newtons for Jupiter to only 0.31 Newton for Pioneer 5, with a different value for each of the other bodies listed in the two Tables.

Good! You can do some math after all. You have one more step: Divide by the bodies' masses to compute the acceleration. Force is mass times acceleration.

 

What you call deviations from Kepler's law are due to perturbations by other bodies.

You are contradicting yourself. There are no perturbations by other bodies according to Kepler's Laws.

There is no contradiction. Kepler's third law is the law of gravitation and perturbations are correctly explained using his law.

Kepler's Laws are purely empirical. Kepler had no perturbation terms in his laws. On one hand you claim Kepler's Laws are perfect and on the other you claim unexplained perturbations when confronted with discrepancies between Kepler's Laws and reality.

 

Your statement about Newton's law and about General Relativity is based on faith' date=' not fact.[/quote']

That is exactly wrong. My statements on Newton's laws and general relativity are based on scientific evidence and with direct work on space vehicles. You are the one acting on faith.

 

The Horizontal Parallax in The American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac for the year 1969 on July 19.5 gives the Earth-Moon distance of 395,362,477.4 m equal to 245,666.85 miles.

I just used the JPL DE405 ephemeris tool to calculate the distance between the Earth and Moon at JD 2400421.63. The result: 396,771.252 kilometers.

 

The spaceship was moving and the exact time of the day when it passed the Neutral Point is not mentioned.

That's OK. NASA knows when the Moon crossed into the Moon's "sphere of influence". From http://history.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/a11transcript_pao.htm (emphasis mine):

APOLLO 11 MISSION COMMENTARY 7-18-69 CDT 22:12 - GET 61:39 - TAPE 202/1

This is Apollo Control at 61 hours' date=' 39 minutes. Coming up in less than 10 seconds now, we'll be crossing into the sphere of influence of the moon. A [b']computational changeover[/b] will be made here in Mission Control. At this point as the moon's gravitational force becomes the dominant effect on the spacecraft trajectory, and our displays will shift from Earth reference to moon reference. At that point, which occurred a few seconds ago, the spacecraft was at a distance of 186,437 nautical miles from Earth, and 33,822 nautical miles from the moon.

Those two distances sum to 407,920 kilometers, which of course is not the Earth-Moon distance cited earlier. So what is going on here? The answer is simple: Apollo 11 did not fly a straight line from the Earth to the Moon. It instead flew a distorted figure-8 trajectory that took the vehicle well in front of the Moon. The goal was to go into orbit around the Moon, not crash into it. Apollo 11 was ten thousand or so kilometers away from the Earth-Moon line when it "crossed into the sphere of influence" of the Moon. The vehicle was not even close to your vaunted "Neutral Point". Your entire concept of the "Neutral Point" completely falls apart because of this.

 

There is no magical boundary in space that demarcates the Moon's sphere of influence from the Earth's. The distinction is purely man-made. This man-made distinction was particularly important in the Apollo era because the best ground-based computers of that era had less computing power than the computer in today's microwave oven. The computers in the Apollo spacecraft had far less computing power than those puny ground-based computers. Those 1969 era computers were incapable of a numerical solution of the n-body problem. Instead, the Apollo 11 engineers used a two-body model with perturbations. Near the Earth they used a geocentric model and near the Moon, a selenocentric model. This switch was made (rather arbitrarily) at this "sphere of influence".

 

Science does not advance by censorship of opposing argument and suppression of contrary evidence. The editors of the mainstream journals reject without review any manuscript that does not conform to the accepted dogma.

Science does not advance by taking every crackpot idea out there and presenting them on equal footing with well-developed and well-confirmed scientific theory. Science, on the other hand, does relish true discoveries that shake up the "accepted dogma". These shakeups give scientists a whole bunch of shiny new toys to play with. The real scientists are the ones who constantly push the boundaries. You and your ilk are the ones who wants to suppress 400 years of development and ignore evidence.

 

Let's review the facts:

• Fact: Force has units of mass times length per time-squared by definition.
  
• Fact: The Apollo 11 spacecraft did not fly anywhere close to the point where "the gravitational force of the Moon exactly cancels the gravitational force of the Earth". It was ten thousand kilometers off of the line between the Earth and Moon when it crossed the "Moon's sphere of influence".
  
• Fact: There is no physical significance in crossing this sphere of influence. There is, however, a numerical significance. It is computational best to propagate state in a reference frame centered at the body whose sphere of influence contains the vehicle.
  
• Fact: The Moon's mass is about 0.0122999811 Earth masses, and lunar surface gravity is about 1/6 Earth surface gravity.
  
• Fact: The US landed people on the Moon and Russia landed autonomous vehicles on the Moon in the 1960s. These vehicles were built to withstand the well-known value of lunar gravity.
  
• Fact: Thousands of scientists have worked on the problem of understanding the Moon's mass (and the mass of every other major body in the solar system, and many minor ones as well). The Moon's mass is known to a very high degree of precision.
  
• Fact: Newton's law of gravitation does a much better job of explaining the motion of the planets than do Kepler's Laws.
  
• Fact: Newton's law of gravitation does an infinitely better job of explaining the motion of the Moon than do Kepler's Laws. Kepler's Laws are empirical laws that describe the behavior of the planets only. Newton's law of gravitation is much more general and explains gravitational interaction in general.
  
• Fact: Newton's law of gravitation is not the final word in physics and astronomy. General relativity does an even better job of explaining observed behaviors than do Newton's laws.
  
• Fact: General relativity most likely is not the final word, either.
  
• Fact: Spolter's Laws are not the answer.

Edited August 23, 2008 by D H
No need for name calling

[swansont]

Dear Swansot:

The correct interpretation of r^3/t^2 is acceleration times the area. Please see Chapter 5 of my book Gravitational Force of the Sun and Section 1 of "New Concepts in Gravitation" published in PHYSICS ESSAYS http://www.physicsessays.com Volume 18, Number 1, pages 37-38.

Roy's book Orbital Motion is copyrighted material. I believe that what I have copied falls under Fair Use. For more details please see Chapter 6 of the book. The book is availabe in the University Libraries, or you can go to a public library near you and ask the librarian to get it on an interlibrary loan program.

 

 

r^3/t^2 is the empirical observation. It's up to you to present evidence for whatever interpretations you want to make. Argument from authority, poor citations and appeal to conspiracy aren't things I find particularly convincing.

 

Is your article available somewhere online that isn't behind a paywall?

[Pari Spolter]

Originally Posted by D.H.

Fact: Force is mass times acceleration (or more generally, dp/dt) and thus has units of mass times length/time^2. This is not just a fact, it is the definition of force.

Your definition of Force is a definition of Weight, and Weight is not equal to Force.

Originally Posted by D.H.

Did you include the Moon, perchance?

I am sure you know that the three-body problem has remained unsolved. Newton complained that the theory of the moon made his head ache and kept him awake so often that he would think of it no more. Einstein claimed his equation explained the 43 seconds of arc per century of the unaccounted advance of the planet Mercury's perihelion, but never mentioned the 40.7 degrees per year advance of the perigee of the moon. General Relativity does not explain the regression of the nodes or the eccentricities of the planets either. A theory of gravitation cannot claim legitimacy, unless it can explain the puzzling motion of the moon. Please see "Moon-Earth-Sun: The oldest, best known, but least understood three-body problem" by Martin Gutzwiller in AIP CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS 334 "Few-Body Problems in Physics" Williamsburg, VA, May 1994.

Originally Posted by D.H.

Good! You can do some math after all. You have one more step: Divide by the bodies' masses to compute the acceleration. Force is mass times acceleration.

Please read my work, before criticizing it.

Originally Posted by D.H.

Kepler's Laws are purely empirical. Kepler had no perturbation terms in his laws. On one hand you claim Kepler's Laws are perfect and on the other you claim unexplained perturbations when confronted with discrepancies between Kepler's Laws and reality.

Using the correct interpretation of Kepler's third law, I have explained the eccentricities of the planets and eight asteroids with a correlation coefficient of 0.99. Please see Chapter 10 of my book GRAVITATIONAL FORCE OF THE SUN and Section 5 of "New Concepts in Gravitation" in http://www.physicsessays.com Volume 18, Number 1, pages 43-45.

Originally Posted by D.H.

I just used the JPL DE405 ephemeris tool to calculate the distance between the Earth and Moon at JD 2400421.63. The result: 396,771.252 Kilometers.

I have quoted the distance for July 19.5 and not July 19.

 

NASA has had 5 more lunar landings with the Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 after the Apollo 11. They must have the distances at both the Legendre Point and at the Neutral Point on all these 6 flights. Do you know if, and how, I may be able to get these data? Or maybe NASA would publish these data themselves. This would bring a satisfactory solution to solve this problem.

 

Originally Posted by Swansont

Is your article available somewhere online that isn't behind a paywall?

"New Concepts in Gravitation" can be downloaded from http://www.Physicsessays.com Volume 18, Number 1, pages 37-49 for a modest price of $ 4.00. Or you can send an email or a post card to me, and I will send you a reprint. There is no charge for that. Attached is "Problems with the Gravitational Constant" published in http://www.infinite-energy.com Issue 59, 2005, page 39.

Sorry I am exceeding my allowed attachments. If you give me your email, I will send it to you.

Edited September 2, 2008 by swansont
change code tags to quote tags

[D H]

Pari, I'll get to your post in a bit. Your entire work is based on statements in a lay article and lay text that loosely imply that Apollo 11 went through the "neutral point" between the Earth and the Moon, which you take to be the point at which the gravitational force toward the Earth and the Moon are equal in magnitude but opposite in sign. No Apollo spacecraft went anywhere near this point. This point lies directly on the line between the Earth and the Moon. The Apollo spacecraft went into orbit around the Moon. They were 10,000 or so kilometers off of the Earth-Moon line at the time you claim they went through this point.

 

Think of it this way: If Apollo 11 spacecraft did pass through this point, it would have had to have fought against the Moon's gravity to make the vehicle go into orbit around the Moon. The fuel costs would have been astronomical. That is not what happened. The Apollo spacecraft instead followed a trajectory that took them in front of the Moon. The Moon itself applied most of the change in velocity needed to make the Apollo spacecraft go into orbit around the Moon. The Apollo spacecraft did not come anywhere near your vaunted neutral gravity point. Your entire work is nothing more than a bunch of cracked pottery.

 

Originally Posted by D.H.
Fact: Force is mass times acceleration (or more generally, dp/dt) and thus has units of mass times length/time^2. This is not just a fact, it is the definition of force.

Your definition of Force is a definition of Weight, and Weight is not equal to Force.

Where is the flippin' ROTFL smiley? It would come in real handy right now.

 

[math]F=dp/dt[/math] is the definition of force. If you want to call this weight, go ahead and have fun. If you want to call something else force, go ahead. Have even more fun. Be as non-scientific as you want. Make up your own terms, and redefine existing terms just to obfuscate. Just beware: You are entitled to your own opinions -- but you are not entitled to your own facts.

Originally Posted by D.H.
Did you include the Moon, perchance?

I am sure you know that the three-body problem has remained unsolved.

Nice ducking of the question. I noticed you did not address why I asked if you included the Moon -- the Moon does not obey Kepler's Laws. Kepler's Laws apply to the planets only. Instead you went on to make another logical fallacy:

 

I am sure you know that the three-body problem has remained unsolved. Newton complained that the theory of the moon made his head ache and kept him awake so often that he would think of it no more. Einstein claimed his equation explained the 43 seconds of arc per century of the unaccounted advance of the planet Mercury's perihelion' date=' but never mentioned the 40.7 degrees per year advance of the perigee of the moon.[/quote']

This is a red herring and a straw man. The three body problem is quite soluble. We at NASA solve it all the time. There is a huge difference between "unsolvable" and "not solvable in the elementary functions." The three body problem is not solvable in the elementary functions, but it can be solved to any desired degree of accuracy using numerical integration techniques.

 

There is no mystery to the precession of the Moon, either. It is perfectly explained by good old Newtonian mechanics. Good old Newtonian mechanics also explains most of Mercury's perifocal precession as well. Mercury has a perifocal precession of 574 arc seconds per century, not 43 arc seconds per century. The problem with Newtonian mechanics is that it only explains 531 of those 574 arc seconds per century. General relativity yields an additional 43 arc seconds per century of precession -- and this is exactly the discrepancy between that explained by Newtonian mechanics and that observed by astronomical observation.

 

Using the correct interpretation of Kepler's third law, I have explained the eccentricities of the planets and eight asteroids with a correlation coefficient of 0.99.

Kepler's Law does not explain the motion of the Earth's Moon or the motion of a pair of binary stars. Kepler's Laws only explain the motions of the planets. Moreover, getting a correlation coefficient of 0.99 for the ratio [math]P^2/a^3[/math] is no big deal. Kepler's laws are accurate to about 99.7%, even better if you ignore Jupiter or if you throw in a bunch of asteroids to obfuscate the fact that Jupiter is an outlier.

 

Guess what? Two digit accuracy was good 400 years ago. It is not so good now. Even a tiny error will result in a huge error in the propagated state. Many nines of accuracy in the predictions of orbit state to enable sending space vehicles to the Moon and to other planets. Two digits is incredibly bad.

 

NASA has had 5 more lunar landings with the Apollo 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 after the Apollo 11. They must have the distances at both the Legendre Point and at the Neutral Point on all these 6 flights. Do you know if, and how, I may be able to get these data? Or maybe NASA would publish these data themselves. This would bring a satisfactory solution to solve this problem.

NASA does not have those numbers readily availably for a bunch of reasons.

1. The numbers vary with time because the Moon is in an elliptical orbit.
   
2. The numbers at any one point in time are easily calculable from the Moon's mass and planetary ephemerides (see post #8).
   
3. NASA publishes the Moon's mass (see http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/dat/lunar_cmd_2005_jpl_d32296.pdf) and planetary ephemerides (see http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?horizons).
   
4. NASA does not use these points in determining the mass of the Moon or in designing a trajectory to the Moon. They are irrelevant.

 

Sorry I am exceeding my allowed attachments.

You wouldn't have run out of attachments if you had used the spiffy little quote button instead of the code button.

[Pari Spolter]

Dear D.H.

There is no mention of the Neutral Point in my book GRAVITATIONAL FORCE OF THE SUN or in my article "New Concepts in Gravitation" published in http://www.physicsessays.com Volume 18, Numberm 1, pages 37-49. All the 367 references in my book are to scientific mainstream books and journals. I offered to send you a complimentary copy of my book and articles, but you did not accept it. You continue to insult me without reading my work. People usually start to insult, when they feel they have lost the rational arguments.

The attachments have a separate allowable counts from the codes.

 

P.S. The correlation coefficient is 0.9999.

[D H]

Dear D.H.

There is no mention of the Neutral Point in my book GRAVITATIONAL FORCE OF THE SUN or in my article "New Concepts in Gravitation"

So does this mean you are relinquishing your claim to the Moon have a vastly different surface gravity than stated by NASA (and every other space agency in the world)?

I offered to send you a complimentary copy of my book and articles, but you did not accept it.

Righto. I am not giving you my email address. You can, however, send it to me here at ScienceForums via private message. A link: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/member.php?u=8197.

 

You continue to insult me without reading my work.

You can put it down in equations right here. You have not done so.

 

If you haven't noticed, we have the standard mechanism used by scientists worldwide to represent mathematics in papers -- LaTeX.

 

P.S. The correlation coefficient is 0.9999.

If that is the case, one of a very few things is going on:

1. You have "cooked the books" by fudging your numbers. Intellectual dishonesty is even worse than cracking pots. One thing that makes me think this might be the case is your stated incorporation of eight asteroids into your results. Asteroids have very small mass and thus will follow Kepler's Laws extremely well. You also have "cooked the books" by only modeling planets and asteroids. The ratio of the square of the period to the cube of the semi-major axis for satellites of planets is markedly different from the ratio for objects that orbit the SUn.
   
2. You failed to test for outliers, specifically Jupiter and Saturn. Jupiter and Saturn (Jupiter particularly so) do not follow Kepler's Laws as well do the other planets because Jupiter and Saturn are quite massive.
   
3. You have recreated Newton's law of gravitation (you have mentioned perturbations, and Kepler's Laws don't accommodate perturbations). If you have merely recreated Newton's law of gravitation, what would motivate choosing your concept over Newton's?

The above begs the question: So what? Four nines of accuracy is lousy in the case of modeling planetary orbits. Think about it this way: We know by astronomical observations the perihelion precession of Mercury to within 0.1 arc seconds per century. Think what that means in terms of the number of significant digits to which we know the period of Mercury.

[swansont]

You wouldn't have run out of attachments if you had used the spiffy little quote button instead of the code button.

 

I'll second this call — the quote tag is there for, well, quoting people. I've edited the tags in that post.

 

Dear D.H.

There is no mention of the Neutral Point in my book GRAVITATIONAL FORCE OF THE SUN or in my article "New Concepts in Gravitation" published in http://www.physicsessays.com Volume 18, Numberm 1, pages 37-49.

 

Normally I would not decry the use of citations in a post, as they are usually absent in circumstances such as this, but self-referential citations are another thing altogether. One might question if the continued mention and linkage is merely a form of advertising.

 

Responses of substance are requested, otherwise there will be no point in continuing the discussion.

Edited September 2, 2008 by swansont
multiple post merged

[Pari Spolter]

The work presented in my book and in my papers is based on the most reliable recent data and accepted analysis procedure. You refuse to accept the fact that Kepler’s third law does not have any mass in it. Please read my work before criticizing it.

 

Regardless of the trajectory, the accelerometers aboard the spaceships have shown gradual decrease moving away from the Earth until they reached the Neutral Point, and then gradual increase exerted by the Moon’s gravitational force. NASA should publish these Neutral Point distances, their coordinates, and the date and time of the day for all the nine manned Apollo lunar flights. The public has a right to have these data.

[D H]

Regardless of the trajectory, the accelerometers aboard the spaceships have shown gradual decrease moving away from the Earth ... and then gradual increase exerted by the Moon’s gravitational force.

Accelerometers do not measure the acceleration due to gravity for the simple reason that nothing can directly measure the acceleration due to gravity. This is a direct consequence of the equivalence principle, which has now been shown to be true to within one part in 10¹³ (see http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/21148), making this one of the best (if not the best) verified physical laws.

 

The acceleration due to gravity is the driving factor in determining the trajectory a spacecraft will follow. All measurable forces on the vehicle pale in comparison to gravity. Atmospheric drag is obviously a non-issue beyond a few thousand kilometers from the Earth. Solar radiation pressure is tiny. Spacecraft propulsion systems are used infrequently; spacecraft operate for the most part in free drift mode. Having knowledge of the acceleration due to gravity is essential in predicting where a spacecraft will go. Since this acceleration cannot be measured, a spacecraft's inertial navigation system must resort to computing this acceleration.

 

... until they reached the Neutral Point

Spacecraft going to the Moon do not pass anywhere close to your "neutral point". Doing so would require consumption of vast quantities of fuel. Spacecraft that go to the Moon either pass well in front of the Moon or well behind the Moon so that the Moon itself can do most of the work needed to turn the vehicle's trajectory.

 

NASA should publish these Neutral Point distances, their coordinates, and the date and time of the day for all the nine manned Apollo lunar flights. The public has a right to have these data.

NASA doesn't publish the locations of the neutral point because they don't use the location of the neutral point in any calculations. The location of the neutral point is completely irrelevant when it comes to plotting a course to the Moon.

[swansont]

The work presented in my book and in my papers is based on the most reliable recent data and accepted analysis procedure. You refuse to accept the fact that Kepler’s third law does not have any mass in it. Please read my work before criticizing it.

 

In this day and age, making such work available for all to read is trivially easy. Many people do such things routinely; they have websites and/or blogs.

 

When you are ready to post material with some substance, you can PM a mod/admin to unlock this thread.